“If you have a shred of evidence that pot was at the residence, provide it.”
I am getting a little tired of repeating the fact that the only way we have reason to think there was a real pot growing crime going on is because of the “bust” in the title. I have said repeatedly, as we all I think acknowledge, that the article is terribly written.
My position remains that a responsible dog owner should not endanger his dog unnecessarily. One might argue that a guide dog for the blind or a sheep dog guarding sheep from wolves at night are endangered, but, the idea is that it is worth the risk. Pot growing operations, in my opinion, are not. I don’t think he should have endangered his animals by having them hang around an illegal drug operation. Maybe you think that is responsible dog ownership. I don’t.
The presence of a word in the article title is not substantive evidence.
Setting a precedent by which government employees can get away with unconstitutional crimes against citizens simply because they use the right words (”pot bust”, “porn ring”, “child abuser”) in an attempt to smear the private citizen is a really bad idea.
We don’t have any “reason” at this point to assume this citizen is a criminal.
We do have three very good reasons to condemn the officers involved for criminal activity.