[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Cops Break Into Innocent Man’s Yard, Kill His Dog, Steal His Body, Then Urinate On His Fence
Source: Free Thought Project
URL Source: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/w ... dy-then-urinate-on-his-plants/
Published: Jun 24, 2018
Author: Jay Syrmopoulos
Post Date: 2018-06-24 10:15:23 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 10539
Comments: 116

Dos Palos, CA – Dos Palos resident George Aguaristi filed a $1 million dollar suit in Merced County after authorities came onto his property without a warrant last month and the killed his 5-year-old pitbull, Samson. The entire ordeal was captured on surveillance cameras installed on the property.

To add insult to injury, after killing his dog, whom Aguaristi referred to as his “best friend” and “son,” the officer can be seen urinating on Aguaristi’s fence.

Authorities have yet to explain why they came onto the 61-year-old Dos Palos resident’s property despite signs being posted on the front gate noting “No Trespassing” and “Beware of Dog.”

A report in Merced Sun-Star explained:

He said he woke up May 30 with a neighbor knocking on his window who said officers had been in his fenced-in yard. The 61-year-old noted he has “Beware of Dog” and “No Trespassing” signs on the front gate.

Aguaristi said he went outside to feed Samson and Delilah, another pit bull, but couldn’t find the male. After finding a business card wedge in the screen door, he called the number, which was for an investigator for the Merced County District Attorney’s Office.

Efforts to reach the lead investigator by phone were unsuccessful on Thursday.

It was an investigator who told the homeowner that an officer had killed his dog, Aguaristi said. He’d slept through it all.

“I was just in shock. My mind just went,” Aguaristi said. “Eventually, I said, ‘Is there something you needed to ask me?’ And, (the officer) says, ‘No, that’s about it.’ “

After being informed that his dog had been killed, Aguaristi reviewed footage from the surveillance cameras on his property. The footage revealed that around 8:30 a.m. a male and female officer entered the property through the front gate where the signs were posted. The female officer can be seen walking towards the porch of the residence, at which point Samson comes down the stairs and takes a stance between the front door of the home and the officer.

At this point the officer appears to use pepper spray — which only serves to agitate Samson — who begins to move toward the officer. The officer can then be seen pulling a firearm and shooting/killing the dog.

While likely not aware they were being recorded, the two officers can then be seen taking Samson’s dead body and an investigator can be seen washing Samson’s blood off of the driveway with a garden hose.

“They killed my dog and they stole it,” Aguaristi said.

The fact that these officers took the dog and attempted to wash away the blood is indicative of an attempt at covering up the truth of the incident in that these officers came onto private property, which warned to “Beware of Dog” and “No Trespassing,” and proceeded to then kill an animal that was doing what it was supposed to be doing – and where it was supposed to be!

Sadly, this is not an exception to the rule, as TFTP has reported time and time again on cases of police officers shooting dogs maliciously and without regard. In fact, just the other day we reported on the case of an officer shooting at a dog in a small room resulting in a 9-year-old child being shot in the face.

Samson is now buried on the property, and a neighbor’s children, who played with the dog often, have made a cross for his headstone, Aguaristi said.

Aguaristi said that he doesn’t hate law enforcement, but just wants “justice for Samson.”

“He was a good boy,” he said. “He didn’t deserve that.”

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 116.

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Would you have liked them to leave the dead bleeding rotting dog on the driveway?

Im not a cop but im sure there is some kinda training that tells them to have the dog removed and wash the blood away. This is not a human and a human life was in danger. Who knows why they were in the backyard. Could have been called about a suspicious person in the yard.

Not going to get me to shed a tear over a pit. City pay for another dog from the pound. Non vicious dog that way they can feed it to the other pit. ;(

Justified  posted on  2018-06-24   10:30:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Justified (#1)

Im not a cop but im sure there is some kinda training that tells them to have the dog removed and wash the blood away. This is not a human and a human life was in danger. Who knows why they were in the backyard. Could have been called about a suspicious person in the yard.

You kill my pet,I kill you. End of story.

And that dog was a pet that was doing what he was supposed to be doing,defending his master and property from invaders.

If he had jumped the fence and gone after the cops or anyone else walking down the sidewalk,different story and justified shoot.

The shoot was NOT justified because the cops were invading private property without just cause.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-26   21:23:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: sneakypete, Justified, nolu chan (#24)

… the cops were invading private property without just cause.
The cops were NOT invading private property.

The US Supreme Court ruled in Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013) that the police have an absolute right to walk up to a front door of a person’s home since that right is subject to an implied license based on existing social norms.

There is an implied license to approach a front door with the intent to knock and try to speak to the homeowner.

The police can go up the front door when a homeowner puts up “no trespassing” signs or something similar. The signs do no revoke the implied license.

