City argues police chief, assistant chief's past is irrelevant in lawsuit
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, Feb. 28, 2013, 7:12 p.m.
Old complaints against former Pittsburgh police Chief Nathan Harper and Assistant Chief George Trosky don't belong in a federal lawsuit over a May 2010 road-rage incident involving an off-duty police detective, the city argued Thursday in federal court documents.
Jarret Fate is suing the city over the attack by former detective Bradley Walker, who was convicted of assault and fired by the city. His lawyers want to use an excessive force complaint filed against Harper “decades ago” and a dropped 1997 domestic violence charge against Trosky to persuade jurors the two tend to condone the use of excessive force, the city claims in a motion asking U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab to block the evidence.
City solicitor Dan Regan couldn't be reached for comment.
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.
- Garden Q&A: Firecracker vine OK for trellis?
- Starkey: Penguins’ arrogance astounding
- Matt Calvert’s goal in double OT evens series for Blue Jackets
- Second-period short-handed goal gives Blue Jackets momentum
- Real estate notes: Work on expansion to Pediatric Specialty Hospital to begin
- Shaler track star Schwartz in class of her own
- Tax law proves its worth by bringing in lost revenue
- Draftees’ longevity key for NFL success
- Penguins’ Gibbons scores twice but leaves with apparent injury
- Saturday essay: Resurrection
- Mail for IRS delivered to Squirrel Hill home