Greensburg man accused of sending 89 threatening texts to ex-girlfriend |

Greensburg man accused of sending 89 threatening texts to ex-girlfriend

Paul Peirce

Greensburg police on Friday accused a city resident of sending 89 text messages to an ex-girlfriend over two days threatening to harm the woman and her two-month old son.

David A. Baker, 32, was arraigned Friday before District Judge Christine Flanigan on multiple criminal charges including harassment and making terroristic threats. He was ordered held in the Westmoreland County Prison after failing to post $35,000 bond.

City patrolman John Carnes reported in court documents that the victim had a protection from abuse order against Baker when he sent the “threatening texts” between Sept. 29-30.

Carnes reported that among the threatening messages sent by Baker included one that read: “Well, I’m glad I’m blocked … who would’ve known blocking someone ended up killing you?”

“Over several texts Baker writes about his great plan that he hopes to get on the news. It talks about painting a canvas in blood,” Carnes reported. “He talks about a baby’s bones being soft and how long it takes for humans to bleed out.”

Flanigan scheduled a preliminary hearing for Oct. 18.

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

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.