Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MonicaPVD t1_j9k47np wrote

He is a jerk. He was acquitted. Whether that decision is fair or reasonable or even defensible is debatable. What's not debatable is that an employee who was suspended without pay and later cleared of any wrongdoing gets back pay. Period.

25

totoop t1_j9kd4vq wrote

Protect and serve, right?

44

manicmonday122 t1_j9kmu96 wrote

So frigging wrong, he did this outside work, taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for this shit

43

SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j9kzbpu wrote

Replying to manicmonday122 (#1,922,151)

If that’s your argument, then he shouldn’t have been suspended since the incident happened outside of his shift.

But he was suspended, charged and acquitted.

If this was some teacher accused and found not to be guilty, you’d probably not be singing the same tune.

−33

FAYCSB t1_j9l1rry wrote

Is his department still trying to fire him anyway? If so, and he was acquitted, why couldn’t they have just fired him in the first place, instead of now having to pay him for not working?

5

AgentManhyme t1_j9l5o1k wrote

Good. I'm glad he can go back to living his life

Edot: clearly no one gets sarcasm

−17

UsedCollection5830 t1_j9l70s3 wrote

Extremely extremely disgusting if the cop was a regular citizen he'd be in prison back pay back on the job no consequences

6

skippyspk t1_j9l8mjz wrote

I’m so happy Officer Daniel Dolan has been rewarded for shooting at teenagers and putting the West Greenwich community at risk.

48

daymanahhhahhhhhh t1_j9lje8n wrote

I don’t understand how this officer was acquitted. Is there anyone here that can try to convince me with evidence that this isn’t just 12 pro blue lives jurors giving police carte blanche to do whatever they want?

14

SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j9lpvnr wrote

Replying to totoop (#1,926,618)

Well, first I personally think he was guilty, just not of felony assault, as the intent wasn’t there. Discharge in a compact area for sure, but the state doesn’t have any charges above assault and below felony assault, so I can see why the state had no choice except to charge ADW.

Do I think you’d have the same outcome had the defendant been some mid 30’s average male? I’m not sure.

My line of thinking was that he as an off duty officer was that he would have been found guilty because he should have know it was stupid. Which he certainly had to have thought.

But they acquitted him, which makes me think they might have found my hypothetical defendant not guilty as well.

But I also think the jury might have, as a group, given Dolan more slack merely due to the recent bullshit the police have had to deal with over the last few years. Almost as if this was an opportunity to make things fair.

But it’s also well within the possibilities that if the defendant was a lay person, the jury would find that they had made a gross mistake, but lacked the intent as well.

You truly never know how the juries will go without having sat on a jury before.

1

pepetheskunk t1_j9lwyhp wrote

Replying to FAYCSB (#1,924,048)

Right?! Like I understand that the LEOBR gets in the way of dismissing officer’s who do egregious things when on the job, but there was never any doubt that he was off-duty?

1

chaoticnormal t1_j9n3wqt wrote

Replying to daymanahhhahhhhhh (#1,926,330)

When I listened to a trial of a retired officer in Florida that shot a man in the movie theater and was acquitted with "stand your ground" laws, the officer/defendant took the stand and he spoke with an authority of a police officer on duty. I feel like he duped the jurors into thinking he was some kind of expert because he kept using cop lingo and they got lulled into some kind of "well he must know more about this stuff than I do" instead of looking at all the evidence. I think that's probably what happened here. But we also need to start jailing these psychopaths in blue that have a badge as a shield.

4

maybebullshitmaybe t1_j9nodmk wrote

Fuck this guy. "I'm a cop so I can do whatever I want".

He had no business doing anything. Not in a cruiser, not on duty, not in his town/jurisdiction, no major crime being committed, etc. If he was SOOO worried about the speeding 18 yr old he could've called it in. Then to shoot him? I'm sure everyone else has seen the video. It didn't look like he was gonna be run over nor anywhere close to it. And if some random non-uninformed person is sticking a gun in ur face, peeling tf out of there seems like a pretty reasonable course of action. I'm sure the 18 yr old was scared asf.

No consequences and then a reward to boot. 🤦‍♀️

Again, fuck this guy.

10

SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j9np7q9 wrote

Replying to Sarcofaygo (#1,934,257)

Nice try flipping the script, but it’s the juries job to determine the facts, I just present them.

Also, it’s the AG’s office that determines if the charges will be put to a grand jury or info’d.

No one’s fault that many sexual assault cases lack any physical evidence beyond fluids, like finger prints or possession.

1

Binlawdy t1_j9o1u3t wrote

Are there any lawyers here who might be able to tell whether or not legal precident has been set with this case? If he was charged as a regular citizen and found not-guilty, does that mean RI now considers it legal for any concerned citizen with a concealed carry permit to just roll up to a random parking lot, jump out their car and start shouting demands while brandishing a handgun?

Is it now legal to shoot people who try to run away from you by car for aiming a gun and yelling at them, or are we still "safe" because this ruling somehow can't apply to anyone else?

3

Unusual_Mousse_7600 t1_j9pmaol wrote

Typical Rhode Island,am I wrong or was he driving an unregistered truck at the time? I thought I read that in the report . I just know if. I did the same as him, I'd be locked up .

2