In United States v. Denim, 2013 WL 4591469 (E.D.Tenn. August 28, 2013), the district court (adopting the magistrate judge’s R&R) held that “no trespassing signs” do not revoke the implied license and that officers can approach the front door and knock on the door despite the signs.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-26   22:15:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Gatlin (#25)

It is also local law for Merced County.

http://www.qcode.us/codes/mercedcounty/index.php?topic=7%20

Title 7 ANIMALS

Chapter 7.04 DOGS, CATS, AND OTHER DOMESTICATED ANIMALS

7.04.291 Right of entry for enforcement conditions.

A. The director, any officer or employee thereof, or other duly designated representative of the county, and any law enforcement officer shall have the right to make an inspection to enforce the provisions of this chapter or other applicable law by entering property to enforce the provisions of this chapter or other applicable law; provided, that:

1. If such building and/or property is occupied, he shall first present proper credentials to the occupant and request entry, explaining his reasons therefor; and if such building and/or property is unoccupied, he shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner thereof or other persons having authority over the building and/or property and request entry, explaining his reasons therefor.

2. If such entry into the building or upon the property be refused, the director, any officer or employee thereof, or other duly designated representative of the county and any law enforcement officer may obtain an inspection warrant pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Sections 1822.50 through 1822.57), for the entry and inspection of the building and/or the property. However, if the conditions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1822.50 cannot be satisfied and criminal charges are implicated, animal control or the law enforcement officer may seek a search warrant of said building and/or the property.

3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the director, any officer or employee thereof, or other duly designated representative of the county, and any law enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that the keeping or the maintaining of any animal is so hazardous, unsafe or dangerous as to require immediate inspection to safeguard the animal or the public health or safety, he shall have the right to immediately enter and inspect such building and/or property, and may use any reasonable means required to effect such entry and make such inspection, whether such building and/or property is occupied or unoccupied, and whether or not permission to inspect has been obtained. If the building and/or property is occupied, he shall first present proper credentials to the occupant and request entry, explaining his reasons therefor.

B. This section shall not prohibit the director, any officer or employee thereof, and any law enforcement officer from entering upon any public or private property in the unincorporated territory of the county of Merced for the purpose of capturing an animal running at large in violation of this chapter or other applicable law. Any person who denies or prevents, obstructs, or attempts to deny, prevent or obstruct said capture is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 1675 § 2, 2002).

nolu chan  posted on  2018-06-26   23:40:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: nolu chan (#27)

1. If such building and/or property is occupied, he shall first present proper credentials to the occupant and request entry, explaining his reasons therefor

No such credentials were presented, no entry was requested - for Pete's sake - the cop never even knocked at the door.

What reason did he have for being there?

B. This section shall not prohibit the director, any officer or employee thereof, and any law enforcement officer from entering upon any public or private property in the unincorporated territory of the county of Merced for the purpose of capturing an animal running at large

The dog was inside the owner's yard - not running wild in the streets.

None of what you posted applies in this situation.

Deckard  posted on  2018-06-27   7:44:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Deckard (#31)

What reason did he have for being there?

None of your fucking business.

Maybe they were investigating a child porn ring. Do you think it should be public knowledge that the police were there for that reason when the guy may be totally innocent? Just to satisfy your fucking curiosity?

misterwhite  posted on  2018-06-27   9:15:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: misterwhite (#35)

What reason did he have for being there?

None of your fucking business.

So,it is none of the public's business to know what a public employee is doing on or with their property?

I guess this means all I need is a badge to go to your house and drive your car away,rape your daughter AND your dog,and then burn your house down around you?

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-27   9:33:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: sneakypete, misterwhite (#41)

So,it is none of the public's business to know what a public employee is doing on or with their property?

It is public’s business to know that any and all access to the front door of a residence cannot be restricted by a “No Trespassing – Private Property” type sign, a fence or any other means.

I guess this means all I need is a badge to go to your house and drive your car away,rape your daughter AND your dog,and then burn your house down around you?
No, just because you concoct the most ridiculous analogy you can think of does not make it so. You are erroneously trying to make a reasonable argument but turned it into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Note that this is not a valid reductio ad absurdum proving that sometimes it is easy to reduce an arguments to absurdity.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-27   13:02:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Gatlin (#52)

It is public’s business to know that any and all access to the front door of a residence cannot be restricted by a “No Trespassing – Private Property” type sign, a fence or any other means.

Mine can be,and is. If you want to come on my property and be able to leave under your own power,bring a search warrant.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-27   22:40:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: sneakypete (#70) (Edited)

If (law enforcement) wants to come on my property and be able to leave under (their) own power,bring a search warrant.

Stop with the bravado bullshit and learn to understand the current state of the law regarding when police can legally come on your property or enter your home without a warrant. While the Fourth Amendment provides all people the right to be secure on their property, laws have been written and courts have carved out a few legal and lawful exceptions to the freedom and against the warrant requirement.

The first thing you should understand is that government agents are permitted to approach your front door and routinely conduct what is called a “knock and talk” investigation. This means they simply have the right to approach the front door of your home, knock on the door of your home and speak to you or whomever answers the door.

