United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Cops Force K9 to Maul Innocent Sleeping Blind Man in His Own Home
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/i ... -blind-man-attacked-police-k9/
Published: Nov 29, 2019
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2019-11-30 03:08:15 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 17611
Comments: 75
Mount Washington, PA — On that fateful night back in June 2017, Robert Aldred had committed no crime, had harmed no one and was asleep in his own home. Despite being entirely innocent, militarized cops with a blood thirsty K9 broke into his home, went into his bedroom, and savagely attacked this innocent man, who is also legally blind.
Now, after filing a lawsuit against the city for the abuse, the city is issuing him an insultingly low settlement that Aldred says doesn’t even cover his medical bills.
The fact that police felt it necessary to force their K9 to attack a naked blind man as he slept is bad enough, but the ridiculous settlement makes it that much worse.
“It was extremely traumatic,” Mr. Aldred said Wednesday at a news conference. “It was the police department. They’re here to protect and serve.”
Sadly, protection and service were nothing close to what Aldred received on the night of June 23, 2017.
As the Post-Gazette reports:
The night of the incident, Mr. Aldred got off work and went to a lounge in Downtown with a couple of friends before returning to his apartment about 12:30 a.m. When he got home, he noticed that the front screen door was broken, but the door remained intact. He went to his third-story apartment and fell asleep.
Pittsburgh police officers Logan Hanley, Joshua Matthews and Michael Soroczak responded after an anonymous neighbor called 911 to report a burglary was taking place at Mr. Aldred’s home. The officers entered the residence with a K-9 and made their way up to Mr. Aldred’s room.
Mr. Aldred, who didn’t hear police enter the residence, woke up when the officers came into his room. He said he was unarmed and naked, and he was confused why they were in his room.
Instead of realizing they had just startled a sleeping blind man in his own bedroom, police escalated force and unleashed their K9. According to the lawsuit, officer Hanley was the dog’s handler who encouraged his hell hound to continue to attack the harmless naked blind man.
As Aldred raised his arm to shield his face from the dog’s bites, the dog latched onto his arm and began shredding it. The K9 also tore into the innocent blind man’s leg as well. After they finally pried the dog from the screaming and bloodied man, instead of immediately administering first aid, officers handcuffed the naked blind man, put sweat pants on him and hauled him outside to question him further.
Mr. Aldred, who was “hysterical, crying and still bleeding profusely,” the lawsuit said, told the officers that he lived in the residence, but they continued to question him. Around 2:00 a.m., Aldred’s roommate comes home to the chaos, after Aldred had been handcuffed and bleeding for well over an hour. He tells the cops that the innocent blind man does indeed live in the residence and they finally removed the handcuffs. An unidentified officer then asks Aldred if he needs to go to the hospital.
“Mr. Aldred told the officer that he absolutely needed to go to an emergency room because he was still bleeding profusely and in excruciating pain from the attack,” the lawsuit said.
Aldred said his medical bills from that night were over $10,000 and police paid for none of it. The innocent blind man was never charged with a crime.
“Mr. Aldred will never be the same,” said Todd Hollis, Mr. Aldred’s attorney. “And the fact that this happened in his own home, I’m certain it will have lasting consequences.”
Indeed, it already has. According to Aldred, his neighbors were so scared of police doing this to them, that they all moved away.
Mr. Adlred’s case is a perfect example of why TFTP exists. When police can break into an innocent blind man’s home, based on an anonymous call, force their K9 to shred his flesh, never say so much as “I’m sorry,” and then pass their liability on to the taxpayer, something has gone seriously wrong. If we the people do not speak out about the increasingly unaccountable and violent nature of police in America, by the time most people realize it is going on, it will be too late.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-5) not displayed.
.
.
.
Mr. Aldred regularly takes various prescription medications, pursuant to his doctor’s orders, to treat the above-mentioned ailments and disorders.
I wonder what his doctor said about combining alcohol with those various prescription medications.
#7. To: nolu chan (#5)
Mr. Aldred finished working as a waiter at a restaurant located in downtown Pittsburgh.
A blind waiter? Oh, what could possibly go wrong?
#8. To: misterwhite (#1) (Edited)
"being the blind man noticed that. Got it. "
"Legally blind". Learn to read.
"If you're legally blind, your vision is 20/200 or less. That means if an object is 200 feet away, you have to stand 20 feet from it in order to see it clearly. But a person with normal vision can stand 200 feet away and see that object perfectly. An estimated 1.1 million Americans are legally blind."
#9. To: A Pole (#8)
"If you're legally blind, your vision is 20/200 or less. That means if an object is 200 feet away, you have to stand 20 feet from it in order to see it clearly. But a person with normal vision can stand 200 feet away and see that object perfectly. An estimated 1.1 million Americans are legally blind."
20/200 vision means that a person sees an object 20 feet away the same as people with normal vision see the same object at 200 feet away.
