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: 12213
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 73.
#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. ;(
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.
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.
It is also local law for Merced County. http://www.qcode.us/codes/mercedcounty/index.php?topic=7%20 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).
There were no animal code enforcement issues, so what you've quoted is irrelevant LEO boot licking. No value added. You've done nothing to clear up the mystery why these psycho cops trespassed on the property.
“Ignorance of law excuses no one” (ignorantia legis neminem excusat ) or if you prefer “ignorance of the law excuses not” (Ignorantia juris non excusat). This legal principle does emphatically hold that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content. You hondo, are however foolishly displaying your cluelessness when attempting to apply this legal principle here and your statement shows complete incomprehension and total unawareness of any familiarity with the law as it applies in this situation. It matters not to the police if there’s a fence and signs posted….they had the absolute lawful right to approach the front door of the residence.
Fire Island, Gatlin, Noyo Chimp Shoot first, make up Fake News later.
Don't forget to add," tooconservattive" to the standard bullshitter file.
There are no replies to Comment # 73. End Trace Mode for Comment # 73.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
#25. To: sneakypete, Justified, nolu chan (#24)
… the cops were invading private property without just cause.
The cops were NOT invading private property.
#27. To: Gatlin (#25)
Title 7 ANIMALS
#28. To: nolu chan, irrelevant code cut and paste, copsucker (#27)
#29. To: hondo68, nolu chan (#28)
Hondo:
There's a fence and signs posted,
No Trespassing, Beware of Dog!
Ignorance of the law….is no excuse. Hondo:
Then here hondo, let me help you completely understand the law and fully realize why the cops were not psycho and did not trespass on the property.
You've (nolu chan) done nothing to clear up the mystery why these psycho cops trespassed on the 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. Furthermore, 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.
There …
#72. To: Gatlin, Stradivarius Ignoramus, LF Harpies, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#29)
#73. To: hondo68, Fire Island, Gatlin, Noyo Chimp, tooconservattive (#72)
Replies to Comment # 73.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]