ReportWire

Tag: Argument

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 10:27 AM PST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 1:27 PM EST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man killed in Stockton shooting after argument, police say

    [ad_1]

    THINGS DID NOT GET OUT OF CONTROL. RIGHT NOW, STOCKTON POLICE ARE INVESTIGATING A FIGHT THAT LED TO A DEADLY SHOOTING. POLICE SAY SOMEONE SHOT A 36 YEAR OLD MAN AFTER AN ARGUMENT ON SOUTH AIRPORT WAY. THAT MAN WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL WHERE HE LATER DIED. POLICE AT THIS POINT HAV

    Man killed in Stockton shooting after argument, police say

    Updated: 8:34 AM PDT Oct 26, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A 36-year-old man was killed in a Stockton shooting after getting into an argument with the suspect, police said.Stockton police said the shooting happened in the 1600 block of South Airport Way in the Seaport District on Friday. The man died at the hospital. There is no suspect information. This was the 31th homicide of the year within Stockton city limits, according to our homicide tracker.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    STOCKTON, Calif. —

    A 36-year-old man was killed in a Stockton shooting after getting into an argument with the suspect, police said.

    Stockton police said the shooting happened in the 1600 block of South Airport Way in the Seaport District on Friday.

    The man died at the hospital.

    There is no suspect information.

    This was the 31th homicide of the year within Stockton city limits, according to our homicide tracker.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court debate Louisiana redistricting case centering on Voting Rights Act

    [ad_1]

    Supreme Court set to hear arguments on pivotal Louisiana redistricting case

    The Supreme Court is reviewing a case involving Louisiana’s congressional map and its implications for racial gerrymandering.

    Updated: 4:54 AM PDT Oct 15, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    The Supreme Court is deliberating a case today that could reshape congressional redistricting nationwide, focusing on racial gerrymandering in Louisiana.States are allowed to redistrict based on party lines, but this case in the Supreme Court deals with gerrymandering along racial lines and could change who you’re voting for. If the Supreme Court justices get rid of Section Two, the last remaining part of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting, it could upend electoral maps nationwide.At issue is Louisiana’s congressional map, which has two majority Black districts. The state drew a new map in 2022, but civil rights advocates argued in federal court that it violated part of the Voting Rights Act because it only included one majority Black district. They won, and the state redrew the map, but a group claimed it was racist against them. A court agreed, leading to the current Supreme Court case.A ruling in favor of Louisiana could open the door for states with large minority populations, mostly red states in the South, to redraw congressional districts, essentially eliminating majority Black and Latino seats that tend to favor Democrats.”If the court, as I think some people expect, says you can’t use race ever anymore, or if the Voting Rights Act allows you to use race, then that violates the Constitution under the 14th and 15th amendments, then we are basically done with the Voting Rights Act,” American University Washington College of Law Professor Stephen Wermiel said.Once the Supreme Court hears arguments today, a decision will most likely be released in the late spring or early summer.Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    The Supreme Court is deliberating a case today that could reshape congressional redistricting nationwide, focusing on racial gerrymandering in Louisiana.

    States are allowed to redistrict based on party lines, but this case in the Supreme Court deals with gerrymandering along racial lines and could change who you’re voting for.

    If the Supreme Court justices get rid of Section Two, the last remaining part of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting, it could upend electoral maps nationwide.

    At issue is Louisiana’s congressional map, which has two majority Black districts. The state drew a new map in 2022, but civil rights advocates argued in federal court that it violated part of the Voting Rights Act because it only included one majority Black district. They won, and the state redrew the map, but a group claimed it was racist against them. A court agreed, leading to the current Supreme Court case.

    A ruling in favor of Louisiana could open the door for states with large minority populations, mostly red states in the South, to redraw congressional districts, essentially eliminating majority Black and Latino seats that tend to favor Democrats.

    “If the court, as I think some people expect, says you can’t use race ever anymore, or if the Voting Rights Act allows you to use race, then that violates the Constitution under the 14th and 15th amendments, then we are basically done with the Voting Rights Act,” American University Washington College of Law Professor Stephen Wermiel said.

    Once the Supreme Court hears arguments today, a decision will most likely be released in the late spring or early summer.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here are 5 major Supreme Court cases to be argued this fall

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court opens its new term on Monday and is scheduled to hear arguments in 33 cases this fall.

    The justices will hear challenges to transgender rights, voting rights and Trump tariffs and will reconsider a 90-year-old precedent that protects officials of independent agencies from being fired by the president.

    Here are the major cases set for argument:

    Conversion therapy and free speech: Does a licensed mental health counselor have a 1st Amendment right to talk to patients under age 18 about changing their sexual orientation or gender identity, even if doing so is prohibited by state law?

