[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Maskless Joe Biden Greets Firefighters After Touting Mask Mandates

Socially-Distanced German Soccer Team Gets Thrashed 37-0 (not satire)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead At 87

"We House-Arrested Some Folks!"

John Oliver ‘honored’ in Connecticut: Mayor names sewer plant after him

FLASHBACK: Johnny Carson Rips Joe Biden for ‘Plagiarism’ 33 YEARS AGO on the ‘Tonight Show’

BLM Activist Accuses CVS Employee Who Reported Shoplifters to Police of Trying to Get Black People Killed

Edward Snowden: Joe Biden Threatened Countries Not To Give Me Asylum

Some Timely Quotes

Vocal protest: Van Morrison rebels against ‘taking our freedom’ in new anti-lockdown songs

CNN (Seriously) Claims That Covid Will Spread At Trump Rallies But Not BLM Protests

JOE BIDEN: “Guess what, if you elect me your taxes are going to be raised not cut.”

The More You Joe - Biden at his finest

‘The View’ segment with Maryland Republican Kimberly Klacik ends abruptly after she says host Joy Behar ‘paraded around in blackface’

“Hail Satan”: After terrorizing churches, BLM witchcraft exposed

Women Know Things That Men Don't.

Cop Fired for Cowering in Fear as Gunman Slaughtered Children Gets Rehired, with Full Back Pay

As Netflix Defends “Cuties” Movie, Netflix Star Arrested for Producing Child Porn

Ex-Arlington officer indicted for killing woman while trying to shoot dog

Coffee shop owner arrested for speaking against harassment caused by Tucson council’s anti-mask “wall of shame”

Thanks, Fox News, for reminding us of the Soros role in creating America's riot-coddling DAs (Fox doesn't want Sorros name sullied by Gingrich)

Black Lives Matter Mob Surround Man's Home, Police Reportedly Arrest Man For 'Brandishing' Gun

Fox News Panel Melts Down After Gingrich Exposes George Soros As Financier Of BLM/Antifa Riots

Trump: ‘Joe Biden Thinks Kamala Harris Is President’

Florida Sheriff's Predictive Policing Program Is Protecting Residents From Unkempt Lawns, Missing Mailbox Numbers

ppeals Court Says Address Mistakes On Warrants Are Mostly Harmless, Not Worth Getting Excited About

Chinese Whistleblower to Tucker Carlson: Coronavirus Was Man-Made And Released Intentionally Matt Vespa Matt Vespa | @mvespa1 | Posted: Sep 16, 2020 6:00 AM Chinese Whistleblower to Tucker Carlson: Coronavirus Was Man-Made And Released Intentionally

Southern Baptists want to change their name to "Great Commission Baptists" because the word "Southern" is triggering (Not satire)

Trump accepts invitation for fourth debate moderated by Joe Rogan

Oregon Homeowners Warn Looters Amid Wildfire: ‘You Loot, We Shoot’

Michael Moore Jumps the Shark

Applied BLM Ideology: Los Angeles County Deputies Shot

Academy Awards: Hold On, We’re Going Completely Woke!

CNN Sets Up Fence to Defend Atlanta HQ While Hosts Carry Water for Rioters

Drunk Idiots Fly Down Highway In Tesla On Autopilot With No One In Driver's Seat

Arson Arrests Being Made Across the West Coast – Multiple Fires Identified as Arson – 27 People Killed, Dozens Missing….

The US & Its Constitution Have 2 Months Left

‘Where we at?’: SWAT Gets Lost, Throws Grenade Into Innocent Elderly Man’s Home as He Watches TV

Pennsylvania restaurant apologizes for offensive sign that sparked protest

Alabama high school football team wins in final seconds after 9 lateral-pass play

PC Quotas for Best Picture Oscar

source of Russian hacking conspiracy garbage ... Hillary wanTed war wiTh Russia so badly --- PuTin won’T leT WesTern queers go To Russia To “adopT” vicTims.

Tom MacDonald - "People So Stupid"

Muslims

Applies To Seniors

Fauci’s prescription: Outlines plan to control humanity

IMDB Parental Warning For Netflix’s ‘Cuties’ Says Scenes in Movie are “Lawfully Defined as Pedophilia”

Trump To Win Landslide in 2020 ... reporTed in BriTain’s Express --- a bible scholar agrees ThaT Trump will win easily.

Biden Claims More Than 6,000 Members of US Military Died From Coronavirus. Actual Number? SEVEN.

Sweden Close To Victory Over Coronavirus; Never Had A Lockdown Or Mask Mandate


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Cops Force K9 to Maul Innocent Sleeping Blind Man in His Own Home
Source: Free Thought Project
URL Source: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/i ... -blind-man-attacked-police-k9/
Published: Nov 29, 2019
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2019-11-30 03:08:15 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2774
Comments: 75

Mount Washington, PA — On that fateful night back in June 2017, Robert Aldred had committed no crime, had harmed no one and was asleep in his own home. Despite being entirely innocent, militarized cops with a blood thirsty K9 broke into his home, went into his bedroom, and savagely attacked this innocent man, who is also legally blind.

Now, after filing a lawsuit against the city for the abuse, the city is issuing him an insultingly low settlement that Aldred says doesn’t even cover his medical bills.

The fact that police felt it necessary to force their K9 to attack a naked blind man as he slept is bad enough, but the ridiculous settlement makes it that much worse.

“It was extremely traumatic,” Mr. Aldred said Wednesday at a news conference. “It was the police department. They’re here to protect and serve.”

Sadly, protection and service were nothing close to what Aldred received on the night of June 23, 2017.

As the Post-Gazette reports:

The night of the incident, Mr. Aldred got off work and went to a lounge in Downtown with a couple of friends before returning to his apartment about 12:30 a.m. When he got home, he noticed that the front screen door was broken, but the door remained intact. He went to his third-story apartment and fell asleep.

Pittsburgh police officers Logan Hanley, Joshua Matthews and Michael Soroczak responded after an anonymous neighbor called 911 to report a burglary was taking place at Mr. Aldred’s home. The officers entered the residence with a K-9 and made their way up to Mr. Aldred’s room.

Mr. Aldred, who didn’t hear police enter the residence, woke up when the officers came into his room. He said he was unarmed and naked, and he was confused why they were in his room.

Instead of realizing they had just startled a sleeping blind man in his own bedroom, police escalated force and unleashed their K9. According to the lawsuit, officer Hanley was the dog’s handler who encouraged his hell hound to continue to attack the harmless naked blind man.

As Aldred raised his arm to shield his face from the dog’s bites, the dog latched onto his arm and began shredding it. The K9 also tore into the innocent blind man’s leg as well. After they finally pried the dog from the screaming and bloodied man, instead of immediately administering first aid, officers handcuffed the naked blind man, put sweat pants on him and hauled him outside to question him further.

Mr. Aldred, who was “hysterical, crying and still bleeding profusely,” the lawsuit said, told the officers that he lived in the residence, but they continued to question him. Around 2:00 a.m., Aldred’s roommate comes home to the chaos, after Aldred had been handcuffed and bleeding for well over an hour. He tells the cops that the innocent blind man does indeed live in the residence and they finally removed the handcuffs. An unidentified officer then asks Aldred if he needs to go to the hospital.

“Mr. Aldred told the officer that he absolutely needed to go to an emergency room because he was still bleeding profusely and in excruciating pain from the attack,” the lawsuit said.

Aldred said his medical bills from that night were over $10,000 and police paid for none of it. The innocent blind man was never charged with a crime.

“Mr. Aldred will never be the same,” said Todd Hollis, Mr. Aldred’s attorney. “And the fact that this happened in his own home, I’m certain it will have lasting consequences.”

Indeed, it already has. According to Aldred, his neighbors were so scared of police doing this to them, that they all moved away.

Mr. Adlred’s case is a perfect example of why TFTP exists. When police can break into an innocent blind man’s home, based on an anonymous call, force their K9 to shred his flesh, never say so much as “I’m sorry,” and then pass their liability on to the taxpayer, something has gone seriously wrong. If we the people do not speak out about the increasingly unaccountable and violent nature of police in America, by the time most people realize it is going on, it will be too late.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

When he got home, he noticed that the front screen door was broken, but the door remained intact.

"He" being the blind man noticed that. Got it.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-11-30   11:15:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

"the city is issuing him an insultingly low settlement that Aldred says doesn’t even cover his medical bills ... Aldred said his medical bills from that night were over $10,000"

From another article: "A Mount Washington man is poised to receive $16,000 after he settled a lawsuit against the city"

misterwhite  posted on  2019-11-30   11:22:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0)

after an anonymous neighbor called 911 to report a burglary was taking place at Mr. Aldred’s home.

The city should sue the anonymous neighbor for swatting poor Mr. Aldred.

Right, Deckard?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-11-30   11:40:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#2)

[Matt Agorist, thread article] "the city is issuing him an insultingly low settlement that Aldred says doesn’t even cover his medical bills ... Aldred said his medical bills from that night were over $10,000"

[misterwhite #2] From another article: "A Mount Washington man is poised to receive $16,000 after he settled a lawsuit against the city"

The case was settled almost two months before the Matt Agorist/Free Thought Project bull jive was published. Aldred's injuries were treated with gauze, and anti-biotics and pain killers were prescribed.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/29090692/ALDRED_v_CITY_OF_PITTSBURGH_et_al

Aldred v. City Of Pittsburgh et al, PAWD 2:19-cv-00838

Pennsylvania Western District Court
Judge: David S Cercone
Case #: 2:19-cv-00838
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Case Filed: Jul 12, 2019
Terminated: Oct 09, 2019

Docket Report

[Excerpt - entry 19]

Wednesday, October 09, 2019

19 order Statistical Case Closing Wed 10/09 12:11 PM

ORDER FOR STATISTICAL CLOSING. The court having been advised that a settlement has been reached as to all aspects of plaintiff's complaint, the Clerk is directed to mark the case closed. Jurisdiction is retained over the completion and enforcement of the settlement agreement. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 10/9/19. (mwm)

Your Post-Gazette article quote is from the article cited in the Agorist/TFTP article.

