Recently released Fayette man accused of threatening witness in theft case |

Recently released Fayette man accused of threatening witness in theft case

Paul Peirce

A Fayette County man released from prison last fall is in Westmoreland County prison after allegedly retaliating against a witness to his theft of landscaping equipment in 2016.

Justin A. Pirl, 31, of Normalville, was charged Thursday by state police in Greensburg with retaliating against a witness and making terroristic threats. State police Trooper James McKenzie said Pirl went to the Cook Township home of the witness on June 13 and threatened to assault him.

McKenzie reported that Pirl was released from prison in October after serving nearly three years in connection with the theft of equipment including a zero-turn tractor in Fayette County. McKenzie alleges that Pirl made multiple threats to one of the witness’ relatives after he learned the man was not available.

McKenzie reported that Pirl also said he was upset because the witness had a relationship with Pirl’s girlfriend while Pirl was in prison.

“As Pirl was leaving, walking away up the driveway, (Pirl) turned around and said he was going to come back again to kick his (expletive),” McKenzie reported.

McKenzie said Pirl admitted during an interview with police that he made the threats.

District Judge Mark Mansour ordered Pirl held in the prison after he failed to post $75,000 bail.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-850-2860, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.