Doggie Wounded, Trashman Bitten and everybody charged


PDA






Master Blaster
March 28, 2007, 11:34 AM
Now there is always a question whether the News Urinal got the story straight, and some room to guess whether the Trashman esclated the situation or not, or should have called police instead, or after the incident which he did not apparently, but here it is:

BTW Delaware has a vicious dog law and this incident would give the Trashman the right under that law to shoot the Doggie dead, the law also has some protections like immunity form other criminal laws, and immunity from a lawsuit. Another question is if the policeman even knows what the law says, and IF these charges will stick once they get to the AG or to court.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703280370


Dog shot during man's fight with trash collector
Pit bull bites worker during confrontation; both men charged
By TERRI SANGINITI, The News Journal

Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A sanitation worker and a Prices Corner homeowner were arrested Tuesday after a fight over trash pickup in which the homeowner's pit bull was shot.

New Castle County police Cpl. Trinidad Navarro said the sanitation worker, Aaron Coffea, 30, was collecting trash about 12:05 p.m. when a pit bull charged at him in the 300 block of Virginia Ave. in the Brookland Terrace development.

The trash collector fended the dog off with a bag of trash, then continued to the next residence, leaving the garbage behind. That prompted the 20-year-old resident of the home with the pit bull, Trevor Nichols, to accost the sanitation worker, police said.

During the confrontation, the dog bit the trash collector, who went to his truck and got a handgun, Navarro said. Coffea allegedly pointed the gun at the homeowner and fired a shot at the dog, wounding the animal in the leg, Navarro said.

Afterward, the sanitation worker drove away. Police located him at the Kirkwood Car Wash on Greenbank Road and arrested him, Navarro said.

Coffea, of the first block of Duquesne Court, west of New Castle, had suffered a dog bite to the lower leg and was treated at Christiana Hospital for that and other injuries sustained in the altercation.

He was charged with aggravated menacing, discharging a firearm in a residential area, carrying a concealed deadly weapon and possession of a firearm during a felony.

Nichols was charged with felony assault and terroristic threatening, Navarro said.

No bail information was available Tuesday night.

Navarro said the pit bull was turned over to a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals officer. The dog's injuries do not appear to be serious, he said.

Here is the Delaware Law on dealing with aggressive dogs at large:

1709. Injuring or killing dogs for certain acts.

(a) Any police officer, constable or dog warden who finds a dog running at large and deems such dog to be an immediate threat to the public health and welfare may kill such dog.

(b) Any person may injure or kill a dog in self-defense or to protect livestock, poultry or another human being at the time such dog is attacking such livestock, poultry or human being.

(c) Any person may injure or kill a dog at the time such dog is wounding another dog if the dog being wounded is on the property of its owner or under the immediate control of its owner and being wounded by a dog that is running at large.

(d) Any person who injures or kills any dog in accordance with this section shall not be held criminally or civilly liable therefor. (Code 1915, 2406G; 34 Del. Laws, c. 185, 1; Code 1935, 2871; 7 Del. C. 1953, 1706; 70 Del. Laws, c. 105, 10; 71 Del. Laws, c. 135, 6-8, 16; 71 Del. Laws, c. 431, 1, 10.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Doggie Wounded, Trashman Bitten and everybody charged" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
March 28, 2007, 11:38 AM
So what's the S&T topic here?

ndh87
March 28, 2007, 11:49 AM
Seems more like L&P

The Freeholder
March 28, 2007, 11:28 PM
"Terroristic threatening", huh? Weren't we told that this sort of thing would only be used against...terrorists?

grimjaw
March 28, 2007, 11:54 PM
If (because I don't know the whole story) he could make it back to his truck and retrieve a weapon, he could have also gotten in the truck, locked the door and left, called the the cops when out of range. If the dog was semi-permanently attached to one of the the trashman's appendages while he was retrieving the gun, it's a different story.

I don't have a problem with him shooting the dog in self defense, but if he was potentially safe behind the wheel why put himself in the legal jeopardy?

Too many assumptions for me to make this late at night with few facts and fewer cold onion rings. Looks like a sad state of affairs for all involved.

jm

straightShot
March 29, 2007, 12:17 AM
I don't have a problem with him shooting the dog in self defense, but if he was potentially safe behind the wheel why put himself in the legal jeopardy?

Legal jeopardy is right. He should have bitten the dog...

Aguila Blanca
March 29, 2007, 12:25 AM
"Terroristic threatening", huh? Weren't we told that this sort of thing would only be used against...terrorists?
Yeah, we were. This is a small example of why we can't trust the FBI, or any agency, with powers as broad and unsupervised as the Patriot Act. The RICO act, intended to be used against large-scale racketeers, has been widely applied to small-time criminals of various persuasions for years. Now the buzzword of the day is "terroristic." I'd love to know how ONE guy telling ONE other guy "I'm gonna punch your lights out" could possibly engender a charge of "terroristic" threatening. Threatening? ... Absolutely. "Terroristic" threatening? No way.

