MAXS Murder - Page 3

Funk lay off it already! Yes he took a psych eval to get his job and he is no way shape or form related to this case. Only thing GARD may be angry about is the lynch mob after this guy, without any real hard evidence. What do we have...a couple pictures and some hearsay and a cool little newspaper article? Not sure where your from but in my neck of the woods, I don't bet my life on what is written in the paper.

Does the cop brevado never end??? Frankly I'm sick of this whole story. It's starting to affect my personal life. I'm entitled to my own damn opinion! That's all I have to say about this crap!

You're a good one to talk about net detective there Funk. Your "one more observation" post was hilarious.

 I completely agree with GARD here. I'm declaring tomfoolery and shenanigans. haha

ooops.....

That was from me.

yellowrose:  I am just as curious as the rest of you, to find out if this C. Long is one and the same as the other Officer Long, however, I feel compelled to caution the other law enforcement officers out there of a couple of things.  I am sure they all know what I am about to say but I will state it anyway so that the non law enforcement officers out there understand it.

First off, it is a crime to use their office badge, contacts, department phones, computers, etc, to find out info on this Officer Long (this would apply to anyone, not only an officer), unless they have an active investigation in their jurisdiction concerning him.  If they do find out anything about this officer and it is reported on this site or any other site, it would open them up to civil litigation.  Even though I am retired I have contacts and friends still working that could ascertain if this is the same officer, in these seperate incidents.  I will not do it.  Any computer checks, background checks or other such checks using "official" contacts, equipment, etc, as I stated, would be a crime and possible civil liabilities.  I would not subject my acquantices to such hazard, just for the sake of curiousity.  It will come out eventually.

Computers, records checks, and the like, are all logged and it would be a simple thing for someone to chekc and see who has been getting/running, any name in the "system", and in this day of passwords, it would be easy to ascertain you did said checking, especially if the info showed up on the net.

I have held the position of investigating shootings by officers several times, and have investigated and arrested law enforcement officers and former officers, for drug violations also, several times.  It is an unpleasant assignment for a cop to investigate and find wrong doing by other cops.  You do what you have to do, but due to the attitude of some of your fellow officers calling you names behind your back and the failure of some of them to speak with you, when you report that officer so and so, violated the law or a department order, does naturally, give you pause when you have to do such an investigation.

I will restate my position from a previous thead concerning this incident with Max.  Even though "I was not there" (I never was there on any of the bad cop situations I investigated), this incident "does not pass the smell test", in my training and experience.  Whichever way this invest turns out, I know some facts that seem sure.  Max was doing what a good dog does and did not deserve to die that way.  Max would have been "kept" better if he was a member of my household.  Officer Long needs to be investigated, both psycologically and professionally (meaning a check of his decision making skills, tactics and emphathy towards other living things).  I hope the best for Officer Long because he has children and a wife.  I hope he was/is not a dog vigilante, for whatever reason.  It is too late to hope for Max.

Here is another article on this event.  It says pretty much the same things as the others, except it explains that the reason Officer Long knew Max was because he had been out to the farm and seen Max on another occasion when the couple reported a car was in their pond (it was stolen).  Also, the son the deputy was trying to serve the warrant on had in fact NEVER lived at the farm.  These facts don't bode well for the deputy.

http://www.somdnews.com/stories/051807/indycri183534_32127.shtml

My point in bringing it up is since the police did not have any verification that the son lived there,  and the situation was not life threatening or urgent, wouldn't the prudent thing have been to knock at the front door ONLY???  Why was it necessary for this solo cop to go around looking in windows & checking at the back door just to seve a bench warrant for non payment of child support?  Isn't that just a tad bit of overkill?   I'm not blaming the "police" and I'm sure as hell not blaming the son who wasn't even there (and none of us knows what his story is), I'm questioning the judgement and actions of one man. 

In one of the articles the family stated they had told the police the son did not live there and had provided an address for him.  If the police didn't believe that I don't think they would have sent this one guy out to "get him".