Minnesota shooting suspect told friend in text message: I might be dead soon
MINNEAPOLIS/NEW YORK/WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - The suspect in the deadly shooting of a Minnesota state lawmaker and wounding of another had links to evangelical ministries and said he was a security expert with experience in the Gaza Strip and Africa, according to his online postings and public records.
A manhunt was under way on Saturday for Vance Luther Boelter, 57, who police said is a suspect in the killing of Democratic Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the shooting of State Senator John Hoffman and his wife.
Police said the suspect had been seen earlier on Saturday wearing a light colored cowboy hat, a dark colored long sleeved collared shirt or coat with a dark bag. The FBI offered a reward of up to $50,000 for information that could lead to his arrest.
David Carlson, 59, told Reuters that he has been sharing a house in Minneapolis with Boelter for a little more than a year and last saw him on Friday night. Then about 6 a.m. on Saturday, he received a text from Boelter.
"He said that he might be dead soon," said Carlson, who called police.
Carlson, who has known Boelter since fourth grade, said Boelter worked for an eye donation center and stayed at the house because it was close to his job. Carlson said he feels betrayed by Boelter and heartbroken for the victims, adding: "His family has got to suffer through this."
Boelter was appointed in 2016 to the Governor's Workforce Development Board, state records show. The board "has a responsibility to advise the Governor on Minnesota's workforce system," according to its website.
Asked if Boelter knew the lawmakers, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans said: "We are still exploring that."
"There's certainly some overlap with some public meetings, I will say, with Senator Hoffman and the individual. But we don't know the nature of the relationship or if they actually knew each other," he told reporters.
Boelter listed himself as having no political party preference. On a LinkedIn post six years ago, Boelter urged Americans to vote and value the process: "If you believe in prayer, please keep the United States in your prayers."
Carlson said Boelter voted for Trump, was a Christian and did not like abortion, though he added that the pair had not talked about the issue for a long time, adding: "He wasn't really angry about politics."
In social media accounts, public records and websites reviewed by Reuters, Boelter described himself as a Christian minister, a security expert with experience in the Middle East and Africa, and a former employee of food service companies.
Boelter said he was the chief executive of an organization called the Red Lion Group, based in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He and his wife, Jennifer, also ran a security service called Praetorian Guard Security Services LLC; Minnesota corporate records list her as a manager.
The company website says it offers only armed guard security services, and Boelter wrote that he had been "involved with security situations in Eastern Europe, Africa, North America and the Middle East, including the West Bank, Southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip." The claims could not be immediately verified.
Police were aware of reports that Boelter owned a security company, Evans said.
Boelter wrote on LinkedIn a month ago that he was looking for work: "Hi everyone! I'm looking to get back into the U.S. Food Industry and I'm pretty open to positions" in Texas, Minnesota, Florida and the Washington DC area.
Nonprofit tax filings show that Boelter and his wife ran a Christian ministry organization called Revoformation. The most recent filing, in 2010, lists Boelter as president.
On an archived version of the Revoformation web page from 2011, Boelter said he was ordained in 1993 as a minister, and had been raised in the small town of Sleepy Eye, about 100 miles southwest of Minneapolis.
In his biography on that site, Boelter claimed to have made trips to "violent areas in the Gaza Strip and West Bank where suicide bombings were taking place."
"He sought out militant Islamists in order to share the gospel and tell them that violence wasn't the answer," the biography says. Boelter said he went to St. Cloud State University, the now-closed Cardinal Stritch University and the Christ for the Nations Institute, a Bible college in Dallas.
After firing at police on Saturday, the suspect abandoned a vehicle in which officers found a "manifesto" and a list of other legislators and officials, law enforcement officials said.
Evans said police were still exploring what could have been the motivation for the shootings, adding: "It would be premature for me at this point to really say exactly what the motivation might be from these writings."
