Liberty resident questions police response
A Liberty resident voiced concerns at a council meeting Wednesday about the police response to a run-in she had with a neighbor's dog.
Tammy Geyer told council that a pit bull jumped on her and tried to bite her in the 3300 block of Orchard Drive on Sept. 12 at about 6:35 a.m.
Geyer said the dog grabbed at her several times but did not break her skin.
“He kept hitting me with his head,” she said.
Geyer said she called police but got a lackluster response.
Police Chief Luke Riley came to her home, she said, but did not take her name or address for a report.
Geyer said a neighbor who had a problem with the dog at about 4:30 that morning reported it to police but did not get a response.
Animal control officer Ken Ferree investigated, but the dog remained in the home, Geyer said.
Councilwoman Jane Weigand said she would contact Riley on Thursday to find out why there was no response to the initial report.
“If the dog is a problem, the dog should be removed,” Weigand said, noting that the dog could have bitten children on their way to school.
In other business, council approved an ordinance that prohibits police vehicles from leaving the borough unless they are going to neighboring communities for mutual aid.
Council condemned a dilapidated property at 909 Glen Avenue. The borough plans to apply for demolition funds through the Twin Rivers Council of Governments.
Eric Slagle is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1966, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.