A person with 20/20 vision sees objects clearly at 20 feet. At 200 feet, they don't. Which is why rifles have scopes.
As to "legally blind", it's mentioned only once. The headline, link and 8 other places in the article simply say "blind".
#10. To: nolu chan (#5)
16.Mr. Aldred is legally blind, and also suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety, lucid dreams and nightmares, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder, among other ailments.
I wouldn't want to encounter this guy at Walmart, much less have to deal with him ater dark when he's been drinking.
#11. To: Deckard (#0)
Cops Force K9 to Maul Innocent Sleeping Blind Man
Right. The K9 didn't want to, but they forced him. Probably threatened the K9's family.
#12. To: nolu chan (#4)
Officer Hanley, who was the K-9’s handler, unleashed the German shepherd and encouraged it to attack Mr. Aldred, according to the lawsuit.
If the guy was laying down he was not physically threatening to the cops.
If he was naked they could see he was unarmed.
Why, then, did the officer release the dog?
#13. To: watchman (#12)
" If the guy was laying down he was not physically threatening to the cops.If he was naked they could see he was unarmed.
Why, then, did the officer release the dog? "
watchman, the canary klan will not like you asking such questions!
They will now label you as a " Cop Hater "
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
"No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson "
People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee
#14. To: misterwhite (#11)
" The K9 didn't want to, but they forced him. Probably threatened the K9's family. "
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Most likely gave him the proper commands.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
"No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson "
People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee
#15. To: misterwhite (#10) (Edited)
" much less have to deal with him ater dark when he's been drinking"
Yes, and you can sleep relaxed in your bed, assuming that you are secure in your person, house, papers, and effects.
But what if they will not know that you are a noble and heroic LEO, and sick a dog on you in the middle of night? What a wonderful surprise wake-up it will be?
Go to a doctor to check your legs, because for your head it is too late.
#16. To: A Pole (#15)
But what if they will not know that you are a noble and heroic LEO, and sick a dog on you in the middle of night? What a wonderful surprise wake-up it will be?
Not as surprised as my neighbor will be for siccing the cops on me.
#17. To: Stoner (#13)
If he was naked they could see he was unarmed.
He was laying on the floor. Did the cops have x-ray vision to see that there was no gun underneath him?
#18. To: misterwhite (#16) (Edited)
Go to a doctor immediately, you might have rabies. K9 will catch it.
#19. To: Stoner (#13)
the canary klan will not like you asking such questions!They will now label you as a " Cop Hater "
I'm not too worried about the canary klan...it's those cowardly sadist cops they idolize, the ones with the itchy trigger fingers and no accountability, that scare me.
What kind of person let's a vicious dog maul another person, who's clearly not a threat?
#20. To: watchman (#19) (Edited)
What kind of person let's a vicious dog maul another person, who's clearly not a threat?
Especially that the victim "suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety" etc ...
How will he be able to sleep after this "visit"?
#21. To: misterwhite (#17)
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
"No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson "
People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee
#22. To: A Pole (#8)
"If you're legally blind, your vision is 20/200 or less. That means if an object is 200 feet away, you have to stand 20 feet from it in order to see it clearly. But a person with normal vision can stand 200 feet away and see that object perfectly. An estimated 1.1 million Americans are legally blind."
MW should already know this as he is legally blind.
It's the only explanation.
#23. To: A Pole (#20)
Especially that the victim "suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety" etc ...How will he be able to sleep after this "visit"?
Often the medications just for bipolar disorder are so harsh that patients turn to self-medication (alcohol, pills, marijuana). I've seen this over and over with countless mental patients. They hate their meds. For example, lithium is like a salt...and it makes the patient feel "dried out" (their words).
My guess...he'll probably just up his dosage of alcohol to get to sleep...if you call passing out drunk as sleep.
You have to give this guy credit, though...he was trying to hold down a job.
#24. To: Pinguinite (#22)
MW should already know this as he is legally blind.
We should not be too harsh with MW, clearly he is a troubled person too :(
#25. To: watchman (#19) (Edited)
What kind of person let's a vicious dog maul another person, wh who's clearly not a threat?
Maul?
"Mr. Aldred was taken to UPMC Mercy, where his arm was treated with gauze to stop the bleeding. He was prescribed antibiotics and painkillers."
As far as the cops knew at the time, he was a naked, psycho burglar laying on the floor, in the dark, who had broken into the house and wasn't following instructions.
Maybe you're suggesting he should have been tased instead? OK. I can go with that.
#26. To: Pinguinite (#22)
MW should already know this as he is legally blind.
It … it was … soap poisoning.
#27. To: misterwhite (#25)
As far as the cops knew at the time, he was a naked, psycho burglar laying on the floor, in the dark, who had broken into the house and wasn't following instructions.Maybe you're suggesting he should have been tased instead? OK. I can go with that.
