Forrest Gump's Mama Was Right

[biku324]

Sigh. Only in New Mexico. The video is just nuts.

The District Attorney’s Office says sheriff Ferrari followed the driver about half a mile to a parking lot near La Plata and Padilla Drive. The driver gets out of his car with a metal pipe in his hands. The sheriff then exits his car. The Sheriff’s Office says sheriff Ferrari identified himself and told the man to stop and show his hands.

That’s when the driver’s dog jumps out and runs toward the sheriff. The sheriff begins to step back and he shoots the dog – fearing an attack. The District Attorney’s office says they’re currently investigating charges against the driver and that is why we are not identifying him.

“Based on what we know so far, it looks like that was the intent of the sheriff was to get officers there that were in marked units. However, when the vehicle pulled off…he stopped behind the vehicle. And you see what ensued after that which was precipitated by the suspect in the case,” says Dustin O’Brien, San Juan District Attorney’s Office.

The driver could be charged with reckless driving, failure to obey a traffic control device, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The District Attorney’s Office says the sheriff is not facing any charges.

Off-duty sheriff shoots dog in police altercation

 

[LVSteve]

So you can be charged with aggravated assault without hitting somebody? As you say, only in New Mexico.

 

[oink]

So you can be charged with aggravated assault without hitting somebody? As you say, only in New Mexico.

I don't know NM law but in Fl yes. The charge for actual physical contact would be a battery.

Edit: OK, I just watched the video. That's a legit agg assault.

 

[sigp220.45]

I know that Sheriff. The pipe guy is extremely lucky to be alive.

 

[soFlaNative]

Sherrif on the phone and downed dog. Where's pipe guy, maybe sitting along his car?
I don't get the OP's comment "only in New Mexico". Stupid is as stupid does seems fairly common.

 

[Alpo]

I can't tell from the video. Is the sheriff in uniform?


Man follows me in a pickup truck, no police markings, and I can easily see me getting out with a weapon in my hand. Man pulls a gun? I can easily see me dropping him in the parking lot.


If he's in his sheriff uniform that would make a difference. Otherwise, it would appear to be a carjacking.

 

[Hair Trigger]

So you can be charged with aggravated assault without hitting somebody? As you say, only in New Mexico.

Charged with, and convicted of, are two different things. I'd say it was a legit charge if the driver intentionally released the dog or did not try to restrain it when it advanced on the LE guy. In either case I'd have shot the dog too. I'd rather deal with a pipe-wielding man meaning to do harm than a dog with unknown intentions you have no control over whatsoever.

 

[SMSgt]

I don't know NM law but in Fl yes. The charge for actual physical contact would be a battery.

Edit: OK, I just watched the video. That's a legit agg assault.

Many do not understand where assault ends and battery begins.

 

[biku324]

So you can be charged with aggravated assault without hitting somebody? As you say, only in New Mexico.

Assault is a credible threat to batter someone; agg assault is thge same but with a weapon, a partner, or while masked.

30-3-2. Aggravated assault.
Aggravated assault consists of either:

A. unlawfully assaulting or striking at another with a deadly weapon;

B. committing assault by threatening or menacing another while wearing a mask, hood, robe or other covering upon the face, head or body, or while disguised in any manner, so as to conceal identity; or

C. wilfully [willfully] and intentionally assaulting another with intent to commit any felony.

Whoever commits aggravated assault is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

 

[Bald1]

Guy in a pickup follows me into a parking lot ? I don’t know how that might go. But if you shoot my dog you’ll probably have to shoot me too. It’s a traffic infraction. Maybe don’t involve yourself when off duty.

 

[biku324]

I can't tell from the video. Is the sheriff in uniform?


Man follows me in a pickup truck, no police markings, and I can easily see me getting out with a weapon in my hand. Man pulls a gun? I can easily see me dropping him in the parking lot.


If he's in his sheriff uniform that would make a difference. Otherwise, it would appear to be a carjacking.

Unless, of course, you just blew threw a stop sign at high speed in a city wherein drunk drivers are common as dirt day or night, like Farmington. And kept your usual metal pipe by your side in the front seat so you could confront someone with a handgun who identifies himself as an officer.

Unmarked police cars are common here. An officer need only display a badge to enforce traffic aws here.

