ShareThis Page
Judge apologizes after video of him telling officer to shoot man goes viral |

Judge apologizes after video of him telling officer to shoot man goes viral

A sceenshot from a video uploaded to Facebook by George and Ashley Justice. The video is from a police officer’s body cam and claims shows Magisterial District Judge Thomas P. Caulfield suggesting to shoot someone.

Magisterial District Judge Thomas P. Caulfield apologized Wednesday after a video of him suggesting that a police officer shoot a man who visited his office went viral on social media .

The video, which appears to be from a police officer’s body camera, shows the officer enter an office to ask Caulfield what to do in the future when Brian Jones of Forest Hills stops by the office.

Caulfield tells the officer to shoot Jones.

“I don’t think he should be on the bench,” Jones said. “Him apologizing to someone else means nothing.”

Jones said Caulfield has not apologized to him.

In an emailed statement, Caulfield said, “I apologize for making the statements in the video. I would like to acknowledge that the statements I made in the video were inappropriate. It was certainly not my intention for these statements to be taken seriously and I deeply regret any harm that this has caused.”

The video, taken April 2017, shows a police officer talking to Caulfield in his office. Jones said the Forest Hills police officer and Caulfield are talking about a recent visit from him.

“I want to see how you want to proceed … in the future,” the officer says.

“I want you to shoot him,” Caulfield says.

The two continue talking, and then the officer says: “I don’t know how you think of it.”

“Shoot him,” Caulfield says again.

The officer then appears to turn off the body camera.

Jones said he obtained the video during a court case in which he was the defendant. He said he went to the office that day to address an issue in a case. He does not know why a Forest Hills officer was there.

“They had no reason to call the officer,” Jones said. “I wasn’t irate. I wasn’t causing a problem. I was merely coming to the issuing authority to address an issue I had on the summons.”

Jones, 51, was found guilty in November 2017 of disorderly conduct in connection with an incident earlier that year in Forest Hills, court records show.

Jones shared the video with Ashely Palmer and George Allen III, who started a social media website to expose hateful social media posts in the wake of the fatal police shooting of unarmed 17-year-old Antwon Rose II June 19. Allen posted the video Tuesday evening under his Facebook page “George Justice.” It had more than 10,000 views as of 5 p.m. Wednesday.

“I watched it, and I was completely shocked,” said Palmer of Pittsburgh’s West End neighborhood. “This is a man that holds a public office. I think these types of comments being made by someone in that position are fully inappropriate. I’m not sure what kind of consequences he should face … but as a citizen I could have potentially voted for someone like that and that alarms me.”

Caulfield’s term ends in 2024, said Angharad Stock, deputy court administrator for special courts. He was elected to his second term this year.

The magisterial district includes Braddock Hills, Chalfant, Churchill, Forest Hills and Swissvale.

Theresa Clift is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Theresa at 412-380-5669, [email protected] or via Twitter @tclift.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.