February 6, 2023
Annapolis, US 52 F

A Question For Readers On The Dog Shooter

This “federal police officer” has been identified by authorities as a “civilian officer.”

Maryann Hodges, a spokeswoman for Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, the Army and Marine base in Northern Virginia, said the civilian police officer was placed on administrative leave, which is standard procedure, because of the Anne Arundel County investigation.

Does this mean that he is not technically a federal employee, but a contracted employee of some sort? If so, what are the rules for carrying a weapon off duty? Certainly, the end user of his services has the right to put him on leave pending the outcome, but was he really a “federal police officer” or was he a contractor working for a company hired by the federal government to provide police services?

Previous Article

Dog Shooter Lawyers Up

Next Article

Regional Recap, August 6, 2010

You might be interested in …

33 Comments

  1. FPO’s are NOT authorized to carry their weapons while off duty, I know this because I worked at Fort Meade for 30 years which also employs FPO’s hired by the Department of Defense. Why this is not being revealed by Maryann Hodges, the DoD spokesperson, or the AACC PD is beyond me. May I suggest that a reporter ask Ms. Hodges a simple Yes or No question. ‘Is this officer authorized to carry his weapon off duty?’ Being that the answer will be no then this officer should be fired and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

  2. @Mike, then if his employer/contracted agency does not authorize it, the only other way he should legally be allowed to carry the weapon would be if he was issued a concealed weapon permit by Maryland?

  3. If he is a police officer on a federal installation then he is a federal employee. Some installations have contracted out security services but not police services. When they refer to his as a civilian officer they mean that he is not a soldier or marine but is a civilian employee of a DOD component.

  4. John, I see this story is still developing. A FPO can apply for a concealed weapon permit in Maryland but traditionally they have been denied. Let me explain. First of all FPO does not stand for Federal Police Officer. Its stands for Federal Protective Officer. Therefore FPO’s do not have ‘police’ authority. Another thing to consider. FPO’s check their weapons back to the armory when ending their shift. This is because they are not authorized to carry that weapon off duty. I see now that the AACC Police are reporting that this FPO was carrying his personal weapon. If he does not have a Maryland concealed permit, and I doubt he does, he has commited a serious hand gun violation. I hope the press keeps after this story. This guy is a very dangerous individual and likely to harm others. Hope I have helped you.

  5. Just an observation. I’m sure you have seen cars displaying Maryland tags with FOP ( Fraternal Order of Police). Well there also are tags displaying FPO ( Federal Protective Officer). Why the diiferent tags ? Well because FPO’s are not ‘police’ officers they are not members of the Fraternal Order of Police. Therefore they created their own tag. Why do I mention all of this ? Because the FPO is an ordinary citizen when off duty and is subject to the same gun restrictions as any Maryland citizen. I find it disturbing that the AAC PD are affording this FPO some special considerations that he should not be receiving. And why won’t the AAC PD reveal the FPO’s name ? It has already been reported by Wash DC media.

  6. Frankly regardless of his title at work this man has no right to be carrying a gun for the hell of it. He had no right to kill that dog and should be charged fully for his actions. This was uncalled for and dangerous to anyone in that area as he could have missed the dog or even been a bad aim and shot anyone near by. His license to carry a weapon if he even has one should be revoked as well as he should lose his job. To many people given a tiny bit of authority take advantage of it. They let it go to their heads far to often.. This guy took it entirely to far. Lets hope our real law takes it far enough.

  7. When this case is fully vetted you will see that the Department of Defense does not allow their Federal ‘Protective’ (not police) Officers to carry their weapons off duty. And no, this FPO is not covered by Public Law 108-277 as someone has implied. In fact I know of several ‘former’ Fort Meade DoD FPO’s who tried exercising ‘police’ authority when off duty. They are no longer employed as FPO’s. Fact.

    By the way, if this FPO were allowed to carry his weapon off duty don’t you think the spokesperson, Maryann Hodges of DoD , would have stated so when asked. Simple yes or no, right ? Keep after this Press ok.

  8. Having to err on the side of caution with any response on this topic – it was a few comments in this thread that were so blatantly wrong, I had to reply with something factual.

    First, Mr. Lusby needs to check his facts and his sources. Most of his information here is inaccurate and is written in a very biased tone. I did check, and Mr. Lusby – in his 30 years working on Fort Meade – had no affiliation with the Civilain or Military Police. He was in no way involved in policy creation, enforcement, or employed in any type position that would have oversight into the Fort Meade Police. It is obvious from a 3r Patry’s point of view that the non-factual evidence being offered up by Mr. Lusby are typical of a person who was in someway shunned or cited by this police department.

