Liberty's Flame

Cops Break Into Innocent Mans Yard, Kill His Dog, Steal His Body, Then Urinate On His Fence

Source:	Free Thought Project
Published:	Jun 24, 2018
Author:	Jay Syrmopoulos
Post Date:	2018-06-24 10:15:23 by Deckard
Views:	23767

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

#27: nolu chan 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 Reply Private Reply

#28: Hondo68 To: nolu chan, irrelevant code cut and paste, copsucker (#27)

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.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-06-27 00:03:05 Reply Private Reply

#29: Gatlin 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.

“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.

Hondo:
You've (nolu chan) done nothing to clear up the mystery why these psycho cops trespassed on the property.

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.

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 …

Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 06:35:24 Reply Private Reply

#30: Deckard To: Gatlin, Hondo (#29)

...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.

They still need to have a reason to knock on the door - they didn't. And there is no indication that they even attempted to knock on the door, even after killing the dog.

Oh sure, they left a business card and pissed on the guy's fence.

Yep - real "heroes".

Deckard posted on 2018-06-27 07:39:17 Reply Private Reply

#31: Deckard 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 07:44:55 Reply Private Reply

#32: Justified To: hondo68 (#23)

Possibly the front door although many back doors have porches too, but it was not public access. There's a fence and signs posted,

I have seen people with fence in the front too.

For some reason there really isn't any information on this subject other than this one article. Which makes it very hard to make a proper decision. IMHO

Justified posted on 2018-06-27 07:51:13 Reply Private Reply

#33: Justified To: sneakypete (#24)

See post 22.

Justified posted on 2018-06-27 07:52:39 Reply Private Reply

#34: misterwhite To: Gatlin (#25)

“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.

Correct. So can the mailman, the UPS guy, the Fedex guy, the pizza guy, or any other visitor.

Which means that you can't let a pit bull roam free in that public access area.

misterwhite posted on 2018-06-27 09:12:25 Reply Private Reply

#35: misterwhite 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 09:15:59 Reply Private Reply

#36: misterwhite To: Deckard (#30)

They still need to have a reason to knock on the door - they didn't.

Sure they did. They just didn't tell you.

"And there is no indication that they even attempted to knock on the door, even after killing the dog."

Well, they didn't attempt to knock because the was a loose pit bull in the way. And they figured that if the commotion and the gunfire didn't bring anyone to the door, knocking would have no effect.

misterwhite posted on 2018-06-27 09:20:02 Reply Private Reply

#37: Gatlin To: Deckard (#30)

They still need to have a reason to knock on the door - they didn't.

The article clearly and emphatically stated: “Authorities have yet to explain why they came onto the 61-year-old Dos Palos resident’s property.”

Just because the authorities have not “yet” provided a reason in absolutely no way means they had NO reason to knock on his door.

Please provide a source validating your “malicious claim” that “they didn’t have reason to knock on the door?’

Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 09:23:41 Reply Private Reply

#38: sneakypete To: Justified (#33)

See post 22.

I have seen post 22. It means nothing. The cops could have backed off and called the owner on the phone and told him to secure his dog. It's not like there was a kidnapped child in there being tortured. There was no emergency.

The ONLY reason those cops killed that dog was because they were cops,and they knew they could get away with it.

I repeat,you kill my dog and my dog isn't attacking you or is attacking you with good reason,I will kill you and I don't give a damn how many badges you may be carrying.

This kind of insane and out of control crap by the police needs to STOP. They are NOT our masters. They are our EMPLOYEES.

sneakypete posted on 2018-06-27 09:25:55 Reply Private Reply

#39: sneakypete To: misterwhite (#34)

Which means that you can't let a pit bull roam free in that public access area.

No,the REAL message here is you can't allow cops to roam free outside of their own yards.

That pit bull was in the yard where HE lived,doing what he was SUPPOSED to be doing.

sneakypete posted on 2018-06-27 09:27:43 Reply Private Reply

#40: sneakypete To: misterwhite (#34)

“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.
Correct. So can the mailman, the UPS guy, the Fedex guy, the pizza guy, or any other visitor.

