Life Threatened By Former Elite Detective With Criminal Past

[RoadDawg]

Yes his claim was real!!! There are tons of newspaper articles about him and hundreds of search results on Judiciary Case Search of cases he was involved in. He was on the "do not call list" of cops deemed untrustworthy in the courtroom, but apparently that list is no longer used. I spoke with the owner as well as the manager from another location and we are going to apply for our CCW with the help of a full-time personal protection expert who does the training as well as helps fill out the application.

You stated that you're not going to confirm the ID/Name...
yet by posting the above line... you pretty much have... because... in the linked article you responded to...

For years, Xxxxxx had been on a list of officers deemed untrustworthy by prosecutors, known as the "do not call" list, under the administration of former Baltimore State's Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy. The list was a tool for prosecutors to prevent police from working on cases in which their integrity might be challenged on the stand.

No I am not picking on you. Just pointing out a thing or two to help hopefully...

Montgomery County police refuse to write a report because apparently making a verbal threat is not a crime in Maryland. I asked them if that applied to an officer of the law threatening to use his power in that capacity to commit a crime. They said it didn't matter and actually said to me, "what's the difference if an officer threatens you or a post man?". I was shocked and replied, "Officer, let me ask you a question...would you feel the same way if a Navy Seal threatened you or a petite cocktail waitress?" They responded it didn't matter. I seriously feel like I am living in a horror movie where the police are protecting their own and I am left helpless. Thanks to you guys here, I now know it is legal to carry at work. While this isn't as ideal as carrying full-time CCW, it's better than nothing as I apply for my CCW. I'm going to get a Mossberg shotgun tomorrow to keep under my desk. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. In addition, I will be carrying one of my 1911s or my Glock 26.

FYI... No... Police do not try to protect those who've dishonored the badge and embarrassed the profession by engaging in illegal and immoral acts or other questionable practices. So don't think the MoCo Officers are attempting to "protect one of their own".

AND... Your last paragraph above is a bit concerning...
• Insure that NOBODY but you can access that Mossberg. You don't want to be responsible for injury to anyone because the shotgun got into the wrong hands.

• When you say... "I'll be carrying..." I do hope you're not going to carry off property without a CCW Permit. (Just clarifying the point)

At any rate... be safe. Stay in company and travel with friends as much as possible until this all gets sorted out for you. And prayers up for you that nothing happens at all to harm you.

 

[Biggfoot44]

The linked article refered to " a list of .." , implying more than one , so still not publically a specific person.

 

[HeatSeeker]

Sorry, but I'm skeptical of anyone that does not post for 8 years then comes at us with this. Whole thing Just sounds a bit dubious to me.

 

[3paul10]

Sorry, but I'm skeptical of anyone that does not post for 8 years then comes at us with this. Whole thing Just sounds a bit dubious to me.

I'm real skeptical.....

 

[Bikebreath]

Sorry, but I'm skeptical of anyone that does not post for 8 years then comes at us with this. Whole thing Just sounds a bit dubious to me.

I'm real skeptical.....

I am not. It's a sausage fest in here and few women bother spending much time on here. When she needed advice, though, she knew where to turn.

OP, I think keeping the nut-jobs name out of this is a good move.

 

[redeemed.man]

Montgomery County police refuse to write a report because apparently making a verbal threat is not a crime in Maryland. I asked them if that applied to an officer of the law threatening to use his power in that capacity to commit a crime. They said it didn't matter and actually said to me, "what's the difference if an officer threatens you or a post man?". I was shocked and replied, "Officer, let me ask you a question...would you feel the same way if a Navy Seal threatened you or a petite cocktail waitress?" They responded it didn't matter. I seriously feel like I am living in a horror movie where the police are protecting their own and I am left helpless. Thanks to you guys here, I now know it is legal to carry at work. While this isn't as ideal as carrying full-time CCW, it's better than nothing as I apply for my CCW. I'm going to get a Mossberg shotgun tomorrow to keep under my desk. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. In addition, I will be carrying one of my 1911s or my Glock 26.