    First, where are you obtaining your information? Regarding the applications being “traditionally denied” by the Maryland State Police is without merit. Are you on the approval board? Do the applications cross your desk? No, and the reason that they are “not approved” is due to the fact that the State of Maryland officially recognizes Department of Defense Police Officers (including Fort Meade, NSA Police, Naval Academy Police, PAX River, etc…) as Police Officers – which therefore negates the need for a permit in this state. H.R. 218 and the associated Maryland House Bills authorizing the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act clearly DO NOT delineate the need to carry an “issued firearm”. A personal weapon may be carried concealed by an off-duty officer. Period. There seems to be a lot of “bored housewife” and “Google Law Degree” discussions around the fact that this officer was not carrying an issued firearm…because he is permitted to is the simple answer.

    Second, Mr. Lusby’s statements about the title of an FPO are also false. Federal Police Officers ( in MD, VA, DC, etc…) Are all hired under the Job Series “0083” – which under OPM classification is Federal Police Officer. This is the same job series of the Secret Service Uniformed Division, the US Capitol Police, US Park Police, Pentagon Force Protection Agency — to name a few. Mr. Lusby appears to be confusing this department with the Federal Protective Service, who are “Police Officers” however, they are titled as “Inspectors” or “Physical Security Specialists” due to the fact that their main focus is the protection of Federal Buildings.

    Does it really make everyone feel better to suggest that “federal” police are any less better than their “civilian” counterparts? No. These men are “sworn” in under Titles of the United States Code, they attend an accredited Police Academy, they are bound to the same laws and authority as the officer in the state in which they are working, they are authorized to carry weapons and enforce the laws of the State, County and local jurisdiction in which they work. For instance, all of the traffic laws enforced by the Fort Meade Police are Maryland Laws and are cited under Maryland statutes and fines. If you are subect to arrest for an infraction, the federal police can (and will) arrest and charge you – In fact, there is very little difference between “regular” and “federal” police except which court you are summoned to attend and the punishments for failure to appear. True that federal police are more restricted by law to the area in which they have jurisdiction, but this is the same case for “civilian police” in counties and locales. So in contrast to Mr. Lusby’s statements, DoD Police do have and exercise “police” authority. I am sure that a check of criminal or traffic records would prove that – especially in this case where Mr. Lusby seems to have some deep rooted hate and contempt towards federal police. Perhaps a speeding ticket or a rejected application?

    Second, Mr. Lusby presents his opinion on what the lettering stands for on an FOP license plate. In reply, I have several Maryland State Troopers who would take issue with your statement. In fact, the lettering means nothing towards the individuals “status” or “title” of the individuals. The statement by Mr. Lusby was complete fabrication of facts. The FPO lettering merely denotes that the plates are vetted through the FOP Lodge in DC – the only other thing worth mentioning about the FOP Plates are that if the plate has an actual FOP emblem, it was issued to an “active or retired police officer”. The civilian public who desire FOP donor plates do net get an emblem, and no…having those do net get you any “free pass” from police. Additionally, these officers are indeed members of the Fraternal Order of Police. They pay the same dues as their civilian counterparts, and are afforded the same protections and services through the Grand Lodge as their civilian counterparts. Where the variance comes is through the jurisdictional lodges, but that more deals with labor unions ratheer than who gets what letters on their plate. Mr. Lusby suggests that FPO’s are not real members of the FOP and “made up” their own plate. This is false – the plates with “FPO” bear the licensed FOP logo whic is only authorized to be worn / used by “active members” of the FOP. Get your facts straight here too!

    Third, Mr. Lusby states the he “knows of” several instances where Fort Meade Police have attempted to exercise “police” authority and are no longer employed because of it. I recall the word “fact” after his statement. If this is the case, then I would venture to say that there is a very high turnover amongst all federal police (even Fort Meade) due to the fact that they exercise police authority every time that they are on-duty. Might I suggest that you read into The Assimilated Crimes Act and the description of what exactly a Federal Police Officer does. You should have no problem finding a relevant job description, seeing as how you are a Google Master given all of your statements above.

    I hope that I was able to shed some truthful light here. It is obvious that there are multiple groups our there desiring harm for this officer, and are presenting the VERY biased views through forums such as this and through various other channels such as Facebook. I attribute this to bored, rich housewives with nothing better to do than take a sliver of a story and flip it into National Headlines. Find a better cause – don’t see their “concern” when kids are being murdered on city streets – especially right up the road from “Quail Run”…AKA: Pioneer City and Meade Village. I am sure that if the residents of those communities were to “visit” the Dog Park, these biased writers with their spreading hate towards police, would be the first ones on their phones “screaming” for a police response – then would probably set up a Facebook page dedicated to the response time of the police department.

    While I don’t condone senseless shootings, I ( as a war veteran and trooper, and former FPO) do believe in the cornerstone of the United States Criminal Justice system who states that people are innocent until proven guilty. If one were to read comments posted here or the “Justice for Bear-Bear” Facebook page, it would be eerily reminiscent of a tattered justice system in a third world country where people are judged and tried before the true facts come to light…the very situation here. I also stand firm that 99% of the people commenting and offering the “Google Law Schol” view were (a)-not at the scene to witness events first hand; and (b) friends of the owner’s.