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2019/11/28/Mount-Washington-man-Pittsburgh-police-civil-suit-police-dog-bite-16-000-settlement/stories/201911290055

Blind Mount Washington man settles civil suit for Pittsburgh police dog bite for $16,000

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A Mount Washington man is poised to receive $16,000 after he settled a lawsuit against the city and several officers for a June 2017 incident in which he was bitten by a K-9 when police entered his residence in the middle of the night.

City Council must approve the payment to Robert Aldred, 35.

The lawsuit, first filed in September in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court and later moved to U.S. District Court, was connected to an incident that occurred in the overnight hours between June 23 and 24, 2017, at Mr. Aldred’s residence on Norton Street.

Mr. Aldred is legally blind and takes several medications. The lawsuit claimed that the responding officers were negligent and used excessive force, among other allegations.

“It was extremely traumatic,” Mr. Aldred said Wednesday at a news conference. “It was the police department. They’re here to protect and serve.”

The night of the incident, Mr. Aldred got off work and went to a lounge in Downtown with a couple of friends before returning to his apartment about 12:30 a.m. When he got home, he noticed that the front screen door was broken, but the door remained intact. He went to his third-story apartment and fell asleep.

Pittsburgh police officers Logan Hanley, Joshua Matthews and Michael Soroczak responded after an anonymous neighbor called 911 to report a burglary was taking place at Mr. Aldred’s home. The officers entered the residence with a K-9 and made their way up to Mr. Aldred’s room.

Mr. Aldred, who didn’t hear police enter the residence, woke up when the officers came into his room. He said he was unarmed and naked, and he was confused why they were in his room.

None of the officers “had either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Mr. Aldred had committed a serious or violent crime, or that he was about to flee,” the lawsuit said.

Officer Hanley, who was the K-9’s handler, unleashed the German shepherd and encouraged it to attack Mr. Aldred, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Aldred said he raised his right arm to shield his face, and the K-9 bit his forearm. The dog also bit Mr. Aldred’s right thigh.

Mr. Aldred told the officers that he lived in the house and begged them to stop the K-9’s attack. After the attack ended, the lawsuit said the officers placed Mr. Aldred in handcuffs and told him that they needed to question him further. The officers put a pair of track pants on Mr. Aldred and walked him out to the front porch of the home.

Mr. Aldred, who was “hysterical, crying and still bleeding profusely,” the lawsuit said, told the officers that he lived in the residence, but they continued to question him.

About 2 a.m., Mr. Aldred’s roommate, Joshua Chebatoris, arrived and confirmed that Mr. Aldred lived there, the lawsuit said. One of the officers, who was not identified, took Mr. Aldred’s handcuffs off and asked him if he needed to go to a hospital.

“Mr. Aldred told the officer that he absolutely needed to go to an emergency room because he was still bleeding profusely and in excruciating pain from the attack,” the lawsuit said.

Mr. Aldred was taken to UPMC Mercy, where his arm was treated with gauze to stop the bleeding. He was prescribed antibiotics and painkillers.

Mr. Aldred said his medical bills will be at least $10,000. He was never charged or cited with any crime.

Included among those named in the lawsuit, which was settled outside of court, were all three responding officers and the city.

Mr. Aldred said the incident caused him severe emotional distress in addition to the physical pain.

“Mr. Aldred will never be the same,” said Todd Hollis, Mr. Aldred’s attorney. “And the fact that this happened in his own home, I’m certain it will have lasting consequences.”

nolu chan  posted on  2019-11-30   16:30:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#0)

From Doc #11, the Amended Complaint of 2 Sep 2019:

PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL BACKGROUND

16.Mr. Aldred is legally blind, and also suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety, lucid dreams and nightmares, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder, among other ailments.

17. Mr. Aldred regularly takes various prescription medications, pursuant to his doctor’s orders, to treat the above-mentioned ailments and disorders.

18.On June 24, 2017, Mr. Aldred was transitioning to a new prescription medication to treat his ailments and disorders, under his doctor’s supervision.

19.Mr. Aldred believes that his adjustment to this new prescription medications further hindered his perception, including his ability to understand and react to what was going on inside of his home on the night of June 24, 2017.

THE ATTACK

20.On Friday, June 24, 2017, around 11 o’clock p.m., Mr. Aldred finished working as a waiter at a restaurant located in downtown Pittsburgh. Mr. Aldred and two friends went to a lounge, also located in downtown Pittsburgh.

It sounds like Mr. Aldred went to a titty bar to practice his braille and drink away his chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety, lucid dreams and nightmares, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder, among other ailments, and to facilitate his transitioning to a new prescription medication to treat his ailments and disorders, under his doctor’s supervision.

Maybe waiter Aldred got blind drunk, got in a fight with his screen door, couldn't find his bed, and just crashed on the floor in his birthday suit.

From Doc #15, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss of 27 Sep 2019:

1. Officers were called to Plaintiff’s residence on or about June 24, 2017, to investigate a burglary in process reported by an anonymous neighbor. ECF No. 11 ¶ 15. When Officers arrived they found Plaintiff’s front screen door broken and when Defendant Officers searched the home they found Plaintiff lying on the floor of a bedroom in the dark. Id. ¶¶ 29, 38.

2. Officers were unaware that Plaintiff lived at the house or that he suffered from a number of psychological and physical ailments. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. Officers used K9 force to detain Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 38-39.

The referenced ECF No. 11 is Plaintiff Aldred's Amended Complaint. Paragraphs 15-17, 29, 38-39 read as follows:

15. Following the incident complained of herein, Mr. Aldred learned that an anonymous neighbor called the Pittsburgh Police to report that they suspected a burglary was taking place at his home.

16. Mr. Aldred is legally blind, and also suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety, lucid dreams and nightmares, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder, among other ailments.

17. Mr. Aldred regularly takes various prescription medications, pursuant to his doctor’s orders, to treat the above-mentioned ailments and disorders.

- - - - - - - - - -

29. Mr. Aldred woke up, but was naturally confused about what was happening, and why anyone was in his bedroom.

- - - - - - - - - -

38. Pursuant to the Defendant Officers’ conduct, the German Shepherd ran at Mr. Aldred, who was laying naked on the floor of his bedroom.

39. Mr. Aldred instinctively raised his right forearm in front of his face to shield it from the dog’s vicious attack.

The text of Doc #15, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is short:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT ALDRED, an individual Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PITTSBURGH, ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE REGINA McDONALD, OFFICER MICHAEL SOROCZAK, OFFICER JOSHUA MATTHEWS, and OFFICER LOGAN HANLEY. Defendants.

CIVIL DIVISION
No. 2:19-cv-00838
Judge David S. Cercone
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, FORMER CHIEF REGINA MCDONALD AND DEFENDANT OFFICERS SOROCZAK, MATTEHWS AND HANLEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(B)(6)

Defendants, City of Pittsburgh, Former Chief Regina McDonald, and Defendant Officers Soroczak, Matthews, and Hanley, respectfully file this Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and in support thereof states the following:

1. Officers were called to Plaintiff's residence on or about June 24, 2017, to investigate a burglary in process reported by an anonymous neighbor. ECF No. 11 ¶15. When Officers arrived they found Plaintiff's front screen door broken and when Defendant Officers searched the home they found Plaintiff lying on the floor of a bedroom in the dark. Id. ¶¶ 29, 38.

2. Officers were unaware that Plaintiff lived at the house or that he suffered from a number of psychological and physical ailments. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. Officers used K9 force to detain Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 38-39.

3. After his Amended Complaint was removed from the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of his alleged constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4. Plaintiff has no viable § 1983 claims against the City of Pittsburgh, the Defendant Officers and, against Former Chief Regina McDonald, thus, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed.

5. Any claims against the City of Pittsburgh should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to properly allege a widespread municipal policy or custom that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional injuries. Plaintiff failed to state a claim for municipal liability under a failure to train, control over supervise theory. Further, the actions of one officer, claimed by the Plaintiff to be evidence of a failure to train, control, or supervise, does not amount to a widespread policy or custom.

6. Plaintiff's claims against Former Chief McDonald should be dismissed with prejudice because she was not the Chief, or apparently employed with the City of Pittsburgh, on or about September 24, 2017.

7. Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Officers Soroczak, Matthews, and Hanley should be dismissed for failure to state a claim and because the Officers, as well as Former Chief Regina McDonald, should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity.

8. Defendants respectfully request this Court dismiss all claims against it with prejudice, as explained further in their Brief accompanying this Motion.

9. A proposed order is attached.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Julie E. Koren
Julie E. Koren (Pa. ID 309642),
Assistant City Solicitor
313 City-County Building, 414 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Julie.Koren@pittsburghpa.gov
Counsel for Defendant City of Pittsburgh,
Former Chief Regina McDonald, Officer Soroczak, Officer Matthews, and Officer Hanley

nolu chan  posted on  2019-11-30   17:52:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: nolu chan (#5)

Mr. Aldred regularly takes various prescription medications, pursuant to his doctor’s orders, to treat the above-mentioned ailments and disorders.

I wonder what his doctor said about combining alcohol with those various prescription medications.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-11-30   19:01:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: nolu chan (#5)

Mr. Aldred finished working as a waiter at a restaurant located in downtown Pittsburgh.

A blind waiter? Oh, what could possibly go wrong?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-11-30   19:02:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite (#1) (Edited)

"being the blind man noticed that. Got it. "

"Legally blind". Learn to read.

"If you're legally blind, your vision is 20/200 or less. That means if an object is 200 feet away, you have to stand 20 feet from it in order to see it clearly. But a person with normal vision can stand 200 feet away and see that object perfectly. An estimated 1.1 million Americans are legally blind."

A Pole  posted on  2019-12-01   9:58:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: A Pole (#8)

"If you're legally blind, your vision is 20/200 or less. That means if an object is 200 feet away, you have to stand 20 feet from it in order to see it clearly. But a person with normal vision can stand 200 feet away and see that object perfectly. An estimated 1.1 million Americans are legally blind."

20/200 vision means that a person sees an object 20 feet away the same as people with normal vision see the same object at 200 feet away.

A person with 20/20 vision sees objects clearly at 20 feet. At 200 feet, they don't. Which is why rifles have scopes.