Not true. A verbal threat is a crime if it made you fear bodily harm. See screen shot below. You can go to the commissioners office and file charges yourself. As long as you can successfully articulate who, what, why, where, when, and how in writing he will at least receive a criminal summons and potentially a warrant for his arrest although the warrant is less likely. You can also file a peace order through the commissioners office. Don't delay. Your written statements to the commissioner along with whatever actions the commissioner takes will be helpful documentation in applying for a Maryland handgun permit.

Your story does sound pretty out there. I can't imagine many child molesting former cops would bring this kind of attention on themselves. If it's true I hope you pay attention to the advice above.

 

[71Chevelle427]

I know the above as FACT also...

My ex-wife threatened someone with bodily harm and served 30 days in Harford County Detention Center...

The charge was 2nd degree assault, and she never actually touched the person.

Charge #1 was unlawful taking of motor vehicle, placed on STET docket, FWIW...

 

[slybarman]

I know the above as FACT also...

My ex-wife threatened someone with bodily harm and served 30 days in Harford County Detention Center...

The charge was 2nd degree assault, and she never actually touched the person.

Did she take an acts in furtherance of making good on the threat?

 

[IDFInfantry]

Montgomery County police refuse to write a report because apparently making a verbal threat is not a crime in Maryland. I asked them if that applied to an officer of the law threatening to use his power in that capacity to commit a crime. They said it didn't matter and actually said to me, "what's the difference if an officer threatens you or a post man?". I was shocked and replied, "Officer, let me ask you a question...would you feel the same way if a Navy Seal threatened you or a petite cocktail waitress?" They responded it didn't matter. I seriously feel like I am living in a horror movie where the police are protecting their own and I am left helpless. Thanks to you guys here, I now know it is legal to carry at work. While this isn't as ideal as carrying full-time CCW, it's better than nothing as I apply for my CCW. I'm going to get a Mossberg shotgun tomorrow to keep under my desk. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. In addition, I will be carrying one of my 1911s or my Glock 26.

You've just let everyone know that you will have a shotgun and a handgun at your place of work which is not to hard to guess where you work. In my opinion that is not too smart. The whole point of CCW is that it's concealed and people don't know you have it. By posting this on the Internet you have just let the whole world know. Just saying. Also if it's a chain of mattress stores you'd probably want to get the ok from corporate I'm sure that they don't really want to deal with work place shootings / violence.

 

[71Chevelle427]

Did she take an acts in furtherance of making good on the threat?

No sir. She took her landlord's car without permission, then threatened her about reporting it, and surely threatened her as the Court date approached as well. Her new boyfriend swore she never touched the woman, as did she...

 

[Name Taken]

I believe the jury instructions for 2nd Degree Assault indicate they have to have the means and intent.

So if you have a hammer and tell someone you are going to him them with it...assault occurred.

If you don't have a hammer readily accessible and threaten to hit someone with it....not an assault.

The person has to have a reasonable belief that they were going to be assaulted and the suspect must have the means readily available. A statement a lone might not raise to that level in every situation.

Copied are the jury instructions covering the law. A statement without the immediate means doesn't appear to fit. "I will shot you" without the gun being present might not fit.

Assault is intentionally frightening another person with the threat of immediate [offensive physical contact] [physical harm]. In order to convict the defendant of assault, the State must prove:

(1) that the defendant committed an act with the intent to place (name) in fear of immediate [offensive physical contact] [physical harm];
(2) that the defendant had the apparent ability, at that time, to bring about [offensive physical contact] [physical harm]; and
(3) that (name) reasonably feared immediate [offensive physical contact] [physical harm]; [and]
[(4) that the defendant’s actions were not legally justified.]

 

[BGAndrea]

Why would the police in the area in which the incident took place not have jurisdiction to investigate?

