Answers about troopers
Published: Friday, July 19, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Answers about troopers
Responding to a domestic dispute in North Union Township on June 29, two officers from the Pennsylvania State Police Uniontown barracks ended up proving my point about public safety in Fayette County.
First, they shot and killed a man who reportedly ignored verbal commands and pointed a handgun at them, demonstrating my contention that crime is out of control and we can no longer consider any police call routine.
Second, those two troopers were placed on administrative duties while the shooting is investigated, taking two more badly needed officers out of crime-fighting circulation for who knows how long and further straining local manpower.
Back on June 17, the state police in Harrisburg received a right-to-know request from me, seeking to find out the trooper complement at the Uniontown barracks, the number of unfilled vacancies and the potential number of retirees as of June 30.
One week after receiving my information request, the state police wrote back that they would need an additional 30 days to reply because “the extent or nature of the request precludes a response within the required time period.”
Statewide, the trooper complement has at least 465 vacant positions — and that's before any retirements went into effect June 30.
What I want to know — and what I clearly believe is public information — is how short of troopers we are, and may be, at the ultra-busy Uniontown barracks.
Timothy S. Mahoney
The writer is the state representative for the 51st District.
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.
- Forcing their beliefs
- Valid comparison?
- Ethanol’s benefits
- Nukes, not hoops
- Fearful homogenization
- Fuel tax increase
- Eagles’ plight
- Us & them
- ‘Knockout’ evil
- Zubik is right
- Promotion questionable