For all those OFC Long haters and Max lovers...

[2ndAmendment]

And the number of shots doesn't really matter... whether he killed the dog with 1 shot, or with 38 shots, the dog is dead. Being such a large dog, it may have very well taken all 7 shots to stop the dog from attacking him.

I hear that officer Long has killed three dogs. I find that highly suspicious even if the Charles County Sheriff's Department didn't.

The only way it takes more than one shot to kill a German Shepard with a 9MM is if you are piss poor shot. And since I am familiar with how well many of the Charles County Deputies shoot, they are indeed, piss poor shots. If anyone in Chuck county should not be armed, it is the deputies.

 

[AnAvidReader]

He has in fact killed more than one...

...I believe it is actually a total of five. Three of these were at the request of Animal Control (as they are not armed -- due to restrictions imposed on them by the County Commissioners -- even though they are sworn peace officers with arrest powers). Of those three, two were dangerous and vicisous -- 1 had attacked already bitten a citizen -- and the third was suspected to have rabies and after testing was confirmed. The other two dogs he's killed, one was struck by a car and the owner requested he "put it down" and the other was Max, who bit him.

No police in this area, carry 9MM... some are .357 and most are .40 -- with any officer, highly skilled or not, unless they repeatedly train in high risk, high stress training (like SWAT/EST/SOT) the stress and panic of being attacked can seriously impede someone's aim. I've seen training videos from police cruiser dash cams, where police officers and suspects have emptied complete magazines at each other standing only feet apart and hitting nothing. It has very little to do with their shooting ability and a lot to do with panic and stress.

I can see how it is feasible for it to have taken 6-7 shots to take this dog down.

Are you a hunter? What happens when you shoot a deer? Does it get hit and immediately drop right where it was standing? Of course not, but your intent isn't to neutralize a threat, it's to get a trophy and some meat. That shot that hits the deer, the deer runs off and dies hundreds of yards away... you have to track it after one shot. I'm sure if you were to shoot multiple shots and hit it multiple times, you wouldn't have to track very far...

Long didn't want this dog to run around for a few minutes and then die, he wanted it to stop attacking him. He kept shooting until the threat stopped -- if it took 6 shots or 6 magazines -- then that's what he needed to shoot.

 

[Fingel_Hymer]

You Are Very Wrong!!!!!!

And the number of shots doesn't really matter... whether he killed the dog with 1 shot, or with 38 shots, the dog is dead. Being such a large dog, it may have very well taken all 7 shots to stop the dog from attacking him.

I started reading this post with the full intention of not replying in hopes that the matter would stay at rest. But I can no longer hold my replies to your stupidity.

The number of shots used in any "justified" exchange is most definitely a factor in the determining if excessive force was used.

Everyone knows or has heard of the "heat of the moment" or in some cases "heat of passion".

IF you come home and find you wife in bed with another man, the courts and the jury might excuse you shooting one of them; but shot each of them 38 times and what where you wind up.

Seven shots is far too excessive in this instance. The OFC should be held professionally and personally responsible for his poor judgement.

Enough said-period.

 

[AK-74me]

I am not agreeing by any means with AnAvidReader but anyone that has taken any recent self defense training(firearms) or is an LEO knows that you shoot until the threat is stopped. So the amount of shots is not an issue for me(deadly force is deadly force). I do however have issues with what led up to him shooting the dog.

Short of him making a mag change in this case, again I don't think the number of shots is the main issue.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...I believe it is actually a total of five. ...

I think he must like this aspect of his job a bit too much.

No police in this area, carry 9MM... some are .357 and most are .40 -- with any officer, highly skilled or not, unless they repeatedly train in high risk, high stress training (like SWAT/EST/SOT) the stress and panic of being attacked can seriously impede someone's aim. ...

All the more reason to say Officer Long is a piss poor shot or enjoyed shooting the dog. Both .357 and .40 have more energy than a 9mm.

I can see how it is feasible for it to have taken 6-7 shots to take this dog down.

You wouldn't be officer Long would you? Or related to him? Or a close friend?

Are you a hunter? What happens when you shoot a deer? Does it get hit and immediately drop right where it was standing? Of course not, but your intent isn't to neutralize a threat, it's to get a trophy and some meat. That shot that hits the deer, the deer runs off and dies hundreds of yards away... you have to track it after one shot. I'm sure if you were to shoot multiple shots and hit it multiple times, you wouldn't have to track very far...

Not if I make the shot I aim for. The deer drops in its tracks. If you don't sight in your firearm or can't hold on target or can't compute a quick ballistic drop in your head or have a drop chart in your pocket, you are not adequately prepared to be in the field.

Long didn't want this dog to run around for a few minutes and then die, he wanted it to stop attacking him. He kept shooting until the threat stopped -- if it took 6 shots or 6 magazines -- then that's what he needed to shoot.

One shot in a leg would have stopped the dog. One shot anywhere would probably stop an attack even if it didn't hit the dog. Dogs are not stupid. Most run from loud noise. I've seen instances of trained attack dogs retreating from a trainer when, instead of cowering or acting scared, the person rose up as big as they could make themselves and yelled at the dog.

