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: 12214
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. 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.” 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-50) not displayed.
.
.
.
#51. To: nolu chan (#49)
Oh...so they didn't knock? Then why were they there in the first place? No one has yet answered that simple question. If they HAD been there for a reason, there would have been a lot more more going on than just the cop provoking and then killing the dog.
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.
You do not know if they knocked, or why they were there. Until you do, the article is meaningless.
The reason is apparent in the video. The cops trespassed in order to piss on the fence and mark their gang turf.
Are you polishing your jack boots while lusting after a job with the Secret Police?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
That is absolutely correct. However, these police officers did not exercise any “special rights or powers” or even try to do so when they entered the gate and approached the front door to the residence. Like it or not….these police officers were fully permitted by law to do so, irrespective of any posted signs. Both cannot be true. For example,you can be standing out in your yard and if a cop approaches you,you can tell him to stay off your property unless he goes and gets a warrant. IF the fools in the SC ruled differently,as you claim,they not only ruled wrong,they are derelict in their obligations to protect individual freedoms.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yes. There comes a time when you have to draw a line in the sand,and my pets are my family as much as humans are. If you think differently,you should have been born in the 1920's so you could have joined the CPUSSR or the Nazi Party,BOTH of whom grace their police with special rights and powers regular citizens didn't have.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
As long as you cannot answer this question, you and the The Free Thought Project lack sufficient cause for all the blather. Guilty until proven innocent,and they don't need to damn search warrant,huh?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
In all the years I have dealt with dogs not once would they let me "back off". You will have to run away or beat them with a stick(punch them so hard they realize this is a bad deal for them). If this was in the backyard behind a locked gate then I could see a problem. Front yard by the front door then its all on the owner. Dogs are not people. They do not understand boundaries. All they know is if you run or turn your back they attack. Its really only the pits that cause all the problems and its really only been since 2000 where manchilds want these types of dogs. Pits do not have self control and that's why so many attack their own owners and family. Bad bad breed that should not be allow in society.
Your example is an irrelevant conclusion, also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for an ignoring of a refutation) or missing the point. Your informal fallacy of presenting such an argument is logically valid and sound, but entirely fails to address the issue under discussion and in question. It therefore falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies. It is quite obvious that your informal fallacy arises from "ignorance of the nature of refutation." George Aguaristi was NOT standing out in his yard and therefore the officers had every legal right to enter his property and proceed towards the front door irrespective of any posted sign or fence. Like it or not….these police officers were fully permitted by law to do so, irrespective of any posted signs. Both cannot be true.
That action was LAWFUL irrespective on any posted sign and your “personal opinion.”
As long as it remains unknown why the cops were there, no claim of unlawful presence is justified. As is its daily practice, TFTP published half a story with a bunch of supermarket tabloid allegations.
The cop should have pissed on sneakypete.
Don’t ignore me Gatlin... say hello. lol
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I used to work for the phone company. If we had to go inside someones property, and they had " No Trespassing - Beware of Dog " signs , we would call them and they would restrain the dog, or we would go on & come back the next day. Many times, the dogs were not a problem, we would pet the dogs, give them part of a sandwich, and do our work. No problem. It was pretty much the same way with the guys from the Power Co, CATV guys, gas company, and water company. I had a friend that worked for UPS, never had any problems
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers) AMERICA! Designed by geniuses. Now run by idiots.
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.
Well, it’s refreshing to see ya back. Keep up the good conservative fight.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
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.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yeah,a RATIONAL person gets a badge so he isn't responsible no matter whose rights he violates,right?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Fire Island, Gatlin, Noyo Chimp Shoot first, make up Fake News later.
Don't forget to add," tooconservattive" to the standard bullshitter file.
Yes, add tooconservative and include his pink bloomers.
