Max Shot... Update from Sharon Mattia - Page 1

Hello everyone,  well Sharon called me today to tell me that the SO office had called and said they had completed the investigation,  Then the Sheriff himself stopped by they're home to tell them the same thing but that there would be another person looking at the "scene" tommorow,  So she reports that apparently the investigation is not yet closed,  She says she is a bit confused by the words coming from both ends if you will.

Thus far it has been determined by the SO that there is NO Fault of the deputy,  "Big Suprise there"

I am wondering if the person who will be "looking over" the crime scene tomorrow will be an independant investigator or IA, or an internal from charles Co.  as of yet I do not know who the person is,  Will know more in the next couple of days... 

I am awaiting an update of events from Sharon,  She said she would email it and asked if I would post it for you all here.  And I will do that as soon as I get it,  I don't expect it until tommorow maybe the following day,  I'll keep you posted as I get info...    

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which camp you reside in, in cases such as this, it is highly unusual for a finding to go against the officer.  The reasons are many.  Most people will look at it this way:  It was only a dog, and apparently a viscious one at that.  Also, the people conducting the investigation work for the govenrment that employs the officer and do not want to open themselves up for possible civil suit. They can still be sued of course, but if they themselves state that their employee (the officer) was "wrong", then they will undoubtedly lose a suit against them.  Additionally, there will be tremendous pressure on the investigator/s (these type of things usually just fall on the direct supervisor of the officer involved, perhaps his Sergeant or Lieutenant, who he works for everyday), to rule in the officers favor.  This pressure will come from the officer, the officers comrades and co-workers, the investigators superiors (remember, they work for the city that may be sued and they also would be named in any suit because of "improper training or supervision", and this includes the officers direct supervisor who is probably the person tasked with completing this initial investigation).  Lastly, the citizens of that location would also lose in a law suit because if the department and local government that employees, trains and supervises this officer, loses, any monetary awards to Max's owners, would of course, be paid with tax dollars.  So, in a nut shell, as I have previously stated in other threads, it my opinion (I do not have any more info than the rest of you reading this, but I do have experience in investigating cops, both innocent and guilty ones), we will hear of this particular cop again, and it will not be a heroic deed.

Some have posted concerning this incident, that unless you have proof positive you can not "convict", whether in court or your own judgement, this officer for wrong doing.  Others have also posted that we only have circumstancial evidence and that is not enough.  Actually, in a court of law, proof positive is rarely available and the bar is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is much below "proof positive".  Also, most people who are convicted of crimes, even homicides, are convicted only on circumstancial evidence.

Having siad all of that, an internal investigation of possible wrong doing by a law enforcement officer, has a much higher bar than a court of law.  The findings could be he was wrong and disobeyed departmental procedures or violated the law, or the finding could be that he did not violate any departmental procedures and did not violate any laws, or as is the case in 90% of these types of investigations, the investigation could result in the finding of "insufficient evidence of any wrong doing" by the officer.  The "insufficient" finding means that unless further information or evidence comes forward on its own, this investigation is closed.  To put it bluntly, that means the officer "wins".

Of course, there is the possibility that Officer Long did not do anything wrong, however, my professional opinion is that he did several things wrong.  I have addressed those in other postings.

Rest in peace Max, old boy.  You were a good boy.  A good dog.  I am sorry you went out like that.

defending a home where you were tied out to keep the police from serving warrants on your deadbeat owners......

This is sad news, but I can't say I didn't expect it.

I think we all need to ignore "seriously" maybe then he will go away. Some people just need attention and bad attention is better than no attention.

Seriously,

Man have you got issues.

You Said " defending a home where you were tied out to keep the police from serving warrants on your deadbeat owners......"

How do you know the dog was TIED out to keep the police away?

How do you know the owners are deadbeats?

From what was posted here the POLICE were at the wrong address.

No puncture, no bite in my mind.

Get a life you're obsessed with this incident. Don't you have anything productive you could be doing instead of scutinizing every post on this subject. I'll bet you don't even own a DOG.