Editorial: Are more appeals necessary in Pittsburgh officer's firing over Taser death?

In October 2021, Pittsburgh police Officer Keith Edmonds had an interaction with a citizen. Jim Rogers was a homeless Black man in his 50s. He matched the description Edmonds was given as he responded to a call about a possible stolen bike.

Body camera footage recorded the incident — including the 10 times Edmonds deployed his Taser in less than four minutes.

About 45 minutes later, as other officers transported Rogers to UPMC Mercy, he was unresponsive. The next day, he was dead.

Nine police officers were disciplined, including four who were fired but later reinstated. On March 8, a three-member arbitration panel decided that Edmonds also needed to be reinstated. Not only that, but he was to be given back pay and have no discipline in his record.

The city appealed this, and a Tribune-Review editorial applauded that decision. Edmonds admitted to violating policy. If even the employee admits to wrongdoing, how can an employer be expected to let that go without disciplinary measures?

Now Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Allen Hertzberg has agreed, blocking the reinstatement and calling evidence of Edmonds’ misconduct “overwhelming.”

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 1 President Robert Swartzwelder said the case didn’t meet any of the short list of criteria to overturn an arbitration ruling, but Hertzberg disagreed.

The judge decided the union’s arbitrator and the neutral member of the panel were dishonest in their finding that Edmonds didn’t violate policies when the officer himself admitted to it. The judge also found the panel overstepped its authority in addressing management and training of officers.

Where does this lead? Swartzwelder says back to court with another appeal, suggesting it might go all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court if necessary.

Fine.

The appeals courts exist to clarify what isn’t clear and remove ambiguity in the name of justice. This seems like a perfect opportunity to call in the refs.

Whether Edmonds is a good officer who had a bad day or a bad officer who had a tragic outcome caught on camera is not for us to decide. It’s not even really what the courts need to decide. The city officials need to do that, based on the facts and his record and the incident. They need to do so within the framework of the police contract and the law.

But they must be allowed to do so. Employees can face legitimate discipline for things like being a few minutes late, for being in the wrong place while on duty or for talking back to a superior. It can be documented with a line in a file and might mean a demotion or missing a pay raise.

An employer has to be able to do at least that when someone dies, but the arbitration panel and police union say otherwise. How is that fair to all of the other members of the union? How is it fair to the other officers disciplined in the Rogers incident?

If that has to be appealed to the Commonwealth Court or state Supreme Court to clarify what is just, that’s what should happen.