ShareThis Page
Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances |

Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, July 28, 2016 8:55 p.m

Laurel: To Armstrong County Judge Kenneth Valasek. The judge apparently wants to hold Christopher McNeely accountable for almost getting his 6-year-old son shot to death. Good — no one else has so far. McNeely came before Valasek this week with a plea bargain for probation approved by Armstrong District Attorney Scott Andreassi. Valasek said no. McNeely withdrew his guilty plea and now faces trial. The child almost died because Dad allegedly couldn’t be bothered to safely store his loaded 9mm pistol at the family’s Ford City home last summer.

Laurel: To Allegheny County Judge Anthony Mariani. The judge is making convicted heroin dealers buy lifesaving naloxone kits for the communities where they’ve sold drugs. Naloxone reverses the effects of an opiate overdose. Mariani rightly believes if you’re part of the problem, he’ll make you part of the solution.

On the Watch List:

• Politics on the public dime? The allegation from deputies that they were forced to work on Westmoreland County Sheriff Jonathan Held’s 2015 re-election while on duty is disturbing. An investigation is underway; Mr. Held denies any impropriety.

• West Leechburg’s “secession.” Voters in the small borough may be asked if they want to bail out of the Leechburg Area School District or dissolve their local government and become part of Allegheny Township and the Kiski Area School District. Hmmm, much intrigue here.

Categories: Editorials
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.