Forrest Gump's Mama Was Right

[LVSteve]

I don't get your point. The laws of the States are similar in intent and meaning, but defined differently. Of course all must be within the bounds of the constitution.

If you follow good morals and common sense you'll be good most everywhere.

I think it's illegal everywhere to threaten someone, verbally or by action, with the ability to immediately carry out that threat and by doing so putting someone in credible fear of harm. That's my layman version of defining assault, without defining various aggravating circumstances but both the pipe or dog would qualify.

These laws aren't that complicated. For the most part they're just legalese versions of standard morals and common sense everyone already knows. At least they should know, and if not they probably shouldn't be running loose among us in society.

I'm in science and engineering where clarity and precision is all, so I have a VERY short fuse for legalese. What I see in the video is threatening behavior, there's even specific laws using that exact phrase in other places I've lived. I'd no more call what I see in that video "aggravated assault" than I would call a coat hook a "wall-mounted, outer garment storage device". Calling it "aggravated assault" is up there with calling a Mini-14 an assault rifle. It's using language to make the uneducated/easily led go "Ooooh, sounds bad!".

 

[biku324]

My suggestion is that one not suppose their notions override law.

The nutzoid driver jumped out of his car with a large pipe in his hand headed directly at the driver of the truck before that guy even got his door open. That's called a 'clue' as to Mr. Pipe's intent.

 

[Bald1]

Those stating the guy in car is advancing towards sheriff before he is even out of truck illustrates my point. He doesn't know this guy following him is a cop. The best defense is a good offense. For all he knows this is some meth head who stole a ranchers truck. Maybe I'm the crazy one but, once it escalated to that, I'd be on the offensive as well. I wouldn't wait to see what the other guy does…… the mistake he made was bringing a pipe to a gunfight.

 

[biku324]

Well, had Mr. Pipe simply kept driving, he could now be petting his dog.

'Stand your ground,' which is the self-defense rule for criminal law in NM, is most assuredly NOT 'go get'im if he's annoying you.'

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I would call that "threatening behavior". That legal definition is one of the most egregious assaults (HA!) on the English language since "gifted" became a thing. I couldn't sit on a jury with a straight face should a prosecutor present something like that to me. Jury nullification on the grounds that the legal system can't speak English.

It's not since. Regardless (perhaps) of the English language, "assault" has been legally differentiated from "battery" for centuries in most, perhaps all, states of this union, you should forgive the expression.

I understand what you are saying, but I am not even sure that you are correct, and am unwilling to work to find out, considering the age of the questioned usage.

Best wishes for consensus in future posts.

 

[oink]

I don't see anything anti-cop about any of the posts with the possible exception of #4. That said, Sigp220.45 seems to have personal knowledge of this specific deputy so I wouldn't deem that as anti-cop either.

I disagree. I didn't take Sigp220.45's comment to be anti-cop. He seems to know the Sheriff. I have no reason to doubt the driver came close to making his final mistake.

I would have continued driving and called 911 to report a suspicious vehicle following me.

Yes, turn on flashers, slow down, and call 911. That's acceptable behavior.

On the flip side, an off duty LEO in civilian clothes and in a vehicle that is obviously not LE owned pursues another vehicle for a traffic violation with no way of identifying himself. He did nothing to de-escalate the situation.

My understanding is that wasn't a deputy, it was the THE Sheriff. In which case the truck was most probably owned by the County S.O. I'm sure he had his badge. The driver didn't really give much opportunity for de-escalation.

In this day and age of car jackings, suspicion is warranted.

Being aware is always a good idea. My read was that the driver wasn't worried about a carjacking. I suspect he was already in a state of road rage before he even ran the light.

When the LEO identified himself (with gun drawn), the driver did back up. The LEO was in no imminent danger at that time but moved forward in an aggressive posture.

The driver did not comply, and drop the pipe (yes an assumption he was instructed to do so but along with a command to stop is most likely) he quickly retreated to his car. My assumption, from a LEO's perspective, is that he's now going for a gun, I'm already in the open so yes I'm in imminent danger. I'm going to stay close so that if he grabs for a gun I'll see it and know early and be able to react. I might have swung out a little wider, but I wasn't there.