WRONG. 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.

I have never worked for UPS or any of the other delivery services,but I would be shocked if they weren't told the same thing.

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.

sneakypete posted on 2018-06-27 09:31:55 Reply Private Reply

#41: sneakypete 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 09:33:34 Reply Private Reply

#42: Deckard To: misterwhite (#35)

What reason did he have for being there?
None of your fucking business.
Really! You're a trip bobby! First of all you want no accountability for police, now you want complete secrecy.
Maybe they were investigating a child porn ring.

Seriously? That must have been some investigation!

They didn't even bother to knock at the door.

If what you said was true, they would have sent in a militarily armed SWAT team and broke down the door.

Deckard posted on 2018-06-27 09:33:38 Reply Private Reply

#43: Deckard To: sneakypete (#41)

...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?

Good job summing up whitey's mindset (and Gatlin's as well).

Deckard posted on 2018-06-27 09:39:16 Reply Private Reply

#44: misterwhite To: Deckard (#42)

now you want complete secrecy.

Not complete secrecy. YOU don't need to know why they were there.

misterwhite posted on 2018-06-27 09:46:42 Reply Private Reply

#45: Gatlin To: sneakypete, misterwhite (#40)

Gatlin:
“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.
misterwhite: Correct. So can the mailman, the UPS guy, the Fedex guy, the pizza guy, or any other visitor.
Sneakypete:
WRONG. 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. I have never worked for UPS or any of the other delivery services,but I would be shocked if they weren't told the same thing.

You are correct, Pete, in that USPS, UPS, FEDEX, pizza companies and all other delivery services can establish their own procedures and restrictions for delivery and they have as you so adeptly explained in one situation here.

However, misterwhite is not “WRONG.”

By laws that have been validated by court rulings all the way up to SCOTUS….NO ONE can be restricted or denied access to the front door of a residence by a “No Trespassing – Private Property” sign, a fence or any other means.

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.

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.

Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 10:57:11 Reply Private Reply

#46: Gatlin To: sneakypete, Justified (#38)

The ONLY reason those cops killed that dog was because they were cops,and they knew they could get away with it. This kind of insane and out of control crap by the police needs to STOP.
I repeat,you kill my dog and my dog isn't attacking you or is attacking you with good reason,I will kill you and I don't give a damn how many badges you may be carrying.

Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 11:48:14 Reply Private Reply

#47: Gatlin To: Deckard (#43)

Good job …

Great job of ignoring my request for you to please provide a source validating your malicious claim that they didn’t have reason to knock on the door. See Post #37.

Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 12:32:23 Reply Private Reply

#48: nolu chan To: hondo68 (#28)

There were no animal code enforcement issues,

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....

Lacking your psychic ability to determine the cops went there and entered the yard for no reason at all, I find insufficient information provided, typical of the FAKE NEWS site The Free Thought Project.

nolu chan posted on 2018-06-27 12:45:59 Reply Private Reply

#49: nolu chan To: Deckard (#31)

None of what you posted applies in this situation.

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....

Numbnuts 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.

nolu chan posted on 2018-06-27 12:52:04 Reply Private Reply

#50: nolu chan To: Deckard (#31)

What reason did he have for being there?

As long as you cannot answer this question, you and the The Free Thought Project lack sufficient cause for all the blather.

nolu chan posted on 2018-06-27 12:53:56 Reply Private Reply

#51: Deckard To: nolu chan (#49)

Numbnuts 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.

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.

Deckard posted on 2018-06-27 13:01:41 Reply Private Reply

#52: Gatlin 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 Reply Private Reply

#53: nolu chan To: Deckard (#51)

Oh...so they didn't knock? Then why were they there in the first place?

