But then, the Sheriff's own remarks on the case are pretty damning, so it's no small wonder that you want to focus on the "alleged" meth house and ignore the car seats found in the van outside and the other evidence that pointed to the presence of children.
Anything to protect the integrity of the Agents of the State, Comrade!
Really? Not "take all criminal informants claims with a mouthful of salt until verified by reliable sources"? Not checking the van, in which they would have seen the four car seats
"“They can’t tell me there was no signs of kids,” Phonesavanh said. “My van sits right next to the door that they busted into. My van has family stickers on it, four car seats inside, right next to the door that they kicked in,” Phonesavanh said."
But keep on defending The State, Comrade. The State needed to burn the child's face in order to save him from drug dealers. (That excuse rather mirrors the "we needed to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it" excuse, doesn't it?)
You may want to use a different argument--right now you're using a classic abusive-manipulative argument: "I wouldn't have had to do X to you if Y hadn't _______."
If the police had a healthy relationship with the public, they wouldn't resort to such "arguments", period. That you choose to use them as well is unfortunate.