Connellsville man threatens mass shooting at Uniontown Hospital |

Connellsville man threatens mass shooting at Uniontown Hospital


A Connellsville man allegedly threatened a mass shooting at Uniontown Hospital while he was a patient there last month, according to police.

Brian E. Swank, 46, told a nurse that he would “start killing at the bottom floor” and target security guards first with weapons he already has, investigators said.

Swank was jailed Wednesday on charges of risking catastrophe, bomb threats, terroristic threats, harassment and disorderly conduct. His bail was set at $20,000.

In court papers, hospital and Uniontown police said Swank was admitted as a patient on Aug. 29. Several hospital staff members told investigators that Swank said “if anything happens to his dogs” while he was at the hospital with no one to care for the animals, he would bring firearms and a bomb there and kill 60 to 80 people, police reported.

A registered nurse offered to arrange for care for Swank’s dogs when he was still a patient on Aug. 31, police said.

“Swank reportedly responded that he hopes the dogs die so he can come back to the hospital and shoot all of the people that murdered his dogs,” city and hospital police wrote in a complaint. “Swank advised … that he has all the weapons he needs to follow through with his threat.”

It was unclear whether Swank had been released from the hospital.

Renatta Signorini is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Renatta at 724-837-5374, [email protected] or via Twitter @byrenatta.

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.