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.
“On what basis does it seem to you that the dog’s owner deliberately put them in harm’s way? “
He kept dogs at his pot growing operation.
I pick that up from the word “bust,” in the very poorly written article. I could be wrong. But my general statement, that pot growers should not be surprised if their dogs get hurt or killed, is not wrong. He endangered his dogs. That was a bad thing to do.