Furthermore, it is extremely important to maintain due process. Law enforcement officers need to understand and acknowledge the importance of due process. Any abuse of power by law enforcement officers directly contradicts the full notion of due process, so any officers who misuse their powers do so while creating the environment where the much needed due process cannot flourish and function properly. The role of the police is to function in due process by acting as fact collectors and apprehenders. Officers must constantly make decisions on when and in what circumstances they need use their power while continually reflecting on how the use of their power may look in a court under close scrutiny by a judge and jury. The law enforcement officers continue to exercise power through discretion while radical criminologist and cop-hating citizens often falsely accuse the police of having too much discretion and misusing power. It is to be recognized by all that power and authority are tools that law enforcement officers must use judiciously and ethically. Without an ethical approach, this power may be misused….thusly creating a situation that is bad for the officer, the department, and society.
Yes, add tooconservative and include his pink bloomers.
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.
Awww...does somebody need a hug? Looks as if you really missed your boyfriend.
That you consider yourself either enlightened or intelligent is hilarious.
Jealously in an emotional reaction to believing scenarios in your mind that are not true. Simply changing what you believe will change your imagination and projection which can eliminate these destructive emotional reactions. Even when you feel there is justification for absurd jealous reaction, jealousy definitely is not a beneficial way to deal with the situation and is a total worthless cause.
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.
Shoot first, make up Fake News later. Do the words "cheap shit" now define you. You might notice that *I* am a Trump supporter,you freaking dummy! But seeing as how your hatred of Trump knows no boundaries,how about name the clown you voted for instead of Trump? Or are you ashamed to mention his or her name,or maybe have a restraining order against you that keeps you from mentioning them?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
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.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
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.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Get over yourself already you self-aggrandizing clown. Your penchant for worshiping all things government is not what any sane person would call "enlightened".
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.
They never even knocked on the door you idiotic ass! They killed his dog then ran away like the cowards that they are.
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.
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 …
Nicely performed op all in all. The officer can then be seen pulling a firearm and shooting/killing the dog [and preserving their own persons from bodily harm]. Hmmm... There's a presumption that pepper spray was used on the "agitated" the pitbull (as though they aren't naturally "agitated" in any case.) It appears "Samson" the Antifa-Dog was the aggressor here, threatening the LEOs. He was possibly guarding a drug operation or human traffickers. 'Free Thought Project' is a PsyOp. They are obsessed with Ghetto/Antifa criminal fortresses and their denizens -- including pitbulls -- BUT ignoring the Democrats assaults on conservatives and their daily incitement of a CIVIL WAR. Nice priorities.
Police officers’ time is too valuable an asset to waste. Your spurious remark is therefore illegitimate and made by you without having nay true genuine qualities. It is a continuation of the thought process your warped irrational mins indulges in.
Comments (92 - 116) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNumbnuts supposedly slept through one or more gunshots and multiple LEOs in his yard. It is unlikiely that knocking would have awakened him unless they knocked with a battering ram.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#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?
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.
#53. To: Deckard (#51)
Oh...so they didn't knock? Then why were they there in the first place?
#54. To: nolu chan, marking their turf, blueline gang hit (#48)
the cops went there and entered the yard for no reason at all
#55. To: misterwhite (#44)
Not complete secrecy. YOU don't need to know why they were there.
#56. To: Gatlin (#45)
Like it or not,cops are NOT our Masters. They are nothing but public employees and have no special rights or powers that common citizens don't have.
#57. To: Gatlin (#46)
#58. To: nolu chan (#50)
What reason did he have for being there?
#59. To: sneakypete (#38)
#60. To: sneakypete (#56)
For example,you can be standing out in your yard and if a cop approaches you,you can tell him to stay off your property unless he goes and gets a warrant.
IF the fools in the SC ruled differently,as you claim,they not only ruled wrong,they are derelict in their obligations to protect individual freedoms.
There is no “IF” and I made NO claim. I linked directly to the SCOTUS ruling for you to read. You are entitled to your personal opinion but you stating they ruled wrong and that they are derelict in the obligations to protect individual freedoms in NO way NEGATES the law. You can of course choose to ignore the law and pay the consequences, if the case arises, but you cannot invalidate the law. However, these police officers did not exercise any “special rights or powers” or even try to do so when they entered the gate and approached the front door to the residence.
