Share This Page

Pittsburgh cop accused in beating quits

| Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2012, 12:02 a.m.
Pittsburgh Police officer Richard Ewing recieves an award from Pittsburgh Police chief Nate Harper Friday March 19, 2010 during the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Awards and Commendations Ceremony in City Council chambers. (James Knox | Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

One of the Pittsburgh police officers accused of beating a Homewood teen during an arrest in 2010 resigned from the force.

Officer Richard Ewing had been with the department since 2005, according to his attorney Robert Leight and Sgt. Michael LaPorte, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1. City police spokeswoman Diane Richard said Ewing resigned on Monday.

LaPorte said Ewing is joining the McCandless police department. McCandless police Chief Gary Anderson could not be reached for comment.

Jordan Miles, 20, claims in a lawsuit that Ewing and fellow Officers Michael Saldutte and David Sisak violated his civil rights and inflicted permanent brain damage during his Jan. 12, 2010, arrest on Tioga Street.

The officers deny any wrongdoing.

A federal jury in August found for the officers on Miles' claim that they maliciously prosecuted him but deadlocked on claims that the officers falsely arrested him and used excessive force. Miles' attorneys said they will seek a new trial, but a date has not been set.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.