Much comment has been made about LEO in NM using unmarked cars-but I'm sure they have lights they can place on the dash or top of the car to identify themselves.

He may have had grill lights or a bubble he could have stuck on the dash or roof. But remember, he didn't stop the driver. The driver suddenly stopped and quickly opened his door and exited his vehicle. I also would have been more concerned with getting in a position where I could more easily clear leather.

There is nothing "anti-cop" about saying he was acting in an over-zealous manner giving the circumstances (unmarked and unidentifiable truck) and the severity of the crime (running a stop light after waiting for traffic to clear).

Yeah, you sound pretty anti-cop.

This resulted in the shooting death of an animal and could have led to the shooting death of the driver and possible charges or civil action against the LEO.

Yes, it was an unfortunate situation and outcome but could have been much worse. All of the outcome and potential outcome falls solidly on the idiot driver.

In today's environment, LEO's have to be well trained, level-headed, alert, and professional.

Yep, they should be and in this case I think the Sheriff did fine.

Two words: de-escalation training.

N/A in this situation due to the actions of the driver.

 

[biku324]

^^^Read and learn.

 

[Bald1]

Oink, while I appreciate you addressing each comment made, it appears you and other cops have this attitude that if someone disagrees with you they are anti cop. This is not the case. If that was indeed THE Sheriff and not a deputy I'd question his actions even more. He's supposed to lead by example. I think he made a mistake.

 

[oink]

We disagree!

I hope you take something away from this conversation that could save you from making a horrible mistake during a potential future police encounter that could otherwise result in death or serious injury to either or both parties and/or your long term incarceration. Many tragic outcomes are avoidable with the exercise of some simple common sense.

 

[biku324]

The sheriff absolutely did lead by example. He saw dangerous driving, was trying to get a unformed officer to handle, then stopped after the guy stopped, and reacted legally and professionally to each threat n1) the nutzoid advancing on him with a pipe, and 2) the dog coming after him.

 

[sigp220.45]

I used to live and work in Farmington, and I do indeed know Sheriff Ferrari. He is a very good dude, and not someone to be siccing your dog on unless you are tired of it.

I've worked in several western states, and it is my experience that New Mexico is the most "Sheriffy" of them all. Its hard to explain what that means, but a duly-elected Sheriff in New Mexico is a different breed of cat. On duty or off duty, don't break the law in front of one.

I think he did fine.

 

[LVSteve]

It's not since. Regardless (perhaps) of the English language, "assault" has been legally differentiated from "battery" for centuries in most, perhaps all, states of this union, you should forgive the expression.

I understand what you are saying, but I am not even sure that you are correct, and am unwilling to work to find out, considering the age of the questioned usage.

Best wishes for consensus in future posts.

You've just thrown the light switch. I find the term "battery" somewhat arcane, which is ironic given I'm from the "old" country. Yeah, I'm chuckling at myself.

 

[biku324]

Sigh.


30-3-4. Battery.
Battery is the unlawful, intentional touching or application of force to the person of another, when done in a rude, insolent or angry manner.


30-3-5. Aggravated battery.

A. Aggravated battery consists of the unlawful touching or application of force to the person of another with intent to injure that person or another.

B. Whoever commits aggravated battery, inflicting an injury to the person which is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but does cause painful temporary disfigurement or temporary loss or impairment of the functions of any member or organ of the body, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

C. Whoever commits aggravated battery inflicting great bodily harm or does so with a deadly weapon or does so in any manner whereby great bodily harm or death can be inflicted is guilty of a third degree felony.

 

[Bald1]

We disagree!

I hope you take something away from this conversation that could save you from making a horrible mistake during a potential future police encounter that could otherwise result in death or serious injury to either or both parties and/or your long term incarceration. Many tragic outcomes are avoidable with the exercise of some simple common sense.

Oh yes! I have definitely taken something away from this conversation. I'm sure many readers have as well.

 

[pantannojack]

I've had bad asses mouth off to me while they are holding a baby. That is class.