ShareThis Page

Craigslist robbers strike again in Munhall

| Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012

Another robbery involving a Craigslist ad has been reported in Munhall.

The alleged victim claimed he was responding to a Craigslist ad to buy an iPad Friday night in the 400 block of Tenth Avenue, according to police.

Two thin, black males -- one light-skinned and one dark-skinned and both wearing hooded shirts -- gave the item to the victim, who gave them money, police said. When the victim was looking at the item, the suspects grabbed it back and fled. Police said that, when the man gave chase, the suspects pushed him down a hill. No injuries or weapons were reported.

Another robbery occurred Jan. 21 when a victim responded to a Craigslist ad for an iPhone sale along Tenth Avenue in Munhall. Police said the victim was robbed at gunpoint and the victim used a licensed firearm to fire shots at the suspect.

No injuries were reported in that incident.

A search warrant was executed Jan. 22 at a Tenth Avenue address in Munhall. Police said a gun and paraphernalia were recovered.

Another victim arranged a meeting on Jan. 14 along Tenth Avenue in Munhall to purchase an iPod/iPhone. Police said the victim claimed two males took his money and left him with an empty iPod box.

There was another robbery in Homestead when someone was responding to a Craigslist ad. The Homestead police officer in charge of that investigation declined to release any details about that incident.

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.