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz said the shooting "appears to be a politically motivated assassination."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Man charged after Chesham pedestrian shot at from car
A man has been charged with attempted murder after a pedestrian was shot at from a Valley Police said the victim, a man aged in his 30s, was targeted on Broad Street in Chesham, Buckinghamshire, at about 18:10 BST on Tuesday before a silver coloured VW Scirocco was driven from the scene. The victim suffered injuries to his shoulder and was taken to hospital, but his injuries are not life-threatening and he has since been discharged.A 31-year-old man, of no fixed abode, has been charged with attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of a Class B drug. The man appeared at High Wycombe Magistrates' Court on Saturday and will be held in custody until his next appearance, at Aylesbury Crown Court, on 15 July.A 37-year-old man from Chesham, who was arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and affray, has been released on conditional bail. Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Fighting Russia is now Europe's problem: America is about to leave the stage
So it's official: Washington is pulling the plug on military aid to Ukraine. At Congressional hearings this week US secretary of defence Pete Hegseth confirmed the Trump administration has a 'very different view' of the war in Ukraine to that of Joe Biden's – and insisted that a 'negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests.' Given that the topic of the hearings was the US's 2026 military budget, the message could hardly have been clearer. Fighting Russia is now Europe's problem. Washington has given Ukraine some $74 billion in military aid since Putin's invasion in February 2022. That includes game-changing equipment such as Patriot air defence systems that are Ukraine's only effective defence against Russian ballistic missiles, ATACMS and HIMARS missiles, long-range M777 artillery, tanks, armoured vehicles, and millions of artillery rounds. Some of the Biden-era packages are still coming down the procurement pipeline. But the bitter bottom line for Kyiv is that it has been abandoned by its most powerful and deep-pocketed ally. That leaves Ukraine three options. The first is to rely on Europe stepping in to supply the weapons and equipment it needs. The second – proposed earlier this month by Zelensky – was to buy US made weapons from Washington with European money. The third is to make the weapons it needs in Ukrainian factories, funded by money from European allies. Happily for Ukraine, Europe's leaders have repeatedly promised to step up to the plate and deliver what Ukraine needs to fight on. Less happily, in practice, Europe seems better at promising than actually stepping. Back on February 9, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced a 'ReArm Europe' package in Brussels that 'could mobilise close to €800 billion of defence expenditures over five years … This is a moment for Europe, and we are ready to step up.' But it soon emerged that this staggering sum was not, in fact, ready money but represented an easing of borrowing constraints on EU members if they chose to increase their defence budgets. On March 19 EU high representative for external relations, Kaja Kallas, proposed a €40 billion arms aid package for Ukraine. But that plan was shot down by doubters such as Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Spain and Italy. Last month Europe finally put some cash (albeit someone else's cash) on the table by directing €1 billion from the EU's Peace Facility – made from frozen Russian assets – towards financing Ukraine's domestic arms industry. Kyiv will certainly put that aid to good use. Domestic production now meets up to 50 per cent of Ukraine's military needs, despite repeated Russian strikes on factories. And Ukraine already outproduces the EU in the production of many weapons. Output of Ukraine's Bohdana howitzer is now 20 per month, outpacing the production of French Caesars, and could double with more EU funding. Drone production is scaling up fast, with five million small First Person View (FPV) drones planned for 2025, plus 30,000 long-range drones, and 3,000 cruise missiles. Plus some of the new Ukrainian kit is actually better than foreign supplied equipment because it's tailored more precisely to the specific needs of the killing fields of Donbas. Ukraine's Limma Electronic warfare system outperforms Russian and Western tech in jamming Russian glide bombs. And of course there's Ukraine's extraordinarily bold and sophisticated mass drone attack on Russian strategic bombers deep inside Siberia and the Arctic earlier this month, which featured drone swarms hidden in the roofs of prefabricated housing units and trucked right to their targets by unwitting freelance drivers. So there's no doubt that Ukraine has the technical sophistication, the industrial capacity and the tactical imagination to create its own formidable defences. Indeed, by many metrics the Ukrainian army is not only the largest but also the best-equipped on the European continent, bar Russia's. But Ukraine also has deep vulnerabilities further down the defence-procurement totem pole when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts sinews of war, from artillery shells to bullets to spare parts. And the most urgent military and political problem of all is a looming chronic shortage of bodies to man the front lines. Videos of violent press-gang tactics used to round up military-age men – often featuring posses of citizens rallying to save the men targeted – are the subject of daily online anger on Ukraine's social media. Stories of Russia's imminent economic and military collapse make for feel-good reading – but aren't borne out by ongoing and relentless assaults in the air and on the ground. Russia is set to spend $160 billion on defence this year, and thanks to purchasing power disparities a dollar spent in Russia gets far more bang for the buck. A Russian T-90 costs approximately $4.5 million, a US M1 Abrams can cost as much as $9.61 million. Western defence experts have warned that US-made Patriot missile systems, in production since 1981, are increasingly ineffective against Russian hypersonic cruise missiles and massed swarms of Iranian Shaheed drones. Can Ukraine survive just on its own resources, and Europe's intermittent money? The deepest irony of all is that much of the Kremlin's lavish defence spending is directly financed by Europe itself, which is due to spend over €20 billion buying oil, gas, coal and uranium from Russia in 2025.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Stay below the radar': corporate America goes quiet after Trump's return