You do not know if they knocked, or why they were there. Until you do, the article is meaningless.

nolu chan posted on 2018-06-27 13:04:45 Reply Private Reply

#54: Hondo68 To: nolu chan, marking their turf, blueline gang hit (#48)

the cops went there and entered the yard for no reason at all

The reason is apparent in the video. The cops trespassed in order to piss on the fence and mark their gang turf.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-06-27 13:13:27 Reply Private Reply

#55: sneakypete To: misterwhite (#44)

Not complete secrecy. YOU don't need to know why they were there.

Are you polishing your jack boots while lusting after a job with the Secret Police?

sneakypete posted on 2018-06-27 13:36:57 Reply Private Reply

#56: sneakypete 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.
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.

sneakypete posted on 2018-06-27 13:40:39 Reply Private Reply

#57: sneakypete To: Gatlin (#46)

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.

sneakypete posted on 2018-06-27 13:43:39 Reply Private Reply

#58: sneakypete To: nolu chan (#50)

What reason did he have for being there?
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?

sneakypete posted on 2018-06-27 13:45:02 Reply Private Reply

#59: Justified To: sneakypete (#38)

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.

Justified posted on 2018-06-27 14:11:56 Reply Private Reply

#60: Gatlin 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.

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.

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.
Like it or not….these police officers were fully permitted by law to do so, irrespective of any posted signs.
Both cannot be true.

Yes, both can be and are definitely proven to be true by the cited case law.

Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 14:31:08 Reply Private Reply

#61: Gatlin 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.

That action was LAWFUL irrespective on any posted sign and your “personal opinion.”

Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 14:41:11 Reply Private Reply

#62: Gatlin 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.

Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 15:04:30 Reply Private Reply

#63: nolu chan To: sneakypete (#58)

Guilty until proven innocent,and they don't need to damn search warrant,huh?

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.

nolu chan posted on 2018-06-27 15:05:17 Reply Private Reply

#64: misterwhite To: Gatlin (#52)

The cop should have pissed on sneakypete.

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

#65: Gatlin To: misterwhite (#64)

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 Reply Private Reply

#66: GrandIsland To: Gatlin (#65)

Don’t ignore me Gatlin... say hello.

lol

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

#67: Stoner 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. "

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

Stoner posted on 2018-06-27 21:48:24 Reply Private Reply

#68: Gatlin 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 Reply Private Reply

#69: GrandIsland To: Gatlin (#68)

Well, it’s refreshing to see ya back. Keep up the good conservative fight.

GrandIsland posted on 2018-06-27 22:29:02 Reply Private Reply

#70: sneakypete 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 Reply Private Reply

#71: sneakypete 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.

Yeah,a RATIONAL person gets a badge so he isn't responsible no matter whose rights he violates,right?

sneakypete posted on 2018-06-27 22:45:22 Reply Private Reply

#72: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, Stradivarius Ignoramus, LF Harpies, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#29)

Fire Island, Gatlin, Noyo Chimp

Shoot first, make up Fake News later.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-06-27 23:23:03 Reply Private Reply

#73: buckeroo To: hondo68, Fire Island, Gatlin, Noyo Chimp, tooconservattive (#72)

Don't forget to add," tooconservattive" to the standard bullshitter file.

buckeroo posted on 2018-06-27 23:36:11 Reply Private Reply

#74: Fred Mertz To: hondo68 (#72)

Yes, add tooconservative and include his pink bloomers.

Fred Mertz posted on 2018-06-27 23:53:52 Reply Private Reply

#75: Gatlin 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.

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.

Gatlin posted on 2018-06-28 00:03:01 Reply Private Reply

#76: Hondo68 To: Fred Mertz, 2kon (#74)

Yes, add tooconservative and include his pink bloomers.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-06-28 00:18:51 Reply Private Reply

Cops Break Into Innocent Mans Yard, Kill His Dog, Steal His Body, Then Urinate On His Fence

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.

Cops Break Into Innocent Mans Yard, Kill His Dog, Steal His Body, Then Urinate On His Fence