I think the words default to having a negative emotional valence of the object of the sentence is a person, but a positive valence if the object is a company.<p>Feds raid widow&#x27;s apartment → obviously bad<p>Feds raid Exxon offices → obviously good<p>...which is kind of fascinating for what it implies. It seems to me, personally, that raids against companies are almost always <i>well-researched</i> before being executed, to the point of basically never being even slightly ethically ambiguous. Whereas raids against individuals seem to be almost <i>always</i> ethically ambiguous, and often entirely inexplicable.<p>Then again, the &quot;Feds&quot; in those two cases are two different groups: it&#x27;s mostly the SEC that raids companies, while it&#x27;s mostly the DEA that raids individuals. This might explain a lot of the difference in attitude.