As to "legally blind", it's mentioned only once. The headline, link and 8 other places in the article simply say "blind".

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-01   11:07:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: nolu chan (#5)

16.Mr. Aldred is legally blind, and also suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety, lucid dreams and nightmares, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder, among other ailments.

I wouldn't want to encounter this guy at Walmart, much less have to deal with him ater dark when he's been drinking.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-01   11:28:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Deckard (#0)

Cops Force K9 to Maul Innocent Sleeping Blind Man

Right. The K9 didn't want to, but they forced him. Probably threatened the K9's family.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-01   12:33:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: nolu chan (#4)

Officer Hanley, who was the K-9’s handler, unleashed the German shepherd and encouraged it to attack Mr. Aldred, according to the lawsuit.

If the guy was laying down he was not physically threatening to the cops.

If he was naked they could see he was unarmed.

Why, then, did the officer release the dog?

watchman  posted on  2019-12-01   12:53:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: watchman (#12)

" If the guy was laying down he was not physically threatening to the cops.

If he was naked they could see he was unarmed.

Why, then, did the officer release the dog? "

watchman, the canary klan will not like you asking such questions!

They will now label you as a " Cop Hater "

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)

"No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson "

People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee

Stoner  posted on  2019-12-01   13:23:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite (#11)

" The K9 didn't want to, but they forced him. Probably threatened the K9's family. "

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Most likely gave him the proper commands.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)

"No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson "

People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee

Stoner  posted on  2019-12-01   13:25:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#10) (Edited)

" much less have to deal with him ater dark when he's been drinking"

Yes, and you can sleep relaxed in your bed, assuming that you are secure in your person, house, papers, and effects.

But what if they will not know that you are a noble and heroic LEO, and sick a dog on you in the middle of night? What a wonderful surprise wake-up it will be?

Go to a doctor to check your legs, because for your head it is too late.

A Pole  posted on  2019-12-01   13:37:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: A Pole (#15)

But what if they will not know that you are a noble and heroic LEO, and sick a dog on you in the middle of night? What a wonderful surprise wake-up it will be?

Not as surprised as my neighbor will be for siccing the cops on me.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-01   15:15:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Stoner (#13)

If he was naked they could see he was unarmed.

He was laying on the floor. Did the cops have x-ray vision to see that there was no gun underneath him?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-01   15:22:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: misterwhite (#16) (Edited)

Go to a doctor immediately, you might have rabies. K9 will catch it.

A Pole  posted on  2019-12-01   15:27:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Stoner (#13)

the canary klan will not like you asking such questions!

They will now label you as a " Cop Hater "

I'm not too worried about the canary klan...it's those cowardly sadist cops they idolize, the ones with the itchy trigger fingers and no accountability, that scare me.

What kind of person let's a vicious dog maul another person, who's clearly not a threat?

watchman  posted on  2019-12-01   15:42:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: watchman (#19) (Edited)

What kind of person let's a vicious dog maul another person, who's clearly not a threat?

Especially that the victim "suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety" etc ...

How will he be able to sleep after this "visit"?

A Pole  posted on  2019-12-01   16:23:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite (#17)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)

"No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson "

People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee

Stoner  posted on  2019-12-01   18:43:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A Pole (#8)

"If you're legally blind, your vision is 20/200 or less. That means if an object is 200 feet away, you have to stand 20 feet from it in order to see it clearly. But a person with normal vision can stand 200 feet away and see that object perfectly. An estimated 1.1 million Americans are legally blind."

MW should already know this as he is legally blind.

It's the only explanation.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-01   20:37:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A Pole (#20)

Especially that the victim "suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety" etc ...

How will he be able to sleep after this "visit"?

Often the medications just for bipolar disorder are so harsh that patients turn to self-medication (alcohol, pills, marijuana). I've seen this over and over with countless mental patients. They hate their meds. For example, lithium is like a salt...and it makes the patient feel "dried out" (their words).

My guess...he'll probably just up his dosage of alcohol to get to sleep...if you call passing out drunk as sleep.

You have to give this guy credit, though...he was trying to hold down a job.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-01   22:37:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Pinguinite (#22)

MW should already know this as he is legally blind.

We should not be too harsh with MW, clearly he is a troubled person too :(

A Pole  posted on  2019-12-02   5:26:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: watchman (#19) (Edited)

What kind of person let's a vicious dog maul another person, wh who's clearly not a threat?

Maul?

"Mr. Aldred was taken to UPMC Mercy, where his arm was treated with gauze to stop the bleeding. He was prescribed antibiotics and painkillers."

As far as the cops knew at the time, he was a naked, psycho burglar laying on the floor, in the dark, who had broken into the house and wasn't following instructions.

Maybe you're suggesting he should have been tased instead? OK. I can go with that.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-02   9:13:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Pinguinite (#22)

MW should already know this as he is legally blind.

It … it was … soap poisoning.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-02   9:18:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#25)

As far as the cops knew at the time, he was a naked, psycho burglar laying on the floor, in the dark, who had broken into the house and wasn't following instructions.

Maybe you're suggesting he should have been tased instead? OK. I can go with that.

As far as the man on the floor knew they were fake cops breaking into his house and he could have shot them if he wanted to.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-02   9:29:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: misterwhite (#25)

As far as the cops knew at the time, he was a naked, psycho burglar laying on the floor, in the dark, who had broken into the house and wasn't following instructions.

The cops were the psychos in this scenario - as they often are.

Good grief man? WTF is wrong with you? He was in his own fricken house.

As usual the pricks escalated the situation.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-12-02   9:35:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: A K A Stone (#27)

As far as the man on the floor knew they were fake cops breaking into his house and he could have shot them if he wanted to.

Not according to whitey - cops are gods to him.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-12-02   9:36:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Deckard (#28)

WTF is wrong with you? He was in his own fricken house.

Did the cops know that at the time? You are so smart after the fricken fact.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-02   9:55:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#27)

As far as the man on the floor knew they were fake cops breaking into his house and he could have shot them if he wanted to.

That would be the "fake" uniformed and armed cops with a K9 yelling "Police" and "Show me your hands"?

Sure. He could have. That's what concerned the cops.

I think you're making my point.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-02   10:02:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#27)

As far as the man on the floor knew they were fake cops ...

Sure. And the car with the flashing lights behind you could be fake. I suggest you speed away. Just to be on the safe side.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-02   10:06:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: watchman, misterwhite (#12)

If the guy was laying down he was not physically threatening to the cops.

If he was naked they could see he was unarmed.

Why, then, did the officer release the dog?

As quoted at #5, doc 15 states:

When Officers arrived they found Plaintiff’s front screen door broken and when Defendant Officers searched the home they found Plaintiff lying on the floor of a bedroom in the dark.

It does not state that Plaintiff Aldred remained lying on the floor.

The cops had flashlights, it was in the dark, and they encountered Plaintiff in whatever state he was in.

The Plaintiff's Doc 11, pp. 6-11, describes the attack. I will provide that entire section as I find parts to be incredible, and note that what is referred to as Aldred's "bedroom" was actually the entire 3rd floor of the building.

In the complaint, it is claimed that he was dragged out of his bed and onto the floor. That sounds like a loft or attic. The cops claim to have encountered him naked on the floor.

In the complaint, it would appear that Aldred was "bleeding profusely" from the time of the encounter until he was taken to the hospital, at his request, some time after 2 a.m. Allegedly, he was "bleeding profusely" for quite some extended period. At the hospital, his arm was wrapped in gauze. That was it.

He was apparently held overnight at the hospital because it took an extended time to get him to calm down. He was hysterical.

It seems more likely than not that he was hysterical when he encountered the cops. According to the Amended Complaint, Aldred "did not resist, attempt to flee, or make any threatening statements or actions towards the Defendant Officers." And, "Mr. Aldred had nothing in his hands, which were clearly visible, was neither fleeing nor resisting, and posed no immediate threat to anyone."

However, if plaintiff Aldred were hysterical during the encounter, then he could not have provided the purported story as told by his attorney.

The complaint alleges plaintiff did nothing, posed no threat to anyone, made no threatening statements, was neither fleeing nor resisting, and the cop just sicced a dog on him for no reason at all.

Unfortunately, for our understanding of what did occur, the response to the Amended Complaint does not go there. It addresses the failures to state a claim to justify a section 1983 federal civil rights lawsuit. There was no need for character assassination, and the defense simply argued the law in a page and a half, double spaced.

More likely than not, the Plaintiff freaked out when awakened by multiple cops in the middle of the night. He was still freaked out when he got to the hospital after 2 a.m.

More likely than not, the cops chose not to wrestle on the ground with a mentally disturbed person who was freaking out and non-compliant to verbal command.

If the Plaintiff's attorney thought he could really sell the Complaint story to a jury, a settlement for $16,000 would not have been snatched up. In fact, the settlement was snatched up almost two months before the Matt Agorist/TFTP thread article was published.

Below is the entire Amended Complaint section about the attack.

THE ATTACK

20. On Friday, June 24, 2017, around 11 o’clock p.m., Mr. Aldred finished working as a waiter at a restaurant located in downtown Pittsburgh. Mr. Aldred and two friends went to a lounge, also located in downtown Pittsburgh.

21. Around 12:30 a.m., Mr. Aldred went back to his apartment in Mount Washington.

22. Upon returning home, Mr. Aldred noticed that his screen door was broken. His front door, which was located behind the screen, was intact. Mr. Aldred was not bothered by the broken screen door.

23. Mr. Aldred entered his home, and went to bed.

24. Mr. Aldred’s bedroom encompasses the entire third floor of the house.

25. The second story of the house contains a common living area, and a second bedroom where his roommate, Joshua Chebatoris, lives. Mr. Chebatoris was not home at the time that Mr. Aldred went to bed.

26. While Mr. Aldred was asleep in his bedroom on the third story of his home, the Defendant Officers, and one German Shepherd canine officer, entered his bedroom.

27. The Defendant Officers each used a flashlight to gain a clear view of the inside of Mr. Aldred’s home.

28 .Mr. Aldred did not hear the Defendant Officers enter his home, knock, or announce their presence. He first noticed the Defendant Officers and the canine officer when they entered his third-floor bedroom with their flashlights.

