Police charge teens allegedly involved in daytime shootout last month | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Police charge teens allegedly involved in daytime shootout last month

Michael DiVittorio
1514240_web1_web-policelights22

Two teenagers face charges in connection to a daytime shootout in the street near a daycare in Pittsburgh’s Perry South neighborhood in late June, court records show.

Ian Cook, 18, is accused of shooting a 16-year-old boy in the face, according to a criminal complaint.

Both were shot and treated at the hospital for their injuries.

Cook, who told police he did not fire a gun nor remember what happened that afternoon in June, was charged Tuesday with attempted homicide and aggravated assault, the complaint said.

The 16-year-old boy and Cook each face a charge of carrying a firearm without a license.

The Tribune-Review generally does not identify suspects who are under 18.

An attorney for the 16-year-old could not be reached late Wednesday.

‘Get that dude off my street’

The 16-year-old boy’s attorney told police that he fired at Cook in self-defense, the complaint said.

The boy spent the morning of June 26 helping his mother move, then took a break to meet up with an old friend at Charles Street Cafe on Norwood Avenue, the complaint said.

The friend was with a girl whom the 16-year-old did not know, who turned out to be Cook’s girlfriend, the complaint said.

The trio left the cafe and was headed to a nearby house of another friend when Cook called the girl, the 16-year-old boy’s attorney told investigators.

“Get that dude off my street,” Cook reportedly told her, referring to the 16-year-old boy, the complaint said.

After they got to a residence in the 2600 block of Norwood Avenue, the boy saw a shirtless man he identified as Cook standing outside, the boy’s attorney’s told investigators.

Cook also lives on Norwood Avenue, records show.

The boy reported that he then saw Cook reach into his pants pocket, pull out a purple-and-black gun and fire at him, the complaint said.

The 16-year-old suspect admitted to police that he had a gun on him and fired back, the complaint said.

Amid the confrontation, the 16-year-old boy struck a parked car with his body, then he took off running into an alleyway “into which he ran to get away from Mr. Cook,” the complaint said.

The boy made it into a nearby house, placed his gun along the walkway and called for medical help, the complaint said.

No children or other bystanders were hurt in the shooting, which happened around 2:30 p.m. in the same block as Angel’s Place daycare program, which was open.

Cook denies allegations

Cook denied his involvement in the shooting during several interviews with investigators, police said.

Cook told police he did not fire a gun and does not possess one.

On the day of the shooting, detectives saw a .380-caliber bullet casing fall out of Cook’s clothing, the complaint said.

Detectives found a trail of blood and a magazine clip with one round of ammunition in the Arvada Way alleyway that links to Norwood Avenue. Fingerprints and DNA evidence from the clip matched the 16-year-old boy’s, the complaint said.

Investigators spotted more blood leading from the alley to Luray Street to the Norwood Avenue home where medics found the 16-year-old suffering from gunshot wounds to his face. They say they found a blood-covered, 9mm handgun with no ammo magazine in it outside that residence. Police say the gun matched the ammunition clip found in the alley.

Michael DiVittorio is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Michael at 412-871-2367, [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.