Yes, both can be and are definitely proven to be true by the cited case law.
#61. To: sneakypete, nolu chan (#58)
Guilty until proven innocent …
Exactly WHERE is any “guilt” until proven “innocent?” … and they don't need to damn search warrant,huh?
The officers did NOT need a “damn search” warrant to open the gate and proceed towards the front door.
#62. To: sneakypete (#57)
Yes. There comes a time when you have to draw a line in the sand,and my pets are my family as much as humans are.
If, or when, you shoot and kill a police officer who shot and killed your dog….you are not “drawing a line in the sand” because you are in actuality digging your own grave. If you think differently …
I do think differently think differently. I simply do not believe that the police killing your dog is JUSTIFICATION for you killing the policeman. I am of the opinion that such a thought process is neither rational nor is it endowed with reason or understanding and therefore lacks usual or normal mental clarity or coherence. … joined the Nazi Party.
Ah, you are now stooping so low to invoke Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)….the internet adage asserting that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches. That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will feel the need to compare someone else or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds.
#63. To: sneakypete (#58)
Guilty until proven innocent,and they don't need to damn search warrant,huh?
#64. To: Gatlin (#52)
#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.
#66. To: Gatlin (#65)
#67. To: sneakypete (#40)
" I used to be a letter carrier,and we were told to NOT go into fenced yard with "No Trespassing" signs. We were to put a notice in the mail box at the fence if we had something that wouldn't fit into the mailbox. "
#68. To: GrandIsland (#66)
Don’t ignore me Gatlin... say hello.
#69. To: Gatlin (#68)
#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.
#71. To: Gatlin (#65)
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.
#72. To: Gatlin, Stradivarius Ignoramus, LF Harpies, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#29)
#73. To: hondo68, Fire Island, Gatlin, Noyo Chimp, tooconservattive (#72)
#74. To: hondo68 (#72)
#75. To: sneakypete (#71)
Yeah,a RATIONAL person gets a badge so he isn't responsible no matter whose rights he violates,right?
Rational law enforcement officers fully realize and are completely appreciative of the enormous amounts of power they posses which can be used under legally permitted specific circumstances to restrict the freedom of citizens, search them and their homes, seize property and use force against them when necessary. While Law enforcement officers do rank among the most powerful occupations in our society, they are however trained to know when these powers can be legally applied. It is imperative that law enforcement officers remember not to misuse their power.
#76. To: Fred Mertz, 2kon (#74)
(Edited)
#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.
#78. To: GrandIsland, Gatslime (#66)
Don’t ignore me Gatlin... say hello.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#79. To: Gatlin (#68)
...enlightened and intelligent posters...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#80. To: Deckard (#78)
Overcoming your intense jealousy is similar to changing any emotional reaction or behavior. You can begin to do so with awareness. Awareness allows you to see that the projected stories in your mind are fabricated. When you have established this clarity then you no longer react to the scenarios that your mind conjures up.
#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.
#82. To: hondo68 (#72)
(Edited)
Fire Island, Gatlin, Noyo Chimp
#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.
#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.
#85. To: Gatlin (#81)
I am a profoundly enlightened and intelligent person...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#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.
#87. To: Gatlin (#86)
the officers had the lawful right to approach the door for a “knock-and-talk” visit.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#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.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#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.
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.
#90. To: GrandIsland, Tooconservative (#0)
(Edited)
...The officer appears to use pepper spray — which only serves to agitate Samson — who begins to move toward the officer.
#91. To: Deckard (#87)
They never even knocked on the door …
If shooting the dog at the front door did not cause George Aguaristi to come to the front door and open it, then what makes you think that knocking on the door would not have been a waste of time? They killed his dog then ran away like the cowards that they are.
They killed the dog but you have no evidence that the officers “ran away like cowards.”
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]