Approximately a dozen residents attended the September 6 Police Commission meeting to express frustration and disappointment over the lack of consequences following the May shooting of a bear known locally as “Bobbi.”

The shooting by Ridgefield Police Sgt Lawrence Clarke sparked outrage in the community, particularly for the orphaning of two of her young cubs that were later caught and taken in by the New Hampshire-based Kilham Bear Center.

A report by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s (DEEP’s) Environmental Conservation Police (EnCon) stated that Clarke had fired 7 rounds from an AR-15 rifle at Bobbi, missing four times, grazing the bear twice, and only one bullet hitting.

Clarke told investigators that he had been trying to scare the bear off from his chicken coop for several days before finally deciding to shoot the bear after feeling threatened. The bear reportedly killed three of his 14 chickens.

However, on July 8, EnCon announced that the State’s Attorney’s Office would be filing no charges in the matter, following a two-month investigation.

Danbury State’s Attorney David Applegate told The Newtown Bee September 7 that there is “room for clarity” in the laws, and about what the charges against Clarke would be and what Clarke’s possible defense would be.

Applegate said that state statute 22-358 would be applicable to the case.

The statute states that property owners may destroy an animal that poses a threat to people or attacks livestock, and they cannot be held criminally or civilly liable for doing so. Additionally, state statute 26-72, which prohibits the killing of animals for their fur, allows an exception for protecting livestock.

Applegate said Clarke could meet the definition of a farmer.

“I tried to come at it as a practical matter,” he said.

Applegate was in attendance at the Police Commission meeting, and told The Bee he was there to “listen and keep an open mind” to what the public was saying. While he would not commit to stating that his office would reconsider filing charges in the case, he did say there was “room here for the law to explain what direction to take.”

“It’s very unclear right now,” said Applegate.

At the Police Commission meeting, Newtown Police Chief David Kullgren reported that since the State’s Attorney’s Office “indicated that [Clarke] was not in violation of state law,” there is “no cause” for Newtown Police Department to charge Clarke with a violation of Newtown’s ordinance prohibiting the discharge of a firearm within 500 feet of neighboring homes.

David Ackert, a local resident and business owner who compiled a petition of 350-plus residents, lawmakers, activists and advocates that was delivered to the Chief State Attorney’s office in Rocky Hill recently, told the commission that residents are “fearful and concerned” about a violation of the town’s gun ordinance, and noted that there were a number of recent incidents concerning residents, including in Thomaston, Burlington, Southbury, and Simsbury, who had all been charged in the shooting of bears.

Ackert said he felt the difference between Clarke’s case and the other cases was that Clarke was a police officer.

Ackert said Clarke was in violation of Newtown’s ordinance as he was 320 feet away from a neighboring home, when the ordinance prohibits shooting within 500 feet of neighboring homes. He also noted, as the report said, that of the seven shots, only one hit and two grazed, which meant that at least four bullets could have continued on into neighboring properties, if not six.

He also pointed out that the police report stated Clarke had removed six of the seven shells from the scene of the shooting, which Ackert called “tampering with evidence.” Ackert was also upset that the DEEP’s police unit EnCon had decided to not press charges before it consulted with the state’s attorney’s office.

“I’m here to ask the public and Newtown Police Department to not accept the state’s inaction any longer,” said Ackert. “The DEEP did not do a thorough, complete investigation.”

In e-mails with The Bee, Ackert also stated concerns with a state statute the State’s Attorney’s office says is applicable, concerning allowing animals to be killed to protect livestock. Ackert cast the statute as an “old Department of Agriculture law that deals specifically with nuisance domestic animals.”

“To paraphrase, if a dog, or cat, or other domestic animal leaves your property and ‘worries’ or hurts chickens on your neighbor’s property, the neighbor cannot be prosecuted for killing it,” stated Ackert. “This law does not pertain to wildlife. Wildlife does not/cannot have an ‘owner’ and is instead governed by DEEP law which clearly states that it is illegal to kill bears.”

Ackert’s statements expressed concerns that “the State’s error in judgment here is not only preventing Bobbi’s killer from being held accountable for multiple crimes committed, but going forward, it also places both wildlife, and anyone who thinks its OK to kill wildlife, in jeopardy.”

Finally, Ackert wrote that the potential for Clarke receiving a $99 fine, the penalty for violation of the town ordinance, was “immaterial.”

“[We] are hoping that any state and/or local prosecution/conviction, even if it’s only a slap on the wrist, will trigger Connecticut’s new police accountability law — the part that, as I understand it, should result in Clarke’s ‘decertification,’ which in turn will require him to complete a retraining process in order to be recertified before he can resume ‘protecting and serving.’ That is what will send the most important message and make him, and others think harder before taking the law into their own hands and play Rambo in their back yards.”

Resident and former Legislative Council Chair Mary Ann Jacob said she was chairman of the ordinance committee in 2012-13 that considered the town ordinance concerning firearms and had listened to a large number of “pros and cons” regarding gun safety and ownership during those meetings. She said at the time there were no ordinances regarding firearms except surrounding hunting.

“We needed to set guidelines around what was OK and what was not,” said Jacob.

The ordinance required that any shooting be done with a license or permit, with a backstop, and be 500 or more feet away from any structure.

“This was common sense safety that most gun owners believe in,” said Jacob. “My biggest concern here is the complete disregard for safety by an officer who should be trained in de-escalation and gun safety.”

She characterized Clarke’s actions of having extended encounters with a bear while never calling DEEP or local police, and using an AR-15 rifle with neighbors nearby, as “irresponsible at best.”

She also said that not hitting the bear with four out of seven shots raised concerns about where the other four bullets went. She asked why, if he was concerned about the bear hurting him, he “waited an hour before shooting the bear and didn’t call anyone.”

She referred to the town ordinance as a “tool in the toolbox” for the police department, but not enforcing the ordinance in this case could weaken future attempts to enforce the ordinance.

“This effectively means the tool we gave you is no longer any good,” said Jacob. “If we expect ordinary citizens to follow the law, we also expect police officers to follow the law.”

She asked the Police Commission if it would consider writing a statement to the Ridgefield Police Department condemning how Clarke acted while in the Newtown community.

Resident Neil Baldino said the issue was about “integrity and accountability.”

“We have laws for a reason,” said Baldino. “If my neighbor shot an AR-15 within 500 feet of my property I’d be scared.” Baldino was also concerned about the removal of the shell casings from the scene by Clarke.

“That’s tampering with evidence,” said Baldino. “He’s a police sergeant; he knows right from wrong.”

Resident Karen Martin said she “supports reopening the case.”

“It’s important the people of Newtown feel safe,” said Martin.

State Rep Mitch Bolinsky, a regular attendee of Newtown’s Police Commission meetings, said “laws will be looked at” since he believes that the current statutes were “applied in a way that did not set a good precedent.”

He wanted to look at a “complete redefinition of how the laws are written and how DEEP enforces them.” Bolinsky believed there would also be “talk” around Newtown’s local ordinance. He said he had concerns how DEEP, a state department charged with enforcing wildlife conservation, was also in charge of population control.

Bolinsky characterized the shooting as an incident that was “very concerning” to him.

“This case is a real miscarriage of justice,” said Bolinsky, who believes there are a number of “loose ends” in the evidence that are “concerning.”

“It speaks to intent,” said Bolinsky. “It requires a second look.”

=====

Associate Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.