Share This Page

Lawyer's bad example

| Wednesday, April 10, 2013, 9:01 p.m.

After reading the accounts of what led to the death of Seth O'Donnell, I am perplexed as to how his family's attorney, Noah Geary, could conclude that his shooting was not justified and say, “I think excessive force was employed, and the family of the victim has an excessive force case against the state police if they choose” (“Inquest examines fatal shooting of scissor-wielding man in East Huntingdon store,” March 27 and TribLIVE.com).

Mr. Geary, exactly how many times did Trooper Chad Cope need to be stabbed? How many more innocent victims needed to be threatened?

You would think that someone of Mr. Geary's intellect and high level of education would be able to come up with a more intelligent conclusion.

Unfortunately, he is yet another example of an attorney trying to file a frivolous lawsuit.

Mr. Geary, it is people like you who give attorneys a bad name.

Greg Metz

Hempfield

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.