    People seem to forget that dogs are animals, not humans. They can, and do, sometimes revert to pure instinct to “attack” or “protect” for no apparent reason. This is why their are leash laws and fenced-in dog parks…if they were completely safe, then they would be permitted to roam free. People who were not their to witness it first hand should keep their opinions to themselves, and definitely STOP with the personal threats to the officer and is family. You were not there, so can you HONESTLY state that you know that the officer was not in fear of harm for himself or any other person. To state that he just pulled his weapon for no reason and shot the dog out of spite is just stupid and crazy and reminds me of daytime TV or an episode of “CSI” where crimes are black and white — no such thing in real life.
    Before continuing to bash police officers and their decisions, remember your posts the next time YOU need the help of the police that allow you to have things like your nice neighborhood and safe Dog Parks to roam freely in. Remember that we are out the protecting you – while you are home typing and blogging away about rules and policies that you obviously know nothing about (Mr. Lusby), or offering up your biased opinions into what actually happened and the theories of why a police officer should not be carrying a weapon (bored, rich housewife)– remember that we took an oath to prtoect and serve, while you didn’t. We don’t offer opinions into your careers – so we don’t appreciate the insights into how we do ours. HELP is appreciated, but honest help and not immature rants about an officer who felt his safety was in jeopardy.

    The media should be reporting factual information, so I hope this helps the authors to open their eyes tp a gray area in law enforcement. Public opinion matters not in criminal proceedings, just slows them down and skews the publics opinion.

    Would the headlines be different if the shooter were a civilian officer, or not a cop at all? What if Bear-Bear were a PitBull? Would we be having this discussion then? I think not.

    Please, get a hobby or join the ranks…either way, be quiet.

  9. Mr. Stein

    Although I respect your ‘opinion’ I stand by my statements. I might add that I have never been ‘shunned or cited by this police department’ as you assume. Nor did I ever claim to have been an FPO or associated with the FPO force. However, I do have many friends, former co-workers, that were FPO’s.

    It’s obvious that you feel offended by my comments but being able to express our views in this forum is what it was created for. You have thrown a net over all who disagree with you as being uninformed and anti-polce. That’s far from the truth.

    You wrote:” YOU need the help of the police that allow you to have things like your nice neighborhood and safe Dog Parks to roam freely in. Remember that we are out the protecting you.” Safe dog parks to roam in ? I’d like to think that’s true but it didn’t work out to well for Bear-Bear did it. Some idiot decided he needed to carry a weapon into that dog park and then use it. Unprovoked. No injuries evident to him, his wife or his dog. We don’t need people like that ‘protecting’ us. We need protection from them.

    I’m not interested in ‘joining the ranks’ as you say. So if we are not in the ranks we can’t express our views? Who the hell are you to tell people to be quiet ? Take a breath and get a grip.

    Mr Stein, I promise I don’t need you protecting me. I’ve always been capable of doing that myself. But that FPO might want to employ you as his lawyer or spokesperson since you insist he was legalling carrying that weapon. Funny, his attorney and the DoD spokesperson have not made that statment.

    As I stated before, when this case goes to court it will be revealed that this FPO was not acting within the law.

    Chill out Stein.

  10. Stein, Just got done re-reading your ranting post. Checked you out. Not impressed. Throwing in that statement about how you served is stale and insulting. I’ll take my service over yours anytime. I have my flag. I have my pride. I have my dignity You Stein: If you wear a uniform you are not subject to law.. If you disagree with this you don’t deserve police protection.

    Cowboys with guns do not make our parks safer. Cowboys that carry weapons illegally make our parks dangerous. Mocking the death of Baer Baer is an insult to
    all pet owners. I intend to hammer this case until hell freezes over.

    Hey Stein, trash me all you want. I’m a better man than you. I’ll stay on this. Horseshit threats against my character only make me more froggy.

    yippeekyeyeah

  11. Mr. Stein, I really don’t care whether the man had a permit or not. The man had other options that had not been exhausted before he shot Bear. I wonder when we will be reading about you gunning somebody’s family pet down. If you say the forums are bias and against all Police Officers, that is not true. I am against any and all Officers that condone or stand behind what this man did Bear-Bear. Yes, that includes you. This Officer is setting a bad example for our children. You should be setting the example that there are other ways to handle a situation other than deadly force. By the way, is your view on someone who shoots an intruder? Would it be ok for me to shoot and an unarmed man breaking into my house?

  12. First, Lusby and Laurie, let me state very clearly that I am in no way defending the officer or his actions. I am not speaking for him, and I am not condoning the use of deadly force in any incident, unless warranted by the actions of the subject.

    Also, I certainly never intended my remarks to be taken as personal attacks in any way. I don’t know either of you and to use a pseudo-anonymous online forum to “bash” people would be fruitless. So Mike, if you took any of my statements and clarification personally – I do sincerely apologize! In no way did I ever intend to mock the death of a pet, so if the tone of my message presented that…apologies again.