As far as the man on the floor knew they were fake cops breaking into his house and he could have shot them if he wanted to.
#28. To: misterwhite (#25)
As far as the cops knew at the time, he was a naked, psycho burglar laying on the floor, in the dark, who had broken into the house and wasn't following instructions.
The cops were the psychos in this scenario - as they often are.
Good grief man? WTF is wrong with you? He was in his own fricken house.
As usual the pricks escalated the situation.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#27)
As far as the man on the floor knew they were fake cops breaking into his house and he could have shot them if he wanted to.
Not according to whitey - cops are gods to him.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#30. To: Deckard (#28)
WTF is wrong with you? He was in his own fricken house.
Did the cops know that at the time? You are so smart after the fricken fact.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#27)
As far as the man on the floor knew they were fake cops breaking into his house and he could have shot them if he wanted to.
That would be the "fake" uniformed and armed cops with a K9 yelling "Police" and "Show me your hands"?
Sure. He could have. That's what concerned the cops.
I think you're making my point.
#32. To: A K A Stone (#27)
As far as the man on the floor knew they were fake cops ...
Sure. And the car with the flashing lights behind you could be fake. I suggest you speed away. Just to be on the safe side.
#33. To: watchman, misterwhite (#12)
If the guy was laying down he was not physically threatening to the cops.If he was naked they could see he was unarmed.
Why, then, did the officer release the dog?
As quoted at #5, doc 15 states:
When Officers arrived they found Plaintiff’s front screen door broken and when Defendant Officers searched the home they found Plaintiff lying on the floor of a bedroom in the dark.
It does not state that Plaintiff Aldred remained lying on the floor.
The cops had flashlights, it was in the dark, and they encountered Plaintiff in whatever state he was in.
The Plaintiff's Doc 11, pp. 6-11, describes the attack. I will provide that entire section as I find parts to be incredible, and note that what is referred to as Aldred's "bedroom" was actually the entire 3rd floor of the building.
In the complaint, it is claimed that he was dragged out of his bed and onto the floor. That sounds like a loft or attic. The cops claim to have encountered him naked on the floor.
In the complaint, it would appear that Aldred was "bleeding profusely" from the time of the encounter until he was taken to the hospital, at his request, some time after 2 a.m. Allegedly, he was "bleeding profusely" for quite some extended period. At the hospital, his arm was wrapped in gauze. That was it.
He was apparently held overnight at the hospital because it took an extended time to get him to calm down. He was hysterical.
It seems more likely than not that he was hysterical when he encountered the cops. According to the Amended Complaint, Aldred "did not resist, attempt to flee, or make any threatening statements or actions towards the Defendant Officers." And, "Mr. Aldred had nothing in his hands, which were clearly visible, was neither fleeing nor resisting, and posed no immediate threat to anyone."
However, if plaintiff Aldred were hysterical during the encounter, then he could not have provided the purported story as told by his attorney.
The complaint alleges plaintiff did nothing, posed no threat to anyone, made no threatening statements, was neither fleeing nor resisting, and the cop just sicced a dog on him for no reason at all.
Unfortunately, for our understanding of what did occur, the response to the Amended Complaint does not go there. It addresses the failures to state a claim to justify a section 1983 federal civil rights lawsuit. There was no need for character assassination, and the defense simply argued the law in a page and a half, double spaced.
More likely than not, the Plaintiff freaked out when awakened by multiple cops in the middle of the night. He was still freaked out when he got to the hospital after 2 a.m.
More likely than not, the cops chose not to wrestle on the ground with a mentally disturbed person who was freaking out and non-compliant to verbal command.
If the Plaintiff's attorney thought he could really sell the Complaint story to a jury, a settlement for $16,000 would not have been snatched up. In fact, the settlement was snatched up almost two months before the Matt Agorist/TFTP thread article was published.
Below is the entire Amended Complaint section about the attack.
THE ATTACK20. On Friday, June 24, 2017, around 11 o’clock p.m., Mr. Aldred finished working as a waiter at a restaurant located in downtown Pittsburgh. Mr. Aldred and two friends went to a lounge, also located in downtown Pittsburgh.
21. Around 12:30 a.m., Mr. Aldred went back to his apartment in Mount Washington.
22. Upon returning home, Mr. Aldred noticed that his screen door was broken. His front door, which was located behind the screen, was intact. Mr. Aldred was not bothered by the broken screen door.
23. Mr. Aldred entered his home, and went to bed.
24. Mr. Aldred’s bedroom encompasses the entire third floor of the house.
25. The second story of the house contains a common living area, and a second bedroom where his roommate, Joshua Chebatoris, lives. Mr. Chebatoris was not home at the time that Mr. Aldred went to bed.
26. While Mr. Aldred was asleep in his bedroom on the third story of his home, the Defendant Officers, and one German Shepherd canine officer, entered his bedroom.
