Experts point to slew of errors by Pittsburgh police seen in Jim Rogers Taser video

It took less than two minutes on the scene of a suspected stolen bike in Bloomfield before Pittsburgh police Officer Keith Edmonds made the first of what experts described as many missteps.

Edmonds should have recognized the 54-year-old homeless man he encountered on Oct. 13, 2021 might have been having a mental health crisis, they said.

But instead of talking with Jim Rogers and using de-escalation training, Edmonds ramped up the encounter. He removed Rogers’ wallet from his pocket while frisking him, and when Rogers objected, trying to take it back, Edmonds shouted at him.

Then the officer forced Rogers to the ground.

Less than a minute later, Edmonds shocked him with his Taser. When Rogers tried to run away, repeatedly, Edmonds shocked him again. And again.

And then seven more times.

Over three minutes and 15 seconds, Edmonds deployed his Taser 10 times.

When he was finally in custody, Rogers sat in the back of a police patrol car for 35 minutes without any medical attention.

He died the next day.

Experts in emergency medicine and police use of force said footage of the incident shows a cascade of failures — from how Edmonds spoke with Rogers, to how he attempted to take him into custody, to how he used his Taser, to how he and his fellow officers allowed their subject to go untreated.

The four experts, who were consulted by TribLive, reviewed a compilation of videos of the incident released recently by Todd Hollis, an attorney for Rogers’ family, who last year won an $8 million settlement with the City of Pittsburgh.

Dennis Kenney, a former director of research for the Police Executive Research Forum, a national policing research group, said it appeared Edmonds was neither adequately trained nor emotionally prepared to handle Rogers that day, resulting in his trying to compel compliance.

Using a Taser at all was wrong, Kenney said. Deploying it repeatedly even worse.

“Ten times is 10 times as wrong,” he said.

A Taser is to be used to overcome physical resistance, Kenney continued.

“Rogers was not resisting. He wasn’t necessarily fully cooperating, but that was likely a result of mental illness,” Kenney said. “The resistance was only trying to get away from being tased.”

But Robert Swartzwelder, the Pittsburgh police union president, criticized the experts’ conclusions.

He said the video they saw is incomplete and noted they did not have all of the underlying records in the case, including the data log from Edmonds’ Taser and Rogers’ medical history and autopsy report.

“Just because you have 10 presses of the trigger doesn’t mean you had 10 full contacts,” Swartzwelder said. “If Mr. Rogers was hit 10 times with a Taser, he would have never gotten up off the ground.”

Resistance, but no threat

Ashley Heiberger, a retired Bethlehem police captain, has a consulting and expert witness practice focusing on policy, training, use of force and accountability systems.

He conducted his video review through the lens of the federal constitutional standard.

Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, officers may use the level of force only that is “objectively reasonable” to gain control of an incident.

Under that standard, there are three considerations, Heiberger said: severity of the crime; the threat to officer and public safety; and whether the suspect is actively resisting or trying to evade arrest by flight.

“The severity of the crime roughly corresponds to the level of force justified,” Heiberger said.

In the case with Rogers, he said, “At worst, it was a stolen bicycle, which is a nonviolent property crime.”

Rogers’ demeanor early in the encounter appeared to be polite and deferential as he repeatedly said, “I’m listening to you, sir” and “Yes, sir.”

But Heiberger said an officer on the scene cannot just take that at face value. A subject could be feigning cooperation to try to escape or attack.

“Simply saying, ‘I’m listening to you,’ while still struggling is not compliance,” he said.

In evaluating the threat posed by a subject’s actions, Heiberger continued, danger and risk alone are not enough.

“Threat is very specific and can only be established through the ability, opportunity and intent to cause harm.”

In Rogers’ case, Heiberger said, he was a middle-aged man without apparent physical limitations, so he could have the ability to cause harm.

“Where I think it gets a little hazy is intent,” he said. “What did he do or say to make the officer believe he would cause harm such that a Taser should be deployed?”

Heiberger could not point to anything.

“He wasn’t making any verbal threats. I didn’t see anything manifesting an intent to cause harm,” Heiberger said. “He was actively resisting, but it doesn’t appear he was trying to assault the officer. It looked like he was just trying to get away.”

Taser use problematic

While those factors would justify some level of force, Heiberger, who spent several years evaluating use of force in connection with U.S. Justice Department oversight of the police in Portland, Ore., said he does not believe Rogers should have been stunned with a Taser.

“I have concerns both about his use of the Taser and with the way the Taser was used,” he said. “Verbal noncompliance and active resistance would not typically lead to a Taser deployment.”

Edmonds’ body camera video shows the officer first delivering a so-called drive stun, where the Taser is directly pressed into Rogers’ body, at 10:31:44 a.m., two minutes and 40 seconds into the encounter.

According to an internal Pittsburgh Bureau of Police report on the incident, Edmonds delivered another drive stun 18 seconds later.

