Park County Sheriff’s Office
1402 River View Dr.
Cody, WY. 82414
Phone 307-527-8700 Fax 307-527-8708
Scott A. Steward, Sheriff
Case Summary
Shooting of Matthew Bessler’s Military Service Dog, October 10, 2015
OPENING STATEMENT
The Park County Sheriff’s Office has completed its investigation into the shooting death of Matthew Bessler’s
military service dog; Michael on October 10, 2015 and, along with the Park County Prosecutor has concluded
that there were no violations of Wyoming state statutes regarding the actions of the shooter. Therefore no
charges will be filed.
This case has been actively pursued since the incident occurred despite information to the contrary. At one
point, the case was inadvertently closed due to a clerical error on our part, however when it was discovered that
it had been closed it was reopened immediately. There was never a point in time where investigation into the
incident ceased.
Sheriff Steward indicated very early on in the investigation that it would continue in order to clarify certain
discrepancies that manifested themselves in the days following the incident. These included contradictions in
statements made by the victim during the course of the investigation versus statements attributed to Mr. Bessler
in the media. Specifically, how could a dog described by his owner as “one of the most loyal animals to anyone
he came across; a nice dog who was gentle with children; that never goes off property, never goes out on the
road, if he knew you and you were in my house, he was by your side, leaning up against you; he helped out every
person who he ever came in contact with in his life,” be the same dog described by the victim as “in full attack
mode and not backing down at all” during a confrontation in the middle of the road?
There were also additional claims being made by Bessler in his statements to the media that we felt required
further explanation. Sheriff Steward felt that these statements needed to be explored in detail in order to get a
clearer picture of the events of that day and the truth behind the background of the participants; both the victim
and Michael.
METHODOLOGY
The follow up investigation involved re-interviewing all of the participants and witnesses that were contacted on
the day of the shooting. In addition, sheriff’s investigators sought out and interviewed Bessler’s neighbors to
determine the accuracy of Mr. Bessler’s claims regarding Michael.
Numerous attempts were made to “sit down” with Mr. Bessler over the course of several weeks to address any
concerns he may have, but without success. Therefore, a statement from Mr. Bessler is not included. All claims
made by Mr. Bessler in this report are the result of statements attributed to him in the print media.
It should also be stressed that this investigation is not intended to disparage or demean any one person or
persons. It is intended to determine the truth surrounding this incident so that a full understanding may be
made of the actions of the participants.
 Page 2
March 23, 2016
WITNESS VOLUNTARY STATEMENT SUMMARIES
Victim Statement: Jeffery Brandt
The victim shooter in this incident is being identified as Jeffery Marvin Brandt, age 59 of Powell. Brandt was first
contacted by a Park County Sheriff’s deputy at his home 20 minutes after first reporting the incident to the Park
County Dispatch Center. The deputy described Brandt as “a little shook up.” Brandt stated that on October 10
shortly after 11:00 a.m., he was finishing up a 30-mile bike ride and was headed eastbound on Lane 9. He stated
that there was a pretty strong head wind coming from the southeast and to get some relief he decided to turn
north onto Road 5. Brandt stated that as soon as he started his turn onto Road 5, a “German Shepherd looking
dog” later identified as Bessler’s dog, Michael came charging out of Bessler’s yard on the northwest corner of the
intersection which would be to his left and forward of his position.
Brandt stated that there was no way to outrun Michael so he bailed off of the right side of his bike to keep from
getting bit and used the bike as a shield. He stated that he “was genuinely in fear of his life and well-being, and
Michael was definitely in full attack mode and not backing down at all.” He was asked if Michael was barking and
Brandt replied that he was not. This is contrary to Bessler’s statements that “if Michael were to go toward
somebody or feel a threat, he would start barking first” and “if the guy (Brandt) was actually fending the dogs off
with a bicycle, (Mike) would have really been barking.”
