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.
“The presence of a word in the article title is not substantive evidence.”
I’m not presenting it as evidence. This is not a court of law.
I am giving the OPINION that I think DOPE GROWERS should not FUSS if cops shoot their dogs. Because they endangered their dogs in the first place.
This man may have been framed. I have made it quite clear, repeatedly, that in that case he has my sympathy.