The video showed Rogers trying to run away, and Edmonds shocking him again, sending Rogers lurching into a person’s front yard 27 seconds later.

The footage shows Edmonds shock him again nine seconds later and 10 seconds after that. Again, Rogers attempted to run away, and Edmonds deployed his Taser yet again, at 10:33:03 as Rogers was running off a curb, smashing down onto the street straight legged and with nothing to brace his fall.

Edmonds shocked him at least three more times.

David Wright, a retired Pittsburgh police officer who served as the lead use of force instructor for the department for 20 years, was hired by Rogers’ family’s attorney to review what happened.

He prepared a 15-page report, released Feb. 2 by Hollis, the attorney for Rogers’ family. According to the report, Wright reviewed downloaded data from Edmonds’ Taser.

He concluded that Edmonds deployed his Taser 10 times. Like Swartzwelder said, Wright found that on three of the Taser deployments, there was not a full connection, meaning Rogers would not have received a full shock.

Rogers’ total exposure to shock from the Taser, Wright wrote, was 40.49 seconds. Based on that usage, Wright concluded that Edmonds violated the city’s Taser training and policy.

The Taser, he wrote, should be deployed only for defense of self or others, or for flight or resistance from a serious offense.

“Regarding this incident, Rogers was not a threat to the officers or others,” Wright wrote.

Regarding the training policy violations, he said Pittsburgh police officers are taught to watch for medical crisis signs and call for backup “before engaging if practicable.”

Heiberger said that generally accepted practices indicate not using a Taser on someone more than three times unless deadly force is justified.

More than three cycles from a Taser can lead to breathing impairment, said Dr. Jordan Barnett, an emergency medicine physician who also is the medical director of several EMS programs in Philadelphia and has conducted training on Tasers.

Taser use can also lead to sudden cardiac arrest within minutes or hours, he said. In Rogers’ case, the Allegheny County Medical Examiner’s Office said he died from a lack of oxygen to his brain. They ruled his death accidental.

Officers should be aware of their surroundings when using their Taser to ensure the subject doesn’t suffer further injury to their head or neck, or even a broken rib that could puncture a lung, Barnett said.

Heiberger, the use of force expert, said he understands why Edmonds didn’t disengage that day.

“However, if you’re tasing somebody that many times and it’s not effective, maybe you have to consider another tool,” he said.

Tasers are often preferred over pepper spray or a police baton, he continued, because it is expected that there will not be any lasting injury. Although the Taser is painful for a few seconds, as soon as it stops, the pain should, as well, Heiberger said.

‘Supervisory failure’

Once Rogers was in custody and placed in the back of the patrol vehicle, Heiberger said it appeared multiple officers checked on him, reassuring him that medics were on the way.

However, no medical personnel ever evaluated Rogers at the scene. It wasn’t until after he arrived at UPMC Mercy hospital and was unresponsive that he received treatment.

Kenney, who has taught at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York for more than 20 years, said it was obvious Rogers was in physical and emotional distress as seen in video from inside the patrol car.

The officers should have recognized that and gotten him medical assistance, he said. Kenney called it “a supervisory failure.”

There were at least nine officers on the scene — including two sergeants and a lieutenant — and instead of assisting Rogers, they were socializing, Kenney said.

“Why weren’t they back on duty doing what they’re supposed to be doing?” Kenney asked. “It’s not a coffee klatch.

“If the officers had had less socializing, the ones required to be there might have been paying more attention to the subject and realized he needed help.”

In his report, Wright called the lack of medical care “a catastrophic failure to follow policy and training.”

While every expert agreed that every officer was responsible for ensuring medical attention, Heiberger said it’s possible they would have heard Rogers talking and interpreted that as him being able to breathe adequately. That used to be a standard of training in emergency medicine.

“It is now believed that the ability to speak is not necessarily indicative of an adequate air exchange,” Heiberger said.

Rogers asked for help 13 times as he sat in the back of the patrol vehicle and repeatedly said, “I can’t breathe.”

Corey Jones, a retired sergeant from the Mt. Laurel, N.J., Police Department who teaches use of force techniques, said the officers should have taken Rogers at his word.

“After three (Taser) exposures, it’s mandatory medical attention,” Jones said, “not a police officer sticking his head in the window, ‘Hey, are you good?’”

Rogers should have had a full, head-to-toe assessment by EMTs on the scene, Barnett said. Instead, according to the video and reports, EMTs arrived, decontaminated officers who got Rogers’ blood on them, and left.

As Rogers sat in the back of the patrol car, Barnett said, he displayed concerning symptoms: continuing shortness of breath and a prolonged, continuous altered state. Rogers also continually banged his head against the cage behind his seat, which could have indicated mental illness, frustration or pain, Barnett said.

As officers drove Rogers to the hospital, Barnett continued, they appeared to engage in banter with him.