    California in 2012 was first state to ban “conversion therapy,” believing it was harmful to minors and leads to depression and suicide. Other states followed, relying on their authority to regulate the practice of medicine and to prohibit substandard care.

    The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, sued on behalf of a Colorado counselor and argued that the state is “censoring” her speech. (Chiles vs. Salazar, to be argued on Tuesday.)

    Supreme Court Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., left, Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. attend inauguration ceremonies for Donald Trump in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20 in Washington.

    (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

    Voting rights and Black majority districts: Does a state violate the Constitution if it redraws its congressional districts to create one with a Black majority?

    In the past, the court has said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional. But citing the Voting Rights Act, it also has ruled states must sometimes create an electoral district where a Black or Latino candidate has a good chance to win.

    Otherwise, these minorities may be shut out from political representation in Congress, state legislatures or county boards.

    But Justice Clarence Thomas has argued for outlawing all use of race in drawing district lines, and the court may adopt his view in a pending dispute over a second Black majority district in Louisiana. (Louisiana vs. Callais, to be argued Oct. 15.)

    Trump and tariffs: Does President Trump have legal authority acting on his own to impose large import taxes on products coming from otherwise friendly countries?

    Trump is relying on a 1977 law that empowers the president to act when faced with an “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad. The measure does not mention tariffs or taxes.

    In a pair of cases, lower courts ruled the tariffs were illegal but kept them in place for now. Trump administration lawyers argue the justices should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. (Learning Resources vs. Trump, to be argued Nov. 5.)

    Three athletes compete in the 100-meter hurdles.

    The high court will look at whether transgender athletes can compete in certain sports. Above, a 100-meter hurdles event during a track meet in Riverside in April.

    (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

    Transgender athletes and school sports: Can a state prevent a transgender student whose “biological sex at birth” was male from competing on a girls sports team?

    West Virginia and Idaho adopted such laws but they were struck down by judges who said they violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of laws and the federal Title IX law that bars sex discrimination in schools and colleges.

    Trump voiced support for “keeping men out of women’s sports” — a characterization deemed false by transgender women and their advocates, among others. If the Supreme Court agrees, this rule is likely to be enforced nationwide under Title IX. (West Virginia vs. B.P.J. is due to be heard in December.)

    Trump and independent agencies: May the president fire officials of independent agencies who were appointed with fixed terms set by Congress?

    Since 1887, Congress has created semi-independent boards, commissions and agencies with regulatory duties. While their officials are appointed by the president, their fixed terms keep them in office when a new president takes over.

    The Supreme Court upheld their independence from direct presidential control in the 1935 case of Humphreys Executor vs. U.S., but Trump has fired several such officials.

    The current court has sided with Trump in two such cases and will hear arguments on whether to overturn the 90-year-old precedent. (Trump vs. Slaughter is due to be argued in December.)

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Trump urges Supreme Court to uphold his worldwide tariffs in a fast-track ruling

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-track ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

    Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.

    In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by next Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.

    They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

    They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.

    “Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he wrote.

    Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.

    First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and a tariff is an import tax.

    Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.

    And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold, new, costly regulations.

    So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.

    Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Act of the 1970s.

    Two years ago, the court in the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.

    The impact of Trump’s tariffs figures to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.

    In a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.

    “We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.

    But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.

    Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by three others.

    He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.

    Taranto called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.

    Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Apopka man arrested, accused of shooting at neighbor following argument

    [ad_1]

    The Apopka Police Department arrested a man after he allegedly shot at his neighbor several times following an argument over loud music.Nobody was hurt in the shooting, but Matthew Howard said he was inches away from losing his life after his neighbor, 34-year-old Charles Vega-Guzman, allegedly fired at him several times on Sunday, Aug. 17.Howard pointed out several bullet holes in the patio screen of his Apopka home to WESH 2 on Tuesday. He said that he’s had problems with Vega-Guzman and his mother since “day one”.Howard said he was on his patio with his mother-in-law when the shooting happened. He said after looking at the holes in his patio screen, he believes,”If I was an inch in any other direction if either of us were… we could be seriously hurt on dead,” he said.According to the arrest report, Vega Guzman was taken to the police department. He told officers he grabbed a gun during an argument with the neighbors to scare them, and claimed to have fired rounds into the air, and later he said it was into the ground.His mother told police their neighbors are “very argumentative and pick on her.” She also told police her son fired four shots into the ground.According to the arrest report, police found four spent shell casings on the porch and said, “based on the projectiles’ suspected path of travel, the Defendant intentionally aimed for the victims.”