 

[BGAndrea]

You've just let everyone know that you will have a shotgun and a handgun at your place of work which is not to hard to guess where you work. In my opinion that is not too smart. The whole point of CCW is that it's concealed and people don't know you have it. By posting this on the Internet you have just let the whole world know. Just saying. Also if it's a chain of mattress stores you'd probably want to get the ok from corporate I'm sure that they don't really want to deal with work place shootings / violence.

First of all, it is a local, family owned chain. Besides having permission from all ownership, I am the general manager and according the the CCW rules, the manager also has authority in the decision. As far as letting people know, believe me when I say I weighed this option carefully. Unfortunately, the police have been of no help, and I am getting so many different opinions as the the law, including differing beliefs by police in the same district, so I figured I would try here as many of us firearm owners know the laws inside and out, which clearly was the case as demonstrated by those who made helpful replies including posting the exact applicable laws. Thanks for your opinion though...all are welcome!

 

[Name Taken]

Why would the police in the area in which the incident took place not have jurisdiction to investigate?

They have jurisdiction. They don't think it's a crime. A verbal threat without the immediate means and intent to carry out the threat isn't a crime.

It's either A) Not a crime B) A training issue C) A lazy officer

 

[BGAndrea]

I believe the jury instructions for 2nd Degree Assault indicate they have to have the means and intent.

So if you have a hammer and tell someone you are going to him them with it...assault occurred.

If you don't have a hammer readily accessible and threaten to hit someone with it....not an assault.

The person has to have a reasonable belief that they were going to be assaulted and the suspect must have the means readily available. A statement a lone might not raise to that level in every situation.

Copied are the jury instructions covering the law. A statement without the immediate means doesn't appear to fit. "I will shot you" without the gun being present might not fit.

Assault is intentionally frightening another person with the threat of immediate [offensive physical contact] [physical harm]. In order to convict the defendant of assault, the State must prove:

(1) that the defendant committed an act with the intent to place (name) in fear of immediate [offensive physical contact] [physical harm];
(2) that the defendant had the apparent ability, at that time, to bring about [offensive physical contact] [physical harm]; and
(3) that (name) reasonably feared immediate [offensive physical contact] [physical harm]; [and]
[(4) that the defendant’s actions were not legally justified.]

Thank you. Yes, means and intent is the whole reason why this is of concern to me. That is actually a great way of summing up why I am so concerned. When I thought he was just some crazy alcoholic running around in an altered mindset toying with people, I was not so concerned. However mentioning that he was a detective and has the resources to get away with the crime in my opinion demonstrates means. Obviously this guy has had some degree of weapons training, has at least some personal colleagues on the force, etc. This is what I was trying to explain to the officers who came on the scene. When they said a threat is not illegal in Maryland, I informed them that this was not a casual threat, and not just a serious threat, this was a serious threat made by someone who has the means, and obviously the desire to commit the crime. Also, by showing up at the store and making the threat demonstrates intent. Having studied higher level Psychology for over 12 years, including 2 at the doctoral level, including forensic psychology internships, I thought of how we decide if a suicide threat is necessary to report. The person must have both a plan as well as the means. Like you said regarding this case, if they threaten to use a gun but don't have one, they don't have the means to carry out the plan. However, what was shocking to me at the end of the day was the officer telling me that it is not illegal in Maryland to make a death threat. I find this hard to believe.

 

[BGAndrea]

Sorry, but I'm skeptical of anyone that does not post for 8 years then comes at us with this. Whole thing Just sounds a bit dubious to me.

Wow man...that's messed up on so many levels. Do you really think I have nothing better to do than make up a story like this and post it here? I posted it here because many, obviously not all, of the members of this forum are stand-up citizens well versed in firearm laws and can provide useful responses and help. I only wish you never experience a situation like this and have someone call your story dubious.