27. The Defendant Officers each used a flashlight to gain a clear view of the inside of Mr. Aldred’s home.
28 .Mr. Aldred did not hear the Defendant Officers enter his home, knock, or announce their presence. He first noticed the Defendant Officers and the canine officer when they entered his third-floor bedroom with their flashlights.
29. Mr. Aldred woke up, but was naturally confused about what was happening, and why anyone was in his bedroom.
30. Mr. Aldred is legally blind, and receives various prescription medications.
31. Mr. Aldred was not armed, was sleeping in his own bedroom, and naked.
32. The Defendant Officers dragged him out of his bed, and on to the floor of his bedroom.
33. Mr. Aldred did not resist, attempt to flee, or make any threatening statements or actions towards the Defendant Officers.
34. Mr. Aldred did not and does not have any outstanding warrants for his arrest.
35. None of the Defendants, the Defendant Officers, had either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Mr. Aldred had committed a serious or violent crime, or that he was about to flee.
36. Mr. Aldred had nothing in his hands, which were clearly visible, was neither fleeing nor resisting, and posed no immediate threat to anyone.
37 .Despite this, and without warning, the Defendant Officer Hanley unleashed the canine officer on Mr. Aldred and allowed and encouraged the canine to attack him.
38. Pursuant to the Defendant Officers’ conduct, the German Shepherd ran at Mr. Aldred, who was laying naked on the floor of his bedroom.
39. Mr. Aldred instinctively raised his right forearm in front of his face to shield it from the dog’s vicious attack.
40. The canine sunk his teeth all the way down into Mr. Aldred’s right forearm, causing him excruciating pain.
41. The canine continued to bite Mr. Aldred all over his right forearm and his outer right thigh.
42. Mr. Aldred sustained noticeable scars on his right arm and thigh area. The scars are likely to be permanent.
43. Mr. Aldred was bleeding profusely.
44. Mr. Aldred asked the Defendant Officers what they were doing in his house.
45. Mr. Aldred repeatedly told the Defendant Officers that he lived at the house.
46. Mr. Aldred begged the Defendant Officers to stop the dog from attacking him.
47. In response, the Defendant Officers placed handcuffs on Mr. Aldred behind his back, as he was on his stomach, naked on his bedroom floor.
48. Mr. Aldred repeated to Defendant Officers that he lived at the house, and asked them to stop the dog from attacking him.
49. the Defendant Officers responded that they needed to do more questioning.
50. the Defendant Officers pulled Mr. Aldred off the floor and onto his feet, and walked him downstairs to the second story of his house.
51. One of the officers grabbed a pair of track pants from the second-floor bedroom and put them on Mr. Aldred, then continued walking him downstairs to the first floor.
52. the Defendant Officers took the Plaintiff outside of his home and sat him on a couch on the front porch.
53. Mr. Aldred was hysterical, crying and still bleeding profusely.
54. Mr. Aldred continued to tell the Defendant Officers that he lived at the house, the Defendant Officers nonetheless detained Mr. Aldred, and left him handcuffed on his couch on his front porch, while they interrogated him without reason.
55. Numerous neighbors witnessed the Defendant Officers interrogate Mr. Aldred while he was in handcuffs on his own front porch.
56. Around 2:00 o’clock a.m., Mr. Aldred’s roommate, Joshua Chebatoris, arrived home.
57. Chebatoris approached the front porch where the Defendant Officers had detained Mr. Aldred, and asked what had happened to his roommate.
58. Chebatoris told the Defendant Officers that he lived at the home with Mr. Aldred.
59. Chebatoris showed the Defendant Officers his driver’s license, which contained the address of the residence where the events complained of herein took place.
60. One of the Officers took Chebatoris to the side of the front porch to question him separately.
61. Mr. Aldred told the Defendant Officers that he had a medical condition that required attention.
62. One of the officers motioned for the other officers to leave the front porch. The officer put on plastic gloves, and then approached Mr. Aldred and removed his handcuffs.
63. The Officer asked Mr. Aldred if he thought he needed to go to a hospital.
64. Mr. Aldred told the Officer that he absolutely needed to go to an emergency room because he was still bleeding profusely and in excruciating pain from the attack.
65. An ambulance arrived while Chebatoris was being questioned by police in a separate area.
66. Mr. Aldred was able to walk himself into the back of the ambulance and sit on the paramedic’s ledge as he was transported to the room.
67. Mr. Aldred was taken to UPMC Mercy Emergency Room for treatment.
68. Mr. Aldred was prescribed antibiotics and painkillers for the severe cuts he suffered from the dog attack.
69. Physicians wrapped the Plaintiff’s right arm in gauze to contain the bleeding.
70. Mr. Aldred’s treating physician ordered X-Rays of his right arm to be taken, to determine if the deep dog bite had damaged his bone.
71. While being treated at UPMC Mercy Emergency Room, Mr. Aldred was visibly shaken and hysterical due to the entire ordeal.