29. Mr. Aldred woke up, but was naturally confused about what was happening, and why anyone was in his bedroom.

30. Mr. Aldred is legally blind, and receives various prescription medications.

31. Mr. Aldred was not armed, was sleeping in his own bedroom, and naked.

32. The Defendant Officers dragged him out of his bed, and on to the floor of his bedroom.

33. Mr. Aldred did not resist, attempt to flee, or make any threatening statements or actions towards the Defendant Officers.

34. Mr. Aldred did not and does not have any outstanding warrants for his arrest.

35. None of the Defendants, the Defendant Officers, had either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Mr. Aldred had committed a serious or violent crime, or that he was about to flee.

36. Mr. Aldred had nothing in his hands, which were clearly visible, was neither fleeing nor resisting, and posed no immediate threat to anyone.

37 .Despite this, and without warning, the Defendant Officer Hanley unleashed the canine officer on Mr. Aldred and allowed and encouraged the canine to attack him.

38. Pursuant to the Defendant Officers’ conduct, the German Shepherd ran at Mr. Aldred, who was laying naked on the floor of his bedroom.

39. Mr. Aldred instinctively raised his right forearm in front of his face to shield it from the dog’s vicious attack.

40. The canine sunk his teeth all the way down into Mr. Aldred’s right forearm, causing him excruciating pain.

41. The canine continued to bite Mr. Aldred all over his right forearm and his outer right thigh.

42. Mr. Aldred sustained noticeable scars on his right arm and thigh area. The scars are likely to be permanent.

43. Mr. Aldred was bleeding profusely.

44. Mr. Aldred asked the Defendant Officers what they were doing in his house.

45. Mr. Aldred repeatedly told the Defendant Officers that he lived at the house.

46. Mr. Aldred begged the Defendant Officers to stop the dog from attacking him.

47. In response, the Defendant Officers placed handcuffs on Mr. Aldred behind his back, as he was on his stomach, naked on his bedroom floor.

48. Mr. Aldred repeated to Defendant Officers that he lived at the house, and asked them to stop the dog from attacking him.

49. the Defendant Officers responded that they needed to do more questioning.

50. the Defendant Officers pulled Mr. Aldred off the floor and onto his feet, and walked him downstairs to the second story of his house.

51. One of the officers grabbed a pair of track pants from the second-floor bedroom and put them on Mr. Aldred, then continued walking him downstairs to the first floor.

52. the Defendant Officers took the Plaintiff outside of his home and sat him on a couch on the front porch.

53. Mr. Aldred was hysterical, crying and still bleeding profusely.

54. Mr. Aldred continued to tell the Defendant Officers that he lived at the house, the Defendant Officers nonetheless detained Mr. Aldred, and left him handcuffed on his couch on his front porch, while they interrogated him without reason.

55. Numerous neighbors witnessed the Defendant Officers interrogate Mr. Aldred while he was in handcuffs on his own front porch.

56. Around 2:00 o’clock a.m., Mr. Aldred’s roommate, Joshua Chebatoris, arrived home.

57. Chebatoris approached the front porch where the Defendant Officers had detained Mr. Aldred, and asked what had happened to his roommate.

58. Chebatoris told the Defendant Officers that he lived at the home with Mr. Aldred.

59. Chebatoris showed the Defendant Officers his driver’s license, which contained the address of the residence where the events complained of herein took place.

60. One of the Officers took Chebatoris to the side of the front porch to question him separately.

61. Mr. Aldred told the Defendant Officers that he had a medical condition that required attention.

62. One of the officers motioned for the other officers to leave the front porch. The officer put on plastic gloves, and then approached Mr. Aldred and removed his handcuffs.

63. The Officer asked Mr. Aldred if he thought he needed to go to a hospital.

64. Mr. Aldred told the Officer that he absolutely needed to go to an emergency room because he was still bleeding profusely and in excruciating pain from the attack.

65. An ambulance arrived while Chebatoris was being questioned by police in a separate area.

66. Mr. Aldred was able to walk himself into the back of the ambulance and sit on the paramedic’s ledge as he was transported to the room.

67. Mr. Aldred was taken to UPMC Mercy Emergency Room for treatment.

68. Mr. Aldred was prescribed antibiotics and painkillers for the severe cuts he suffered from the dog attack.

69. Physicians wrapped the Plaintiff’s right arm in gauze to contain the bleeding.

70. Mr. Aldred’s treating physician ordered X-Rays of his right arm to be taken, to determine if the deep dog bite had damaged his bone.

71. While being treated at UPMC Mercy Emergency Room, Mr. Aldred was visibly shaken and hysterical due to the entire ordeal.

72. UPMC Mercy staff told the Plaintiff that he needed to calm down, but he was unable remain calm due to the brutal attack.

73. Mr. Aldred was discharged around 8 o’clock a.m. on Saturday, June 24, 2017.

74. Mr. Aldred was still in pain, and so he went to Allegheny General hospital later that day, June 24, 2017, and again the following day, June 25, 2017.

75. Plaintiff was not charged with any crimes, and was not given any citations or paperwork regarding the incident.

76. At all times during Mr. Aldred’s contact with Defendants, he behaved peacefully and lawfully. Plaintiff never possessed or displayed any weapon, nor did he threaten anyone in any way. Further, Plaintiff never resisted a lawful order and never attempted to escape.

77. Defendants lacked probable cause to believe Plaintiff had committed any crime.

78. The force used by Defendants and the Defendant Officers against Mr. Aldred was unjustified, excessive and objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.

79. At all material times, Defendants’ seizure of Mr. Aldred was done without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or other legal right; lasted an excessive amount of time; and was conducted unreasonably.

80. Alternatively, or concurrently, Defendants’ own excessive and unreasonable actions created the situation in which the Defendant Officers decided to unlawfully seize and use force against Mr. Aldred, and caused an escalation of events leading to the unlawful seizure and use of force against, and injury to, Mr. Aldred.

81. At all material times, and alternatively, the actions and omissions of each defendant were intentional, wanton and/or willful, conscience shocking, reckless, malicious, deliberately indifferent to Mr. Aldred’s rights, done with actual malice, grossly negligent, negligent, and objectively unreasonable.

82. Mr. Aldred required medical treatment for his injuries caused by Defendants, and Plaintiff has incurred medical bills.

83. As a direct and proximate result of each Defendant’s acts and/or omissions as set forth above, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries and damages, past and future, among others: significant physical injuries requiring medical treatment, including but not limited to multiple bites, puncture wounds, soft tissue injuries, cuts and lacerations; pain and suffering, including emotional distress; medical expenses; violation of constitutional rights; all damages and penalties recoverable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, and as otherwise allowed under Pennsylvania and United States statutes, codes, and common law.

84. the Defendant Officers stood by and did nothing to order or restrain the dog from biting Mr. Aldred.

85. the Defendant Officers failed to give a command for the dog to stop biting Mr. Aldred’s arm.

86. Although they were with Defendant Officer Hanley, or close by him at all times, Defendant Officers Soroczak & Matthews failed to intervene to stop them from allowing the dog to bite Aldred. Moreover, Defendant Officers Soroczak & Matthews acted in concert with Defendant Officer Hanley in allowing the dog to bite Aldred.

87. At all times relevant to the facts set forth in this Complaint, Mr. Aldred was acting in the exercise of due care for his own safety, welfare, and well being from harm.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-02   11:26:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: misterwhite (#31)

I was just taking your position and turning it around from the other perspective.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-02   11:28:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: misterwhite (#10)

I wouldn't want to encounter this guy at Walmart, much less have to deal with him ater dark when he's been drinking.

I would not want to be a lawyer putting Aldred on the stand, with the whole case relying on Aldred telling a believable story and not freaking out.

Aldred got about what they offered him in the first place.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-02   11:38:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: nolu chan (#33)

More likely than not

Pure speculation on your part (isn't that what they say in all the tv courtroom dramas)

And where is the police report? I'd like to read the officer's sworn statements/report.

If the Plaintiff's attorney thought he could really sell the Complaint story to a jury, a settlement for $16,000 would not have been snatched up.

Conversely, and regardless of the amount, a settlement WAS offered in the face of excessive force.

The pitiful amount may be from the ineptitude of the lawyer, or maybe the lawyer knew the deck was stacked (the old "just us" department at work).

watchman  posted on  2019-12-02   13:02:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: misterwhite (#25)

Maul?

Yeah, the dog mauled him.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-02   13:04:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: watchman (#37)

Yeah, the dog mauled him.

No, the dog scratched him. No stitches, no skin grafts, no blood transfusion, no scars, no overnight hospital stay.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-02   15:20:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: watchman, misterwhite (#36)

More likely than not

Pure speculation on your part (isn't that what they say in all the tv courtroom dramas)

As I stated, there is insufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusion of what happened.

In a civil trial, the applied standard of evidence is a preponderance of the evidence. That is also defined as more likely than not.

And where is the police report? I'd like to read the officer's sworn statements/report.

It would seem that the Plaintiff did not mention it in the Complaint. I would imagine it was prominent in the Reply Brief, but that was removed from public view by the Court.

On 17 July 2019, the Court "noticed" that "the instant civil action has been designated for placement into the United States District Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program." The case was never scheduled for trial.

On 27 July 2019, the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim was filed. Paragraph 8 stated, "Defendants respectfully request this Court dismiss all claims against it with prejudice, as explained further in their Brief accompanying this Motion." As filed at Docket #16, there was an Attachment #1 Exhibit 1. The docket thereafter notes, "Document removed from public view and redocketed at 17." Same date at Docket #17, there is no attachment, just the page and a half Motion. I suspect the attached Brief contained information about Plaintiff's mental state.

It would seem that whatever was in the Brief was not only enough to have the Court remove it from public view, but enough to impel the Plaintiff to accept the settlement on the terms of the city.

I reckon the lawyer took a third of the settlement plus expenses, leaving the Plaintiff with approximately the same $10,000 that was offered earlier.

Conversely, and regardless of the amount, a settlement WAS offered in the face of excessive force.

