AnAvidReader
New Member
Here's a few things to consider:
First, Sharon and Joe Mattia's Letter to the Editor(s) after the incident stated:
"[...] Max, who was on his leash, allegedly snapped at the officer and then the officer allegedly shot Max multiple times in the head, jaw and neck, breaking his choker collar and leaving him to die 2 feet from our door. [...]"
Then, yesterday, the BayNet printed the story, clearing the officer of wrongdoing. In it, the BayNet posted a picture provided by Sharon and Joe Mattia. In the picture, Joe is clearly holding a choker collar in his left hand as he stands next the body of his dead dog. Jump over there and take a look at the photo, the collar is completely in-tact. Are we to believe that Joe went and got a new collar after his dog died? How did Officer Long shoot through the collar, breaking it, then? Not saying the Mattia's lied or anything, maybe in their sadness and despair they were merely confused on some of the facts... non-the-less, it's a story and a fact that they stuck with the entire time since the incident. Maybe they have other facts wrong. Keep in mind, they weren't there.
Second, the law is clear, as someone on the BayNet's site pointed out:
"Under Maryland Code, Article 24 § 11-505:
Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, attacking, wounding or killing any poultry or livestock, or attacking human beings whether or not such dog bears the proper license tag required by these provisions. There shall be no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing."
I did some fact checking, and that really is the law... ANY dog he sees in the ACT OF PURSUING, ATTACKING, WOUNDING OR KILLING...
This law means that right or wrong, whether you, me, or anyone else agrees with it, all OFC Long had to PRESUME was that the dog was PURSUING him in an attempt to attack him to justify the shooting. Long did one better than that and got bit. So he definitely covered attacking AND wounding.
Finally, Long was on the property to serve a warrant for Child Support on the Mattia's son, who listed that as his address with the Courts, MVA and the Sheriff's Office. Any change of address, within 30 days, had to be updated in writing or in person with the Courts and with the MVA. So, in addition to failing to pay his child support, he failed to update his address. So when the Mattia's kindly pointed out in the LTE, "Allegedly Deputy Long arrived at our home to serve a warrant on an individual who did not even live with us." That fact is meaningless... it was his last known address and the one on record, Long was justified to be on the property and go 'nosing around' where ever he needed to feel comfortable that this Wanted Person wasn't just hiding from him or not answering the door.
Prior to an officer going out and hunting for Child Support offenders, most of the time, they mail a 'hey you've got a warrant, come turn yourself in' letter to that last known address... they even send SEVERAL letters from the Courts and Sheriff's Office prior to a warrant even being issued, so the Mattia's would have known, through these mailings, that there son had listed their address, and that the judicial system was going to be looking for him.
Had the Mattia's son 1.)Paid his child support, or 2.)Updated his address OR had the Mattia's confined Max, or got in touch with their son over his judicial business, that they were more than likely aware of, Max would still be runnning around today.
First, Sharon and Joe Mattia's Letter to the Editor(s) after the incident stated:
"[...] Max, who was on his leash, allegedly snapped at the officer and then the officer allegedly shot Max multiple times in the head, jaw and neck, breaking his choker collar and leaving him to die 2 feet from our door. [...]"
Then, yesterday, the BayNet printed the story, clearing the officer of wrongdoing. In it, the BayNet posted a picture provided by Sharon and Joe Mattia. In the picture, Joe is clearly holding a choker collar in his left hand as he stands next the body of his dead dog. Jump over there and take a look at the photo, the collar is completely in-tact. Are we to believe that Joe went and got a new collar after his dog died? How did Officer Long shoot through the collar, breaking it, then? Not saying the Mattia's lied or anything, maybe in their sadness and despair they were merely confused on some of the facts... non-the-less, it's a story and a fact that they stuck with the entire time since the incident. Maybe they have other facts wrong. Keep in mind, they weren't there.
Second, the law is clear, as someone on the BayNet's site pointed out:
"Under Maryland Code, Article 24 § 11-505:
Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, attacking, wounding or killing any poultry or livestock, or attacking human beings whether or not such dog bears the proper license tag required by these provisions. There shall be no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing."
I did some fact checking, and that really is the law... ANY dog he sees in the ACT OF PURSUING, ATTACKING, WOUNDING OR KILLING...
This law means that right or wrong, whether you, me, or anyone else agrees with it, all OFC Long had to PRESUME was that the dog was PURSUING him in an attempt to attack him to justify the shooting. Long did one better than that and got bit. So he definitely covered attacking AND wounding.
Finally, Long was on the property to serve a warrant for Child Support on the Mattia's son, who listed that as his address with the Courts, MVA and the Sheriff's Office. Any change of address, within 30 days, had to be updated in writing or in person with the Courts and with the MVA. So, in addition to failing to pay his child support, he failed to update his address. So when the Mattia's kindly pointed out in the LTE, "Allegedly Deputy Long arrived at our home to serve a warrant on an individual who did not even live with us." That fact is meaningless... it was his last known address and the one on record, Long was justified to be on the property and go 'nosing around' where ever he needed to feel comfortable that this Wanted Person wasn't just hiding from him or not answering the door.
Prior to an officer going out and hunting for Child Support offenders, most of the time, they mail a 'hey you've got a warrant, come turn yourself in' letter to that last known address... they even send SEVERAL letters from the Courts and Sheriff's Office prior to a warrant even being issued, so the Mattia's would have known, through these mailings, that there son had listed their address, and that the judicial system was going to be looking for him.
Had the Mattia's son 1.)Paid his child support, or 2.)Updated his address OR had the Mattia's confined Max, or got in touch with their son over his judicial business, that they were more than likely aware of, Max would still be runnning around today.
