Share This Page

Uniontown man accused of kicking police officer

| Thursday, May 16, 2013, 8:15 p.m.

A Fayette County man is accused of kicking a Uniontown police officer.

Keith D. Campbell, 38, of Evans Street, Uniontown, is charged with two counts of aggravated assault and one count each of simple assault, driving under the influence, public drunkenness, disorderly conduct, careless driving and leaving the scene of an accident.

City police said Campbell left the scene when his van hit a parked car on Evans Street about 7:30 p.m. Wednesday. Witnesses told police they watched Campbell drive his van to his house and park it.

A police officer found Campbell “walking and stumbling” on Thomas Street, according to the report. Campbell allegedly had difficulty maintaining his balance and smelled of alcohol.

When Campbell was placed in the back seat of a patrol car, he kicked at a window and repeatedly slammed his head off a Plexiglass shield, police said. When three officers tried to subdue Campbell to shackle him, he kicked one of them in the face, police said.

The injured officer had a bloody lip but declined medical treatment, police said. Campbell was treated by paramedics for a head laceration. He was taken to Uniontown Hospital and refused to submit to a blood-alcohol test, police said.

Campbell was arraigned before Uniontown District Judge Michael Metros and placed in Fayette County Prison in lieu of $25,000 bond. He faces a preliminary hearing on May 28 before Metros.

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.