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.
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.
She said that there was a warrant for the residence of the alleged drug dealing tenant/daughter’s boyfriend, that she also owned. She NEVER said that the warrant did not cover her personal residence as well. The reporter clearly stated that it did cover both houses.
In context, it seems clear that what the woman was saying is that the alleged drug dealer didn’t live with her, so the warrant only should have included his residence, and not hers.