No, there is no evidence of excessive force.

As for the lawsuit, one named defendant was Acting Chief of Police Regina McDonald. Problematic is the reply that former Chief Regina McDonald was neither the Chief at the time of the incident, nor employed by the City of Pittsburgh in any way.

Three other named defendants were the Officers, for whom qualified immunity was claimed, controverting any claim of excessive force.

Lastly, the City of Pittsburgh was named as a defendant. To maintain a claim of a violation of constitutional rights against the city, Plaintiff must show a widespread municipal policy or custom that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional injuries. Offering evidence of a single instance fails to meet that standard. In the lawsuit, what must be proven is a violation of constitutional rights.

In moving to toss the case for failure to state a claim, the defense essentially argued that if plaintiff proved all the facts alleged in the complaint, the facts would not establish a cause of action entitling the plaintiff to recover against the defendants. Less than two weeks after that motion was filed, Plaintiff Aldred agreed to settle.

Assuming the case were litigated, Aldred lost, and then appealed, the city cost to litigate would exceed the amount of the settlement.

On the other hand, if the Plaintiff could win the case with the allegations proven, the award would likely be far greater than the settlement amount.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-02   16:31:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: nolu chan (#39)

More likely than not

As I stated, there is insufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusion of what happened.

May I then speculate a little...

Aldred is unable to function in society. He has little to no support group (family, friends) to look out for him. He falls victim to some aggressive officers who get qualified immunity no matter what they do. The City of Pittsburgh sees he's basically helpless, they circle the wagons to protect their own, convince him to take the pittance they offer him...and close the case.

I reckon the lawyer took a third of the settlement plus expenses, leaving the Plaintiff with approximately the same $10,000 that was offered earlier.

His emergency room expenses were more than he got in the "settlement".

Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. Ex. 23:6
It is not good to be partial to the wicked and so deprive the innocent of justice. Pr.18:5
The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern. Pr. 29:7

watchman  posted on  2019-12-02   18:27:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: watchman (#40)

May I then speculate a little...

Sure, why not.

Aldred is unable to function in society. He has little to no support group (family, friends) to look out for him.

Agreed. Aldred is a mental case. We have closed the mental hospitals and put the mental cases on the street. Aldred is doing better than most who are similarly situated. He is not living on the street, at least not yet.

He falls victim to some aggressive officers who get qualified immunity no matter what they do.

This is simply a contradiction of terms. Were the officers to get immunity no matter what they did, it would be UNqualified immunity.

Quality immunity attaches only to acts performed as part of their job.

The Complaint, at paragraph 107 states:

107. The Plaintiff asserts that under the broadest principles of vicarious liability the Defendant City of Pittsburgh is legally responsible for all of the acts herein alleged against its employees, and the Defendant Officers respectively, and perhaps others, committed within the scope of their employment, who at all pertinent times were acting as officers of the law under the color of law within the scope of their employment.

That rather eviscerates any ability to sue the cops as individuals. They were acting at all pertinent times within the scope of their employment. So sayeth the Plaintiff.

Use of excessive force would not be within their job. It would be a criminal act and they could be criminally prosecuted and civilly sued. They could be sued for a tort, a civil wrong, in state court. The Aldred case actually started in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas, case number GD-12-1728, and was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In the Federal court, Aldred was alleging a violation of the Federal constitution.

Where the employees act within their job, they are immune from civil suit for damages. The wronged plaintiff can sue for damages, but must sue the governmental employer. However, if a State is the employer it gets more complicated as a State is a sovereign and may be sued only if it agrees to be sued.

I cannot rush to join the conclusion that the officers were overly aggressive. It seems to me that complainant's description of his actions is not credible. I do not see him sitting on the floor singing kumbaya. He saw three people in his dark room and freaked out. The cops do not know if he lives there or not. He is not coherent. They must detain him until they can find out who he is, and he becomes coherent. They do not know about his medical history or vision impairment. The cops were called to a break in or possible burglary in progress. They found a broken screen door, and then a naked guy on the floor, possibly babbling at them nonsensibly.

I do not know exactly why the dog attacked Aldred. Aldred's version is not credible, and the cops' version was withdrawn from public view. I believe with a degree of metaphysical certitude that the cops alleged Aldred did something other than just lie on the floor. I seriously doubt Aldred is capable of telling an accurate version of what happened.

What I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty is that within two weeks of the cops filing their version, Aldred agreed to settle.

The City of Pittsburgh sees he's basically helpless, they circle the wagons to protect their own, convince him to take the pittance they offer him...and close the case.

The defense case appears legally solid and prosecution case appears unable to survive the motion to dismiss. Absent the settlement, it is likely he would have gotten nothing. The city mercifully paid his medical and legal expenses, while the complaint was legally deficient.

It is likely that Aldred's lawyer urged him to take the settlement. One third of something is much better than one third of nothing, and a lot less work and time consumption. Five or six thousand to file a complaint and broker a settlement ain't a bad day's work for a personal injury lawyer.

His emergency room expenses were more than he got in the "settlement".

The claimed expenses were $10,000. That was claimed to the press, not the court. The Complaint contains no claim of medical expenses.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-02   20:08:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: nolu chan (#41)

He falls victim to some aggressive officers who get qualified immunity no matter what they do.

This is simply a contradiction of terms.

I was going to say "Right, good catch" but then again a "contradiction of terms" might actually work here. Like deja vu all over again.

I do not know exactly why the dog attacked Aldred.

There are strict protocols for use of a K-9. The dog bit Aldred because he was commanded to bite...nothing more, nothing less. (I have a family member who was a K-9 officer for 10 years...I know how this stuff works).

It seems to me that complainant's description of his actions is not credible.

Alas, your speculation is no better than mine. Wasn't he dragged sleeping from his bed? Freaking out? Still not a threat, still no justification for releasing the dog. Police deal with mentally ill people constantly. To say they couldn't recognize Aldred's psychosis is equally "not credible".

It is likely that Aldred's lawyer urged him to take the settlement. One third of something is much better than one third of nothing, and a lot less work and time consumption. Five or six thousand to file a complaint and broker a settlement ain't a bad day's work for a personal injury lawyer.

Had Aldred been a functioning member of society his settlement would have been much higher. Think how much a fellow police officer would receive if he'd been bitten by mistake...the payouts would never cease! In other words, Aldred got taken advantage of, primarily because of his mental condition. All the City had to do was make proper restitution (and, oh yeah, fire the K-9 officer for needlessly assaulting an innocent man)

watchman  posted on  2019-12-02   21:43:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: watchman (#42)

I was going to say "Right, good catch" but then again a "contradiction of terms" might actually work here. Like deja vu all over again.

It does not work for Aldred. The cops had qualified immunity following plaintiff's claim that they acted all pertenent times within the scope of their employment.

I do not know exactly why the dog attacked Aldred.

There are strict protocols for use of a K-9. The dog bit Aldred because he was commanded to bite...nothing more, nothing less. (I have a family member who was a K-9 officer for 10 years...I know how this stuff works).

It is equally indicative that his handler was threatened or attacked. The canine will not sit there as a neutral observer.

Government employees enjoy the rebuttable presumption of regularity in performing their official duties. The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiff to overcome the presumption. This would be a case of the word of three sane cops against the word of one mental case whose psychosis was so obvious that the cops must have recognized it.

Alas, your speculation is no better than mine. Wasn't he dragged sleeping from his bed?

Alas, no. Three sane cops claim they encountered the naked Aldred on the floor. Again, this is the word of three sane cops against one mental case you recognize as psychotic. It is difficult to maintain that Aldred has severe mental problems, was on loads of meds, added alcohol, was exhibiting psychosis, and has a lucid and clear memory of the events.

Defendant's Reply at paragraph 1:

1. Officers were called to Plaintiff's residence on or about June 24, 2017, to investigate a burglary in process reported by an anonymous neighbor. ECF No. 11 ¶ 15. When Officers arrived they found Plaintiff's front screen door broken and when Defendant Officers searched the home they found Plaintiff lying on the floor of a bedroom in the dark. Id. ¶ 29, 38.

- - - - - - - - - -

Freaking out? Still not a threat, still no justification for releasing the dog. Police deal with mentally ill people constantly.

You may not consider a psychotic a threat, but opinions do vary.

There is no actual evidence that the handler released the dog for no reason at all, except for the word of a mental case. Of course, the claim that the handler released the dog for no reason is directly at odds with the claim that the handler was, at all pertinent times, acting within the scope of his employment.

Police dealt with this mentally ill person and took him into custody. You do not say what they should have done. Perhaps a group hug with a subject exhibiting psychosis?

It was not until 2 a.m., when his roommate returned to the house, that the cops learned who the Plaintiff was. The cops were not performing a midnight welfare check, they were responding to a report of a suspected burglary.

Had Aldred been a functioning member of society his settlement would have been much higher.

Had Aldred proceeded to trial, he likely would have gotten nothing. Aldred is employed and is a functioning member of society. Perhaps he does not function so well when one of his meds is alcohol.

You provide no legal argument whatever to indicate why Aldred was entitled to any settlement or judgment whatever. He was not suing in Federal court because of a dog bite, nor because of personal injury. He was suing for a violation of his constitutional rights.

Having claimed the cops acted within the scope of their employment, the claims against them was doomed. The claim against Regina McDonald was doomed as she was not at the scene and was not the Police Chief, nor a city employee.

To prevail against the city, Aldred needed to prove a widespread municipal policy or custom was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional injuries. There was a failure to allege any widespread municipal policy or custom. He had to allege and show a widespread policy or custom involving the release of a K-9 for no reason at all.

Think how much a fellow police officer would receive if he'd been bitten by mistake...the payouts would never cease! In other words, Aldred got taken advantage of, primarily because of his mental condition. All the City had to do was make proper restitution (and, oh yeah, fire the K-9 officer for needlessly assaulting an innocent man)

You assume the word of a psychotic mental case prevails over the word of three cops for no reason at all. There is no reason to fire the K-9 officer in the absence of evidence that he did something wrong. The only evidence is the unproven allegations of a psychotic, controverted by three cops.