From vast protests and all-caps social media posts to acrimonious legislative hearings and pugnacious White House statements, Washington has perhaps never been noisier. But since Donald Trump's return to office, one corner of civil society has been almost eerily quiet. Those leading corporate America rapidly turned down the volume after the president's re-election. Gone are the days of political and social interventions, highly publicized diversity initiatives and donations to important causes. For months, some of the most powerful firms in the world have nervously navigated a dangerous US political landscape, desperate to avoid the wrath of an administration as volatile as it is vocal. 'CEOs like two things. They like consistency and predictability,' said Bill George, former chairman and CEO of Medtronic and serial board director. 'They like to know where things are going. No one can figure out where this administration's really going, because everything is transactional.' 'Stay below the radar screen,' George has been advising senior executives across the US. 'Do not get in a fight with this president.' Industry leaders from David Solomon of Goldman Sachs to Dara Khosrowshahi of Uber extoled the benefits of 'Trump accounts' for babies this week. It was the latest example of knee-flexing that began on the patio of Mar-a-Lago in the aftermath of Trump's victory last November. The genuflections have been backed by big money, with millions of dollars thrown into the president's inaugural fund by companies and executives. That started to look like chump change before long. Amazon reportedly paid $40m for a documentary about Melania Trump. Apple announced plans to invest $500bn in the US. But those moves do not appear to have bought much favor. The White House accused Amazon of being 'hostile and political' following a report (upon which the company later poured cold water) that it would start disclosing the impact of Trump's tariffs on prices. And the president threatened Apple with vast tariffs. No CEO seemed closer to Trump than Elon Musk, the billionaire industrialist behind Tesla and SpaceX, who gave almost $300m to Republican campaigns last year, and worked in the administration for months. Their explosive fallout, days after Musk's exit, prompted the president to threaten the cancellation of federal contracts and tax subsidies for Musk's companies. The pair's rupture underlined why many executives are struggling to trust the president, according to Paul Argenti, professor of corporate communication at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. 'The mercurial nature of this guy kind of just seeps in, and people start to realize they're dealing with something that's a bit more difficult.' His advice? 'Proceed with extreme caution.' 'Loyalty only goes one way with Trump,' said Dan Schwerin, co-founder of Evergreen Strategy Group, and former speechwriter for Hillary Clinton, who has previously worked with firms including Levi Strauss and Patagonia. 'This is like doing business with the mafia: you're not going to win, and you're not going to be safe.' The standard playbook is clear: 'You make a big splashy announcement: the details don't matter, you don't have to follow through, but you placate the White House,' said Schwerin. 'That maybe buys you a little time and a little goodwill. 'But history suggests that Trump will do whatever is best for Trump, and he will turn on you in an instant, if it's better for him. And that is true for his friends, so it will certainly be true for a company that he has no loyalty to.' Extreme caution has become the name of the game – anything to avoid your company getting drawn into the crosshairs of this administration. But companies can't just focus on the president: they have shareholders, customers and employees to answer to. 'You can't base everything on getting through the next four years,' said George. 'Yeah, it's going to be chaotic. Yes, it's going to be challenging. But you better hold firm to your purpose and your values.' He pointed to retailer Target, where he served on the board for 12 years. 'They were very, very big on differentiating themselves from Walmart, using diversity as the criteria – and particularly being, they called themselves, the most gay-friendly company in town. 'And then [Target CEO] Brian Cornell, six days after the inauguration, abandoned all that,' said George. The chain faced a backlash – and boycotts – for abruptly announcing the rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Breaking his silence in an email to employees three months later, Cornell claimed: 'We are still the Target you know and believe in.' Contrast this with Costco, another retailer, which in January faced a shareholder proposal against DEI efforts from a conservative thinktank. The firm's board robustly defended its 'commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion' before the proposal was put to its investors for a vote. 'They got a 98% vote to stay the course, to stay true to what they were,' said George. 'And their customer base is very conservative. This is not like they have some liberal customer base.' Argenti believes the period of strategic silence by many companies, and knee-flexing to the White House, might be coming to a close following Musk's messy exit. 'We're at an inflection point,' he said. 'There's going to period where people realize you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.' CEOs of companies counting the cost of Trump's policies are 'not going to suffer in silence', he said. 'You can't win. It's not like you can be secure in knowing if you follow this strategy, he'll leave you alone.' 'We are starting to see the pendulum swing back,' according to Schwerin, who claimed the administration's erratic execution of tariffs had 'opened some people's eyes' that its policies were bad for business. 'I think it's crucial that we start to see a little more pushback. Better to have a backbone than to just bend the knee.' On controversial issues at the heart of political discourse, however, George does not expect much of a shift from CEOs. 'It is radio silence, and I think you'll see that continuing. There's not much to be gained from speaking out today.' 'Stick to your lane,' he has been counseling executives. 'If you're a banker, you can talk about the economy. If you're an oil expert ... talk to the energy industry. But you can't speak ex-cathedra to everyone else.' 'Only a handful' of business figures are deemed able to stand up and make bold public statements on any issue, according to George, who points to Jamie Dimon, the veteran JPMorgan Chase boss, and Warren Buffett, the longtime head of Berkshire Hathaway. 'There are certain people who are really hard to take on. Jamie's one,' he said. 'If you were president of the United States, would you take on Warren Buffett?'