According to the video and Wright’s report, Officer Greg Boss said during the 18-minute drive, “It would be so much easier just to go to West Penn (Hospital). Don’t know why we can’t go to the hospital that’s just closest.”

They didn’t arrive at UPMC Mercy in Pittsburgh’s Uptown neighborhood for 14 more minutes.

During the trip, Rogers slumped down out of camera view and stopped talking.

“They had no idea,” Barnett said. “Which would make you wonder: why wouldn’t you turn around?”

It was only once they arrived at UPMC Mercy, at 11:13 a.m., that the officers realized Rogers wasn’t responsive.

“They made the choice of dismissing the EMTs for evaluation. They made the choice to transport him themselves,” Barnett said. “The presumption implies this was routine.”

The police union’s view

Swartzwelder, the police union president, said the video the experts reviewed is incomplete.

It included two different compilations — one of 52 minutes and another of 15 minutes. The videos show camera angles from Edmonds’ body camera, neighbors who filmed the confrontation and cameras mounted inside the patrol car.

Swartzwelder said he has viewed body camera footage from every officer on the scene, as well as the patrol vehicles. Taken together, he said, that footage provides the actual context of the scene — including where the officers were and what they were doing while Rogers sat in the back of the car.

The city moved to discipline nine of those officers, including Edmonds, who was terminated. Edmonds’ case is in arbitration, as is one other suspension. The City of Pittsburgh has declined to answer questions on the specifics of the disciplinary action.

Swartzwelder, however, said that two officers retired, three were fired but ultimately reinstated, and three others were suspended.

Swartzwelder said he believes what was shown by the entirety of the video footage is why the city agreed to settle the employment issues.

Swartzwelder also criticized the executive summary of the internal Pittsburgh Police Critical Incident Review Board report obtained by TribLive that was highly critical of the officers’ actions.

“The executive summary was a hit piece,” he said. “They had an agenda. If they were right, the city wouldn’t have settled seven of nine disciplinary cases at substantially less discipline than was recommended.”

There are still two arbitration cases pending, including Edmonds’ termination.

“If the discussion is the officers missed something medical, that’s one discussion,” Swartzwelder said. “To say our officers killed Mr. Rogers, that’s 100% inaccurate, and it’s not medically proven.”

Provocative move

Typically, Heiberger said, officers take steps to secure a person before frisking them. But Edmonds did not.

Instead, he had Rogers put his hands in the air as he started to check his pockets. Each time Rogers dropped his hands, Edmonds corrected him until the struggle over Rogers’ wallet caused the officer to take him to the ground.

Kenney said that a pat-down should only be to check for weapons. There was no reason for Edmonds to reach into Rogers’ pocket to remove his wallet, he said.

“That’s a provocative move to a person in a mental health crisis,” he said.

It was only when Edmonds grabbed the wallet that Rogers began to struggle. Immediately, Edmonds began shouting, pushing Rogers to the ground and pinning him. He had Rogers flat on his stomach, which is when, Heiberger, said most officers would have put on handcuffs.

“That could have been a missed opportunity,” he said.

But Rogers kept struggling, even with clear instruction to stop.

‘You speak, but also listen’

Kenney said it was apparent to him from the beginning of the video that Rogers was having a mental health crisis when Edmonds first confronted him.

“He was basically compliant but not easy to work with,” he said. “Pretty quickly, you could conclude you have a person in mental health crisis — not one who committed a crime.”

That, Kenney said, should have altered the officer’s approach.

“De-escalation training should have kicked in,” he said. “Yelling orders at a person in mental crisis never works.”

Wright said in his report that Edmonds made a series of errors, putting himself and Rogers at risk upon exiting his patrol car that morning.

Edmonds immediately approached Rogers, not leaving enough distance between them. Then, in questioning Rogers, Edmonds failed to communicate with him, Wright wrote.

“In fact, he offers conflicting commands. He asks questions but does not allow Rogers to answer. As he begins questioning Rogers about the bicycle, he tells Rogers to be quiet,” he said. “Officers are taught that communication is a two-way street. You speak, but also listen.”

Then, Wright said, Edmonds went “hands on” on Rogers to frisk him — but called off backup.

“There was no attempt to de-escalate, and in fact, Edmonds initiated the escalation through poor tactics, judgment and violation of policies and law,” Wright wrote.

Jones said Edmonds had several options available to him that could have changed the outcome that day. In an ideal scenario, Jones said, Rogers would have followed Edmonds’ every command.

“Immediate and complete compliance, and none of that happens,” he said.

In the absence of that, Jones continued, Edmonds could have taken other approaches. Edmonds needed to stay calm and keep his emotions in check, he said.

Because it was a low-level property crime, and there was no urgency to arrest, Jones said Edmonds should have called for an ambulance and waited for it to show up before he began to engage. Additional officers also would have helped, Kenney said.

He also suggested that Edmonds should have attempted to de-escalate the situation by simply talking to Rogers.

“That’s how we train,” Jones said. “It allows us to make better decisions.”