“Not one shred of evidence has been produced that there was pot at the residence.”
I don’t know about that. Of course I don’t support an illegitimate raid. The story does not give that info.
I am making the larger point that an dog owner should not be surprised something bad happens to his dogs if he deliberately endangers them. Walk him along the railroad tracks, and then get surprised they get hit.
If you have a shred of evidence that pot was at the residence, provide it.
You are comparing apples to pianos.
Since there is no evidence that this man broke the law and he has not been found guilty in a court of law, he is legally innocent until proven guilty (a novel concept, I know).
Unless you can provide one shred of evidence that this man is in violation of the law, ask yourself “Why am I foisting the blame on the victim who lost his dogs than on the government employees who slaughtered them?
It’s like blaming the victim of a mugging for being mugged or blaming the victim of rape for being rape and insisting that the victim must have done *something* for the criminal(s) to commit aforesaid crime against them.
The problem lies with the individual (or group) that believes it is acceptable to mug, rape or, in this case, shoot dogs for the sake of killing dogs.