ShareThis Page
Officer justified in killing Lower Burrell man, DA Peck says |
Valley News Dispatch

Officer justified in killing Lower Burrell man, DA Peck says


The fatal shooting of a 33-year-old Lower Burrell man by a police officer in the spring was ruled justified, Westmoreland County District Attorney John W. Peck said Wednesday.

Michael Hutchman, 33, of Violet Drive died when a Lower Burrell officer shot him in the head May 10.

Peck said he would not release the name of the officer involved because the actions of the police officer were “appropriate and completely justified.” He said he would have released the officer’s name if he had found the shooting had not been justified.

Peck said police responded about 9:30 p.m. to a violent domestic dispute at Hutchman’s house, where the victim said Hutchman had choked her, threatened to kill her and burn the house.

Authorities say children were present.

The victim called 911 and emergency dispatchers sent Lower Burrell, Upper Burrell and New Kensington police to the house, which is at the end of dark, short street.

When police arrived, the officers heard Hutchman yelling at them to get off his property; Peck said Hutchman started walking “aggressively” toward them.

Peck said Hutchman was holding a small child in front of him and grabbing a handgun from his pants pocket.

One patrolman fired once and the bullet hit Hutchman in the jaw.

That impact knocked Hutchman to the ground onto his back.

But still clutching the child, Hutchman sat up, pointed his .40-caliber pistol at police and fired.

But Peck said Hutchman’s loaded gun failed to fire and Hutchman fell onto his back a second time.

Yet seconds later, Hutchman released the child and sat up to point his pistol at police again, Peck said.

This time, the same officer fired a fatal shot to Hutchman’s head.

“The suspect’s decision to ignore instructions from the police to disarm, his previous homicidal threats, his use of a small child as a shield and his continued advance toward police officers menacing a firearm justified the use of deadly force for the protection of the police officer and the protection of other officers.

Hutchman was a father and his death was a tragedy, Peck said, but the officers “made a significant effort to de-escalate the erupting violence by identifying themselves as police officers and seeking to speak to the suspect.

“Regrettably, the effort to decrease the intensity of the situation was met by an adamant refusal by the suspect to follow commands of the police,” Peck said.

Police were confronted by a tense, uncertain, rapidly evolving situation in which a split-second decision needed to be made, Peck said.

Lower Burrell police Chief Tim Weitzel said police have a duty to protect citizens and sometimes have to use deadly force.

Peck noted that two area police officers, Lower Burrell Patrolman Derek Kotecki, on Oct. 12, 2011, and New Kensington Patrolman Brian David Shaw on Nov. 11, 2017, died from assailant’s bullets in recent years.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officer’s Memorial Fund, 38 officers have been shot to death since Jan. 1.

Chuck Biedka is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Chuck at 724-226-4711, or via Twitter @ChuckBiedka.

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.