Brandt was then asked if the other dogs were barking and he replied that he couldn’t say because he was so
focused on the attacking dog. Brandt stated that Michael tried circling him towards the north, his right. Michael
then circled back to the south, his left. At one point, Michael tried coming through the center of the bike. Then
as Michael again circled back to the north, Brandt’s right, he was able to retrieve his 410 Taurus Judge pistol
loaded with “birdshot” from the bike and fire one shot to the right rear hind quarter of Michael with several shot
striking the front right chest area. This is consistent with Michael being shot at a broadside angle rather the
running away. At the time of the shot he was facing northeast and Bessler’s residence was behind him. Brandt
disputes Bessler’s assumption that he shot Michael on Bessler’s property directly in the rear end as he was
running away.
After firing the shot Brandt said Michael bit towards his (the dog’s) rear then took off towards the house at which
time Brandt laid the bike down and started taking off his “camelback” to retrieve his phone and call 911 (this is
why the bicycle was on its side in the middle of Road 5). At this time, the neighbor Klein came over to speak with
him after she had secured her dogs.
Brandt furthered that he often rides his bike on canal roads and trails and uses the gun to kill snakes (he showed
the deputy a photo on his cell phone of a rather large rattlesnake) on a regular basis. Brandt went on to say that
he had no intention of killing Michael and if he had, he would have shot him in the head or shot him more than
once. Brandt also stated that he and his wife walk by Bessler’s house in the past and they have seen Bessler’s
dogs come running at them along the fence line but they were always behind the fence. Brandt described them
as a friendly black lab and a gray puppy, but the other (Michael) always had its hair raised on its back and
barked/growled at them.
Brandt also stated that he feels bad that the dog died and also for Mr. Bessler since he too (Brandt) is an
honorably discharged veteran of the United States Army. Brandt also did not know Michael was a service dog at
the time he defended himself. He then provided supporting documentation of his military service and also
numerous certificates of firearms training and his concealed carry permit.
Witness Statement: Jessica Klein (Bessler’s Neighbor)
Jessica Klein who lives across Road 5 from Bessler stated she did not actually witness the dog attack or the
shooting. She was having breakfast with some guests after 11:00 a.m. when she heard a gunshot. She
immediately came out of her home and observed Brandt standing in the middle of Road 5 approximately 15-20
 Page 3
March 23, 2016
feet north of Lane 9 with his bicycle lying on the road next to him. She demonstrated for the deputy the exact
location on Road 5. Michael was limping from the scene with his hind leg tucked up under his body. She further
demonstrated that Michael was on Road 5 when she first saw him approximately 2-3 feet from the west berm.
Michael continued down a path to the right side of Bessler’s garage and lay down.
Brandt was in an agitated state and asked Klein if they were her dogs. She explained that two of them were hers
but the dog he shot was Bessler’s. After securing her dogs, Klein spoke again to Brandt and asked him if he was
OK. Brandt stated he was uninjured but “shook up.” Brandt admitted to Klein that he had shot Michael with
“buckshot” but didn’t think he had killed him. Klein then asked Brandt if he was going to call the authorities.
Klein then stated Brandt dialed 911. She then entered her residence to attempt to contact a neighbor, Tim
Brando who knew Bessler and had contact information for both Bessler and his roommate Jody Church. When
she came out again, Brandt was gone.
Other Related Statement: Jody Church (Bessler’s Roommate)
Jody Church is a roommate of Bessler. Church had been contacted by Tim Brando and advised of the incident
regarding Michael’s death. When contacted by the deputy, Church who was visibly upset and admitted that he
was in charge of looking after Bessler's dogs while he was away on a hunting trip. Church informed the deputy
that Michael was not a German shepherd, but a Belgian Malinois, and that the dog was not just injured, but was
in fact deceased. The Belgian Malinois, named Michael was a war dog who had served two tours of duty in Iraq.
Church said that Michael and another black lab were behind the locked gate and hog panel fence, when he had
left for Cody earlier in the morning. He was unsure how they got out. Church also said that he was unsure when
Bessler would return from hunting and it depended when he was able to harvest his elk. He approximated that
Bessler would return on Monday or Tuesday. Church was told to have Bessler contact the sheriff’s office upon
his return.