Just because Aldred committed no crime does not indicate that the cops committed a crime or violated his constitutional rights. The city paid about $16,000 more than they needed to. Despite the sensational article, there is no actual evidence that the cops violated Aldred's constitutional rights.

When the cops discovered Aldred on the floor, he acted badly and was not responsive to command. It may be excusable due to his various conditions, meds, and alcohol, but that does not establish any entitlement to compensation or damages. Getting injured while resisting arrest or acting psychotic is not a ticket to a pile of taxpayer money. It does not establish that his constitutional rights were violated by the city of Pittsburgh, the only thing at issue.

As for restitution, it would appear Aldred received restitution.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Restitution. An equitable remedy under which a person is restored to his or her original position prior to loss or injury, or placed in the position he or she would have been, had the breach not occurred. Act of restoring; restoration; restoration of anything to its rightful owner, the act of making good or giving equivalent for any loss, damage or injury; and indemnification.

I think you mean Aldred should have been awarded damages. There is no support to establish his purported right to damages for violation of his Federal constitutional rights. At issue in a Section 1983 Federal civil rights case is compensation or damages for alleged violation of constitutional rights.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-03   0:22:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: nolu chan (#43) (Edited)

sane cops

Oxymoron.

...a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.

They didn't even bother asking for his ID.

No surprise that you defend these sick sadists - you're just as sick as they are.

It was not until 2 a.m., when his roommate returned to the house, that the cops learned who the Plaintiff was

Yet they didn't bother to corroborate Aldred's assertion that it was his home as soon as they went in.

And to a cop worshiper like you - that is damn fine police work.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-12-03   0:50:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: nolu chan (#43) (Edited)

It is equally indicative that his handler was threatened or attacked. The canine will not sit there as a neutral observer.

This isn't your stupid pet dog that jumps on your house guests and barks uncontrollably when it feels like it. These dogs cost a fortune because they are extensively trained. They DO remain neutral (even their barking can be controlled so that the suspect can clearly hear and understand what the officer is saying) until commanded to act.

Government employees enjoy the rebuttable presumption of regularity in performing their official duties.

Government employees enjoy a system that too often allows they to abuse American citizens, wreck their lives, and get clean away with it.

Again, this is the word of three sane cops against one mental case you recognize as psychotic.

Aldred suffers from manic depression (bipolar disorder). Getting naked is a very common sign of a manic episode. The police are trained to "recognize as psychotic" and handle mental disorder. The good cops know how to recognize and subdue a mental patient and get them to a hospital. At least they did twenty years ago...now they just shoot them.

Manic depressives are almost always malnourished and frail. They are prone to rage but it is mostly verbal rage. Unlike schizophrenics, who can be very physically dangerous, manics generally undress and babble/shriek/cry etc.

Police dealt with this mentally ill person and took him into custody. You do not say what they should have done. Perhaps a group hug with a subject exhibiting psychosis?

Your comment about a hug is cute. Before they hugged him they should have wrapped him in a blanket. That is actually how mental patients are handled in a hospital, and on an airliner, as well.

https://www.ibtimes.com/airline-passenger-strips-naked-mid-air-walks-down-aisle-2747723

This is without doubt a bipolar event. Here's what the crew did:

An Air India Express flight passenger stripped naked and walked down the aisle mid-air in an incident that shocked the co-flyers. The incident took place during a flight heading to Lucknow, India, from Dubai.

The airline crew quickly reacted to the shocking act and wrapped the 35-year-old man with a blanket, according to local news agency ANI. Two crew members then held him down in a seat as the plane made its way to Lucknow.

The airline crew has more integrity and courage than those jackass cops.

You assume the word of a psychotic mental case prevails over the word of three cops for no reason at all.

I know that cops who release a dog on a prone naked man who is absolutely not physically threatening...will lie like a rug to protect their own butts.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   8:23:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: watchman (#40)

His emergency room expenses

What he said was his emergency room expenses. Does $10,000 for gauze and antibiotics sound right to you?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-03   9:37:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: watchman (#45)

Before they hugged him they should have wrapped him in a blanket.

51. One of the officers grabbed a pair of track pants from the second-floor bedroom and put them on Mr. Aldred, then continued walking him downstairs to the first floor.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-03   9:41:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: misterwhite (#46)

What he said was his emergency room expenses. Does $10,000 for gauze and antibiotics sound right to you?

My neighbor ran a small drill bit partially into his finger, hit the bone, had to go to the ER. It cost something like $3000. (Thankfully, insurance paid for part of it)

ER's are outragely expensive. $10K for a dog puncture sounds low. Puncture wounds, especially made by a powerful dog, can cause nerve damage, ligament and tissue damage, infection. Doctors who know how to assess and treat punctures, and who stay up all night with a staff of highly trained nurses...do not come cheap.

I noticed you made light of the man's wounds in another post. Ever been bitten by a dog to where blood is pouring out? My guess is no.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   10:06:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: misterwhite (#47)

One of the officers grabbed a pair of track pants from the second-floor bedroom and put them on Mr. Aldred

That's merely what anyone would do for a naked person. And they are probably realizing they screwed up.

Just to be fair the officers don't know how to do an actual therapeutic blanket wrap (a step up from the old straight jacket stuff of yore). This treatment requires a team of trained hospital staff members. But the officers are trained to get a mental patient to someone who DOES know how to handle the patient.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   10:31:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: watchman (#48)

$10K for a dog puncture sounds low.

$10K for gauze and antibiotics sounds high. If you were paying $10K out-of-po pocket for gauze and antibiotics, I think you'd look at this differently. pocket for gauze and antibiotics, I think you'd look at this differently.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-03   11:27:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: watchman (#49)

And they are probably realizing they screwed up.

So they screwed up by not giving him a blanket, and they screwed up by giving him his pants. They can't do anything right by you, can they?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-03   11:30:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: watchman (#49)

Just to be fair the officers don't know how to do an actual therapeutic blanket wrap (a step up from the old straight jacket stuff of yore).

So you're saying the cops knew at the time that he was whack-job on all kinds of meds? Hmmmm. I didn't read that.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-03   11:32:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: watchman (#48)

ER's are outragely expensive.

We agree on that. But $10K for gauze and antibiotics crosses over from outrageous into ludicrous.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-03   11:45:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: misterwhite (#50)

$10K for gauze and antibiotics sounds high.

Due to malpractice liability doctors have to do a barrage of testing to protect themselves. Things aren't so simple anymore...

https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/19/news/economy/emergency-room-er-bills/index.html

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   12:17:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: misterwhite (#51)

They can't do anything right by you, can they?

Not in this case, misterwhite

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   12:21:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: misterwhite (#52)

So you're saying the cops knew at the time that he was whack-job on all kinds of meds?

They are trained professionals, getting paid lots of money. Other cops can handle situations worse than this and perform their duties...no reason these cops couldn't resolve this with professionalism.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   12:29:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: misterwhite (#53)

Okay, go to the Post Gazette and see an actual interview with Aldred.

I should have watched this sooner. Doesn't sound like Aldred was having mental issues that night. Also, the dog wasn't released but was allowed to bite him.

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2019/11/28/Mount-Washington-man-Pittsburgh-police-civil-suit-police-dog-bite-16-000-settlement/stories/201911290055

Cops behaved worse than I thought. This is how they are being trained...

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   12:56:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: watchman (#57)

and see an actual interview with Aldred.

Do you have a link to an interview with the cops?

I mean, without that for balance, his interview comes across as biased and self-serving, no?

Or maybe you don't care to find the truth -- simply any story which supports your preconceived anti-cop theory of what happened.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-03   13:45:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: misterwhite (#58)

Do you have a link to an interview with the cops?

I mean, without that for balance, his interview comes across as biased and self-serving, no?

Or maybe you don't care to find the truth -- simply any story which supports your preconceived anti-cop theory of what happened.

Nonsense.

Why don't you post a cop interview?

Even the police report is nowhere to be found. Why?

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   14:05:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: watchman (#45)

Government employees enjoy the rebuttable presumption of regularity in performing their official duties.

Government employees enjoy a system that too often allows they to abuse American citizens, wreck their lives, and get clean away with it.

Government employees enjoy no immunity from criminal prosecution, your vivid imagination to the contrary notwithstanding.

The people are entitled to a functioning government. The government is not required to allow itself to be shut down by litigation and threats of litigation by those anarchists who would tie the executive branch employees up in litigation.

If there is a case to be made, it can be brought in court. Qualified immunity only requires that the civil suit be brought against the government rather than the employee found to have been in the performance of his job. If the employees acts are found to be unlawful or outside the performance of his job, the employee enjoys no immunity from civil suit.

If a civil suit is brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for an act which has no interstate involvement, as here, to justify Federal (as opposed to State) jurisdiction, it must show a violation of Federal constitutional rights. There must be some legal reason for a Federal court to assume jurisdiction.

The government, as a legal entity, is liable for the acts of its employees, just as any other corporate legal entity is liable for the acts of its employees. It falls under the ancient doctrine of respondeat superior, let the superior reply. If the doctrine of respondeat superior went away, so would the deep pockets.

Couunts II and III of the Aldred Complaint regarding Defendant City of Pittsburgh are captioned as follows:

COUNT II

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Plaintiff, Robert Aldred, and individual.
v.
Defendant, The City of Pittsburgh

- - - - - - - - - -

COUNT III

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

Plaintiff, Robert Aldred, and individual.
v.
Defendant, The City of Pittsburgh

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Respondeat superior.

Let the master answer. This doctrine or maxim means that a master is liable in certain cases for the wrongful acts of his servant, and a principal for those of his agent. Burger Chef Systems, Inc. v. Govro, C.A.Mo., 407 F.2d 921, 925.

Under this doctrine master is responsible for want of care on servant’s part toward those to whom master owes duty to use care, provided failure of servant to use such care occurred in course of his employment. Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Magnolia Pipe Line Co., Tex.Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 829, 832.

Under doctrine an employer is liable for injury to person or property of another proximately resulting from acts of employee done within scope of his employment in the employer’s service. Mid-Continent Pipeline Co. v. Crauthers, Okl., 267 P.2d 568, 571.

