Smashing pumpkins didn’t justify broken nose, man suing police says |

Smashing pumpkins didn’t justify broken nose, man suing police says

An off-duty Pittsburgh police officer on Nov. 10, 2012, broke the nose of a teenager who was vandalizing Halloween decorations, he says in a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Shane McGuire, 18, address unavailable, says in the lawsuit filed Friday that he was with a group of teens who were smashing pumpkins and committing other acts of minor vandalism in Homestead.

When Officer Colby J. Neidig realized they had damaged a pumpkin on his lawn, he chased the group, caught McGuire and beat him, the lawsuit says.

“Obviously, what he did was a stupid thing, as kids do on occasion, but you don’t expect to be beaten for it,” said Mark Eck, McGuire’s lawyer.

McGuire is suing the city, Neidig and Officer David Blatt for excessive force, false arrest and other constitutional claims. Blatt conspired with Neidig to file criminal charges against McGuire that were dismissed in juvenile court, the lawsuit says.

“He had to go through a long process with the officers fighting it, but they were (dismissed),” Eck said.

City Solicitor Lourdes Sanchez Ridge couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

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.