Mother's suit claims Pittsburgh fails to properly train undercover officers
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2012, 4:48 p.m.
The mother of a North Side man claims in a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday that Pittsburgh has failed to train its undercover officers in how to properly identify themselves during confrontations with the public.
Evelyn Marie C. Reese claims the lack of training is reponsible for Pittsburgh police officers Jeffrey John Abraham and Joseph P. Fabus shooting and killing her son, Lawrence Jones, 24, during a traffic stop on Brownsville Road near the border of Mt. Oliver and Knoxville. Abraham and Fabus weren't supposed to be conducting traffic stops while they were in civilian clothes and operating an unmarked car, the lawsuit says.
Reese is represented by Tim O'Brien and J. Kerrington Lewis, who are also the lawyers for Jordan Miles, 20, a Homewood man suing the city over an encounter with undercover police in an unmarked car.
Police said at the time of the shooting that Jones brandished a gun. The lawsuit says he was unarmed.
City solicitor Dan Regan said the city's review determined the officers acted reasonably, but he declined to comment on whether the city contends Jones had a gun.
“I'm reluctant at this point to discuss the specific facts,” he said.
Show commenting policy
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.