They need to either defend their actions better or change the protocol.
I'd like to know that the police had a legitimate reason to use that kind of violence in the course of a misdemeanor arrest. Maybe they did, but none is mentioned in the article.
Yes, exactly.
This "ABC13" article goes out of its way to say what was found. No mention of what was reasonably expected to be found.
It's a MSM article. It leaves a lot to be desired. I can't come to a conclusion based on its incompleteness.
Apparently some Freepers (not you)can.
What we don't know is what the police had for intel before they entered the house. Did they have intel of weapons? Did they have intel of significant amounts of drugs being present? So they shot the dog...did the dog attack one of the officers? If so, there is why you have a dead dog.
The real issue here is if these folks had NOT been involved with drugs, they would not have been in the situation they are in. The police had a valid search warrant, that was based upon a specifice set of facts that gave a judge sufficient belief that it was proper to issue asearch warrant. This is no different that the US invasion of Iraq. We had a specific set of facts, generally accepted and recognized by Dims and Republicans alike, that gave us a credible justification, along with UN Sanctions, to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power. While some things are not exactly as we had expected, the reasons for our invasion remain solid. If Hussein has cooperated with the UN and the US to allow unfettered inspections, then perhaps he may haf retained his power...but he didn't...just as those post heads chose to keep weed in their house. Sorry....the cops were doing their damned job....