There is nothing in the report that supports that - the guy spent two days in lockup and I don't see that happening in a case where shots were fired and police were endangered!
Just from experience, decades of it, I'll trust the average pit bull and fear the average police officer whenever there might be a blind choice to be made.
You've created a scenario beyond the given or known facts and that scenario justifies your prejudice.
If anywhere in the reportage I'd have been told that a stash, or plants, were found within the range of the dogs, or if there was any indication that the "confined" and "shot from behind" reports were untrue;
I would sadly have to give the cops a 50/50.
But that isn't the case, ergo likely unjustified killing of a domestic animal belonging go another person - or murder of a non human family member.
Indeed, the very behavior of the dogs indicates otherwise.
“But that isn’t the case, ergo likely unjustified killing of a domestic animal belonging go another person”
It’s all inferred information due to a terribly written article. I’ve said so more times than I care to rehearse now.
The man could be guilty; or innocent.
If he is indeed a pot grower, he was wrong to keep his dogs there with it, whether as companions, security, or rat control. Because a pot growing operations is subject to a high level of violence, and dogs get caught up in it.
I might say that because “dog shot” and “owner claims” is in the article, you assume that cops killed innocent dogs for no reason. You are doing some inferring yourself!