Kittanning man pleads guilty to simple assault
A Kittanning man who said he fired a gun to help a victim who was being beaten pleaded guilty yesterday to simple assault and reckless endangerment.
Michael Dale Atherton, 31, said during court proceedings Friday that he was asked to a remote area in Wayne Township on Sept. 17 "to watch my cousin's back."
Assistant District Attorney Cindy Calarie said Atherton fired a couple of shots in the air to frighten the victim into giving up drugs he allegedly possessed. Two other co-defendants allegedly took the victim to Oscar at about 9 p.m. and began beating him after an alleged drug deal went awry. According to court documents, the suspects left the victim at the scene naked and discarded his clothing a short distance away.
Atherton told Judge James Panchik that he was not trying to hurt the victim when he fired his gun.
"It was an attempt to basically just settle everything down so I didn't see this gentleman get beaten to death," the defendant said. "The reason I drew and fired my weapon, in all honesty, was to stop the beating."
Atherton agreed that the plea agreement was in his best interest, despite his assertions of innocence.
"I was wrong for being there, I was wrong for being involved," he said.
The district attorney is recommending probation in the case. Atherton is scheduled for sentencing Aug. 3.
Christopher Lee Atherton, 28, of Boggs Township, pleaded guilty to simple assault last month. Chad Hunter Sherry, 30, of Rural Valley, is scheduled for trial in July.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Show commenting policy
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 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.