Why do AUTHORITIES smear people when they are questioned in possible wrongdoings?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-s...d=13640112

Quote : In a statement, the sheriff's office criticized the media, saying that while questions will inevitably be raised, "It is unacceptable and irresponsible to couch those questions with implications of secrecy and a coverup, not to mention questioning the legality of actions that could not have been taken without the approval of an impartial judge." Mike Storie, a lawyer for the SWAT team, said at a press conference Thursday that weapons and body armor were found in the home as well as a photo of Jesus Malverde, who Storie called a "patron saint drug runner," according to KGUN.

Pretty interesting case, that highlights how complacent we americans have become and how holding certain people in high stature will come and bite us in the end.. Raid a house, find no drugs, but a homeowner try to defend his property and get murdered.. Now the police are in full blame the victim mode... the norm not the exception

Well I guess even if a entry was UNLAWFUL, there is always a excuse for such actions.. Is anyone safe anymore from the gov't acting like true criminals?

Kill Osama and then call him a porn addict and exploit his porn collection? So does having porn = being a bad person

So having a picture of someone = makes someone a drug runner or drug seller too?

Does having a Snoop Dog/Willy Nelson music collection = a pot smoker

Anyone see how far cops/gov't will go to defend their actions even tho it was ILLEGAL..

How can anyone in their right mind support no-knock entry or even ILLEGAL entry by authorities..

Because if they extrapolating one item TO mean another... We are all possible criminals in one way...

My favorite bit is from the Sherriff:

The day the search warrant was served, we reported to the media that Mr. Guerena fired at SWAT officers. This is what was understood at that time. After a more detailed investigation, we learned that he pointed his assault rifle at SWAT officers, however, the safety was on and he could not fire. This is a clear example of erroneous information being provided without careful investigation.

This seems very carfully worded. The Sherrif DOESN'T say that Guerena pulled the trigger, or even attempted to. Just that he 'could not fire' because the safety was on.

Yes. A two-time Iraq war veteran rushing to the defense of his family from what he believed were hostile and armed invaders had his safety on when he confronted them.

Clearly no one here knows what happens, but this statement seems to imply that had Guerena not had the safety on, he would have lit up the officers... even though they have more investigating to do.

Quote from Ryu-bom : Does having a Snoop Dog/Willy Nelson music collection = a pot smoker

I would say it constitutes probable cause (greater than 50% of it being true).

Quote from cheapbastard2 : The same privacy should be given to the ACCUSED as is given to the accuser. Men get smeared all over the headlines yet the accuser is shielded. Just saying...innocent until PROVEN guilty. Please treat people that way.

That's for legal court, not the court of public opinions.

Quote from bonkman : That's for legal court, not the court of public opinions.

Which is often misinformed unfortunately, the media sucks.

Quote from extreme2700 : Which is often misinformed unfortunately, the media sucks.

While I agree that the public is often misinformed, I'm not going to just make a blanket statement about the media. Especially in this day and age when we have the ability to obtain information quickly and essentially whenever we want.