Doctrine applies only when relation of master and servant existed between defendant and wrongdoer at time of injury sued for, in respect to very transaction from which it arose. Hence, doctrine is inapplicable where injury occurs while employee is acting outside legitimate scope of authority. Rogers v. Town of Black Mountain, 224 N.C. 119, 29 S.E.2d 203, 205.

But if deviation be only slight or incidental, employer may still be liable. Klotsch v. P. F. Collier & Son Corporation, 349 Mo. 40, 159 S.W.2d 589, 593, 595.

See Scope of employment; Vicarious liability.

- - - - - - - - - -

Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Steven H. Gifis

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

Lat: let the superior reply.

This doctrine is invoked when there is a master-servant relationship between two parties. The “respondeat superior” doctrine stands for the proposition that when an employer, dubbed “master,” is acting through the facility of an employee or agent, dubbed “servant,” and tort liability is incurred during the course of this agency due to some fault of the agent, then the employer or master must accept the responsibility. Implicit in this is the common law notion that a duty rests upon every person to conduct his or her affairs so as not to injure another, whether or not in managing the affairs he or she employs agents or servants. See 143 P. 2d 554, 556. This doctrine is civil in its application. See 9 N.W. 2d 518, 521. See scope of employment. Compare vicarious liability.

Tort is a civil wrong.

https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/understanding-the-theory-of-respondeat-superior-liability

Understanding the Theory of Respondeat Superior Liability

One of the hazards of having employees use vehicles to perform work for you is possible respondeat superior liability. Unlike some of the other liabilities of having employees use your vehicles, you face respondeat superior liability even if your employees get into accidents while driving their own vehicles. In fact, you'll find that respondeat superior liability can come into play after any unfortunate incident — not just auto accidents — where an employee has harmed someone else or someone else's property.

Respondeat Superior Liability Explained

The phrase respondeat superior is a Latin term that lawyers sometimes use. The term may be "translated" as:

If your employee,

  • is at fault for an accident (or an incident); and

  • was doing work for you at the time of the accident/incident (lawyers will often refer to this as "acting within the scope of employment"); then

  • you may be held liable for damages arising from the accident/incident.

The first reaction many people have after respondeat superior is explained to them is to exclaim something like, "That doesn't sound fair! Do you mean to tell me that if a painter runs a red light on the way to do a job and gets into an accident that the painter's employer is liable? A boss can't sit in the passenger's seat next to every employee and tell them how to drive! What will those lawyers think of next . . . "

Why it's the law. The idea of respondeat superior may make more sense to you if you think about this: suppose the painter in our example showed up at your house and instead of painting the house white, like you ordered, painted it in a nice florescent lime? Would you be more willing to hold his employer liable now? Probably. Yet a boss can't always afford to sit and watch an employee brush each stroke of paint onto a building. Clearly, at some point the law has to draw a line. In most states, this "line" is that employers will be held liable for wrongful acts committed by their employees if those acts were committed within the scope of employment.

Employer Defenses Against Respondeat Superior Liability

The key to reducing your liability under respondeat superior is found in the words "within the scope of employment." (Some courts prefer wording like "furthering a purpose of the employer.") Thus, defending a respondeat superior claim typically involves one of the following options:

  • Establishing that an employee committed an intentional wrong, which makes it unlikely that he or she was acting within the scope of employment. Be careful about relying too much on this type of defense. Most people would say slugging a customer is intentional, that it's wrong, and that it probably couldn't serve any purpose for a business owner. But think about a bouncer working in a bar and you realize that such issues aren't always clear. And while running a red light is arguably an intentional wrong, if it is done to get a few gallons of paint before the hardware store closes, it unquestionably creates a liability issue.

  • Establishing that the employer had a policy prohibiting employees from doing whatever it was that the employee was doing that resulted in an accident. This defense usually works best, but it has some obvious limitations. You can't get away with making a policy against something after it has happened. And a "policy" against "skidding out of control when driving a company vehicle" would probably not fly with a court if you tried using that as a defense either. However, it's possible that a vehicle policy requiring employees to obey all traffic laws at all times — even if it means arriving at a job late, or losing some business — could be useful in the case where an employee runs a light.

  • Moreover, a policy restricting or prohibiting personal use of your vehicles may be useful. Many accidents occur in such circumstances. After all, employees who are off duty may be more likely to have been drinking. Or they may try to do something with a vehicle that the vehicle was not intended to do, such as moving a dinette set and chairs with a plumbing supply van so that the rear doors are left wired shut with a chair ready to fall out of the back.

  • Depending on good vehicle insurance to cover damages resulting from accidents and unfortunate incidents. In many respondeat superior cases, this may be your most viable option because accidents do happen while employees are performing duties within the scope of their jobs. While you can't always avoid such accidents, the right insurance coverage can go a long way to avoid a devastating financial loss.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-03   14:35:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: watchman (#45)

It is equally indicative that his handler was threatened or attacked. The canine will not sit there as a neutral observer.

This isn't your stupid pet dog that jumps on your house guests and barks uncontrollably when it feels like it. These dogs cost a fortune because they are extensively trained. They DO remain neutral (even their barking can be controlled so that the suspect can clearly hear and understand what the officer is saying) until commanded to act.

The dog is not trained to sit idly by as his handler gets mauled to death. It is trained to obey its handler's commands and not get involved when others are mauling each other, until given the commmand. The handler is trained to maintain control of the dog. The handler does not leave the dog to apprehend a suspect. He releases the dog and the dog does the apprehending.

If the subject approaches the handler, it does not take long for the handler to release the dog and give the command, such as hit.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Again, this is the word of three sane cops against one mental case you recognize as psychotic.

Aldred suffers from manic depression (bipolar disorder). Getting naked is a very common sign of a manic episode. The police are trained to "recognize as psychotic" and handle mental disorder. The good cops know how to recognize and subdue a mental patient and get them to a hospital. At least they did twenty years ago...now they just shoot them.

That funny, doctor. Mr. Aldred's Complaint is just a bit more inclusive than that.

16. Mr. Aldred is legally blind, and also suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety, lucid dreams and nightmares, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder, among other ailments.

As it is known that Mr. Aldred has chronic PTSD, it is known that he suffered a severe trauma from which he has not fully recovered. However, we do not know what that trauma was.

https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Posttraumatic-Stress-Disorder/Overview

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Traumatic events—such as an accident, assault, military combat or natural disaster—can have lasting effects on a person’s mental health. While many people will have short term responses to life-threatening events, some will develop longer term symptoms that can lead to a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD symptoms often co-exist with other conditions such as substance use disorders, depression and anxiety. A comprehensive medical evaluation resulting in an individualized treatment plan is optimal.

PTSD affects 3.6% of the U.S. adult population—about 9 million individuals. About 37% of those diagnosed with PTSD are classified as having severe symptoms. Women are significantly more likely to experience PTSD than men. Symptoms

A diagnosis of PTSD requires a discussion with a trained professional. Symptoms of PTSD generally fall into these broad categories:

  • Re-experiencing type symptoms, such as recurring, involuntary and intrusive distressing memories, which can include flashbacks of the trauma, bad dreams and intrusive thoughts.

  • Avoidance, which can include staying away from certain places or objects that are reminders of the traumatic event. A person might actively avoid a place or person that might activate overwhelming symptoms.

  • Cognitive and mood symptoms, which can include trouble recalling the event, negative thoughts about one’s self. A person may also feel numb, guilty, worried or depressed and have difficulty remembering the traumatic event. Cognitive symptoms can in some instances extend to include out-of-body experiences or feeling that the world is "not real" (derealization).

  • Arousal symptoms, such as hypervigilance. Examples might include being intensely startled by stimuli that resembles the trauma, trouble sleeping or outbursts of anger.

Young children can also develop PTSD, and the symptoms are different from those of adults. (This recent recognition by the field is a major step forward and research is ongoing.) Young children lack the ability to convey some aspects of their experience. Behavior (e.g. clinging to parents) is often a better clue than words, and developmental achievements in an impacted child might slip back (e.g. reversion to not being toilet trained in a 4-year-old).

It is essential that a child be assessed by a professional who is skilled in the developmental responses to stressful events. A pediatrician or child mental health clinician can be a good start. Causes

PTSD can occur at any age and is directly associated with exposure to trauma. Adults and children who have PTSD represent a relatively small portion of those who have been exposed to trauma. This difference is not yet well understood but we do know that there are risk factors that can increase a person’s likelihood to develop PTSD. Risk factors can include prior experiences of trauma, and factors that may promote resilience, such as social support. This is also an ongoing area of research.

We do know that for some, our “fight-or-flight” biological instincts, which can be life-saving during a crisis, can leave us with ongoing symptoms. Because the body is busy increasing its heart rate, pumping blood to muscles, preparing the body to fight or flee, all our physical resources and energy are focused on getting out of harm’s way. Therefore, there has been discussion that the posttraumatic stress response may not a disorder per se, but rather a variant of a human response to trauma.

Whether you think of these symptoms as a stress response variant or PTSD, consider them a consequence of our body’s inability to effectively return to “normal” in the months after its extraordinary response to a traumatic event.

[...]

https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-conditions/borderline-personality-disorder

Borderline Personality Disorder

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a condition characterized by difficulties regulating emotion. This means that people who experience BPD feel emotions intensely and for extended periods of time, and it is harder for them to return to a stable baseline after an emotionally triggering event.

This difficulty can lead to impulsivity, poor self-image, stormy relationships and intense emotional responses to stressors. Struggling with self-regulation can also result in dangerous behaviors such as self-harm (e.g. cutting).

[...]

Outburts of anger, stormy relationships, intense emotional responses to stressors, derealization.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Manic depressives are almost always malnourished and frail. They are prone to rage but it is mostly verbal rage. Unlike schizophrenics, who can be very physically dangerous, manics generally undress and babble/shriek/cry etc.

However, Mr. Aldred appears neither malnourished nor frail. Maybe you should have looked at his picture before wasting your time googling for naked people on Air India Express. He looks like he could be ex-army or a marine, there being no such thing as an ex-marine.

In this Aldred retelling, there were 7 or 8 police officers. As Mr. Aldred states, the room was dark, he saw 5 or 6 tactical lights pointed at his ceiling, he did not know what was going on, and he stood up. He does not say he stood up in bed. His video story is not consistent with his complaint story that he was dragged out of bed.