    APOPKA, Fla. —

    The Apopka Police Department arrested a man after he allegedly shot at his neighbor several times following an argument over loud music.

    Nobody was hurt in the shooting, but Matthew Howard said he was inches away from losing his life after his neighbor, 34-year-old Charles Vega-Guzman, allegedly fired at him several times on Sunday, Aug. 17.

    Howard pointed out several bullet holes in the patio screen of his Apopka home to WESH 2 on Tuesday. He said that he’s had problems with Vega-Guzman and his mother since “day one”.

    Howard said he was on his patio with his mother-in-law when the shooting happened.
    He said after looking at the holes in his patio screen, he believes,

    “If I was an inch in any other direction if either of us were… we could be seriously hurt on dead,” he said.

    According to the arrest report, Vega Guzman was taken to the police department. He told officers he grabbed a gun during an argument with the neighbors to scare them, and claimed to have fired rounds into the air, and later he said it was into the ground.

    His mother told police their neighbors are “very argumentative and pick on her.” She also told police her son fired four shots into the ground.

    According to the arrest report, police found four spent shell casings on the porch and said, “based on the projectiles’ suspected path of travel, the Defendant intentionally aimed for the victims.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gunman sought after fatal shooting in Skid Row

    Gunman sought after fatal shooting in Skid Row

    [ad_1]

    A man was fatally shot in Skid Row early Saturday after an argument with another man that was captured on surveillance video, according to the Los Angeles Police Department.

    Police were called at 4:24 a.m. to the 500 block of San Pedro Street, where they found a man suffering from gunshot wounds, a police department spokesperson said.

    The man, who was not identified, was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead, police said. The gunman fled the scene.

    Surveillance video showed the victim arguing with another man, who then shot him, authorities said. Police did not have a detailed description of the gunman and no arrests have been made.

    [ad_2]

    Emily Alpert Reyes

    Source link

  • Delisted

    Delisted

    [ad_1]

    Sony has delisted Helldivers 2 in more than 170 countries that don’t have dedicated regions in PSN, which was the main argument against the change. These countries no longer have the ability to buy the game or activate a retail key.
    Steam is refunding the game even with more than 100hrs of playtime.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Person stabbed after argument spills out of L.A. Metro bus, police say

    Person stabbed after argument spills out of L.A. Metro bus, police say

    [ad_1]

    A person was stabbed Friday afternoon after getting into an argument with other passengers on a Los Angeles Metro bus in University Park, authorities said.

    Police were dispatched to the area of Figueroa Way and Adams Boulevard at around 12:35 p.m. after a reported stabbing, according to Rosario Cervantes, a public information officer for the Los Angeles Police Department.

    The Los Angeles Fire Department also responded, and the victim was taken to a hospital. No additional information about the victim was immediately available.

    A suspect was taken into custody shortly after the incident, Cervantes said.

    According to L.A. Metro spokesperson Patrick Chandler, there was an argument between three people on a bus, and the driver stopped to allow them to get off.

    “The argument continued on the sidewalk and resulted in an apparent stabbing,” Chandler said in a statement. “The bus is remaining at the scene, since the passengers were witnesses.”

    The stabbing is the latest in a string of violent incidents involving L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority riders in recent weeks. Earlier this month, a bus driver was stabbed in the chest by a passenger. Less than 24 hours earlier, a 70-year-old passenger had been stabbed by another passenger.

    And earlier this week, 66-year-old Mirna Soza was fatally stabbed aboard a Metro train by a man who had once been banned from riding the train system.

    The incidents have forced leaders to grapple with how to ensure safe passage on public transportation. Metro has discussed additional security measures such as creating its own police force, or implementing facial recognition technology and fare gates.

    “Our agency has grappled with a very real and unacceptable level of violence, illicit drug use, sales and overdoses, and a blatant disregard for the law, our code of conduct and, quite frankly, basic human decency,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who sits on the L.A. Metro board. “Until we completely reverse security reality on our system, I’m concerned that we will never come back.”

    Times staff writer Rachel Uranga contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Melissa Gomez

    Source link

  • Explain Yourself: The Healthy Challenge of Describing Your Beliefs

    Explain Yourself: The Healthy Challenge of Describing Your Beliefs

    [ad_1]


    How effectively can you explain yourself to others? Learn to embrace the healthy challenge of describing your beliefs to sharpen your thinking and worldview.


    This content is for Monthly, Yearly, and Lifetime members only.
    Join Here

    The post Explain Yourself: The Healthy Challenge of Describing Your Beliefs appeared first on The Emotion Machine.

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link