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.”
#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
#85: Deckard To: Gatlin (#81)
Get over yourself already you self-aggrandizing clown.
Your penchant for worshiping all things government is not what any sane person would call "enlightened".
Deckard posted on 2018-06-28 10:32:19 Reply Private Reply
#86: Gatlin To: sneakypete (#83)
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.
Gatlin posted on 2018-06-28 10:38:31 Reply Private Reply
#87: Deckard To: Gatlin (#86)
They never even knocked on the door you idiotic ass!
They killed his dog then ran away like the cowards that they are.
Deckard posted on 2018-06-28 10:42:54 Reply Private Reply
#88: Deckard To: Gatlin (#86)
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.
Deckard posted on 2018-06-28 10:47:20 Reply Private Reply
#89: Gatlin To: sneakypete (#84)
Gatlin posted on 2018-06-28 11:17:08 Reply Private Reply
#90: Liberator To: GrandIsland, Tooconservative (#0)
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.
Liberator posted on 2018-06-28 11:32:37 Reply Private Reply
#91: Gatlin To: Deckard (#87)
Police officers’ time is too valuable an asset to waste.
They killed the dog but you have no evidence that the officers “ran away like cowards.”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.
Gatlin posted on 2018-06-28 11:35:32 Reply Private Reply
#92: Deckard To: Gatlin (#91)
if he was wanted in connection with criminal activity, why the hell wouldn't they knock at the door.
Why didn't they just get a SWAT team and break it down? You bootlickers drool at the thought of SWAT raids.
They had no reason to be there in the first place.
Deckard posted on 2018-06-28 11:40:42 Reply Private Reply
#93: Gatlin To: Deckard (#88)
It is easy to understand that you continue the willful and selective blindness….a true hallmark of all libertarian. It’s the only way the short memory span of you libertarians can continue to hold onto your ridiculously failed and ludicrous ideology in the face of true reality.
You do NOT know that the PITBULL posed no threat or that it was provoked by the pepper spray.Mere conjecture and pure speculation is not good….NOT GOOD.
No I don’t see any of that.I do see more of you expounding pure libertarian bullshit, and you continue to expose that you are just another petulant cop-hating anarchist divorced from reality with a case of arrested development.
You are utterly clueless about the real world because you can’t perceive anything outside your only little self-absorbed bubble of hate.
Gatlin posted on 2018-06-28 12:00:55 Reply Private Reply
#94: tpaine To: Gatlin, Y'ALL, --- on the wrong side of a constitutional fence once again... (#86)
Indeed, laws on police entering your property or home without a warrant are always being tested and continually evolving, and with another solid conservative on the scotus, appointed by Trump, we can expect to see these warrantless infringements overturned..
Gatlin will weep..
tpaine posted on 2018-06-28 12:07:07 Reply Private Reply
#95: Liberator To: tpaine, Gilligan (#94)
HA!! Did Herr Gilligan really write this??
He's sounding an awful lot like...the official business end of such pointed questions and issues, isn't he?
Liberator posted on 2018-06-28 12:16:35 Reply Private Reply