NEW MEXICO -- A Truth or Consequences couple whose four pit bulls killed a woman on Easter were arrested Tuesday, less than three weeks after 7th Judicial District Attorney Clint Wellborn said he lacked sufficient evidence to charge the couple under the state’s dangerous dogs law.
The victim’s brother, Gary Salcedo, said he was gratified by the arrests. “It’s something that needed to take place,” Salcedo said. “We’ve really been pressing for it.”
Wellborn said Tuesday evening the charges were the result of new information obtained after the September news conference when he announced the Hardimans would not be charged.
“The day we had the press conference, we had some additional information come in, and we followed up on that, and that was the missing piece,” said Wellborn, who declined to discuss details pending a trial.
The dogs’ owners, John and Maria Hardiman, face charges in connection with the death of Margaret Salcedo, 48, who was walking down the street near her home on Easter, April 24, when the four dogs attacked her.
The dogs dispersed after a city police officer arrived on the scene and shot one. Salcedo later died of her injuries at Sierra Vista Hospital.
The Hardimans were arrested on four counts each of violating the state’s dangerous dogs law and one count each of conspiracy to commit a felony, the Truth or Consequences Police Department said.
They were being held Tuesday evening at the Sierra County Detention Center in lieu of a $15,000 bond each. Police referred additional questions about the case to Wellborn.
John Hardiman has worked in security jobs and for various police departments over the years, including one month in 2008 for the TorC Police Department.
For months after the attack, Gary Salcedo and a group of other TorC residents publicly pressured Wellborn to charge the Hardimans under the state’s Dangerous Dog Act, which allows a felony charge to be filed against the owner of a dog that, unprovoked, causes a person’s death.
For someone to be charged, the law requires a finding that the owner “knew of the propensity of a dog to inflict serious injury.”
On Sept. 28, Wellborn announced the Hardimans would not be charged because investigators were unable to show the Hardimans knew their dogs were vicious.
After the announcement, local activists, frustrated by the decision, began gathering signatures for a petition to impanel a grand jury to investigate the handling of the case.
The grand jury, the petition said, would look into alleged “conspiracy, dereliction of duty, tampering with and suppression of evidence” and “intentional failure to investigate a violent crime” by State Police, city officials and Wellborn’s office.
Gary Salcedo said Tuesday he believed the petition effort “possibly helped this thing along.”
However, Wellborn said the filing of charges had nothing to do with the citizens’ effort.
According to the Sierra County Detention Center, the Hardimans were booked Tuesday under a section of law concerning the “owner of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog that causes serious injury” to a person.
“Has this been a very emotional, draining task? Yes. Has it been financially draining? Yes,” said Gary Salcedo. “But it’s something that had to be done. And that makes it worthwhile. That’s the key fact, that somehow, somewhere, she (Margaret Salcedo) will get justice.”
The Herald, a weekly TorC newspaper, reported last week that the nearby city of Elephant Butte is considering an ordinance that would ban local residents from owning pit bulls and Rottweilers and require current owners of those breeds to register the animals and obtain liability insurance.
[OK, I'm getting up on my soapbox now. What is the point of having a law if no one is going to be prosecuted under it?? The whole problem, as I've said many times, is that these owners always insist they didn't know their precious wigglebutts were capable of doing such a thing. Wrong, wrong, wrong! If you own a pit bull, you cannot say you don't know that pit bulls are capable of such things. That is a fact. There are too many media stories of these types of dogs attacking and killing pets, attacking and killing people, attacking and killing their owners to say you 'didn't know'.
The Dangerous Dog Act allows a charge to be filed against the owner if that dog, unprovoked, causes a human death. Did these dogs cause a human death? YES.
The law requires a finding that the owner “knew of the propensity of a dog to inflict serious injury.” The definition of propensity is "an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way". Do pit bull type dogs have an 'inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way'? YES.
The DA's office initially said they couldn't charge the owners b/c they were unable to show the Hardimans knew their dogs were vicious. Well, the definition of vicious is "(of an animal) wild and dangerous to people". Were these four pit bulls dangerous to people? YES.
Based on the previous definition of PROPENSITY and of COMMON KNOWLEDGE of pit bull dogs, you cannot say that these owners had no clue that their four pit bulls were of a breed that has an inherent aggressive nature and therefore should have taken extreme precautions to ensure that these dogs never got loose.]
(Albuquerque Journal - Oct 19, 2011)
Earlier:
