the article offers a legal opinion that isn't a fact, just an opinion. Even between lawyers there will be differences of opinion on legal cases. Journalists and

the article offers a legal opinion that isn't a fact, just an opinion. Even between lawyers there will be differences of opinion on legal cases. Journalists and their opinions don't even enter the game here. This isn't a case study, or an example from a textbook, its an ongoing situation. Conclusively saying that the raid was illegal isn't a fact, its just an opinion, and not even a credited one - it reads like the journalist's opinion. So its one thing to report on a police raid, its another thing to offer a legal opinion and present it as fact without conditionals, or whose opinion it is. What if they're wrong?