Police accuse Armstrong County man of firing shotgun at state trooper's car
An Armstrong County man is accused of shooting at a state trooper who responded shortly after 9 p.m. Saturday to a 911 hang-up call from a Rayburn Township home.
According to police, Thomas Luketic, 58, of Rayburn was standing outside his trailer on Fox Lane when he fired a shotgun in the direction of the trooper's patrol car as the officer drove near the residence.
The trooper was about 50 yards away when Luketic fired the shot.
The unidentified 34-year-old trooper wasn't injured and immediately drove to a wooded area where he took cover in the tree line, state police said.
Police surrounded the area and were able to reach Luketic by phone.
Officers learned Luketic was intoxicated and had an argument with his wife during which he allegedly threatened her. She called 911 and fled from the residence, state police said.
She was at a nearby home when she saw the trooper arrive and heard the gunshot, police said.
Officers later learned that Luketic knew police were coming to his residence.
Police searched the home and removed several shotguns and ammunition along with “a lot of” drug paraphernalia.
Luketic was arraigned on five counts of aggravated assault and two counts each of simple assault and terroristic threats and recklessly endangering another person.
He is being held in the Armstrong County Jail on $100,000 bond.
Jodi Weigand is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-226-4702 email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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 â 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.