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.”
#35: misterwhite To: Deckard (#31)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 11:48:14 Reply Private Reply
#47: Gatlin To: Deckard (#43)
Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 12:32:23 Reply Private Reply
#48: nolu chan To: hondo68 (#28)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. 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)
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)
Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 15:04:30 Reply Private Reply
#63: nolu chan To: sneakypete (#58)
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)
misterwhite posted on 2018-06-27 16:48:40 Reply Private Reply
#65: Gatlin To: misterwhite (#64)
Gatlin posted on 2018-06-27 17:16:29 Reply Private Reply
#66: GrandIsland To: Gatlin (#65)
lol
GrandIsland posted on 2018-06-27 21:19:43 Reply Private Reply
#67: Stoner To: sneakypete (#40)
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)
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)
GrandIsland posted on 2018-06-27 22:29:02 Reply Private Reply
#70: sneakypete To: Gatlin (#52)
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)
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)
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)
buckeroo posted on 2018-06-27 23:36:11 Reply Private Reply
#74: Fred Mertz To: hondo68 (#72)
Fred Mertz posted on 2018-06-27 23:53:52 Reply Private Reply
#75: Gatlin To: sneakypete (#71)
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)
Hondo68 posted on 2018-06-28 00:18:51 Reply Private Reply
#77: Gatlin To: sneakypete (#70)
Stop with the bravado bullshit and learn to understand the current state of the law regarding when police can legally come on your property or enter your home without a warrant. While the Fourth Amendment provides all people the right to be secure on their property, laws have been written and courts have carved out a few legal and lawful exceptions to the freedom and against the warrant requirement.
The first thing you should understand is that government agents are permitted to approach your front door and routinely conduct what is called a “knock and talk” investigation. This means they simply have the right to approach the front door of your home, knock on the door of your home and speak to you or whomever answers the door.
Law enforcement can even enter your home without a warrant based upon a few exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.
One widely used exception to the warrant requirement is the “plain view doctrine” which means that if the police have probable cause to believe they have observed something in plain view inside your home that is contraband, then they have the absolute legal right to enter without a warrant and seize that item or those items.
Another widely used exception to the warrant requirement is a search based upon probable cause when they believe the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. There are a number of common observations by police that can lead to probable cause and entry into your home without a warrant. One is the odor of marijuana. If police smell the odor of marijuana coming from a room, that gives them probable cause to enter and search without a warrant.
Then there is the exception to the warrant requirement known as “exigent circumstances”. This is really a secondary exception to probable cause in that if law enforcement has a reasonable belief that evidence may be lost or destroyed in the time it takes to get a warrant, then they can legally search for or seize the evidence without a warrant. While this typically applies if the officer already has probable cause, it however is an exception worthy of its own category.
These laws on police entering your property or home without a warrant are always being tested and continually evolving. Exceptions other than those I have listed here might apply to the no warrant requirement as well. Therefore if you ever have a question on Warrantless Searches, then you should not hesitate to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney with in depth knowledge of Constitutional law and emerging issues.
Gatlin posted on 2018-06-28 01:30:40 Reply Private Reply
#78: Deckard To: GrandIsland, Gatslime (#66)
Awww...does somebody need a hug?
Looks as if you really missed your boyfriend.
Deckard posted on 2018-06-28 07:46:23 Reply Private Reply
#79: Deckard To: Gatlin (#68)
That you consider yourself either enlightened or intelligent is hilarious.
Deckard posted on 2018-06-28 07:48:29 Reply Private Reply
#80: Gatlin To: Deckard (#78)
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.
Gatlin posted on 2018-06-28 08:56:06 Reply Private Reply
#81: Gatlin To: Deckard (#79)
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 09:18:42 Reply Private Reply
#82: sneakypete To: hondo68 (#72)
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?
sneakypete posted on 2018-06-28 10:08:22 Reply Private Reply
#83: sneakypete To: Gatlin (#77)
Nice little tap dance you are doing to try to provide cover for the two cops that invaded that mans property for no known reason,and then killed his dog before leaving.
sneakypete posted on 2018-06-28 10:12:37 Reply Private Reply
#84: sneakypete To: Gatlin (#81)
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 Reply Private Reply