ShareThis Page
Allegheny

Zappala not done investigating police who mistakenly shot Larimer homeowner

Megan Guza
| Thursday, Sept. 14, 2017, 6:27 p.m.
Pittsburgh police investigate the scene of an officer-involved shooting on Finley Street in Larimer on Sunday, Jan. 22, 2017.
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Pittsburgh police investigate the scene of an officer-involved shooting on Finley Street in Larimer on Sunday, Jan. 22, 2017.
Pittsburgh acting police Chief Scott Schubert oversees the scene of an officer-involved shooting on Finley Street in Larimer on Sunday, Jan. 22, 2017.
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Pittsburgh acting police Chief Scott Schubert oversees the scene of an officer-involved shooting on Finley Street in Larimer on Sunday, Jan. 22, 2017.

Allegheny County's top prosecutor said Thursday his investigation into the fatal police shooting of an East Liberty homeowner in January continues, and he accused city police of straying from normal procedure when his office attempted to investigate.

Police shot and killed 57-year-old Christopher Thompkins after they heard gunfire while responding Jan. 22 to a reported burglary at Thompkins's Finley Street home.

Juan Brian Jetter-Clark, 23, a suspect in the burglary, was subsequently charged with criminal trespass.

“My guys will get called out on scene, they'll take control of the scene and then report back to supervisors and give directions as to what they want done,” said District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.

Zappala said that process has been in place since 2002 during former Chief Robert McNeilly's tenure and, after he moved on in 2006, with the city of Pittsburgh.

“In connection with that particular matter,” Zappala said, referring to the Thompkins shooting, “the city unilaterally changed their relationship with my office.”

Specifically, he said, he felt his investigators were not able to get to the scene in a timely fashion and “talk to the people who could give us evidence.”

He stopped short of alleging obstruction by city police.

“We could not do the same things we had done historically,” he said. “Yeah, I'm concerned about it.”

Public Safety Director Wendell Hissrich said he isn't clear about what Zappala means.

“I find that hard to believe because I, myself, was at that scene that morning, as well as Chief (Scott) Schubert, and the DA's investigators arrived,” he said. “There was no detriment to their access to that scene, and we assisted them and provided any guidance and assistance that they requested at that scene.”

Zappala said DA's office investigators have continued to speak with witnesses, but “not necessarily the person who discharged their weapon.” He said they were unable to speak with the officers involved the same day as the shooting.

“Once you start looking at video, stuff like that, you sit down with the lawyers – your testimony becomes less viable,” he said.

Hissrich said proper procedure was followed in interviewing the officers.

The officers involved in the shooting – who officials repeatedly have declined to identify – were on administrative leave for 10 days following the shooting. They returned to work Jan. 31.

The officers arrived at the Thompkins home shortly before 4 a.m. for a report of a break-in. They reported hearing shots and seeing a man walking downstairs toward the front door, where they were standing. They said the man was firing in their direction so they returned fire.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 412-380-8519, mguza@tribweb.com or via Twitter @meganguzaTrib.

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.

click me