Other Related Statement: Dianne Olson (Strohs’ Employee)
On a Friday in August 2015, Dianne Olson pulled up to the water card box at the northeast corner of Lane 9 and
Road 5 to put in water orders. The box is located across Road 5 from Bessler’s property. She had her two dogs in
the cab of her pickup truck. She stated that four dogs came running from Bessler’s property towards her truck
“barking and carrying on.” She did not state specifically that Michael was barking. However, Michael was among
the group although “the Klein’s black mix dog was leading the pack.” Olson further stated that Bessler came out
and tried several times to get Michael to return to the yard. Finally, Bessler had to come over to the truck in
order to get Michael and the other dogs to return to the residence. Olson furthered that she “cannot prove it
was Mike but she has seen a dog resembling Mike and the Klein’s mix dog running at large several times over the
last six months.”
Other Related Statement: Rick and Klodette Stroh (Bessler’s Neighbor)
On April 22, 2015, Rick Stroh was spreading irrigation pipes in his field at the southwest corner of Road 5 and
Lane 9 (across Lane 9 south of the Bessler residence), when he discovered his “gated pipes” were severely
damaged by dog bites. He estimated that the damage exceeded $1,000 in value. Klodette Stroh stated that she
had see two dogs running the property in January and February of 2015. She was concerned that the dogs may
have been abandoned but when they approached her car she could see that “the beautiful German shepherd
looking dog (now I know to be Major Mike) had his collar on.” She simply told the dogs to go home at the time.
Later on April 22, Rick received a call from one of his workers, Steve Edwards that he was close to Bessler’s home
and that he would stop and talk to Bessler about his dogs. A short time later, Klodette received a call from
Edwards that he had been injured and if she would come and take care of him. Edwards told Klodette that “he
had gone to speak to Mr. Bessler and his dog (Major Mike) attacked him.” Edward’s right elbow was bloody and
his skin tore off. Klodette took care of Edward’s injury over a month’s time until he was healed.
 Page 4
March 23, 2016
Other Related Statement: Steve Edwards (Strohs’ Employee)
On April 22, 2015 at approximately 8:00 a.m., Steve Edwards, age 70 was driving south on Road 5 when he saw
Bessler walking “a brown German Shepherd and a black pit bull looking dog.” Edwards, who worked for Rick
Stroh, decided to speak to Bessler to see if he knew anything about the damage to the irrigation pipe.
Edwards pulled up in front of the Bessler residence, got out of his truck, and walked to the edge of the property.
Edwards could see Bessler and Michael across the yard. Edwards stated that Michael “immediately came after”
him. Edwards stated Michael “lunged at my face or throat. I brought my right arm in front of my throat and he
(Michael) grabbed my elbow and his teeth went through my work coat, shirt and long-john top into my arm. He
jerked me to my right and jerked me again and I went down. I was trying to get back to my feet using my bad left
arm. The dog jerked me again and it pulled me up and to the right towards his (Bessler’s) pickup. I got my left
hand on the pickup bed top rail and screamed.”
Edwards furthered “Mr. Bessler was about 2-3 feet behind the dog. I heard one word and the dog instantly
stopped attacking me.” Edwards also explained, “The dog made no sound while approaching or attacking me.”
Edwards also denied he ever looked in Bessler’s pickup truck as Bessler had claimed when the attack began.
Edwards showed the coat he wore during the attack. It had bite marks on the right sleeve near the elbow which
is consistent with Edward’s description of the attack.
ADDITIONAL DISCREPANCIES
Weapon/Ammunition:
The weapon used by Brandt was identified as a Taurus Judge 410. It is a large frame revolver that holds five
rounds of 410 shotgun rounds. The responding deputy made contact with Brandt at his residence 20 minutes
after the initial report. The deputy immediately examined the weapon which was mounted to his mountain bike
in the center directly behind the handle bars. Upon closer examination, the weapon was loaded with four
rounds of 410 shotgun shells marked “Super Speed Extra 6” indicating that it was #6 bird shot. This ammunition
is used to hunt water fowl and small upland birds. The gun also had a spent cartridge in the fifth chamber
labeled the same as the live rounds.