    My goal was to set the record straight regarding the off-duty carry policy, the role of Federal Police Officers, and provide some first-hand information about the FOP. Factual information, in my mind, is better to have to paint a clearer picture. The media presents us with enough biased comments and views that I thought it might be a bit refreshing for someone to interject an opposing viewpoint.

    As for comparing service-jackets…what would that help? When did this turn into a competition between us? Would it make a difference over who has more medals or awards, who deployed to what area? Does it really matter who held a higher rank? Why should I not mention that I was in the military, how exactly is that insulting? Did I take it as an insult when you stated that you worked on Fort Meade for over 30 years? No, it was a statement meant to lend credibility to statements in this forum – the same as you intended. We both served our country proudly, and we both continue to do so in a variety of ways….You state that you don’t need my protection, fair enough. I will still get dressed for work every night and help those who ask for it, and stand ready to assist you should you ever feel that you need the help of law enforcement.

    Mike, I am chilled out. Let cooler heads prevail, as admittedly I was initially a bit worked up after having read your information – the first time. Your intial reply was candid, however your second seemed to veer way to the left. It seems that through this forum and others, Federal Police Officers are being painted in a negative light due to the actions of one individual. Many – not necessarily you – are speaking / typing as if Federal Police are somewhat “below” their civilian counterparts. Nothing is further from the truth – while they are limited in what their actual duties are, they are still “blue” and perform the same basic mission across the board. Would you treat an FPO any differently during a traffic stop than if a Trooper stopped you? That FPO has the same means to deal with violators as we do: verbal warning, written warning, citation or arrest. Once again, the only difference being the chain of events that follow with regards to the courts. I agree that Federal Law Enforcement has a way to go, but that is another discussion.

    Regarding the carry of off-duty which seems to be the point of many discussions – that brings us to The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (HR 218). This law was passed to allow for the off-duty carry, nationwide, as a means for police officers to provide a way to protect themselves, their family, and other while off-duty. Surely you can appreciate the fact that many officers live in the areas that they police. Imagine you walking through a mall with your wife and kids, when you wander past a “boy and his posse”, one of which you recently arrested. If that guy wants some type of revenge, do you not agree that the officer should have a way to protect himself? This is where off-duty carry comes around. Another facet of this is that officers are instinctively trained to react to situations that arise. Standing by when something bad is happening is simply not an option for many of us – and would probably cause an outpouring of rage should the media report that (for instance) an off-duty officer was present in a place where a woman was beat to death by her husband…and did nothing to help. How many innocent people are killed each year when people do nothing but find a safe place to watch from? Take a look at what happened in New York last night…3 civy’s and 2 cops shot. How many more people could have been hurt had the police not been there? Yes, they were on-duty, yes it’s their job…but “what if”. The laws are black and white, but every situation has a grey area. There are thousands of off-duty officers who carry off-duty on a daily basis – are they all “cowboys” as well? Just be sure not to let your opinions of one man smear all of law enforcement in general.

    What the hell does this have to do with Bear-Bear, you are probably asking by now…a lot if you read into what a lot of people are asking. The “illegal” carry seems to be quite a hot topic, and according to my brethren and the laws for Maryland associated with HR218, he was an off-duty officer and was permitted to carry. These laws don’t delineate between a “service” weapon versus a personal weapon. Each department is different – and in this case the department is Federal and when have you known the federal government to admit anything freely to the media? If it does turn out that HR 218 does not apply to federal police, then The House needs to revisit their wording and put in plain language “This Law Does Not Apply to Federal Police Officers”. In turn, that would make the federal government state that “their” law enforcement officers are not afforded the same protection as their civilian counterparts. There is some basic language regarding “statuatory” arrest powers, but a bigger in-depth read reverts that statement in a variety of ways…that “gray” area.

    A good example happened a few years ago when an off-duty “federal officer” got shot in a crowded Annapolis Mall. The officer returned fire, striking the subject. As I recall, the media NEVER questioned this guys right to carry – and for the record this guy was ‘out of state’ as well. You didn’t see the outcry from some that the officer acted too hastily and could have invoked other means to subdue the shooter. Never once were there editorials about how the officer used poor judgment for shooting in a crowded location, endangering others nearby. Why? Different case because it was a person with a gun? Because this guy was Secret Service? Because the shooter didn’t die? Because it was not someone’s family pet from a “nice” community? I am asking for some people to not be so narrow minded in this situation.

    Once again, I am not defending or supporting the officer in any way – and my views are my views – the same as yours are yours. I will respect the opinions of anyone, so long as they are informed and not made on bias or presented on the basis of incorrect information. As you stated, this forum provides just the venue for that.