72. UPMC Mercy staff told the Plaintiff that he needed to calm down, but he was unable remain calm due to the brutal attack.
73. Mr. Aldred was discharged around 8 o’clock a.m. on Saturday, June 24, 2017.
74. Mr. Aldred was still in pain, and so he went to Allegheny General hospital later that day, June 24, 2017, and again the following day, June 25, 2017.
75. Plaintiff was not charged with any crimes, and was not given any citations or paperwork regarding the incident.
76. At all times during Mr. Aldred’s contact with Defendants, he behaved peacefully and lawfully. Plaintiff never possessed or displayed any weapon, nor did he threaten anyone in any way. Further, Plaintiff never resisted a lawful order and never attempted to escape.
77. Defendants lacked probable cause to believe Plaintiff had committed any crime.
78. The force used by Defendants and the Defendant Officers against Mr. Aldred was unjustified, excessive and objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
79. At all material times, Defendants’ seizure of Mr. Aldred was done without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or other legal right; lasted an excessive amount of time; and was conducted unreasonably.
80. Alternatively, or concurrently, Defendants’ own excessive and unreasonable actions created the situation in which the Defendant Officers decided to unlawfully seize and use force against Mr. Aldred, and caused an escalation of events leading to the unlawful seizure and use of force against, and injury to, Mr. Aldred.
81. At all material times, and alternatively, the actions and omissions of each defendant were intentional, wanton and/or willful, conscience shocking, reckless, malicious, deliberately indifferent to Mr. Aldred’s rights, done with actual malice, grossly negligent, negligent, and objectively unreasonable.
82. Mr. Aldred required medical treatment for his injuries caused by Defendants, and Plaintiff has incurred medical bills.
83. As a direct and proximate result of each Defendant’s acts and/or omissions as set forth above, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries and damages, past and future, among others: significant physical injuries requiring medical treatment, including but not limited to multiple bites, puncture wounds, soft tissue injuries, cuts and lacerations; pain and suffering, including emotional distress; medical expenses; violation of constitutional rights; all damages and penalties recoverable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, and as otherwise allowed under Pennsylvania and United States statutes, codes, and common law.
84. the Defendant Officers stood by and did nothing to order or restrain the dog from biting Mr. Aldred.
85. the Defendant Officers failed to give a command for the dog to stop biting Mr. Aldred’s arm.
86. Although they were with Defendant Officer Hanley, or close by him at all times, Defendant Officers Soroczak & Matthews failed to intervene to stop them from allowing the dog to bite Aldred. Moreover, Defendant Officers Soroczak & Matthews acted in concert with Defendant Officer Hanley in allowing the dog to bite Aldred.
87. At all times relevant to the facts set forth in this Complaint, Mr. Aldred was acting in the exercise of due care for his own safety, welfare, and well being from harm.
#34. To: misterwhite (#31)
I was just taking your position and turning it around from the other perspective.
#35. To: misterwhite (#10)
I wouldn't want to encounter this guy at Walmart, much less have to deal with him ater dark when he's been drinking.
I would not want to be a lawyer putting Aldred on the stand, with the whole case relying on Aldred telling a believable story and not freaking out.
Aldred got about what they offered him in the first place.
#36. To: nolu chan (#33)
More likely than not
Pure speculation on your part (isn't that what they say in all the tv courtroom dramas)
And where is the police report? I'd like to read the officer's sworn statements/report.
If the Plaintiff's attorney thought he could really sell the Complaint story to a jury, a settlement for $16,000 would not have been snatched up.
Conversely, and regardless of the amount, a settlement WAS offered in the face of excessive force.
The pitiful amount may be from the ineptitude of the lawyer, or maybe the lawyer knew the deck was stacked (the old "just us" department at work).
#37. To: misterwhite (#25)
Maul?
Yeah, the dog mauled him.
#38. To: watchman (#37)
Yeah, the dog mauled him.
No, the dog scratched him. No stitches, no skin grafts, no blood transfusion, no scars, no overnight hospital stay.
#39. To: watchman, misterwhite (#36)
More likely than notPure speculation on your part (isn't that what they say in all the tv courtroom dramas)
As I stated, there is insufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusion of what happened.
In a civil trial, the applied standard of evidence is a preponderance of the evidence. That is also defined as more likely than not.
And where is the police report? I'd like to read the officer's sworn statements/report.
It would seem that the Plaintiff did not mention it in the Complaint. I would imagine it was prominent in the Reply Brief, but that was removed from public view by the Court.
On 17 July 2019, the Court "noticed" that "the instant civil action has been designated for placement into the United States District Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program." The case was never scheduled for trial.
On 27 July 2019, the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim was filed. Paragraph 8 stated, "Defendants respectfully request this Court dismiss all claims against it with prejudice, as explained further in their Brief accompanying this Motion." As filed at Docket #16, there was an Attachment #1 Exhibit 1. The docket thereafter notes, "Document removed from public view and redocketed at 17." Same date at Docket #17, there is no attachment, just the page and a half Motion. I suspect the attached Brief contained information about Plaintiff's mental state.