Law enforcement can even enter your home without a warrant based upon a few exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.

One widely used exception to the warrant requirement is the “plain view doctrine” which means that if the police have probable cause to believe they have observed something in plain view inside your home that is contraband, then they have the absolute legal right to enter without a warrant and seize that item or those items.

Another widely used exception to the warrant requirement is a search based upon probable cause when they believe the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. There are a number of common observations by police that can lead to probable cause and entry into your home without a warrant. One is the odor of marijuana. If police smell the odor of marijuana coming from a room, that gives them probable cause to enter and search without a warrant.

Then there is the exception to the warrant requirement known as “exigent circumstances”. This is really a secondary exception to probable cause in that if law enforcement has a reasonable belief that evidence may be lost or destroyed in the time it takes to get a warrant, then they can legally search for or seize the evidence without a warrant. While this typically applies if the officer already has probable cause, it however is an exception worthy of its own category.

These laws on police entering your property or home without a warrant are always being tested and continually evolving. Exceptions other than those I have listed here might apply to the no warrant requirement as well. Therefore if you ever have a question on Warrantless Searches, then you should not hesitate to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney with in depth knowledge of Constitutional law and emerging issues.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-28   1:30:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Gatlin (#77)

Stop with the bravado bullshit and learn to understand the current state of the law regarding when police can legally come on your property or enter your home without a warrant.

Nice little tap dance you are doing to try to provide cover for the two cops that invaded that mans property for no known reason,and then killed his dog before leaving.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-28   10:12:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: sneakypete (#83)

Stop with the bravado bullshit and learn to understand the current state of the law regarding when police can legally come on your property or enter your home without a warrant.

Nice little tap dance you are doing to try to provide cover for the two cops that invaded that mans property for no known reason,and then killed his dog before leaving.

I am no common tap dancer. If there is a necessary analogy comparison to dancing to be made, then I am a sophisticated ballroom dancer along the style of Fred Astaire.

However I need no dance analogy to continue pointing out to you that while the reason for the officers visit the Dos Palos resident George Aguaristi home will be revealed, that point is irrelevant since the officers had the lawful right to approach the door for a “knock-and-talk” visit.

Also, there are many court cases to show the officers violated no law when they shot the PITBULL they felt was threatening them.

Ergo, there was definitely NO property invasion and shooting the PITBULL was a decision the threatened officer made lawfully.

While you may continue to disagree with the SCOTUS decision, you still need to learn and understand the current state of the law is that police can legally come onto your property and go to your door without a warrant.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-28   10:38:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: Gatlin (#86)

Also, there are many court cases to show the officers violated no law when they shot the PITBULL they felt was threatening them.

Yeah sure - It's called the "I feared for my life defense" boot-licker, the one that cops always use after killing non-threatening dogs or unarmed humans.

The magic words that exonerate any cop from facing repercussions for his criminal actions.

The dog posed no threat until the cops provoked it with pepper spray.

See, that's how these sadists operate - provoke the dog - then claim that they feared for their lives.

Deckard  posted on  2018-06-28   10:47:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Deckard (#88)

Also, there are many court cases to show the officers violated no law when they shot the PITBULL they felt was threatening them.

Yeah sure - It's called the "I feared for my life defense" boot-licker, the one that cops always use after killing non-threatening dogs or unarmed humans.

No its called American Jurisprudence where a jury of peers decide each case on its facts.

It is easy to understand that you continue the willful and selective blindness….a true hallmark of all libertarian. It’s the only way the short memory span of you libertarians can continue to hold onto your ridiculously failed and ludicrous ideology in the face of true reality.

The dog posed no threat until the cops provoked it with pepper spray.
You do NOT know that the PITBULL posed no threat or that it was provoked by the pepper spray.

Mere conjecture and pure speculation is not good….NOT GOOD.

See, that's how these sadists operate - provoke the dog - then claim that they feared for their lives.
No I don’t see any of that.

I do see more of you expounding pure libertarian bullshit, and you continue to expose that you are just another petulant cop-hating anarchist divorced from reality with a case of arrested development.

You are utterly clueless about the real world because you can’t perceive anything outside your only little self-absorbed bubble of hate.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-28   12:00:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: Gatlin (#93)

No its called American Jurisprudence where a jury of peers decide each case on its facts.

No,it's called a "police state" because DA are VERY reluctant to charge the cops they work with to build their conviction rates with a crime.

Furthermore,judges are reluctant to deal with a cop conviction,so they find reasons to dismiss the charges.

It IS a fixed system that protects itself.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-28   19:20:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: sneakypete (#108)

And there are people that are shocked that trust & respect for law enforcement is at an all time low !

Story's like this, those of shooting unarmed people, and the recent revelations of the corruption of FBI & DOJ, plus corruption of " elites " fuels that lack of respect & shrinking trust.

I am surprised at the number that find that lack of trust & respect shocking !!

Stoner  posted on  2018-06-29   11:43:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 116.

        There are no replies to Comment # 116.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 116.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com