Pair jailed in attempted Mt. Pleasant robbery case
Two men were jailed this week for threatening a Mt. Pleasant man with a knife in an unsuccessful robbery.
Jacob Connelly, 20, of New Stanton, and Lukas R. Trout, 22, of Mt. Pleasant are charged with robbery, conspiracy and simple assault in connection with an incident at the victim's North Church Street home.
Mt. Pleasant Patrolman Elliot Fejes said that shortly before 3 p.m. Sept. 20, Westmoreland Emergency Management dispatchers received a hang-up call, which Fejes went to investigate.
When Fejes arrived at the home, the male victim said two men had entered his home and beat him, tearing his clothing, according to documents filed with Norvelt District Judge Roger Eckels.
The victim told police that Connelly threatened him with a knife and wanted $100. The robbers fled on foot before police arrived without getting any money, police said.
The victim told police he recognized Trout, who telephoned the victim shortly after the robbery attempt while Fejes was present.
Fejes said he took the telephone from the victim and asked Trout to turn himself in, but Trout refused.
Trout was arrested on Tuesday and ordered to be held in the county prison after failing to post $10,000 bail.
Police arrested Connelly on Wednesday night when the victim identified him from a photo lineup. Connelly was ordered held in the county prison after failing to post $25,000 bail.
He also is charged with providing police with a false identity, Jake Clark.
Preliminary hearings for both men are scheduled for Oct. 3 before Eckels.
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.