Upon follow up contact with Brandt, he demonstrated that he had dissected a similarly marked round and
showed the investigator the shot contents of the round in a plastic container. The investigator had previously
researched 410 gauge Super Speed Extra 6 and learned that this cartridge is indeed loaded with #6 shot which is
consistent with Brandt’s claim that he shot the dog with “birdshot”. This was also consistent with the shot
observed in the container. This contradicts Klein’s statement that Brandt indicated “buckshot” (or Brandt initially
misspoke) and Bessler’s claim that the fatal round had to be “buckshot.”
911 Calls:
At one point, Bessler claimed that Brandt had to be prompted by the neighbor, Klein to call 911 and questioned
why Brandt waited until he got home to call 911. According to Klein’s statement, she did ask Brandt if he was
going to call 911 but at the time, the shooting had just occurred. Also, Brandt admittedly just removed his
“camelback” with the intention of calling 911. He then dialed 911 in Klein’s presence.
However, because of Brandt’s position in the county, his initial 911 call was directed to Big Horn County’s 911
Center. They listened to Brandt’s description of the situation but when they asked where he was, he told them
“Powell.” They then transferred Brandt to the Powell Police Department’s 911 Center. However, when Brandt
explained that his exact location was in the county, Powell Police apologized and explained they had to transfer
him a second time to Park County’s 911 Center.
 Page 5
March 23, 2016
At this point, Brandt became frustrated and stated he was leaving the area because he was afraid that the dogs
would return. Brandt then left the area (verified by Klein’s statement that Brandt was gone when she came back
out of her home). Brandt then went home and contacted the Park County 911 Center using the non-emergency
line. A deputy then responded within 20 minutes. All of this was verified by the 911 recordings. Also, the tone
of Brandt’s voice on the initial 911 call verified his emotional state at the time. He was emotionally agitated and
“shook up” which is consistent with someone who’s been involved in a traumatic event.
Contact Issue/Sheriff’s Office:
Bessler expressed frustration and questioned why the Park County Sheriff’s Office made no attempt to contact
him. He said “From how they labeled the dispatch call to how they never came over and formally told me, I had
to contact them. They knew when I was going to come back, and I waited until Tuesday morning and contacted
them, the dispatch, that morning and asked when that officer was going to come over and explain anything to
me. That officer never called.” Of course these statements were made in the days immediately following
Michael’s death, at a time of a heightened emotional state. The sheriff’s office is sensitive to this.
At the time of the incident, Bessler’s roommate, Jody Church explained that Bessler was in the Big Horn
Mountains on an elk hunting expedition. Church had no idea where in the Big Horn Mountains nor was he sure
when Bessler would return. He stated that he thought Bessler said he would return Monday or Tuesday. The
deputy gave Church our contact information and asked that he have Bessler call immediately upon his return.
This seemed to be the more prudent way to make contact with Bessler since there was no way to know when he
would return.
However, unknown to the sheriff’s office, Bessler returned on Saturday evening. No one contacted the sheriff’s
office to advise us that Bessler had returned. When Bessler did contact the sheriff’s office on Tuesday, he was
immediately given to a deputy to discuss the situation.
Contact Issue/Brandt:
Bessler also expressed he was “disgusted with the fact that the guy (Brandt) hasn’t even shown his face to say
‘I’m sorry this happened.’” Once again the sheriff’s office is sensitive to Bessler’s emotional state at this time.
Early on in this investigation, the decision was made to keep Brandt’s identity confidential due to the anticipate
backlash from his shooting of a military service dog. It turns out the social media backlash alone has been
nothing short of catastrophic for Brandt. Brandt has received continual negative, vile comments in both print
media websites and numerous social media sites, some threatening his life. It seems only prudent that Brandt
would not reach out the Bessler, thereby divulging his identity. Brandt admitted to the investigator in his follow
up interview which was a little over two weeks since the incident, that he has not slept well since. He was still
“agitated” and in a heightened emotional state. This is consistent with a person whose life has been threatened
and therefore would not want his identity revealed.