Meaning of "Uniform". — "Uniform" for purposes of this section means commission of office and a prominently displayed badge. 1966 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-92.

 

[biku324]

Charged with, and convicted of, are two different things. I'd say it was a legit charge if the driver intentionally released the dog or did not try to restrain it when it advanced on the LE guy. In either case I'd have shot the dog too. I'd rather deal with a pipe-wielding man meaning to do harm than a dog with unknown intentions you have no control over whatsoever.

This is an easy conviction with the video.

 

[biku324]

Guy in a pickup follows me into a parking lot ? I don’t know how that might go. But if you shoot my dog you’ll probably have to shoot me too. It’s a traffic infraction. Maybe don’t involve yourself when off duty.

Then you might end up also being shot.

The sheriff was on his phone trying to get a uniformed officer there when the guy stopped in front of him.

77-1-9. Dogs; destruction.
A. Any peace officer may impound any dog found running at large unaccompanied by and not under the control of the owner or handler, and further, the peace officer shall destroy the dog if it is in the act of pursuing or wounding livestock or wounding and killing poultry or attacking humans.

B. Any peace officer may kill any dog in the act of pursuing or wounding any livestock or wounding or killing poultry or attacking humans whether or not the dog wears a rabies tag required by Section 77-1-3 NMSA 1978. There shall be no liability of the peace officer in damages or otherwise for such killing.

History: 1953 Comp., § 47-1-2.7, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 352, § 1.

 

[Bald1]

I don’t question the justification of shooting a charging dog. My point is, I’m my mind the cop created this whole mess. Over zealous cops are nothing new. I’ve seen it a hundred times. I have a half dozen friends who are coppers at versions state and federal levels. This cop should have been aware of situation he was creating. I am pro law enforcement in a big way. But that doesn’t mean the cop is always right. I’ll just leave it there because I have very strong opinions on this and similar topics.

 

[jeffrefrig]

Between the assault types, aggravated means felony; simple means misdemeanor. I heard. With just hand-to-hand, perhaps it's up to the DA or arresting officer. Maybe what bones get broken or cracked. Cutting your dog loose on someone who looks like a cop and says something like "Police officer! Show me your hands!" is really kinda dumb if you like your dog at all. And, he pulled over to begin with. Did the cop have blue & red lights in his grill? Something's a little off.

 

[biku324]

In NM, sheriffs commonly make traffic stops, and in many counties greatly outnumber chronically understaffed state police, so they end up doing a major share of traffic enforcement.

Look again at the video...start at 22 seconds. Our driver is out of his car with the pipe in his hand headed quickly toward the truck and pointing his arm toward the sheriff before the sheriff even gets his door completely open.

 

[LVSteve]

Assault is a credible threat to batter someone; agg assault is thge same but with a weapon, a partner, or while masked.

30-3-2. Aggravated assault.
Aggravated assault consists of either:

A. unlawfully assaulting or striking at another with a deadly weapon;

B. committing assault by threatening or menacing another while wearing a mask, hood, robe or other covering upon the face, head or body, or while disguised in any manner, so as to conceal identity; or

C. wilfully [willfully] and intentionally assaulting another with intent to commit any felony.

Whoever commits aggravated assault is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

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.

 

[oink]

I looked at the video again, a little closer. The driver is rapidly advancing on the Sheriff with the pipe held in an attack position before the Sheriff even stands up in his door, even before he has the door open all of the way. Those are not the moves of someone acting in self defense. That's aggressive. After retreating back to his car the body language of the driver indicates the driver may have even instructed the dog to attack. If that's the case it would be 2 charges of agg assault. The first being with the pipe during the initial charge. As the dog is attacking the driver raises the pipe into attack position again. Could probably make a 3rd agg assault. At that point, and possibly even earlier during the initial aggressive advance by the driver, the driver could have been shot and it would have been justified. A couple of feet closer to the Sheriff he probably would have been shot. The Sheriff deserves credit for his restraint during the incident.

The High Sheriff is always on duty if in his jurisdiction. Many Sheriffs wear plain clothes with a badge as everyday duty wear. They're the Sheriff. That may be more common in the South and West.

I don't know where some of you guys get the anti-cop attitudes you have!

 

[Xfuzz]

Based on the intro.....
I am now craving chocolate.

 

[oink]

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.

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.