Two Boulder Police Officers Under Investigation In Shooting Of Giant Elk

220px-Rocky_Mountain_Bull_Elkpolice_badge_smallBoulder Colorado has been embroiled in a rather bizarre investigation into the killing of a bull elk.  Reports showed pictures of Boulder police officer Sam Carter allegedly posing with the elk which neighbors considered a local celebrity. They even held a vigil in its honor. Two Boulder police officers are now under investigation by the police department and a criminal investigation by Colorado Parks and Wildlife in the shooting. It is now believed that one officer shot the animal while on patrol. Another officer is then believed to have taken it home for the meat.

Boulder police initially denied that the animal was shot. Now an officer claims that the elk appeared injured with a limp and some of its antlers broken off. However, witnesses insist that they saw the animal before the shooting and it appeared to be uninjured.

The failure to report the shooting is on its face problematic since it involved an unreported discharge of a weapon. There was also no notice or consultation given to Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

The state has a law called Samson’s Law addressing the shooting of trophy animals like the bull elk. The Samson law was passed by the Colorado legislature on April 22, 1998. Like this elk, Samson was a majestic bull elk named and loved by locals. After the poacher who killed Samson was fined only a few hundred dollars, the Samson law was passed and increased fines to $4,000 for a trophy sized antelope up to $25,000 for a bighorn sheep. A bull elk with six-point antlers can result in a fine of up to $10,000. There are also criminal penalties under hunting laws, though the officers could claim to be protecting public safety.

One witness said he found it curious that, after the police officer killed the elk and a sheriff’s deputy arrived on the scene, a third man showed up in a pickup truck to remove it. He said that it took the three men nearly an hour and a half to load the 800 pound animal into the pickup truck.

Source: Daily Camera

38 thoughts on “Two Boulder Police Officers Under Investigation In Shooting Of Giant Elk”

  1. Michaelb contributed:
    One thing that is glossed over is the use of a shotgun.
    Actually if they actually used a shotgun with a slug cartridge it would have been probably the best tool to use, given the size of the animal. I don’t know if they used a slug but it would have been my choice. (not to say if it was right or not to shoot the animal to begin with)

  2. Lets see who gets to hang that trophy elk head on their wall. Elk is delicious. I do think using the meat was a good thing after they committed the crime, but I really question their motive for killing this animal.

  3. Elk was warned several times not to urinate in public. Moose & squirrel were assigned to monitor his movements (bowel), they reported he did that in public too. Boris was notified, elk was dispatched.
    Moose & squirrel had big party, all revelers were well fed.
    Natasha danced, only 3 fist fights broke out.
    I believe a Coors commercial was filmed on location.

  4. Apparently this wasn’t a “420” situation, which BPD is trained to ignore…

  5. Bron,
    Our local supermarket has a great meat department, with real butchers instead of minimum wage workers making shrink wrap packages on an assembly line. They carry bison regularly, which my daughter buys every time it is on sale. She also likes venison, but the store does not carry it. Probably because deer is a game animal, while free range bison are farmed.

  6. Probably should not poise with the victim and tell a different story: “he said it appeared to be injured, with a limp and some of its antlers broken off”

  7. One thing that is glossed over is the use of a shotgun. Either they were very close or the Humane method should be questioned. Now we have the issue of an unreported discharge and if not warranted, discharge in the city limits. Now add the conspiracy of inter-department obfuscation of the event and possible pre-meditation. Of course this is probably the first and only time they abused their power and public trust. Does anyone need to be reminded that shooting an animal like this was a big public discussion not long before leading to increasing penalties?

    1. Their serve, and protect is a devious deceptive lie. They will protect their body killing with ease. They are not like Christ. The legal system is the real atheist denying God in his character never teaching anyone what his character is in actions or words wanting to take Gods place.

  8. More of the transcript from some trial in some place called Nuremburg, Germany, in the year 2020, came in. I skipped ahead to the disturbing portion:

    ……..And so, Herr BarkinDog, you sat there in your own home in AmeriKa, reading about the injustice metted out to this naked human being, this fellow American, locked up by your government in some god forsaken place called Gitmo, with not a stitch of clothing, blankets, pillows, sheets, bedding, … who nearly froze each night or cooked each night depending on the whim of the jailor,… AND YOU DID NOTHING?


    Yes. I, … (interrupt)


    In Deutsch.


    Yavul. Kaput.

    ……. -transcript ceases-

    I dont understand this nonesense. How can there be a trial in the future against me for failing to complain or do something that my government did to some military guy in some prison in Cuba? The American citizen is not responsible for crimes against humanity. I am just a lowly citizen sitting at my dachau reading blogs on the internet and know nuthin about birthin babies. Some other dog chimned in this morning from the dogpac saying that it is called Tyranny On Trial. That is is from some book by a guy named Whitney Harris or perhaps Houston. It is just a farce about WWII and the nazis being transposed into some fiction about our lives as mere witnesses.
    HumpinDog says we are all guilty for the torture of Manning.