Caimlas
March 29, 2007, 01:43 AM
"Terroristic threatening"? Yep, looks like we're gettin' them thar terrorists locked up real good!

Why is the trash man being charged at all? As damn near as I can tell, he was defending his life in the face of an attack with a deadly weapon (the dog) after the home owner chased after him.

But hey, this is the NE... if he'd bludgeoned the homeowner and the dog to death with a baseball bat, he'd probably be off the hook. But if a gun is involved...

Master Blaster
March 29, 2007, 09:16 AM
As I said before this is the News Urinal, our local asswipe owned by Gannett, so much of what is reported is Wrong, made up, exaggerated, or all of the above. But I am assuming that the fact that the trash man was not the first to call the police/didnt call them at all, has allot to do with him being charged at all, its also possible he already has a criminal record and it wasn't reported.

And the charges may well have been dropped by now.

A police officer in the same situation would have had a duty to protect the public from this dangerous animal, and in the same situation Bang Bang, dead Doggie. But as you can see the law is basically the same for non police there isn't any additional law giving the police the option of using deadly force, in this or any other situation.

MilsurpShooter
March 29, 2007, 09:25 AM
Good ol' Gannet, I stopped my subscription when they published the list of pistol permit holders here. Newspaper bias aside, what the heck is "terroristic" threatening? I'm going to hurt you, your family then the United States Government after I change my name to Abahadar al-Baghdadi?

Speer
March 29, 2007, 01:11 PM
terroristic threatening..

Oh, please. :rolleyes:

6_gunner
March 29, 2007, 01:18 PM
Come on guys. It's simple logic: 1) A big dog is scary. 2) Anything scary is a weapon. 3) Anyone with a weapon is a terrorist.

Weren't you guys paying attention in school? :neener:

Biker
March 29, 2007, 01:19 PM
I'm no fan of the PA - not at all -, but didn't "terroristic threats" exist as a violation of the law before 9/11?
I could be wrong, but I think that I was charged with it once, a long time ago.

Biker

Tim James
March 29, 2007, 02:45 PM
Threatening to cause sheer terror in someone ("just wait, within the year I'm going to hunt your family down and slice them up with this knife here") could be considered terroristic threatening. Not sure what the law actually means. Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with "terr'ists and terr'ism."

But yeah, stupid. I need to close my browser quickly before my head explodes at these articles today.

Master Blaster
March 29, 2007, 09:30 PM
Its a specific offense in Delaware code, and in most other states as well, It predates 911 by a good 48 years, and has nothing to do with Islaamic fundamentalists.

621. Terroristic threatening.

(a) A person is guilty of terroristic threatening when he or she commits any of the following:

(1) The person threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or in serious injury to person or property;

(2) The person makes a false statement or statements:

a. Knowing that the statement or statements are likely to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation;

b. Knowing that the statement or statements are likely to cause serious inconvenience; or

c. In reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror or serious inconvenience; or

(3) The person commits an act with intent of causing an individual to believe that the individual has been exposed to a substance that will cause the individual death or serious injury.

(b) Any violation of paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be a class A misdemeanor except where the victim is a person 62 years of age or older, in which case any violation of paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be a class G felony. Any violation of paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be a class G felony unless the place at which the risk of evacuation, serious inconvenience or terror is created is a place that has the purpose, in whole or in part, of acting as a daycare facility, nursery or preschool, kindergarten, elementary, secondary or vocational-technical school, or any long-term care facility in which elderly persons are housed, in which case it shall be a class F felony. Any violation of paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall be a class F felony. Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection to the contrary, a first offense of paragraph (a)(2) of this section by a person 17 years old or younger shall be a class A misdemeanor.

(c) In addition to the penalties otherwise authorized by law, any person convicted of an offense in violation of paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall:

(1) Pay a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,500, which fine cannot be suspended; and

(2) Be sentenced to perform a minimum of 100 hours of community service.

(d) In addition to the penalties otherwise authorized by law, any person convicted of an offense in violation of paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall pay a fine of not less than $2,000, which fine cannot be suspended. (11 Del. C. 1953, 621; 58 Del. Laws, c. 497, 1; 67 Del. Laws, c. 130, 8; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 330, 1; 73 Del. Laws, c. 126, 5, 6; 73 Del. Laws, c. 255, 1.)

Major thread drift here.....:o

jnojr
March 29, 2007, 10:17 PM
Sounds like two idiots encountered each other. This is news how?

Art Eatman
March 29, 2007, 11:02 PM
No need to terrorize the forum...

If you enjoyed reading about "Doggie Wounded, Trashman Bitten and everybody charged" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!