  13. As for Laurie – the answer to your question is, yes. You, as a homeowner, are allowed to shoot an unarmed man breaking into your house. Read up on the homeowners safety bill that Gov. O’Malley recently had passed. Again, erring on the side of caution in my reply, this is the law…but there are gray areas. Can you define “unarmed”? Just because a person does not have a gun, does not make them unarmed or any less dangerous for that matter. What would you do if you were home alone, or if your children were sleeping and this occurred? Homeowners don’t have the luxury of having “less than lethal” means of force (OC, Tazer, baton). Then again, I have been in situations where none of those have had any effect due to the level of intoxication (alcohol or drugs) on that person, and the situation ultimately called for an officer to use deadly force on that subject. You wonder when you would hear about when I would shoot a family pet? Why only me? Are you under the assumption that all “family pets” are safe? Keep an abused pit bull taken from the pound in your house – then we’ll talk. Yes, unfortunately there are times that police must use deadly force…was this one of those instances? You cannot say for sure; I cannot – so who truly can?

    Regarding the “fluffy, family pet” theory – Bear Bear might have been the friendliest dog in the world, but the fact remains that he was an animal and (same as humans) they just snap sometimes – nobody knows why, but it does happen. Some cases for you: (1) Three months ago, on a beautiful sunny day at the Inner Harbor, an elderly man was attacked by a “family pet” that was on a leash, “never mean towards anyone”, and had no provocation to get violent. This dog caught the owners off-guard and broke free from the leash. The dog decided to implant his teeth into the foot and leg into the elderly man, this was with so much force that the dog broke 3 teeth off into the man’s leg. A Baltimore Police Officer was a few feet away, and kicked the dog off of the man. The dog died as a result – is this better than shooting the dog? (2) at the end of the previous school year, a young 3rd grader was getting off of her school bus and began running towards the local playground – this actually occurred not too far from Quail Run – when she was attacked by a dog that was “always fond of children and would never harm anyone”. The girl will have a scar across her forehead for life, and will probably have a lifelong fear of dogs, if not all animals. When Animal Control went to retrieve the animal later that day, the “normally reserved” dog began attacking the officer, to the point where the accompanying police officer shot the dog and killed it.

    My point there was to show that “normally reserved and friendly” dogs can snap at any reason, and cause injuries. Can you say that the officer did not immediately fear that this dog would have done the same thing? Were you there, or just going off of the word of the victims? Does an animal have to actually cause harm to someone before harming the animal becomes “acceptable”? What other means do you suggest? Hitting the animal with a stick? Yelling at it to stop? Kicking it? What would you like to have done if that were your daughter, or it was you in the place of the elderly man? Granted, I was not there either – so NOBODY knows what truly happened, and now never will. I am not condoning the actions, Laurie…and I personally am not setting any bad examples for anyone’s children by offering an opposing viewpoint.

    So the question to you is, are you against the actions of one man (regardless if he is a police officer or not), or are you against a person presenting a different view and attempting to clarify some information ( what I am attempting to do ). If you are against anyone who would not join your one-lane views on this, or any, subject – then that would be silly and narrow-minded. Are you suggesting that nobody else’s opinion matters, unless they agree with you? There are foreign governments who also feel that way…is that a good example for children? Discouraging free thinking and self-thought? Hmmm, scary!

    By the way, the “be quiet” comment was meant for the media and their reporting…not you.

    Finally, if you don’t desire to join the ranks, then fine – but don’t speak for all police officers just because you read something, see it on TV, or know other cops. I don’t step into your offices and tell you the ins and outs of your job, so be fair and don’t tell us how to do ours or that something we are doing is “illegal” by a generalization.

    Certainly, nobody can speak to how this guy felt when he shot the dog…profession aside, I do agree that is seems that this was a “stupid” act. I never disagreed with that part…take your anger elsewhere and direct it to where it is warranted.

    Thanks.

  14. Well Mr. Lusby and Mrs. Laurie, you have apparently won this dicussion. I had composed a rather lengthy reply, complete with several apologetic statements and affirming that I am not in any way condoning or backing the officer in question.

    My sole purpose in response was to offer up FACTS relating to the posts of Mr. Lusby.

    Apparently, the “Eye on Annapolis” moderators did not feel that my additional comments going against the majority were in the best interest of this discussion – and they subsequently censured my secondary input.

    To Mr. Lusby, well played sir. To Laurie – here is a link that will answer your last question regarding someone breaking into your property –

    Castle Doctrine:

    Under the castle doctrine, “a man faced with the danger of an attack upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger, but instead may stand his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker.”

    Maryland State Bill 761 – an interesting read for all homeowners who desire to protect their property and life and limb.

    Have a good week.

  15. Well written Mr. Stein, I was one of those FPO’s on Ft. Meade for a few years, You nailed it, where Lusby got his info is beyond me…

  16. NOTE: We do not censor any comments other than for language. All of your comments have been posted. Sometimes there may be a delay until we are notified they are there.

  17. Hello Mr. Stein

    I too am glad that cooler heads can prevail. My earlier response was merely a reaction to what I percieved to be an attack on my personal character. Obviously both of us are passionate on this subject. Also I recognize, admire and respect your service to this country. That is something that we obviously share a bond, a common thread and we should not ever let our differences of opinion destroy that bond ok.

