Feb 14, 2025 3 min read

On Jan. 28, Christopher Hackney was shot and killed by a Redstone Township police officer dispatched to Hackney’s home to check on his well-being.

Nearly three weeks later, the basic details of what occurred – and the status of the officer who fired the fatal shot – still haven’t been disclosed.

Although we are not suggesting the investigation should already be completed, there is no reason that some information about the circumstances of the shooting hasn’t been released. And there is absolutely no reason that the public should have to guess whether the officer who shot Hackney is still out patrolling the township’s streets.

A Herald-Standard reporter made several calls, sent emails and went to the township office to try and get an answer about the officer’s status. At every turn, requests were either ignored or met with a “no comment.”

Please understand that no one is casting aspersions in asking whether the officer is on leave, as we recognize the investigation is ongoing. However, residents of the township have the right to know if the man who fatally shot Hackney is taking time away from the job to process what happened.

It’s about retaining public trust.

In an effort to get that information, the newspaper filed a request under the Right-to-Know Law asking the township to provide information about any officers who have been put on leave, paid or unpaid, since the shooting.

Again, attempts to learn this very basic information – a detail, by the way, that Pittsburgh Police released within hours of an officer-involved shooting in the city earlier this month – were met with resistance. The township invoked its right to a 30-day legal review of the request.

Melissa Melewsky, a media law attorney with the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, acknowledged there are “broad exceptions” to what agencies are required to release. But, she said, they can and should say whether the officer is on leave.

“I can guarantee you what’s circulating out in the community is likely filled with misinformation, and the only way to combat misinformation and misunderstanding is to combat it with actual facts. And that has to come from the people who are gathering the information, and in this case, it’s law enforcement,” Melewsky said.

Her comments reference not only the matter of the officer’s leave, but also the utter lack of information about what precipitated the shooting. A release provided by state police on Jan. 29 was, at best, vague.

That release stated that township police were dispatched and came into contact with Hackney at his home.

The next sentence reads: “The male was treated on scene per medical staff; however, he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced deceased at the scene.”

Notably absent is even the tiniest of details about what happened after police saw Hackney.

Whether right or wrong, when an officer is involved in a fatal shooting, speculation takes over. People are suspicious. Rumors swirl.

As the investigation continues, we implore the township to provide information about the officer’s status. We also implore state police to provide context about the shooting.

While the public may not need to know everything at this juncture, they certainly have the right to know something.