Archive

ShareThis Page
Pittsburgh firefighter convicted of pulling gun at baseball field | TribLIVE.com
News

Pittsburgh firefighter convicted of pulling gun at baseball field

An Allegheny County jury this afternoon convicted a Pittsburgh firefighter of charges he pulled a gun out at a crowded Brookline baseball field and threatened to kill two people.

Michael Clark, 43, was convicted of two counts of recklessly endangering another person, possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia stemming from a March 2009 fight with Thomas Herisko at the Brookline Memorial Recreation Center. The jury acquitted him of two counts of simple assault.

Assistant District Attorney David Zuckerman said Clark previously had an affair with Herisko’s wife and another woman. After fighting with Herisko, Clark retrieved a gun from his sport utility vehicle and pointed it at Herisko and another man, police said.

Clark declined comment but his attorney, Michael O’Day, said he was disappointed. O’Day said his client pulled the gun in self-defense after Herisko fought with him.

β€œI think the issue of having a handgun in a park is tough for a jury to deal with,” O’Day said. β€œHe was attacked.”

Common Pleas Judge Kathleen Durkin will sentence Clark on Feb. 17. Reckless endangerment carries a maximum penalty of 1 to 2 years of incarceration.

The jury acquitted Clark’s wife, Victoria Clark, 42, of tampering with evidence.

Michael Clark was suspended from his job and later reinstated, fire Chief Darryl Jones has said. It was not immediately clear if the conviction would affect his job status.


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.