Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Thecrawsome t1_j9cdb98 wrote

They don't even charge him with attempted murder. No murder on there at all.

>felony aggravated assault, making terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another person and simple assault.

Also, the bar owner had to save the patrons from the cop:

>Police saw people leaving the building and trying to get away from the suspected shooter. When the officers made their way to the front door they found the building owner Joseph Morrison who had the suspect, later identified as Dodson, pinned to the ground and had taken the gun away from him, according to Clark.

39

HeyZuesHChrist t1_j9d3rn4 wrote

This blew my mind. If be were not a cop he would be facing attempted murder charges for shooting someone in the face.

21

Greeny427 t1_j9e2oo0 wrote

So I live in Clearfield a couple exits down the interstate, work with multiple people from Dubois. The firearm supposedly went off when during the fighting and the person who was injured was at the bar with the shooter. Therefore they might not be pressing charges for “attempted murder” but I have absolutely no idea how relevant that is to the charge.

9

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j9f60bz wrote

The guy shouldn't be bringing a gun to the bar. Fuck's sake.
 
Booze and firearms do not mix under any circumstances.

6

andrewjm13 t1_j9h5pcv wrote

Police officers are required to be armed at all times there also required to be ready for duty at a moments notice

Hence the officer although off duty should not be intoxicated at all

But those charges would be brought by interal affairs after any criminal investigation

1

shanafme t1_j9hhow2 wrote

Trust me, Curwensville doesn’t have any form of an “internal affairs” department.

3

andrewjm13 t1_j9i2qda wrote

Then it falls on the public to pressure for a federal investigation

1

shanafme t1_j9i3boc wrote

Tell me you haven’t lived in Curwensville without telling me you haven’t lived in Curwensville.

2

TylerDaKid t1_j9kqxwm wrote

I'm sorry dude but that is vehemently not true LOL police are ALLOWED to carry their firearms at all times, but they are not required to. That would be ridiculous. That means you would never have a moment off work. No point in even taking off your uniform at that point. Google something for 10 seconds before you try to tell people things are a fact. This is what's wrong with the world today is that people just say things that are objectively false and everyone just believes it. Not to mention my neighbor is also a lieutenant police officer in Philadelphia, and he does not conceal or open carry.

1

No_Future9553 t1_j9el4zz wrote

Usually that’s when the county picks up the charges and does what needs to be done … guess they don’t do that with police . 🙄

4

worstatit t1_j9jz0da wrote

Possibly the owner grabbing him caused an "accidental" discharge? Not excusing the behavior, just explaining the lacking charge.

1

Thecrawsome t1_j9k02p1 wrote

Dude left and came back 8 min later with that same gun. Brandished it, and pointed it.

2

ksquad80 t1_j9dbz8j wrote

They may add charges. It just happened this weekend.

−6

OneHumanPeOple t1_j9dh5p8 wrote

Then why simple assault? Aggravated assault involves a deadly weapon. Why didn’t they at least start there?

5

BackmarkerLife t1_j9do1h5 wrote

> felony aggravated assault, making terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another person and simple assault.

I made the text bold so it would help.

4

ksquad80 t1_j9ejycb wrote

I don't know why you're being upvoted (and I downvoted) when you've got the wrong information. It wasn't a charge of simple assault, it was an aggravated felony assault.

They start with lesser charges and then the D.A. can add on. That's how it works.

Reddit is collectively fuckin stupid.

−3