Suffolk superior court rules in favor of WPD officer David Rawlston

Posted by Jeremy Shulkin

At 3:00 yesterday afternoon the Suffolk Superior Court of Appeals posted their ruling on the case between the New England Police Benevolent Association, representing officer David Rawlston, versus the City of Worcester.

The court’s judgment found in favor of an earlier decision made by an independent arbitrator to reinstate officer Rawlston with full back pay. The judge’s more lengthy opinion will follow this afternoon or tomorrow.

The lawsuit stems from a 2007 altercation between an injured and off-duty Rawlston and three teens outside of his home. More background can be found here.

More information to come later.



Filed under Uncategorized

13 responses to “Suffolk superior court rules in favor of WPD officer David Rawlston

  1. zed

    Chief Dog Catcher Gemme is going to have a fit.

  2. Rockin

    Guy pistol whips a 13, 14 and 15 yr old kid and keeps his job. WTF?

    He came out of his house with a pistol in his hand. That is in the testimony and was never disputed. I would say that makes him either stupid or a coward. Maybe both. Who would want him on the force if he is either of those.

    If any other LTC holder unconcealed a firearm like that they would loose their LTC and never get it back. If a police officer on duty behaved like that he would be in for some shit too.

    This just proves how corrupt the unions really are.

    Welcome to Obamunism where coward cops (afraid of skinny little pubescent boys) get to keep their jobs

  3. -Q

    The City Manager was quoted recently as saying this case needs to have its due process and he would abide by their findings. He stated that “we have a review process and that includes arbitration and the court of law” (paraphrase)
    Well Mr.Manager are you a man of your words?
    Lets review the process:
    1. The WPD detective bureau found that Officer Rawlston did nothing wrong and acted appropriately.
    2. An independent arbitrator found that Officer Rawlston did nothing wrong and acted appropriately.
    3. The Distrcit Attorneys office found no wrong doing on Officer Rawlstons part or his actions taken and refused to file unfounded charges.
    4. Civilian Witnesses stated Officer Rawlston acted appropriately.
    5. WPD Internal affairs found Officer Rawlston at fault in this incident.
    6. Suffolk Superior Court has upheld the independant arbitrator’s decision
    to immediately reinstate Officer Rawlston with 43 months of backpay and to pay the legal costs of NEPBA.
    Well apparently the City Manager is not a man of his words and moving forward how can anyone believe what O’Brien says?
    The ongoing court costs of O’Briens personal vendetta against Officer Rawlston is irresponsible and a huge drain on the City of Worcesters taxpayers dollars………
    Of note: the City of Worcesters OUTSIDE legal costs prior to the ruling from Suffolk Superior court are now at over $75,000……….
    (When all is said and done I would not be suprised to see the total costs of this personal vendetta by our city manager to be in the range of $450,000 to $500,000 – who said Worcester is facing difficult financial times? –
    why the City Manager says that all the time)
    Which goes to show that the City Manager has no faith whatsover in the taxpayer funded city law department – then why have a city law dept.?
    This is but one of many clear cut examples of the waste the city manager has wrought on our city and one that we can no longer afford to subsidize the city managers personal vendettas…….
    Where are the city councilors demanding accountability from this city manager?
    Where are the city councilors defending and protecting our tax dollars?
    Silence is acceptance!
    Well city manager are you a man of your words?

  4. Hey Q is that one of your Wacki-leaks?

    Dude how can you possibly infer anything about the City Manager’s actions?
    It’s not like you’re privy to anything at City Hall. Right?
    Heck your wife doesn’t even talk to you.

  5. Clive

    Good thing they decriminalized it Q.

  6. -Q

    Just calling a spade a spade and some people cannot handle the truth?
    Hey Willy dude you are not even worth a response so why dont you crawl back into your hole………..

  7. zed

    I think the Q has all these templates stored alphabetically and when a subject comes up he pastes the appropriate response and fills in a name. This time it should have been Chief Dog Catcher Gemme instead of Parkman Mike but the Q has a thing for cops that rivals only his talk radio fetish.

  8. Padonkadonk

    Why are people using the term pistol whipped when none of teenagers had ANY injuries the night of the incident, nor did their parents have them seen or treated at a hospital for any injuries? The City manager keeps using this phrase to try and justify wasting hundreds of thousands of tax payers dollars on Gemme’s personal vendetta… All because Gemme’s wife is the boss of one of the teenagers mother.
    People were threatened and transferred for not changing their reports, and the only person who agrees with Gemme is his hand picked puppet in Internal Affairs who would say Rawlston was the second gunman on the grassy knoll if he was told to do so.
    Wake up people, you’re getting lied to. Why else would the Worcester DA, the WPD detectives, an arbitrator who was put there by the City and now a judge all say this guy did nothing wrong and should be put back to work?
    Seriously people, put your cop bashing bias aside for a moment and educate yourself to the TRUTH!!

  9. Boots

    I find it strange that while Q sticks to the facts and the subject, Will. W. W. is only capable of denigrating Q and never comments on the subject at hand. So I have question for Will. W. W. – which way is up?

    Of course if any of those kids had a gun and used it on Rawlston who was unarmed at the time, let’s say. Then all the cop haters would be saying – What’s the matter with Rawlston, he confronts a group of kids acting up outside his home and leaves his weapon in the house? What a stupid police force we have.

    Some of the commenters aren’t capable of rational thought.

  10. -Q

    I don’t even need to refer to my so called “template” for this one and I’m sure by the ignorance you displayed in your post you are completely unaware that the #1 public safety official in the City of Worcester is the City Manager………..when you actually know what you are talking about Zed, then maybe you can join the conversation, until then why dont you and willy have a merry little chat amongst yourselves……ignorance is must truly be bliss………..

  11. Wanna bet if one were to scour the pre-paywall T&G, you’ll see that Q-wacky has been cuttin-n-pastin the same ole text. The guy’s a broken record… Lukes, Gemme, O’Brien , Palmieri, blah, blah, blah… It’s freaking boring.

    Hey Q-wacky, here’s an idea. Why don’t you do a 1,000 word essay on the latest WRRB report and post it here. Pro or con is irrelevant.

    Come on dude, show us your stuff.

  12. zed

    Nice try negative Q (-Q) but having the job and doing the job are different things. Parkman Mike is schooled in growing trees. Ask him for a fertilizer job.

  13. afewgoodmen

    Why are you people blaming OBrien when it has clearly been just another “knee jerk reaction” from Mr. BiPolar down at the WPD.OBrien is just trying to keep whatever semblance of normalcy they may have left ,which by the way is not much. GOOD LUCK OFFICER RAWSTON.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s