However, since the day of this incident, Brandt has expressed continual remorse over taking Michael’s life, which
according to his statements was not his intent. The physical evidence seems to back up this claim. Brandt’s
remorse is compounded by the fact that he too is an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Army.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the statements made by the victim as well as the lone witness to the events of October 10, 2015,
combined with the physical evidence and statements gathered from neighbors and other involved parties to
Michael’s past behavior, we have determined to accept the descriptions of the reported attack by Michael as
described by the victim, Jeffrey Brandt to be factual. Therefore, there will be no charges filed. As stated by
Sheriff Steward, if you feel your life is in danger or you feel threatened by an animal, you can act against it.
 Page 6
March 23, 2016
However, we are also inclined to believe Matthew Bessler’s statements about Michael’s behavior in his
presence. We are confident that for the majority of the time, Michael was a caring, faithful companion to
Bessler that served to calm him through his admitted problems with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We
are also sensitive to the fact that both Michael and Bessler served their country with pride and distinction during
their two tours in Iraq.
However, we cannot ignore the independent witness accounts of Michael’s behavior as well. Contrary to
Bessler’s claim, we are convinced that Michael did indeed occasionally wander off Bessler’s property. We are
also convinced that Michael occasionally displayed aggressive tendencies towards strangers. What triggered
these tendencies is unknown. It could be any number of things from Michael’s past.
It is also possible that Michael was only acting instinctively or as he was trained to do. Michael was a combatoriented, military service dog that spent two tours in Iraq and by Bessler’s own admission was “retired from the
military because he stopped doing his job, sniffing out explosives and chasing down enemy combatants, a key
sign of what is known as Canine PTSD.” And while the exact nature of Michael’s training is unknown, his actions
as described by witnesses and victims of his attacks are consistent with the training of military and law
enforcement security dogs.
Moreover, Belgian Malinois are chosen for these assignments based on characteristics of the breed. According
to Secret Service representatives in a Washington Post article dated September 23, 2014, Belgian Malinois were
chosen for the White House security detail “to act as a missile, launching in the air to knock the subject down,
and then biting an arm or leg if need be to subdue the person until the handler arrives.” These behaviors are
consistent with Michael’s described attack on Steven Edwards. Also, the fact that Michael stopped the attack on
Stevens with a one-word command from Bessler is also consistent with their training. In the same article, a
military dog handler said of the Belgian Malinois, “Chasing people down is one thing these dogs do best. The
best way these dogs are used is that they can chase down anyone.”
In his book “Trident K9 Warriors” former Navy Seal Mike Ritland, who now trains dogs for US Special Forces says
that, the Belgian Malinois “have an off-the-chart drive to hunt and capture their prey.” He went on to say, “They
are swift and stealth, capable of taking 3/10 of a mile at 40 miles per hour at 800 feet above sea level, and the
force of their bite equals 617 pounds per square inch. They have a 270 degree field of vision. This is one of the
reasons why I consider a dog to be such an effective weapon.”
It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that Michael was indeed acting as he was trained. However, since
attempts to “sit down” with Bessler were unsuccessful, investigators had no opportunity to explore this avenue
in detail. Attempts to get necropsy information on Michael from Bessler have also been unsuccessful.
CLOSING
The Park County Sheriff’s Office acknowledges that this was a tragic situation for all those involved. There are no
winners here, only losers. We further acknowledge that there are four victims as a result of this incident: Mr.
Bessler who lost a loving, devoted companion and family member; Jeffrey Brandt who, as a result of the vile,
disgusting comments made on social media, lost his sense of safety, security and freedom; Jody Church who was
in charge of Michael and will have to live with Michael’s death on his watch; and of course Michael who paid the
ultimate price, probably through no fault of his own.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those involved. We can only hope that those who wish to pass judgment
prematurely in the print and social media without full possession of the facts will learn something from this
incident.