“We dont know all the facts but your tacit approval of cops murdering dogs “
First of all, I don’t think you can’t “murder” dogs. I do think you can kill them.
Secondly, I don’t approve of dogs being killed for no reason.
I am just pointing out that it seems the dog owner deliberately put them in harm’s way, so I don’t feel too sorry for him.
On what basis does it seem to you that the dog's owner deliberately put them in harm's way?
Seriously. What is the thought process that goes on in your head that produces that conclusion based on the evidnce presented in this article? I want to understand how that works, because right now it's seems to violate every tenet of critical thinking that would apply, along with the basic principle of presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence of guilt.
At this point it appears that the mere appearance of the word "pot" is sufficient to elicit an assumption of guilt, and a conclusion that the dog's owner brought this all on himself.