ShareThis Page

Grandma not Tasered during melee, police say

| Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 12:00 p.m.

Pittsburgh police Monday denied claims they Tasered a grandmother during an East Hills melee in which residents clashed with police and private security.

Sgt. Stephen Vinansky said the 54-year-old woman -- whom he did not name -- fainted and collapsed during the Sunday night incident, which police say started after residents reopened a fire hydrant to cool down. The woman was taken to West Penn Hospital because of a pre-existing neck condition, Vinansky said.

Some witnesses and people at the scene of the melee said police used a Taser on the woman and used excessive force to control the growing crowd.

"She was not Tasered," Vinansky said.

A Taser was used on Gary Cain, 18, of Penn Hills, who punched a security guard in the face and then assaulted two officers, according to a police affidavit. Deputy police Chief Paul Donaldson said Cain was "contact-Tasered" -- which means the officer needed to be touching him to use it -- about three times.

Police arrested Cain and four juveniles, boys ages 15 to 17, after the incident.

Donaldson defended his officers, some of whom were injured.

"We believe that the officers acted appropriately, acted as they were trained," he said.

No one had contacted the Citizen Police Review Board about the incident, said Beth Pittinger, the group's executive director.

"Certainly, there are facts that are disputed," Pittinger said. "Our concern is responsible citizenship comes in, as well. It's illegal to open a fire hydrant .... There are a lot of concerns around the incident that we cannot ignore."

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.

click me