Share This Page

Hearing in Dunbar Township standoff continued

| Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 9:21 p.m.

The preliminary hearing for a man accused of being responsible for a seven-hour standoff with police was continued to a new date on Tuesday.

Thomas R. Baker Jr., 39, of 228 Oglevee Lane, Connellsville, was arrested during a standoff that started when state police at Uniontown were called to Baker's residence on a domestic call shortly before 10 p.m. April 7.

According to an affidavit of probable cause, Baker reportedly held his juvenile stepdaughter on a bed by her hair and punched her in the face four to six times, injuring an area around her right eye during an argument.

Baker's wife pulled him off the girl, police said, and Baker punched her in the face.

He left the room, saying, “I'm not leaving here without a fight,” loaded a 12-gauge shotgun and went to the basement. His wife and stepdaughter fled the house to safety.

At that point, Baker refused to leave his residence to be interviewed by police, but finally surrendered peacefully the next day.

Baker's preliminary hearing scheduled for Tuesday at District Judge Dwight Shaner's office was continued to June 11.

Baker remains in the Fayette County Prison in lieu of $100,000 bail.

— From staff reports

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.