It would seem that whatever was in the Brief was not only enough to have the Court remove it from public view, but enough to impel the Plaintiff to accept the settlement on the terms of the city.
I reckon the lawyer took a third of the settlement plus expenses, leaving the Plaintiff with approximately the same $10,000 that was offered earlier.
Conversely, and regardless of the amount, a settlement WAS offered in the face of excessive force.
No, there is no evidence of excessive force.
As for the lawsuit, one named defendant was Acting Chief of Police Regina McDonald. Problematic is the reply that former Chief Regina McDonald was neither the Chief at the time of the incident, nor employed by the City of Pittsburgh in any way.
Three other named defendants were the Officers, for whom qualified immunity was claimed, controverting any claim of excessive force.
Lastly, the City of Pittsburgh was named as a defendant. To maintain a claim of a violation of constitutional rights against the city, Plaintiff must show a widespread municipal policy or custom that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional injuries. Offering evidence of a single instance fails to meet that standard. In the lawsuit, what must be proven is a violation of constitutional rights.
In moving to toss the case for failure to state a claim, the defense essentially argued that if plaintiff proved all the facts alleged in the complaint, the facts would not establish a cause of action entitling the plaintiff to recover against the defendants. Less than two weeks after that motion was filed, Plaintiff Aldred agreed to settle.
Assuming the case were litigated, Aldred lost, and then appealed, the city cost to litigate would exceed the amount of the settlement.
On the other hand, if the Plaintiff could win the case with the allegations proven, the award would likely be far greater than the settlement amount.
#40. To: nolu chan (#39)
More likely than not
As I stated, there is insufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusion of what happened.
May I then speculate a little...
Aldred is unable to function in society. He has little to no support group (family, friends) to look out for him. He falls victim to some aggressive officers who get qualified immunity no matter what they do. The City of Pittsburgh sees he's basically helpless, they circle the wagons to protect their own, convince him to take the pittance they offer him...and close the case.
I reckon the lawyer took a third of the settlement plus expenses, leaving the Plaintiff with approximately the same $10,000 that was offered earlier.
His emergency room expenses were more than he got in the "settlement".
Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. Ex. 23:6
It is not good to be partial to the wicked and so deprive the innocent of justice. Pr.18:5
The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern. Pr. 29:7
#41. To: watchman (#40)
May I then speculate a little...
Sure, why not.
Aldred is unable to function in society. He has little to no support group (family, friends) to look out for him.
Agreed. Aldred is a mental case. We have closed the mental hospitals and put the mental cases on the street. Aldred is doing better than most who are similarly situated. He is not living on the street, at least not yet.
He falls victim to some aggressive officers who get qualified immunity no matter what they do.
This is simply a contradiction of terms. Were the officers to get immunity no matter what they did, it would be UNqualified immunity.
Quality immunity attaches only to acts performed as part of their job.
The Complaint, at paragraph 107 states:
107. The Plaintiff asserts that under the broadest principles of vicarious liability the Defendant City of Pittsburgh is legally responsible for all of the acts herein alleged against its employees, and the Defendant Officers respectively, and perhaps others, committed within the scope of their employment, who at all pertinent times were acting as officers of the law under the color of law within the scope of their employment.
That rather eviscerates any ability to sue the cops as individuals. They were acting at all pertinent times within the scope of their employment. So sayeth the Plaintiff.
Use of excessive force would not be within their job. It would be a criminal act and they could be criminally prosecuted and civilly sued. They could be sued for a tort, a civil wrong, in state court. The Aldred case actually started in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas, case number GD-12-1728, and was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In the Federal court, Aldred was alleging a violation of the Federal constitution.
Where the employees act within their job, they are immune from civil suit for damages. The wronged plaintiff can sue for damages, but must sue the governmental employer. However, if a State is the employer it gets more complicated as a State is a sovereign and may be sued only if it agrees to be sued.
I cannot rush to join the conclusion that the officers were overly aggressive. It seems to me that complainant's description of his actions is not credible. I do not see him sitting on the floor singing kumbaya. He saw three people in his dark room and freaked out. The cops do not know if he lives there or not. He is not coherent. They must detain him until they can find out who he is, and he becomes coherent. They do not know about his medical history or vision impairment. The cops were called to a break in or possible burglary in progress. They found a broken screen door, and then a naked guy on the floor, possibly babbling at them nonsensibly.
I do not know exactly why the dog attacked Aldred. Aldred's version is not credible, and the cops' version was withdrawn from public view. I believe with a degree of metaphysical certitude that the cops alleged Aldred did something other than just lie on the floor. I seriously doubt Aldred is capable of telling an accurate version of what happened.
What I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty is that within two weeks of the cops filing their version, Aldred agreed to settle.
