bootlickers

I think the biggest problem is that the moment where the shooting occurs isn't on video, there was one witness who's initial statement sort of corroborated what he said and that's "reasonable doubt" for a jury when the defendant is a cop.

IMO, it was a combination of the following:

1. Inherent bias towards authority figures (i.e. cops)
2. Inherent bias against the victim (i.e. "he shouldn't have been speeding," "he's a punk kid," etc.)
3. As someone else stated, while the whole video paints a general picture of Dolan being in the wrong (which should've swayed the jury), the actual moment of the shooting is a bit obscured, meaning that we cannot see for sure whether Dolan was in the path of the fleeing car, as he claimed he was, when he fired. This shouldn't really have been enough to create reasonable doubt, but if you willingly ignore the context of him chasing the kids down and choosing to exit his vehicle (which you would be more willing to do if you fit Numbers 1 and 2), it might clear your personal bar for "reasonable doubt."

Tl;dr he’s a cop and well coached on how to walk that fine line of reasonable doubt.

Didn’t follow closely but the one clip I saw on the news was his testimony on the stand. Which.. in and of itself not being at all familiar with legal proceedings but from the movies they say putting the defendant in the stand is a CRAZY move. But anyways the little bit of his testimony I saw was typical PD training “I felt in fear for my safety and life” statements that cops always pull.. big bad tough guys (and gals) until they’re on the stand and they can express just how “scared” they were to justify the subsequent violence.

I just assumed there was some video of the kids driving that was way more outlandish than anyone expected - kind of hard to understand this outcome otherwise, or maybe he just hit a home run with the jury.

“Miscarriage of justice” applies here

Remember where you are. A Kent County jury is much different from a Providence County jury. A former marine and a cop that takes the stand in his defense plays differently there.

Not bootlickers, most of us are just law abiding citizens. When I was a teenager my mother had the “conversation” with me about what to do if the police pull you over (because I’m black).

When people do crazy things like flee the police or utilize violence against the police , it simply doesn’t make any sense to those us out there who are sane and haven’t ever had any substance abuse issues.

We tend the give the police the benefit of the doubt because they deal with these types on a daily basis and thus have far more experience with these populations than your average citizen.

Call it a societal disconnect if you would, obviously if I sat on a jury I would be mostly unbiased but I’d expect in all but the most extreme circumstances to be siding with the police.

>if I sat on a jury I would be mostly unbiased but I’d expect in all but the most extreme circumstances to be siding with the police.

If it's a case of "the cop says that the defendant did this", most people would be the same way. It is a teensy bit different when it is a cop being accused of misconduct that was not in the line of duty.

Yes this is a slightly unusual case because he wasn’t in uniform or in a marked patrol car .

The defense of not knowing or believing he was actually an officer is definitely a valid one here.

Where I live you don’t have to stop for unmarked patrol cars if they try to pull you over.

I mean he’s a cop in Rhode Island, the last time I remember a cop being on trial for anything was the narcotics detective that got caught selling coke by the fbi, and that was years ago, and a federal case, police are the single biggest gang in the US they don’t put each other in jail

I also wonder how much of that judge’s decision regarding Jeann Lugo comes into play. The judge said he was “trying to maintain public order” as a police officer regardless of whether he was there as a private citizen/political opponent.

Where you live??? Is it in RI?

Others below have good responses. I do not think at all it was overcharging here though, they were going for fairly light stuff vs what was potentially on the table (attempted murder or something of that variety).

Thanks all for the responses. Maybe it's because I did time in the Navy that I don't revere military service as some sort of gloss over misdeeds, but I know that some do. I just never thought a sworn jury would let them sway themselves like that.

Updating...Pawtucket initiating termination procedures.

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2023/02/16/pawtucket-moves-to-fire-officer-daniel-dolan-after-his-trial-acquittal/69909960007/

So, which police department will pick him up?

Also he was driving an unregistered vehicle and had an open beer in his truck. I'm not sure if he was cited for any of that.

On another front, Pawtucket is trying to fire him: https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2023/02/16/pawtucket-moves-to-fire-officer-daniel-dolan-after-his-trial-acquittal/69909960007/