If he needed to use 6 magazines, he needs to find a different line of work where he does not need to use firearms.

You are far too defensive of a person that I think is questionable, at best, of being the kind of person that should be a police officer. Officer Long's reputation and actions strike me as the kind of person who overreacts to situations and will probably wind up shooting some kid with a toy gun at a 7-11.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I am not agreeing by any means with AnAvidReader but anyone that has taken any recent self defense training(firearms) or is an LEO knows that you shoot until the threat is stopped. So the amount of shots is not an issue for me(deadly force is deadly force). I do however have issues with what led up to him shooting the dog.

Short of him making a mag change in this case, again I don't think the number of shots is the main issue.

A dog on the end of a chain is restricted from pursuing by that chain. Even if bit, the logical and correct thing to do would be to step back out of the reach of the dog. A dog that is restrained cannot present deadly force unless it knocks someone to the ground. This was not the case with officer Long, so your "shoot until the deadly force is stopped" does not fly.

 

[Charles]

A dog on the end of a chain is restricted from pursuing by that chain. Even if bit, the logical and correct thing to do would be to step back out of the reach of the dog. A dog that is restrained cannot present deadly force unless it knocks someone to the ground. This was not the case with officer Long, so your "shoot until the deadly force is stopped" does not fly.

 

[AnAvidReader]

Your assumptions have to be correct for your arguement.

A dog on the end of a chain is restricted from pursuing by that chain. Even if bit, the logical and correct thing to do would be to step back out of the reach of the dog. A dog that is restrained cannot present deadly force unless it knocks someone to the ground. This was not the case with officer Long, so your "shoot until the deadly force is stopped" does not fly.

You're saying a dog on the end of a chain is restricted. You're right, however, the only people who have said the dog was on the chain were the Mattia's, there own pictures of the "crime scene" show the choker collar not attached to the chain... If Long shot through the collar, breaking it off, why then did they remove it from the chain? They didn't the dog wasn't tied up. Long has said (through the CCSO Press Releases from Montiminy and Coffey) from day one that the dog was NOT tied up. If the dog wasn't tied up there is no place to back away to -- especially if it's attacking you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAvidReader

Are you a hunter? What happens when you shoot a deer? Does it get hit and immediately drop right where it was standing? Of course not, but your intent isn't to neutralize a threat, it's to get a trophy and some meat. That shot that hits the deer, the deer runs off and dies hundreds of yards away... you have to track it after one shot. I'm sure if you were to shoot multiple shots and hit it multiple times, you wouldn't have to track very far...

Not if I make the shot I aim for. The deer drops in its tracks. If you don't sight in your firearm or can't hold on target or can't compute a quick ballistic drop in your head or have a drop chart in your pocket, you are not adequately prepared to be in the field.

And to make shots like this you're calm, controlling your breathing, taking time to align a good sight picture, controlling your trigger squeeze and taking the perfect shot at your natural respiratory pause... you're not being attacked, hurrying to draw your weapon, trying to back away from something clamped on your leg, shooting one handed across your body.

 

[AK-74me]

A dog on the end of a chain is restricted from pursuing by that chain. Even if bit, the logical and correct thing to do would be to step back out of the reach of the dog. A dog that is restrained cannot present deadly force unless it knocks someone to the ground. This was not the case with officer Long, so your "shoot until the deadly force is stopped" does not fly.

Well that is why I say that I have issues with what happened before the shots were fired. He should of never even walk within range of the dog.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You're saying a dog on the end of a chain is restricted. You're right, however, the only people who have said the dog was on the chain were the Mattia's, there own pictures of the "crime scene" show the choker collar not attached to the chain... If Long shot through the collar, breaking it off, why then did they remove it from the chain? They didn't the dog wasn't tied up. Long has said (through the CCSO Press Releases from Montiminy and Coffey) from day one that the dog was NOT tied up. If the dog wasn't tied up there is no place to back away to -- especially if it's attacking you.



And to make shots like this you're calm, controlling your breathing, taking time to align a good sight picture, controlling your trigger squeeze and taking the perfect shot at your natural respiratory pause... you're not being attacked, hurrying to draw your weapon, trying to back away from something clamped on your leg, shooting one handed across your body.

I have been bitten by dogs twice. I never had to think about trying to kill the dog. I smacked it as hard as I could and it cowared and went away. Long is too used to using his gun when he should be using common sense. In my opinion, he should seek a difference career. He is not level headed enough to be in law enforcement.

 

[remaxrealtor]

While the St. Mary's rag (and other local news outlets) may engage in sensationalism, I can guarantee you that Mr. Mattia was grief stricken and his emotions were real. Have you never loved a pet? Would you be thinking clearly if you came home to find your beloved family member (yes, they ARE family members to some people) dead, in a pool of blood? And you best believe there are many of us that would have done the same thing the Mattias did...posters, email, etc. I know I would have reacted the same way or worse.

Nobody knows for sure what happened that day. Max can't tell us and Officer Long won't. It is time to let it go, for everyone. I'm certain it is eating at the Mattias and I truly feel for them but they are fighting city hall and they need to let themselves heal.

Well stated, as always Catt .