2nd Baltimore officer suspended amid probe of dog's death
BALTIMORE — A second Baltimore officer has been suspended while the department investigates his role in the slitting of a dog's throat. The animal's owner says it took her days to find out how the dog died.
Court documents say Officer Thomas Schmidt held the dog down while a fellow officer cut the animal's throat on Saturday. Schmidt has been suspended with pay during the investigation, Baltimore Police spokesman Jeremy Silbert said.
“This is so criminal what's happened,” said the 45-pound dog's owner, Sarah Gossard. “It makes me sick.”
She said detectives contacted her Tuesday to see whether she wanted to make a statement but didn't tell her how the dog had died. She said she finally found out the next day when she was contacted by a reporter.
The officer accused of slitting the dog's throat, 49-year-old Jeffrey Bolger, is set for trial next month on animal cruelty charges. He's free on his own recognizance and has been suspended without pay.
Schmidt has not been charged.
The dog, a female Shar-Pei named Nala, was killed on Saturday when police responded to a report that it had bitten a woman at a bar. The dog died from blood loss.
According to charging documents, witnesses told detectives that Bolger cut the dog's throat with a knife after saying he would “gut this thing.” Authorities said the knife he used wasn't department-issued.
Bolger came to assist other officers after one said the dog was foaming at the mouth and appeared malnourished.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.