  9. Fellow civil rights bloggers:
    I know that this has nothing to do with the rights of elks in America. But the following transmission (of sorts) came in on my Dogalogue Machine and I thought it would be provident to preserve this before the authorities destroy it. I realize that it will probably not see the light of day. As it is six forty four a.m. Eastern Time , time will tell. Here it is:

    Let the record show that this trial resumes at One Thirty Five p.m. on the 7th day of December 2020, at the International Court of Justice sitting at the Court of Justice in Nuremburg, Germany.

    The COURT, Justice Chang:

    Proceed, Mr. Heinrach.


    Herr Turley. Before the Break we were inquiring about your duties as prison guard while in the United States Navy at the American prison known in the vernacular at Guantanomo or Gitmo. You were describing to the Court your observations of prisoner Manning on the day that he died. Please continue regarding the bedding, clothing, heat, cooling, and other human essentials provided or denied prisoner Manning on the Seventh day of January 2013, the last day you served in that prison.


    As I testified before the break. There were no items of clothing provided, indeed all items of clothing were denied to the prisoner. In his cell, which measured the size of a cot plus one foot from the edge of the cot to the wall and three feet from the end o fthe cot to the opening wall, were no items other than a flat board bed roughly thrity inches off the floor covered with a canvas mattress approximately three inches thick. No pillow, no sheets, blankets. No clothing on the prisoner or in the cell. Nothing in the cell but the urination hole in the floor.


    And what heating, cooling, arrangements or items were available to the prison to control his temperature in the cell?




    Was this the situation twenty four hours per day, seven days per week, fifty two weeks for the year during your tenure at Gitmo?


    Yavul. He never had access to change or alter his environment. The ligthing, floodlights from the ceiling were on 24/7, the heat or air, was threw a vent controlled by the jailor, at approximately 70 degrees F.


    And did the prisoner complain?


    To whom? Nein.


    And was it your duty to observe the prisoner from the television monitor?




    And, did he have sufficient clothing, bedding, warmth, to sleep at any time?



    end of transcript.

    The transcript then was cut off and as I sat here this morning in the cold next to my propane stove getting warm, I decided to pass this strange bit of information on. I have no idea what this is about or where Nuremberg is. I am just a dog with some interest in humanoid affairs. How this came back in time from the year 2020 I do not know. Stranger things have occurred here at the dogpac abode with the Dogalogue Machine.

  10. If the animal has already been butchered it will be impossible to determine if it was injured.
    This is like cheating to get an ‘A’. How could any pride be involved? Could this cop really display the elk’s head and think he did something great? Would his buddies be ‘proud’ of him? Wonder what his kids think.

    1. Posing for a photo of the kill . It is,.. look what I got. Why else take a photo of a non human animal that was killed Posing next to a dead animal like you did something great? God thinks life is great.

  11. Read the police report on the incident. Officers tried to tazer the elk but it seemed to have no affect; possibly the elk was high. Officer believed he saw the elk removing a gun from his waistband and felt he had no alternative but to shoot. Ruled justifiable.

  12. There is one issue that I feel is wrong regardless of the injury of the elk, and that is the taking of the animal home for personal consumption. For me this is the first time I have heard of this happening, our procedure was to just drag the animal off to the side of the road and call Wildlife Agents or the Department of Transportation to come and remove it. I don’t believe in letting the animal go to waste, but certain times to keep folks honest it might be best.

    As far as if the animal was injured and needed to be put down, that is something that is going to have to be determined first. At least in our state, LEOs are allowed to put down animals if they are suffering or are injured and are of such size they might hurt others or wander into traffic and cause an accident.

    The last aspect is that the officers should have called in at least they were putting down the elk with a firearm. It’s not such as big deal in the country but a gunshot in a city will often cause several 911 calls and at the very least calling it in works to give dispatch a heads up. Procedurally, especially in city departments, there is some form of paperwork in discharging a weapon other than at the firing range. When these procedures are not followed, it does tend to draw into question the legitimacy of what was happening.

    In this case, one has to wonder if the animal was shot to obtain the food (least likely) but what I am guessing (and it is purely a guess since I do not have the investigation report) is that this animal might have been injured and the officer thought he would put it down and give it to his partner so he called him up, the shot the animal and planned to just load it up and say nothing about it so the taking of the meat would not be noticed. If this was in fact the case it could warrant an administrative action against these officers by their department for not following procedures and conversion of the animal to personal use. There is also an ethics issue as well.

    If the animal was injured, I don’t believe Sampson’s law, as I read it here, would apply. All of the above is my opinion based on the facts alleged.

  13. Sounds like he police hadn’t killed anything in a while. They had to boost their ego. They were not satisfied to be in awe of such a magnificent animal they had to kill it. They had to know others knew of that elk letting it live not killing it. Police,…. what else would you expect?

Comments are closed.