Officer Acquitted in Off-Duty Shooting of Colleague During Confrontation

The Incident and Its Immediate Aftermath

On June 30, 2025, North Andover police officer Kelsey Fitzsimmons, 29, was shot in the chest by her colleague, Officer Pat Noonan, during a confrontation at her residence. Court records indicate that Fitzsimmons was responding to a service call related to a restraining order involving her ex-fiancé, Justin Aylaian, who had filed the order after alleging threats against him and their child. The incident occurred in the early hours of the morning, with neighbors reporting gunshots and disorder. Fitzsimmons, who was off-duty, was found unresponsive at her home by responding officers. Noonan, also off-duty, testified that he fired two shots after Fitzsimmons pointed her service weapon at him, with one bullet striking her in the chest. Massachusetts State Police confirmed three firearms were recovered from the scene.

Surveillance footage from Fitzsimmons’ home depicted the aftermath of the shooting, showing Aylaian fleeing with the infant. The footage, presented as evidence during the trial, captured the immediate chaos, including the rapid departure of Aylaian and the confusion among witnesses. Fitzsimmons’ mother, a key witness, described hearing Noonan shout, “Kelsey, no!” before the gunfire, while neighbor Maureen Torrisi testified that Noonan referred to Fitzsimmons as a “f—ing whack job” during the incident. These accounts, along with conflicting testimonies from both officers, contributed to the complex narrative that dominated the trial.

Legal Framework and Charges

“Kelsey, no!”

The case raises critical questions about the legal boundaries of self-defense, use-of-force protocols, and the responsibilities of law enforcement during mental health crises. In Massachusetts, an officer who shoots a colleague may face charges such as assault with a dangerous weapon, as exemplified by Fitzsimmons’ case. Under state law, the prosecution must prove that the shooting was not justified under the circumstances, including whether the officer acted in self-defense or to protect others. The absence of body-worn camera footage or other physical evidence further complicated the legal proceedings, as both parties’ accounts were deemed credible by the court.

The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA) allows victims to pursue civil claims against governmental entities if negligence is proven. In Fitzsimmons’ case, the Commonwealth argued that Noonan’s actions violated the state’s use-of-force standards, while the defense contended that the shooting was an unavoidable mistake under extreme stress. Federal Section 1983 claims could also be pursued if constitutional rights were violated, though the court emphasized that such claims require clear evidence of malicious intent or excessive force. The legal battle thus became a test of how the justice system balances accountability with the complexities of human behavior under duress.

The Trial and Judicial Rationale

The trial, which concluded on March 24, 2026, centered on conflicting testimonies and the absence of physical evidence. Judge Jeffrey Karp, presiding over the bench trial, ruled that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof, citing “reasonable doubt” due to the lack of body-worn camera footage and the credibility of both parties’ accounts. The judge noted that Fitzsimmons’ defense attorney, Timothy Bradl, had effectively highlighted the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding the absence of forensic evidence to corroborate Noonan’s claims. Meanwhile, the prosecution, led by James Gubitose, argued that Fitzsimmons’ testimony was “scientifically implausible” and that her actions posed a clear threat to public safety.

Karp’s decision to acquit Fitzsimmons underscored the challenges of adjudicating officer-on-officer shootings without objective evidence. The judge emphasized that both officers acted as “dedicated public servants” under emotionally charged circumstances, and the case’s “unusual and somewhat perplexing” nature made it difficult to determine fault. The ruling also dismissed conspiracy charges, noting that the officers’ actions were not part of a coordinated plan but rather isolated incidents of professional misconduct. This outcome highlights the limitations of the legal system in resolving disputes where human judgment and subjective accounts outweigh empirical data.

“f---ing whack job”