“The man is also a victim, unless you have substantive evidence he is guilty a crime.
How are you coming on that?”
Yes, I lined that out. I gave three possible scenarios. In the first, he’s an innocent guy when hyper police break in and shoot his dogs in cold blood. In that case, he’s a victim.
Scenario 2 and 3, no, he’s not a victim. Only the dogs are.
You don’t like that I’m working on the assumption that the man really is a pot grower. Yet you are working on the assumption that the cops really shot his dogs for no good reason. That is not for certain either, you know.
I recognize the assumption, just as I recognize the lack of evidence for said assumption.
There is evidence for the cops’ guilt: three dead dogs.
There has been none presented for the man’s alleged guilt, yet you cling to that assumption without evidence for it.