The City of Pittsburgh sees he's basically helpless, they circle the wagons to protect their own, convince him to take the pittance they offer him...and close the case.
The defense case appears legally solid and prosecution case appears unable to survive the motion to dismiss. Absent the settlement, it is likely he would have gotten nothing. The city mercifully paid his medical and legal expenses, while the complaint was legally deficient.
It is likely that Aldred's lawyer urged him to take the settlement. One third of something is much better than one third of nothing, and a lot less work and time consumption. Five or six thousand to file a complaint and broker a settlement ain't a bad day's work for a personal injury lawyer.
His emergency room expenses were more than he got in the "settlement".
The claimed expenses were $10,000. That was claimed to the press, not the court. The Complaint contains no claim of medical expenses.
#42. To: nolu chan (#41)
He falls victim to some aggressive officers who get qualified immunity no matter what they do.This is simply a contradiction of terms.
I was going to say "Right, good catch" but then again a "contradiction of terms" might actually work here. Like deja vu all over again.
I do not know exactly why the dog attacked Aldred.
There are strict protocols for use of a K-9. The dog bit Aldred because he was commanded to bite...nothing more, nothing less. (I have a family member who was a K-9 officer for 10 years...I know how this stuff works).
It seems to me that complainant's description of his actions is not credible.
Alas, your speculation is no better than mine. Wasn't he dragged sleeping from his bed? Freaking out? Still not a threat, still no justification for releasing the dog. Police deal with mentally ill people constantly. To say they couldn't recognize Aldred's psychosis is equally "not credible".
It is likely that Aldred's lawyer urged him to take the settlement. One third of something is much better than one third of nothing, and a lot less work and time consumption. Five or six thousand to file a complaint and broker a settlement ain't a bad day's work for a personal injury lawyer.
Had Aldred been a functioning member of society his settlement would have been much higher. Think how much a fellow police officer would receive if he'd been bitten by mistake...the payouts would never cease! In other words, Aldred got taken advantage of, primarily because of his mental condition. All the City had to do was make proper restitution (and, oh yeah, fire the K-9 officer for needlessly assaulting an innocent man)
#43. To: watchman (#42)
I was going to say "Right, good catch" but then again a "contradiction of terms" might actually work here. Like deja vu all over again.
It does not work for Aldred. The cops had qualified immunity following plaintiff's claim that they acted all pertenent times within the scope of their employment.
I do not know exactly why the dog attacked Aldred.There are strict protocols for use of a K-9. The dog bit Aldred because he was commanded to bite...nothing more, nothing less. (I have a family member who was a K-9 officer for 10 years...I know how this stuff works).
It is equally indicative that his handler was threatened or attacked. The canine will not sit there as a neutral observer.
Government employees enjoy the rebuttable presumption of regularity in performing their official duties. The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff to overcome the presumption. This would be a case of the word of three sane cops against the word of one mental case whose psychosis was so obvious that the cops must have recognized it.
Alas, your speculation is no better than mine. Wasn't he dragged sleeping from his bed?
Alas, no. Three sane cops claim they encountered the naked Aldred on the floor. Again, this is the word of three sane cops against one mental case you recognize as psychotic. It is difficult to maintain that Aldred has severe mental problems, was on loads of meds, added alcohol, was exhibiting psychosis, and has a lucid and clear memory of the events.
Defendant's Reply at paragraph 1:
1. Officers were called to Plaintiff's residence on or about June 24, 2017, to investigate a burglary in process reported by an anonymous neighbor. ECF No. 11 ¶ 15. When Officers arrived they found Plaintiff's front screen door broken and when Defendant Officers searched the home they found Plaintiff lying on the floor of a bedroom in the dark. Id. ¶ 29, 38.
- - - - - - - - - -
Freaking out? Still not a threat, still no justification for releasing the dog. Police deal with mentally ill people constantly.
You may not consider a psychotic a threat, but opinions do vary.
There is no actual evidence that the handler released the dog for no reason at all, except for the word of a mental case. Of course, the claim that the handler released the dog for no reason is directly at odds with the claim that the handler was, at all pertinent times, acting within the scope of his employment.
Police dealt with this mentally ill person and took him into custody. You do not say what they should have done. Perhaps a group hug with a subject exhibiting psychosis?
It was not until 2 a.m., when his roommate returned to the house, that the cops learned who the Plaintiff was. The cops were not performing a midnight welfare check, they were responding to a report of a suspected burglary.
Had Aldred been a functioning member of society his settlement would have been much higher.
Had Aldred proceeded to trial, he likely would have gotten nothing. Aldred is employed and is a functioning member of society. Perhaps he does not function so well when one of his meds is alcohol.
You provide no legal argument whatever to indicate why Aldred was entitled to any settlement or judgment whatever. He was not suing in Federal court because of a dog bite, nor because of personal injury. He was suing for a violation of his constitutional rights.
