ShareThis Page

Man sues police, claims officer allowed shooting

| Wednesday, July 3, 2002, 12:00 p.m.

A West End man sued the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police in federal court Tuesday, claiming a police officer watched a man shoot him because the officer did not want to intervene in a feud between two black men.

In his lawsuit, John Jones, of Crucible Street, said a city police officer sat in his cruiser at 4 a.m. May 24 and watched as he scuffled with Ricky Williams in front of his residence. Jones said he yelled to the officer that Williams had a gun. Williams then ran a short distance, turned around and shot Jones in a knee.

The officer, identified only as Davis, remained in his car and did not pursue Williams, the lawsuit said.

Jones said police also failed to investigate his claims that Rosetta Williams and Ricky Williams, who live together on Crucible Street, burglarized and ransacked his home on two separate occasions days earlier. The lawsuit does not give the Williamses' relationship.

Jones said he told an officer, identified only as Klein, that the Williamses broke into his home but that no investigation was initiated.

Ricky Williams is still at large and has threatened to kill Jones and his family members, the lawsuit said.

Pittsburgh police Chief Robert W. McNeilly Jr. said he has not seen the lawsuit and could not comment yesterday.

The lawsuit comes as federal and city officials are negotiating an end to federal oversight of the police bureau. The bureau has been under a consent decree since 1997 that requires a major overhaul of police practices.

The decree was spawned after civil rights and community groups, as well as dozens of people — most of whom are black — filed a federal lawsuit claiming that police brass and city officials have tolerated a pattern of police abuse.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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