    The last thing that I ever intended to do was imply that I am anti-police. I’m not. My family has a long tradition of serving as Police Officers and Firemen. I’m Most proud of my Marine father highly decorated in Korea and who went on to become a Special Agent with the Treasury Department.
    I have a son who served in Iraq as a Marine in 2004 with the 3/2. I’m not some anti law enforcement person with a chip on their shoulder.

    However, I am a man that trully believes that if we are to survive as a society we must all be held accountable for our actions. Officers as well as civilians. Over the last few years I’ve seen several disturbing cases appear in the news where very serious actions taken by uniformed officers have resulted in innocent people and ther families being hurt. You recall the young man in Pasadena Maryland that was shot by an officer because he happened to be driving a vehicle similar to one used in a crime. The kid was shot in the face and the officer was caught on film laughing about it. That is a fact so please don’t dispute it. Or how about an incident not too long ago where the police raided a home, shot and killed the family Lab, pinned the family to the floor only to realize they had the wrong people. No apologies offered in either of these instances. I bring this up because I believe there is a pattern of behaviour that has developed amongst ‘some’ law enforcemnt officials that is more inclined to deny, cover up, and defend those in uniform that commit these acts. I sense that with this incident with Baer Baer.

    Mr Stein, you seem honorable, intelligent and commited to doing what is right. I ask you, would you have shot this dog ? I sense that you believe deadly force is something that should only be utilized as a last resort and when only the most extreme conditions require. Based on all of the reports, not just the media, but the responding officers reports does this seem like a reasonable act by that officer ? Take care and best of luck to you and your family.

    ps : to the former FPO that wrote in asking where I got my info from. Well former FPO’s just like you. Take care my friend.

  18. Sorry, didn’t get to finish my comment, I was saying that you were misinformed by your former FPO friends, I don’t doubt that at all, most of the officers were misinformed themselves. That is why I am a former FPO…

  19. Hi former FPO. Perhaps I’ve been misinformed. There sure seems to be a lot of different takes on this particular case. So lets be fair ok. Can we agree something is not right about this incident. The AAC PD released a revised statement pertaining to the Officer’s right to carry his personal weapon. The new statement states that his right to carry is ‘questionable’.
    What a mess. Perhaps when this is all resolved we may all find out why my former FPO buddies have a different interpretation from some of the officers who have posted here. At this point I think it is pointless to debate amongst ourselves. I’m going to sit back and wait for the legal decision to be made. Lets all hope this is a transparent and fair process for all parties involved in the case.Take care ok.

  20. I don’t care whether or not FOP’s or FPO’s can carry a weapon off duty. In this situation with Bear, the officer should have tried other means to separate the dogs. A gun shot should not be the first instinct. The officer’s dog was on a leash. Why didn’t he try pulling his dog with the leash and head towards the gate to separate them? His dog pulled his wife towards Bear. Why did his wife appear scared when her dog was pulling her towards Bear? Apparently his wife couldn’t pull their dog back by herself. Perhaps, try getting the water bowl and dousing the dogs to distract them. Or find and wedge a stick between the dogs collar in order to attempt to separate the dogs. He should think… What would people without guns do in this situation first? Don’t FPO’s and FOP’s have any training about handling aggressive dogs other than to shoot them? It’s never a good idea to put you hands near an aggressive dog (especially one you’re not familiar with). He should not have tried to grab Bear Bear, but just concentrated on his own dog. Or was he afraid that his shepherd would try to bite him? It sounds like the shepherd may have been the aggressor. Is that why his wife didn’t let their shepherd off the leash? Bear Bear has been at the park before without incidents according to the owner. How long was Bear Bear at the park without incidents before the shepherd arrived? It wasn’t asked if the shepherd was previously in the park without incidents. Obviously, more investigation is needed.

  21. When I logged onto this forum I had no idea how this discussion would go. But it wasn’t long before some of us, myself included, got off subject and let our emotions get the best of us. Sometimes personal statements were made that have no bearing on this case what so ever. Right now, I make a commitment to civilty. No matter your opinion. I will respect and honor your opinion.

    What inspired me to make and write this commitment today was my reading the most recent e-mail posts on this story to the Capital News site. Some of the posts contained attacks that I strongly believe are harmfull to innocent people and I object to the Capital posting those comments.

    In particular. The husband of the attorney representing the owners of Baer Baer was slammed in a way that I find irrelevent to this case. The person who submiited the comment didn’t provide their fiull name. They just decided to trash this man without having the decency to provide their identity. I guess that is ok to some but I find it unfair and disturbing

    This story has now gained international attention. I know there is a lot of passion related to this story. But I’d like to ask all who enter this discussion to stay to the case and refrain from attempts to destroy one another.

    We can agree to disagree. But I would like to think that I could sit across a table from anyone in this forum and have a beer and discuss our views without trying to destroy one another.

    Meanwhile, we will all follow this case, our passions and our opinions strong. My best to all of you who care. No matter your side. It is only with people who care that we can make progress.