So, Mr. Aldred not only saw the three cops who were there, he believed he saw 3 to 5 more who were not there, with 5 or 6 tactical lights aimed at his ceiling.

The primary mental illness in this case is the chronic PTSD, with meds and alcohol mixed in.

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/innocent-blind-man-attacked-police-k9/

The way Mr. Aldred tells it, all of his neighbors moved out. The way I see it, that had to happen after the cops were gone, and Mr. Aldred was still there. Wherever they moved, there will still be cops, but there will be no Mr. Aldred.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Your comment about a hug is cute. Before they hugged him they should have wrapped him in a blanket. That is actually how mental patients are handled in a hospital, and on an airliner, as well.

You may go ahead and take a mental case with PTSD and borderline personality disorder, who mixes alcohol with his meds, and wrap him in a blanket. Or, if you are one of his especially close neighbors in that close nit community, you may anonymously call the cops. The cops responded to an anonymous neighbor's call.

When the subject is a mental case at the scene of a suspected burglary, the cops do no make entry with blankets. In this case, the three cops met a mental case in a dark room who saw all six or eight of them and the LED lights of their five or six weapons.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-03   14:36:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: nolu chan (#61)

and wrap him in a blanket ...

… and give him a Teddy bear and sing to him softly.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-03   14:49:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: nolu chan, misterwhite (#61)

Where's the police report?

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   15:21:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: watchman (#63)

Where's the police report?

I thought you had it. How can you arrive at these inflammatory conclusions without having the statements of both sides?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-03   15:53:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: watchman, misterwhite (#63)

Where's the police report?

You mean you have not obtained it yet? I have been waiting for you to obtain it and post it.

It is not with the Plaintiff's Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, nor with the original Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, nor is it with the Amended Complaint in the District Court.

It very well may be with the Defendants' Reply Brief, but for the third or fourth time, the Court removed that document from public view. I thought you were going to sue to get it unsealed.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-03   16:24:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: misterwhite, watchman (#58)

[misterwhite #58 reply to watchman #57] Do you have a link to an interview with the cops?

I mean, without that for balance, his interview comes across as biased and self-serving, no?

Or maybe you don't care to find the truth -- simply any story which supports your preconceived anti-cop theory of what happened.

Whatever was in the Reply Brief was removed from public view by the Court.

Please see my #61. He is lucid and clear in the video interview. But he says he awakened to see 5 or 6 LED lights from the cops' weapons, and saw 6 or 8 cops. That would be the 3 real cops and the 3 to 5 imaginary ones, and imaginary night scopes.

He said he stood up. He did not stand up in bed.

He said he was right next to the dog when he stood up.

In the original federal Complaint filed 2 years after the event, Exhibit A, Doc #1-1 is a copy of the COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, signed and filed 12 March 2019.

Mr. Aldred alleged:

11. Mr. Aldred lawfully rents his home pursuant to a written lease agreement. Mr. Aldred has one roommate, Jason Chebatoris, who was not home when Does 1-10 first entered their home. Chebatoris returned to the home after Does 1-10 had handcuffed and detained Mr. Aldred on their front porch.

- - - - - - - - - -

30. Does 1-10 dragged him out of his bed, and on to the floor of his bedroom.

31. Mr. Aldred did not resist, attempt to flee, or make Does 1-10, had either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Mr. Aldred had committed a serious or violent crime, or that he was about to flee. Mr. Aldred had nothing in his hands, which were clearly visible, was neither fleeing nor resisting, and posed no immediate threat to Defendants Does 1-10, nor anyone else.

34. Despite this, and without warning, Defendants Does 1-10 unleashed the canine officer on Mr. Aldred and allowed and encouraged the canine to attack Mr. Aldred.

35. Pursuant to Does 1-10's conduct, the German Shepherd ran at Mr. Aldred, who was laying naked on the floor of his bedroom.

- - - - - - - - - -

82. Does 1-10 stood by and did nothing to order or restrain the dog from biting Mr. Aldred.

83. Does 1-10 failed to give a command for the dog to stop biting Mr. Aldred's arm.

84. Although they were with Does 1-5, or close by him at all times, Does 5-10 failed to intervene to stop them from allowing the dog to bite Aldred. Moreover, Officers Does 5-10 acted in concert with Does 1-5 in allowing the dog to bite Aldred.

85. At all times relevant to the facts set forth in this Complaint, Mr. Aldred was acting in the exercise of due care for his own safety, welfare, and well being from harm.

- - - - - - - - - -

127. At all relevant times, Does 1-10 assumed custody, management and control of the police dog. By his status as a keeper of the dog, therefore, Does 1-10 are liable to the Plaintiff for his injuries.

128. Defendants Does 1-10 may be entitled to indemnification for any exposure to liability under the Pennsylvania Dog Bite Statutes but not immunity.

129. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under 3 P.S. section 459-101 to 1205, 3 P.S. section 501, 531 to 532, 34 Pa.C.S.A. sections 2381 to 2386, and 34 Pa.C.S.A. sections 2941 to 2945 (the "Dog Bite Statute") against Defendant Does 1-10.

- - - - - - - - - -

There were ten (10) of them! And they all assumed custody, management and control of the dog. This was two (2) YEARS after the event. The Amended Complaint reduced that to the three (3) officers who were actually there, one of whom was the dog handler.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-03   16:26:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: misterwhite (#64)

I thought you had it.

Why would you think I had the police report?

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   16:49:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: nolu chan (#65)

Where's the police report?

You mean you have not obtained it yet? I have been waiting for you to obtain it and post it.

You've got a long wait there counselor. I believe what Aldred said. The police report probably implicates the police.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   16:57:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: watchman (#67)

Why would you think I had the police report?

For the same precise reason you would think I had it.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-03   17:24:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: watchman (#68)

You've got a long wait there counselor. I believe what Aldred said. The police report probably implicates the police.

Which explains, in your twisted logic, why the Plaintiff almost immediately accepted the settlement.

So you believe Aldred saw 8 cops and 6 LED scopes, and there were 10 John Does in his house, five of them looking at the other five, and all ten of them handling the dog.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-03   17:28:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: watchman, misterwhite (#68)

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/438112839/DOCKET-REPORT-Aldredge-v-Pittsburgh-PAWD-19-cv-00838-Filed-12-Jul-2019

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/438113068/Aldred-v-City-of-Pittsburgh-PAWD-19-cv-00838-12-July-2019-Doc-1-COMPLAINT-with-4-Enclosures

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/438113516/Aldredge-v-Pittsburgh-PAWD-19-cv-00838-Doc-11-2-Sep-2019-Amended-Complaint

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/438113694/Aldredge-v-Pittsburgh-PAWD-19-Cv-00838-Doc-15-27-Sep-2019-Def-Motion-to-Dismiss

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-03   17:46:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: nolu chan (#71)

Motion to Dismiss

That's all I got from the cop's side. No detailed report of their actions so I can compare to Aldred's.

Your extensive post is nothing more than a rehash of what we already know.

Thanks, but it was a waste of time to wade through all that scribd looking for the actions of the police, as stated by the police. (If I overlooked it let me know)

Therefore, lacking their statement, I still assume the cops are lying to cover up their unwarranted use of force upon an innocent, disabled American citizen, who, through his job as a waiter, contributes more to society than those dumb cops.

Without the cop's report this conversation is going in circles.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   18:21:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: watchman (#72)

If I overlooked it let me know

Nope, you have not overlooked it. Doc 16 was the Reply Brief and the Court removed it from public view. What you state would never justify the Court in removing the document from public view.

It is somewhat amazing that, after two years, Aldred submitted a Complaint where he claimed to have seen five (5) imaginary cops in addition to the three (3) real ones.

I printed your words of wisdom out on paper. I cut them into 4-inch squares and took them to the little reading room where I will see if any of your learned wisdom will rub off on me.

Without the cop's report this conversation is going in circles.

The whole matter rapidly stopped going in circles after the Reply Brief was filed, then removed from public view, and the Plaintiff caved.

Do you believe Aldred when he says the dog charged at him, or when he says the dog was right next to him?

Do you believe Aldred when he says he was dragged out of bed, or when he says he stood up?

Do you believe Aldred when he says ten (10) John Does entered his room, each using a flashlight?

Do you believe Aldred when he says he saw six (6) to eight (8) cops, and he saw 5 or 6 LED lights from the cops' weapons?

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-03   19:05:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: nolu chan (#73)

I printed your words of wisdom out on paper. I cut them into 4-inch squares and took them to the little reading room where I will see if any of your learned wisdom will rub off on me.

Are you serious? Sir, that's really messed up. My only wisdom to give you is Jesus Christ, Who is the wisdom of God.

Do you believe Aldred when he says the dog charged at him, or when he says the dog was right next to him? [Yes.]

Do you believe Aldred when he says he was dragged out of bed, or when he says he stood up? [Yes.]

Do you believe Aldred when he says ten (10) John Does entered his room, each using a flashlight? [He was momentarily confused by the violation of his home and his sleep...perfectly normal.]

Do you believe Aldred when he says he saw six (6) to eight (8) cops, and he saw 5 or 6 LED lights from the cops' weapons? [Again: He was momentarily confused...normal.]

Mr. Aldred is an inspiration to me. In the face of serious mental and emotional illnesses, this man gets up...and goes to work. Now he had endured police attacking him in his sleep and City officials denying him adequate restitution. May God bless, heal and save this man to the uttermost (...and you too, nolu chan)

Wherefore he (Christ) is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-03   22:00:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: watchman (#74)

Do you believe Aldred when he says ten (10) John Does entered his room, each using a flashlight? [He was momentarily confused by the violation of his home and his sleep...perfectly normal.]

Do you believe Aldred when he says he saw six (6) to eight (8) cops, and he saw 5 or 6 LED lights from the cops' weapons? [Again: He was momentarily confused...normal.]

The verified Complaint document that was quoted from was filed with the court "2019 MAR 12 PM 4:20". The incident occurred 24 June 2017. That's almost two years of normal, momentary confusion.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-04   1:05:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com