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

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


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: 10031
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 # 106.

#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  


#64. To: Gatlin (#52)

The cop should have pissed on sneakypete.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-06-27   16:48:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: misterwhite (#64) (Edited)

To your point, it has once again been demonstrated that a completely irrational thought process is without a doubt one of the most difficult human behaviors to understand and completely impossible to deal with logically. An irrational person doesn’t listen or respond to reason, logic, or even basic common sense because they are to laser focused to fulfill the absence of some personal need. It is impossible to use logic or facts to convince an irrational person of the wrongness of their points of view.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-27   17:16:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Gatlin (#65)

Don’t ignore me Gatlin... say hello.

lol

GrandIsland  posted on  2018-06-27   21:19:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: GrandIsland (#66)

Don’t ignore me Gatlin... say hello.

Hello there, GrandIsland.

I saw your earlier post and I intended to get back to it after I finished helping to straighten this thread out by joining with some other enlightened and intelligent posters to present facts for clarification. It is obvious that these successful efforts by all concerned and participating are now complete and I have time.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-27   22:08:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Gatlin (#68)

...enlightened and intelligent posters...

That you consider yourself either enlightened or intelligent is hilarious.

Deckard  posted on  2018-06-28   7:48:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Deckard (#79)

While you have consistently demonstrated that you are not, it is evident by my postings that I am a profoundly enlightened and intelligent person to such a high degree whereby I am able to thoroughly comprehend that in the Florida v. Jardines (2013) decision, SCOTUS held that the front porch of your residence is indeed a Fourth Amendment protected area.

However, SCOTUS also decreed there definitely is an “implied license” which allows the police to walk up to your front door and knock irrespective of any No Trespass – Private Property type signs, fence or other obstructions and all stupid-ass comments you may bluster up in your aggressive and indignant way with no effect. The court ruled that it is within the implied license for the police to come talk to the homeowner and no Fourth Amendment violation occurs.

SCOTUS ruled that homeowners implicitly consent to people coming to knock on the door and talk to them. If you fail to recognize that under our Constitution the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of the law and is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution….then that is your personal problem.

Law enforcement can legitimately approach your residence without a warrant in order to conduct a warrantless knock-and-talk encounter. This not an intrusion subject to constitutional protections.

BTW – The TFTP article you posted is yet another of many biased trash pieces.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-28   9:18:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Gatlin (#81)

The court ruled that it is within the implied license for the police to come talk to the homeowner and no Fourth Amendment violation occurs.

HorseHillary! The cops ONLY have that "implied license" if they have reason to believe a crime has been committed or is being committed on the property,or if there is cause to believe someone there is in distress.

Which those two obviously did not have because they just killed the dog and left.

As for the No Trespassing signs,the SC had their heads up their asses on that one,and I fully expect them to be forced to reverse it on appeal.

Cops have NO universal/under any conditions to enter a property that is posted with No Trespassing signs. If there is no emergency and they need to contact you,they can send you a letter,call you on the phone,or wait until you leave the house and yard,and approach you on the street.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-28   10:18:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: sneakypete (#84)

The court ruled that it is within the implied license for the police to come talk to the homeowner and no Fourth Amendment violation occurs.

HorseHillary! The cops ONLY have that "implied license" if they have reason to believe a crime has been committed or is being committed on the property,or if there is cause to believe someone there is in distress.

Which those two obviously did not have …

How do you know the police officers did not have “have reason to believe a crime has been committed or is being committed on the property or if there is cause to believe someone there is in distress?” You don’t and therefore your comment specific to his incident is immaterial and not relevant. Your comment is truly PURE “HorseHillary.”
As for the No Trespassing signs,the SC had their heads up their asses on that one,and I fully expect them to be forced to reverse it on appeal.
You are of course entitled to your personal opinion and your belief that the ruling may may be reversed. But until the time that may occur…. the decision eemains the Law of the Land and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that.
Cops have NO universal/under any conditions to enter a property that is posted with No Trespassing signs.
Ah, but YES they do. I thoroughly covered the specific conditions in my Post #77.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-28   11:17:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: Gatlin (#89)

How do you know the police officers did not have “have reason to believe a crime has been committed or is being committed on the property or if there is cause to believe someone there is in distress?”

Because they ran away like scared little girls after killing the dog.

Ah, but YES they do. I thoroughly covered the specific conditions in my Post #77.

You get wood at thinking of licking jack boots,and this interferes with your ability to reason.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-28   19:17:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 106.

#111. To: sneakypete (#106)

Because they ran away like scared little girls after killing the dog.
You have no evidence to show that is true.

It is merely a derogatory conjecture by you to support your agenda.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-28 19:44:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: sneakypete (#106)

You get wood at thinking of licking jack boots,and this interferes with your ability to reason.
Nah, I get great satisfaction for showing that you are a cop-hating biased idiot.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-06-28 19:46:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 106.

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