 

[Name Taken]

Thank you. Yes, means and intent is the whole reason why this is of concern to me. That is actually a great way of summing up why I am so concerned. When I thought he was just some crazy alcoholic running around in an altered mindset toying with people, I was not so concerned. However mentioning that he was a detective and has the resources to get away with the crime in my opinion demonstrates means. Obviously this guy has had some degree of weapons training, has at least some personal colleagues on the force, etc. This is what I was trying to explain to the officers who came on the scene. When they said a threat is not illegal in Maryland, I informed them that this was not a casual threat, and not just a serious threat, this was a serious threat made by someone who has the means, and obviously the desire to commit the crime. Also, by showing up at the store and making the threat demonstrates intent. Having studied higher level Psychology for over 12 years, including 2 at the doctoral level, including forensic psychology internships, I thought of how we decide if a suicide threat is necessary to report. The person must have both a plan as well as the means. Like you said regarding this case, if they threaten to use a gun but don't have one, they don't have the means to carry out the plan. However, what was shocking to me at the end of the day was the officer telling me that it is not illegal in Maryland to make a death threat. I find this hard to believe.

The means has to be immediate according to the law. If he had a gun in his hand or on his hip sure. Having a gun at home or you not even knowing if he has a gun makes it not immediate. Based off of what you posted a weapon was never articulated...just he was there to kill you.

All the side show stuff of what you put as means isn't means according to what gets presented to a jury. It needs to be immediate means...like having a weapon in their hand or close by.

Without that you have nothing. Why can tie all your degree's and years of practice to make it out to be what you want but without the immediate means (i.e. him having a weapon) you have a guy speaking to you protected by the 1st Amendment.

Rather he's an Army Ranger Delta Leader of Team Six Flyboy Frogman with all the training in the world it doesn't matter.

Your whole case is missing the biggest part of the law. I'd further say it's hindered at this point due to him not coming back and you have no further contact with him...that shows "intent" more than his "means" by training that you tried to connect.

You have him saying he's going to kill you....if that's a crime the means wouldn't be a part of the law as everyone has the means of killing someone. It certainly wasn't immediate means if he didn't have a weapon or attempt to put his hands on you.

 

[BGAndrea]

You might want to contact the Baltimore Sun reporters who wrote those stories.

IF it's true that he's still on the job, after having sex with 14-year-olds, then this state and it's police are a lot more f*cked up than anybody thought.

Yep, that I did.

 

[BGAndrea]

The means has to be immediate according to the law. If he had a gun in his hand or on his hip sure. Having a gun at home or you not even knowing if he has a gun makes it not immediate. Based off of what you posted a weapon was never articulated...just he was there to kill you.

All the side show stuff of what you put as means isn't means according to what gets presented to a jury. It needs to be immediate means...like having a weapon in their hand or close by.

Without that you have nothing. Why can tie all your degree's and years of practice to make it out to be what you want but without the immediate means (i.e. him having a weapon) you have a guy speaking to you protected by the 1st Amendment.

Rather he's an Army Ranger Delta Leader of Team Six Flyboy Frogman with all the training in the world it doesn't matter.

Your whole case is missing the biggest part of the law. I'd further say it's hindered at this point due to him not coming back and you have no further contact with him...that shows "intent" more than his "means" by training that you tried to connect.

You have him saying he's going to kill you....if that's a crime the means wouldn't be a part of the law as everyone has the means of killing someone. It certainly wasn't immediate means if he didn't have a weapon or attempt to put his hands on you.

He actually has contacted me, at various occasions since then, including at midnight the other day, while intoxicated. However, I am done with this post. I got the information I needed from the intelligent and helpful members on here. My uncle, a state delegate, has contacted the mayor. So we will see what happens.

 

[Name Taken]

He actually has contacted me, at various occasions since then, including at midnight the other day, while intoxicated. However, I am done with this post. I got the information I needed from the intelligent and helpful members on here. My uncle, a state delegate, has contacted the mayor. So we will see what happens.

Yeah okay...good luck.

Seems at this point we are missing A LOT of the story...you just keep adding some bits here and there as it helps your stance.

Good luck.