Having claimed the cops acted within the scope of their employment, the claims against them was doomed. The claim against Regina McDonald was doomed as she was not at the scene and was not the Police Chief, nor a city employee.
To prevail against the city, Aldred needed to prove a widespread municipal policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional injuries. There was a failure to allege any widespread municipal policy or custom. He had to allege and show a widespread policy or custom involving the release of a K-9 for no reason at all.
Think how much a fellow police officer would receive if he'd been bitten by mistake...the payouts would never cease! In other words, Aldred got taken advantage of, primarily because of his mental condition. All the City had to do was make proper restitution (and, oh yeah, fire the K-9 officer for needlessly assaulting an innocent man)
You assume the word of a psychotic mental case prevails over the word of three cops for no reason at all. There is no reason to fire the K-9 officer in the absence of evidence that he did something wrong. The only evidence is the unproven allegations of a psychotic, controverted by three cops.
Just because Aldred committed no crime does not indicate that the cops committed a crime or violated his constitutional rights. The city paid about $16,000 more than they needed to. Despite the sensational article, there is no actual evidence that the cops violated Aldred's constitutional rights.
When the cops discovered Aldred on the floor, he acted badly and was not responsive to command. It may be excusable due to his various conditions, meds, and alcohol, but that does not establish any entitlement to compensation or damages. Getting injured while resisting arrest or acting psychotic is not a ticket to a pile of taxpayer money. It does not establish that his constitutional rights were violated by the city of Pittsburgh, the only thing at issue.
As for restitution, it would appear Aldred received restitution.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Restitution. An equitable remedy under which a person is restored to his or her original position prior to loss or injury, or placed in the position he or she would have been, had the breach not occurred. Act of restoring; restoration; restoration of anything to its rightful owner, the act of making good or giving equivalent for any loss, damage or injury; and indemnification.
I think you mean Aldred should have been awarded damages. There is no support to establish his purported right to damages for violation of his Federal constitutional rights. At issue in a Section 1983 Federal civil rights case is compensation or damages for alleged violation of constitutional rights.
#44. To: nolu chan (#43) (Edited)
sane cops
Oxymoron.
...a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
They didn't even bother asking for his ID.
No surprise that you defend these sick sadists - you're just as sick as they are.
It was not until 2 a.m., when his roommate returned to the house, that the cops learned who the Plaintiff was
Yet they didn't bother to corroborate Aldred's assertion that it was his home as soon as they went in.
And to a cop worshiper like you - that is damn fine police work.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#45. To: nolu chan (#43) (Edited)
It is equally indicative that his handler was threatened or attacked. The canine will not sit there as a neutral observer.
This isn't your stupid pet dog that jumps on your house guests and barks uncontrollably when it feels like it. These dogs cost a fortune because they are extensively trained. They DO remain neutral (even their barking can be controlled so that the suspect can clearly hear and understand what the officer is saying) until commanded to act.
Government employees enjoy the rebuttable presumption of regularity in performing their official duties.
Government employees enjoy a system that too often allows they to abuse American citizens, wreck their lives, and get clean away with it.
Again, this is the word of three sane cops against one mental case you recognize as psychotic.
Aldred suffers from manic depression (bipolar disorder). Getting naked is a very common sign of a manic episode. The police are trained to "recognize as psychotic" and handle mental disorder. The good cops know how to recognize and subdue a mental patient and get them to a hospital. At least they did twenty years ago...now they just shoot them.
Manic depressives are almost always malnourished and frail. They are prone to rage but it is mostly verbal rage. Unlike schizophrenics, who can be very physically dangerous, manics generally undress and babble/shriek/cry etc.
Police dealt with this mentally ill person and took him into custody. You do not say what they should have done. Perhaps a group hug with a subject exhibiting psychosis?
Your comment about a hug is cute. Before they hugged him they should have wrapped him in a blanket. That is actually how mental patients are handled in a hospital, and on an airliner, as well.
https://www.ibtimes.com/airline-passenger-strips-naked-mid-air-walks-down-aisle-2747723
This is without doubt a bipolar event. Here's what the crew did:
An Air India Express flight passenger stripped naked and walked down the aisle mid-air in an incident that shocked the co-flyers. The incident took place during a flight heading to Lucknow, India, from Dubai.
The airline crew quickly reacted to the shocking act and wrapped the 35-year-old man with a blanket, according to local news agency ANI. Two crew members then held him down in a seat as the plane made its way to Lucknow.
The airline crew has more integrity and courage than those jackass cops.
You assume the word of a psychotic mental case prevails over the word of three cops for no reason at all.
I know that cops who release a dog on a prone naked man who is absolutely not physically threatening...will lie like a rug to protect their own butts.
#46. To: watchman (#40)
His emergency room expenses
What he said was his emergency room expenses. Does $10,000 for gauze and antibiotics sound right to you?
.
.
.
Comments (47 - 75) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]