Category: Mon Valley Miscellany || By

Did you know that if you stop reading your email, checking other peoples' websites, and reading blogs and newsgroups for several days, the world continues to turn?

It's true. So I unplugged for a couple of days. Your indulgence is appreciated.

. . .

Police Shooting in Pittsburgh: A reader emailed me privately to ask why there haven't been any protests yet over Friday's fatal shooting by Pittsburgh police of a man armed with a butcher knife.

After all, he says, several groups protested the May 6 shooting of Justin Jackson up in Mt. Oliver as an example of police brutality.

OK, OK, I realize he's being sarcastic, and while I feel the quicksand rising around my ankles, I'm going to respond anyway.

First, if the cops approach you for any reason and you pull out a weapon --- whether it's a gun (as in the Mt. Oliver shooting) or a knife (in Oakland) --- expect to get shot.

And if a cop shoots you, they're going to shoot to kill. That's what they're trained to do.

So whether Jackson shot at a person, a police dog, the ground or the air, police were going to shoot back, and they were justified in doing so.

But Pittsburgh Police Chief Nate Harper did himself and the force no favors by over and over again equating the life of the police dog who was killed to the life of a human.

I've known enough human police officers with canine partners to understand that the dogs are members of the force, and I also know they hold their K-9 partners in serious regard. I also understand why police officers treat canine officers with that level of respect --- they trust those dogs to defend their own lives.

Unfortunately, that distinction is bound to be lost on the grieving family and friends of the man who was shot --- even if the police officer who shot him was acting properly, and even if the man was clearly in the wrong.

Put yourself in the place of the man's family. Even if he had a criminal record, would you think his life was less important than a dog's?

(By the way, anyone who knows how human police officers treat canine officers also knows that they would have never shot the dog themselves, as Jackson's family and others have alleged. The accusation is ridiculous.)

Furthermore, you'd have to be pretty tone deaf not realize that police dogs have a different connotation to many African-Americans --- especially those old enough to remember the 1960s --- than they do to whites or other ethnic groups. (The man shot in Mt. Oliver was African-American.)

Add all of these factors together, and it becomes apparent why the Mt. Oliver shooting became a natural flashpoint for protests, while the shooting in Oakland is unlikely to generate the same anger from anyone in the community.

I'm not blaming the police, but the aftermath of the Mt. Oliver incident could have been handled more sensitively.

. . .

Kennywood Dispute Settled: In case you missed it, West Mifflin council has approved a settlement with Kennywood that ends the amusement park's lawsuit against the borough.

As Pat Cloonan reported in the Daily News, the borough will lower its amusement tax rate, while Kennywood will pay less than half of what West Mifflin was demanding.

Let's hope that as West Mifflin goes forward, it starts applying the amusement tax evenly and fairly to all businesses and organizations subject to collection.

After all, Kennywood may have agreed to settle the case in order to make sure that its pending sale to the Spanish company Parques Reunidos went through without complications. (The sale is expected to close June 3.)

The settlement doesn't mean that West Mifflin's selective enforcement of the amusement tax was right. It wasn't. Almost inarguably it was unconstitutional.

And for those of you who think, "Well, Kennywood's rich, they could have paid the tax," that's not the point. Remember: All West Mifflin taxpayers, including Kennywood, deserve equal protection under the law.

If a big corporation like Kennywood can have its rights trampled, there would be nothing to stop a borough, city or township from stepping on much smaller taxpayers. Maybe even you.

. . .

And Finally: North Irwin Borough Council is trying to figure out who owns the town's municipal building, according to the Post-Gazette.

There apparently is some confusion over whether the deed is legally held by the borough, or the borough's sewerage authority.

One of the councilmen is quoted in Norm Vargo's story as worrying that having "two secretaries, a tax collector and police using the same office space" could lead to "confidential information of taxpayers" being shared.

Have you ever been to North Irwin? There are 879 residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. I'm guessing that there is no "confidential information" in North Irwin, because everyone probably knows everyone else's business to begin with.

Second, North Irwin is literally 0.2 square miles in area --- about five blocks wide. It's almost completely surrounded by North Huntingdon Township!

The question isn't "who owns town hall?" The question is, "Why is there a North Irwin, and why is it employing 'two secretaries, a tax collector and police'?" What a waste of money!