  22. I know I may be late on commenting on things here. But I have to say that everyone has a good point in the topic. Yes many people are being misinformed.

    As far as Bear Bear goes I do believe there could have been other options. I have been in situations of so called friendly dogs (including Pits) have come after my granddaughter. The people who own the dog have children their self. She was 4 years old when this dog broke through the fence around our yard and tried to attack her. Fortunately there were several people out there to protect her from this dog.

    However the dog was not harmed. He did not manage to attack her. He has come after other family members as well. Should this dog attack one of the kids or my dog even YES I would kill him myself. I do not own a gun but can do enough damage with other means. But there were no signs what so ever on this mans dog or him and his wife. Therefore Bear Bear should not have been shot the way he was. Regardless of this mans rank apparently his actions were unjustified.

    Mr. Stein as with many of the others your statements of apology are accept here. But to say you were not aiming them at the people who had left statements I would say was wrong. Us so called bored house wives are not a part of the media. Just because we may be housewives do not mean we are bored or rich for that matter.

    I myself stay at home because I am disabled. But I am also taking college courses to be able to support myself. That does not give me much time to be bored. Even the man I am with can tell you that.

    When you make a mistake in words it is great when you apologize for them. But at least admit your errors where they are due. You may not have meant to insult Mr. Lusby. But the housewife statement was certainly intended towards the women here. It is obvious we are not a part of the media.

  23. P.S I noticed in rereading my comment I made a few errors in spelling. Please excuse me for that as I have been up since very early this morning and I am rather tired. Have a good evening everyone.

  24. Mr. Stein, fist of all, I would like to thank you for the info regarding bill 761, I will read it after I am done finishing my post.
    I would also like to answer the questions you directed towards me.
    First, “So the question to you is, are you against the actions of one man (regardless if he is a police officer or not), or are you against a person presenting a different view and attempting to clarify some information ( what I am attempting to do ). If you are against anyone who would not join your one-lane views on this, or any, subject – then that would be silly and narrow-minded.”
    I am against all people, Officer or not, condoning the actions of this man. Anyone who thinks killing is the 1st, 2nd or best option, has no compassion. They way I see it, without compassion, you have no remorse. Without remorse, you are not fit to interact with society. You may think it is a little narrow mindedness but that’s ok. I personally would not knowingly interact with a person of that nature and I don’t believe it is a bad thing. I wouldn’t want my children interacting with people of that nature either. I once had an experience with one of my daughters friends who was 6 years old and didn’t feel remorse for drowning some of my baby chicks. The mother laughed and thought it was funny. This is where children learn compassion. She didn’t care at all that she killed them. I did not want the child back in my home and avoided them like the plague.
    Second, you stated, “, if you don’t desire to join the ranks, then fine – but don’t speak for all police officers just because you read something, see it on TV, or know other cops. I don’t step into your offices and tell you the ins and outs of your job, so be fair and don’t tell us how to do ours or that something we are doing is “illegal” by a generalization.”
    I’m not sure what you mean by “joining the ranks.” Moreover, I am not speaking about all police officers just because I read something. I never said “all police officers.” My cousin is an Officer, and I have a several friends that are Police Officers and I can’t believe they would ever even consider, just pulling out a gun an shooting a dog unless it was a life threatening situation.

