Posted on 09/04/2012 11:12:10 AM PDT by Altariel
Are you really that obtuse?
The woman never claimed there was no warrant for her house. The reporter (who had the search warrant in front of him) claimed that the warrant listed both houses and nobody has disputed this (except you).
You made an incorrect assumption (though a reasonable one, at the time, based upon the misleading headline) and just can’t let go of it, no matter what the facts show. Are you sure you aren’t a Democrat?
I made no assumption - I merely note that you continue to evade your unsupported claim, "if you watch the video of the local news (at about the 1:46 mark) it is clear that the warrant was for BOTH her tenant’s home and her personal residence." No such thing is "clear" from any part of the video or text.
Where on the warrant is the woman’s address?
Why are you unwilling to show the place on the warrant where the woman’s address appears?
The reporter said that it was on the warrant and neither the home/dog owner, the police or anyone else contradicted this.
How do you know the dog was shot and killed? Did they show you a video of the dog being gunned down? By your logic, the dog was NOT shot and killed, because we were shown no video evidence of it.
How do you know the woman lived at that address? Did you see her ID or deed to the house in the video?
The repoter clearly stated that both addresses were on the warrant.
If you think the reporter was lying about this, he could be lying about just about any aspect of the story.
Did this really happen in Buffalo and not Detroit or Denver, or on Mars? Prove it, and not by what the lying reporters said or wrote but by video evidence, as that is the standard you are holding me to.
Did the dog really get shot? Show me the video, or by your standard, it didn’t happen, as we are only going by what the reporter and the woman said.
Again, the ONLY reason that some reached the conclusion that this was the “wrong” house, was the misleading headline (and headlines are normally not written by the reporters, but rather by people who are even bigger idiots than reporters.)
If the headline read, “Dog Shot to Death During Police Raid”, nobody who read the article and watched the video would think it was the “wrong house”.
The repoter clearly stated that both addresses were on the warrant.
That the reporter STATES this is ALL that' clear - NOT, as you claimed, "if you watch the video of the local news (at about the 1:46 mark) it is clear that the warrant was for BOTH her tenant’s home and her personal residence."
If you think the reporter was lying about this,
I think it possible he was mistaken.
Again, the ONLY reason that some reached the conclusion that this was the “wrong” house,
Then go argue with "some".
was the misleading headline (and headlines are normally not written by the reporters, but rather by people who are even bigger idiots than reporters.)
So reporters are idiots - but never get their facts wrong?
But it was never shown on the warrant.
If it is on the warrant, you should be able to show it without difficulty.
Where on the warrant is the woman’s address?
Still waiting.
They didn’t show entire warrant on the video, but the reporter (whose word you seem to take on many other aspects of the case) said both addresses were on it.
Why don’t YOU get a copy of the warrant and prove that he was either lying or mistaken.
It is logically impossible to prove a negative.
Moreover, when a reporter makes one claim and substantiates it, and makes an equally substantiatable claim and fails to substantiate it, the veracity of the second claim is called into question.
You have failed to demonstrate that the address is on the warrant.
Thank you for proving my point.
If in the future, you are able to substantiate that the second address was, in fact, on the warrant, a claim not even made by the police in this instance, please do ping me with the actual evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.