Replies

>>>I watched the video and saw no second address. I did hear the reporter *claim* there was a second address - which is more than the sheriff’s department claims in the text.<<<

So you are saying the reporter simply LIED about a verifiable fact? I don’t trust the media either, but if anything the fact that both houses were on the warrant goes AGAINST the reporter’s clear agenda of painting this as a “cops raid wrong house” story.

It doesn’t really make sense that the police would go to the trouble of getting a warrant for the daughter’s boyfriend’s residence, but then perform what would clearly be an illegal, warrantless search on the dog owner’s home.

Also, in the article and video the woman whose dog was killed NEVER claimed that there was no warrant for her house. She seemed to be diputing the validity of the warrant for her home. I have no idea whether the warrant was justified, but obviously a judge thought it was (though he would be going by the information the police provided).

The ONLY thing that even suggests that this was a case of the cops raiding the “wrong” home, was the misleading headline.

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.

I watched the video and saw no second address. I did hear the reporter *claim* there was a second address - which is more than the sheriff's department claims in the text.

All of that is conjectural - are you backing off your 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"?

Also, in the article and video the woman whose dog was killed NEVER claimed that there was no warrant for her house.

Flat wrong - at 1:30 in the video she says the warrant was for a different address than hers.