    Also, isn’t it a little narrow mindedness to think that us taxpayers who pay your salary shouldn’t share our opinion or state when we believe that we don’t agree with how you conduct your job or ability to do your job? Isn’t that how laws are initiated? By our Opinions?
    Third, “You wonder when you would hear about when I would shoot a family pet? Why only me?”
    Because at the time it sounded is though you condoned what this man did to Bear Bear.
    Fourth, are you under the assumption that all “family pets” are safe? Keep an abused pit bull taken from the pound in your house – then we’ll talk. Yes, unfortunately there are times that police must use deadly force…was this one of those instances? You cannot say for sure; I cannot – so who truly can?”
    No, I am not under that assumption. I do believe that on some occasions it is warranted. Do you believe the case where the less than 5lb Chihuahua needed to be shot?
    Fifth, “Keep an abused pit bull taken from the pound in your house – then we’ll talk. Yes, unfortunately there are times that police must use deadly force…was this one of those instances? You cannot say for sure; I cannot – so who truly can?”
    Again, I never, said there were no occasions were deadly force is not warranted. However, I read the police report regarding the Bear Bear situation, the man did not describe some vicious attack. He did say the dog bit his dog on the neck. However, his dog nor he or his wife had a scratch on them.
    I have had people come to my house and say OMG your dogs are fighting. I say no, it’s ok they are not. Oh, but to one has the other by the throat. I say, just relax, they always do that. They always seem to be very unnerved and uncomfortable by the whole scenario. My Aunt could hardly stand to watch it.
    I’ve also had people come to my house who were never invited back because of the way perceived my dogs. My one lab loved to play ball and would actually throw it at you or jump and push it down at your feet to get you to play. One time this woman said OMG! she bit me! I saw the whole thing. My dog had the ball and jumped towards her with her paws and face down at her feet. The dog did NOT bite her. Some people tend to exaggerate things. Needless, to say she was not ever invited back to my house.
    Sixth, “Three months ago, on a beautiful sunny day at the Inner Harbor, an elderly man was attacked by a “family pet” that was on a leash, “never mean towards anyone”, and had no provocation to get violent. This dog caught the owners off-guard and broke free from the leash. The dog decided to implant his teeth into the foot and leg into the elderly man, this was with so much force that the dog broke 3 teeth off into the man’s leg. A Baltimore Police Officer was a few feet away, and kicked the dog off of the man. The dog died as a result – is this better than shooting the dog?”
    First of all this case is nothing is nothing like the situation that occurred with Bear Bear. Again, see my fourth response for this above. Also, it seems the Officer used good judgment. He may a have accidently shot the elderly man if the dog had turned on him the moment he pulled his gun.
    Seventh, “at the end of the previous school year, a young 3rd grader was getting off of her school bus and began running towards the local playground – this actually occurred not too far from Quail Run – when she was attacked by a dog that was “always fond of children and would never harm anyone”. The girl will have a scar across her forehead for life, and will probably have a lifelong fear of dogs, if not all animals. When Animal Control went to retrieve the animal later that day, the “normally reserved” dog began attacking the officer, to the point where the accompanying police officer shot the dog and killed it.”
    Again, see my 4th answer. Once, again this is not comparable to the Bear Bear situation. Bear Bear was in an off leashed dog park. First, it sounds as if animal control would have put the dog down anyway even if the officer hadn’t shot the dog. The owner had the responsibility of not letting the dog run loose. Some breeds have the natural instinct to chase small children when running. You never stated what type of breed. In addition, you did not state where the animal control officers approached the dog. Was it at his home, was it in the home, or was it just running in the neighborhood. Many “Friendly” dogs may become territorial when someone approaches their home. Also, you didn’t state whether this information came from a police report or whether is was something you heard in the news.
    Eighth, “My point there was to show that “normally reserved and friendly” dogs can snap at any reason, and cause injuries. Can you say that the officer did not immediately fear that this dog would have done the same thing? Were you there, or just going off of the word of the victims?”
    I’m not just going by the victims statements, I’m going by the police report. No, one in this altercation was hurt or killed but Bear Bear. Again, what the Officer described was rough playing. He didn’t describe some vicious attack. If the man had been well education on dog behavior, this may not have occurred. Maybe anyone who enters a dog park should be required to take a dog behavior class so they can identify when there is a threat.
    Furthermore, any person could raise their fist at me, and I could possibly feel immediate fear the this person could kill me with one punch. Does that mean I should pull a gun and shoot to kill? Just as Bear Bear’s killer perceived a dogs snap was a threat?
    Does an animal have to actually cause harm to someone before harming the animal becomes “acceptable”? What other means do you suggest? Hitting the animal with a stick? Yelling at it to stop? Kicking it?
    Ok, not all of us have the luxury to carry a gun on our side, so we adapt and learn how to handle situations, that you may perceive a life threatening situation differently. I am 5’1 and 130 lbs., and have broken up many a dog fight. My dog a German Shephard/Samoyed mix and by neighbors, Golden Retriever didn’t always get along but they spent a lot of time together. Occasionally they would end up in some very nasty fights. One time I thought I was going to pull my fingers out of my sockets as I pulled them apart by their collars. Another time, there were other neighborhood dogs at the house and they began to fight. Three of them I was able stop fighting by charging and screaming at them. But once again I had to tear my dog and my neighbors apart by hand.

  25. Oh, I forgont to mention that I beieve benefit the entire State of Maryland if all dog owners and Police Officer ‘s would have to go to a class regarding dog behavior.

  26. To everyone debating the “FPO” argument….Last time I checked this man is a security guard at Ft. Myers. He is not really and “FPO” such as secret service etc… and security guards do not have police powers off base. Rarely do they have police powers on base. If I have this wrong then I will admit that error but with all the different conflicting reports I thought I would mention that this is the information we were given by the shooter’s lawyer in his statements.

  27. Former FPO — I assume you were not a Department of the Army officer? Because if you were then you were misinformed of US Law

  28. No, I worked for the Department of the Army as a civilian Police Officer, not a security guard, that is a different series, 081 I believe…Now if this guy is just a “security guard” that changes the whole thing. The Dept. of Army has both civilian securtiy guards (not contractors) and civilian Police Officers (which have police authority and are authorized to carry off duty) Ft. Meade has contract security guards that man their entry control points, which when I was there was operated by Wackenhut. And I am fully aware of the US Law kh.

  29. Then you should know Former FPO that HR 218 to requires that an officer have statutory arrest authority. The Dept of Army police force does not have statutory arrest authority (neither does DON police or any other DoD police) therefore they are not covered under HR 218. That is what remains to be in question in this case last time I checked. I’m not sure what MD law is on this subject however.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *