Metro-east man shot in face during failed kidnapping, four arrested
According to a press release from the Columbia Police Department, the Columbia resident picked up two males, ages 17 and 20, in North St. Louis at about 2:30 a.m. A short distance into the ride, one of the males displayed a handgun and demanded he take them to his home.
Instead, the driver drove into the parking lot of the Columbia Police Department to seek help, at which point the one of the two males fired the weapon, striking the driver in the face, the release stated.
The suspects then fled on foot toward Bolm-Schuhkraft City Park and disappeared into a wooded area. Police and Columbia EMS workers immediately began treating the wounded driver and transported him to a local hospital. According to the release, the man is in critical condition but expected to survive.
A short time later, police officers spotted a silver GMC SUV occupied by two females driving slowly in the area where the suspects had fled. Police used a drone to follow the GMC and later observed two Black males exit the woods and get into the vehicle, the release stated.
Police stopped the SUV and all four occupants were arrested.. A gun also was recovered, police said. The suspects names have not been released pending criminal charges.
The wounded driver's name also was not released.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
32,000 pounds of meat products recalled due to false USDA inspection marks
A New Jersey-based company, Sabrositos Hondurenos, LLC, is recalling about 32,000 pounds of various meat products with a false USDA mark of inspection, meaning the meats didn't go through proper federal examination, according to federal officials. In an alert shared Thursday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service said the recalled products are falsely labeled with establishment number "EST. 1785," which "does not exist," they said. The items, which include chorizo (sausage), pork chops and ribs, were shipped to retail locations and restaurants nationwide and were produced with various dates before Aug. 20, 2025. The recall includes the following: Homestyle chorizo labeled "OLANCHO Chorizo Suelto Olanchano SABROCITOS HONDUREÑOS" (14-oz. vacuum-sealed packages)Smoked pork chops labeled "OLANCHO Chuleta Ahumada Olanchana SABROCITOS HONDUREÑOS" (14-oz. vacuum-sealed packages)Smoked chorizo labeled "OLANCHO Chorizo Ahumado Olanchano SABROCITOS HONDUREÑOS" (14-oz. vacuum-sealed packages)Cased homestyle chorizo labeled "OLANCHO Chorizo Olanchano Criollo SABROCITOS HONDUREÑOS" (14-oz. vacuum-sealed packages)Smoked BBQ spicy chorizo labeled "OLANCHO Chorizo Parrillero SABROCITOS HONDUREÑOS" (14-oz. vacuum-sealed packages)Smoked ribs labeled "OLANCHO Costilla Ahumada Olanchana SABROCITOS HONDUREÑOS" (14-oz. vacuum-sealed packages) As more information becomes available, FSIS said it may add more items to the recalled product list, so consumers should keep an eye on the website for updates. So far, there have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to these products, but the USDA says they should be considered "misbranded and unsafe to eat." Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider, the agency added. Consumers can contact Diego Funez Garrido, owner of Sabrositos Hondurenos, LLC at 908-274-4206 for any questions regarding the recall, the alert added. Trump sounds off on potential security guarantees for Ukraine Man advocates for school zone and driver safety after personal tragedy What to know about the Menendez brothers' parole hearings Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Person Just Shared That They Don't Think Couples Should Have To Provide Food For Wedding Vendors, And It Sparked A Conversation About The Wedding Industry
Weddings are expensive, and that's not exactly a hot take. Between the venue, food, flowers, photography, and everything else, it's easy to feel like every item adds another thousand dollars to the tab. So when u/strawberry2801 shared their unpopular opinion that couples shouldn't be expected to provide meals for wedding vendors — photographers, in particular — it immediately touched a nerve. Posted to r/unpopularopinion, the original post questioned why vendors should be fed at all, comparing it to workers in any other industry who pack their own lunches. "I follow some wedding planning subs, and something I see all the time is couples being ridiculed for not wanting to provide hot meals for their wedding vendors (photographer, etc.)," the post reads. "This makes zero sense to me. Weddings are already wildly expensive nowadays, and vendors literally charge thousands of dollars. Also, in every other industry I can think of, people are responsible for bringing their own meals to their place of work. Why is this suddenly not the case for wedding vendors?!" Once people started chiming in, it became clear this wasn't just about food — it was about expectations, fairness, and the hidden realities of the wedding industry. From burned-out photographers who now include meal clauses in their contracts to planners working 15-hour days without a break, here's what wedding professionals and a few exasperated couples had to say about whether feeding your vendors is basic courtesy or just another unnecessary expense: 1."Not all venues allow outside food, and you require those vendors to be present throughout the entire event." —u/Uhhyt231 2."Our venue provided vendor-specific meals. They did not eat exactly the same thing we picked out. They charged us a fraction of the per-head cost of our reception dinner menu. They deserved it! They were there longer than our entire shindig!" —u/Dangerous-Class9911 3."When and where are they supposed to get their food from home, prepare it, and eat it? Everyone talking about 'workplace rules' does not seem to understand how weddings work. My point is: Where would there be a fridge to use and a place to sit and eat the food? Contractors at weddings are not employees of the venue, so the venue has no obligation to them. Workplace rules have no bearing here because the 'workplace' has no relationship with the venue itself. They could keep their food in their car and eat it there, but often vendors are asked to park farther away. This would cause a disruption in service." —u/SophisticatedScreams 4."Our wedding photographer has a clause in their contract that if food is not provided, they get to leave for a half hour to find something to eat. You are better off just feeding them as a courtesy. They are literally going nonstop all day, especially the photographer." "I am not the photographer. I am talking about my wedding photographer's contract! It might have been an hour; I do not remember how long." —u/RosettaStoned6 5."I genuinely do not think someone could have left my wedding venue, bought food at even the nearest fast food place, eaten it, and been back in 30 minutes." —u/barbaramillicent 6."Wedding photographer here. I went six full wedding seasons before I had to write this in my contract because it was unheard of not to feed me at a wedding. I bust my butt for clients. I go above and beyond to document their special moments and keep them calm on one of the most stressful days of their lives. I had never had a client treat me like 'the help' before the ones who forced me to make this change. And guess what? It was fine. They wanted to treat this exclusively like a business transaction, so that's what they got. Instead of the 1,500–2,000 photos I typically deliver to clients, they got my minimum contracted guarantee of 500 photos plus one extra. Instead of sticking around for an extra 15 minutes to make sure the story was told, I put my camera down at the exact second time was up. Instead of being as creative as I could with angles, compositions, and poses, I did the bare basics of what I was required to do. Nothing more, nothing less." "Instead of rushing to get them sneak peek photos that night, they got them when I felt like it. Same with final delivery. You're welcome to treat me like I'm 'the help' and look down on me because you're paying for my services, but expect it back in kind. A vendor meal is the barest of bare basic ways to show your appreciation for the people working for you." —u/NikonShooter_PJS 7."Hot food for one extra person is really not a lot when compared to the rest of the cost. Why pay thousands of dollars for a photographer and then not treat them to a meal when they are photographing such an important day for you? I do think a lot of weddings are overpriced, but that's usually due to expectations getting out of control, not the inherent items being so expensive. Feeding 50 to 150 people is just expensive." —u/tmpope123 8."I'd never stiff the vendors because they could mess with my pictures or wedding. However, I don't agree that this should be the norm. For those saying the cost of food for vendors is minimal, what about small weddings? If you only have 30 guests, you'll still have a photographer, videographer, DJ, maybe a planner, bartender, and catering staff. That's an additional 20% on your bill for a 30-person wedding. I did my food cheaply at $18 per person, but a plated meal can easily be over $50 per person. That's an extra $100 to $300 for vendors. Wedding food is overpriced as it is, but it's easier to spend the money on my loved ones — not random staff I don't know and will never see again. I've never had a job or known anyone outside the wedding industry where clients are contractually obligated to feed the staff. Pack a lunch like the rest of the working world. Many days, I had to eat cold food or a sandwich and chips." "Get over it. What entitles a vendor to help themselves to the considerably fancier and nicer food I splurged on for myself and my closest family and friends?" —u/TheRealJacquesC 9."Feeding a wedding photographer is not a 'treat.' They are literally chasing you around all day, carrying heavy gear for eight to 12 hours. The meal is sustenance." —u/anondogfree 10."As a wedding vendor: This idea fucking sucks." —u/WhipYourDakOut 11."Venues often have separate meals they cook for vendors. It is generally priced into venue contracts and at a lower cost than the food per guest. This [statement] reeks of ignorance. Guests attend a wedding for between five and six hours. Vendors can be on-site for upwards of 12 hours. It is also not always required, but if couples choose to go without feeding the vendors, some sort of meal buyout is usually arranged in the vendor contract. If there are 250 people at a wedding and 12 vendors on-site all day, and the thought of your providing sustenance to them when they are all in the middle of nowhere at a remote winery or resort bothers you, then most likely you would possess other poor qualities that may cause your vendors to book themselves elsewhere." —u/SoVeryMuchOverThis 12."I do not give a crap if I am ridiculed. It already costs a minimum of $1,000 for a professional videographer. Why am I going to spend an additional $100 a plate for him to eat? He's there to work, not dine, too. Same with the bartender — they're there to do a job and then go home. Spending a few thousand on the alcohol provisions is high enough. They're not getting a plate, too." —u/Ponchovilla18 13."We do charge more for weddings, but it's because they are significantly more work. Even if people want them to just be priced like a party, they are not just big parties." —u/WhipYourDakOut 14."You have to be perfect. There is no room for error on the most important day of someone's life. A birthday party or something like that is not on the same level. I saw a comment recently from a photographer who explained that when shooting a wedding, he has a much higher level of responsibility. A regular photo shoot can be redone if an SD card is corrupted or something like that — a wedding cannot. And because they are such dynamic events, they often need a backup shooter, etc." —u/cssc201 15."As a photographer, I do not shoot weddings without a backup shooter — and weddings often require two to five times the amount of post-production. At a portrait shoot, I shoot about 700 to 900 frames. Weddings can easily be 2,000. Primary photographers usually edit the second shooter's photos as well. It's a lot of work, and your margin for error is low. On top of that, wedding photographs frequently need to be printable, even if you're not the one printing them. Wedding dates are also not flexible. It's often twice the price, but it really is twice the work. As far as bringing my lunch, I wouldn't care if I had to do that, but bring it and put it where? If I leave it in my car, do they want me to take 15 minutes to go to the car? When? Do they want me to find a microwave or DoorDash? The photographer is busy every single moment the bride and groom are busy, plus others. At half the weddings I've been to, the bride and groom barely have time to eat." "I couldn't not eat. Wedding days can easily be 12 to 15 hours. My hands often start to shake if I go that long on a high-stress day with nothing. Do they want that?" —u/badmoonpie 16."I agree we shouldn't have to, but it's the common thing, so I did it. I can understand if you're at a venue that doesn't allow outside food. Otherwise, employers do not usually provide food for their employees, so I think it's a weird expectation when they can bring a packed lunch like nearly everyone alive does when they go to work. Also, most weddings are six hours, not all-day affairs like people keep commenting." —u/goldheadsnakebird 17."I work as a caterer and do tons of events, including weddings. The client always feeds the other vendors — bartenders, servers, photographers, the balloon arch guy, the florist, etc. If they do not, we do." —u/jillieboobean 18."My caterer actually offered, as part of their package, 'free meals for vendors.' I loved it." —u/bananakegs 19."Yes, we had it stated in our contract that extra servings were sent for free for staff and vendors. Some people — very few — still got furious and tried to sue us for eating. Most clients were very understanding that we were working long hours nonstop and needed food to keep us going. The quickest way to do that was to eat the food that was right there and ready." —u/myfavcolorisbrown 20."An entire evening meal for each person at my wedding was almost $500. There were not a lot of guests. We were paying a photographer too much money already, and I wasn't willing to spend another $1,000 on their food when they can pack their own lunch or dinner." —u/Bubbly_slut7 21."As the wedding bartender, I love trading with the caterers. A good caterer makes an event so much easier for us. But I can also say I have seen a huge change in how clients behave, and they're all becoming significantly worse." —u/WhipYourDakOut 22."We fed the vendors that were there all day, excluding the staff that already worked at the venue, because they would be getting regular breaks, etc. DJ, MC, photographer — all covered. Vendors like florists are just delivering things, so they don't need food." —u/zorbacles 23."Former wedding photographer here. For an all-day shoot (vs. my cheaper 'ceremony only' package), providing a meal was part of my agreement. We can agree it's unreasonable to expect someone to put in a 12-14-hour day (10 a.m. to midnight) without a break to eat, right? So if you choose not to provide me with a meal at the reception, then I am going to have to leave the venue and go find somewhere else to grab a bite. While your wedding party is giving toasts between meal courses, do you want your photographer there taking pictures, or stuffing his face at a nearby Chick-fil-A? Do you want me concentrating on taking great photos for you, or fantasizing about where I am going to stop to eat on my way home? Before you say they can pay for a meal from the caterer themselves, that is not how caterers work. They are usually unable to collect payment on-site, and do not want to deal with that hassle." "Preparing 100 to 200 meals all at once is already hard enough. They are just going to focus on cooking the number of meals you ordered, for the price you agreed to." —u/Kombatnt 24."I just find it funny how everyone gets upset about overtime, long hours, no breaks, and bad bosses — but as soon as they have that over someone they are paying for, it's suddenly not a concern anymore." —u/HappycamperNZ 25."Pretty much everyone in photography, filming, and makeup receives their meals on their jobs. This is true for weddings, live events, film, TV commercials, and private events. The reason is that the days are usually long, and you do not want these people leaving. Also, buying plates for vendors is not what's making your wedding expensive." —u/jackburton470 26."I think it is more about being a decent human being than anything. It's a wedding. You are most likely already spending a lot of money anyway. It would feel weird to have them sitting on the side, eating their own packaged food, while everyone else is eating a proper meal. It's just the human thing to do." —u/bongingnaut 27."You know what's worth a lot more than a couple extra plates of food? Your fucking wedding pictures. Everyone knows you do not mess with the people who handle your food. Why on earth would these people even dream of pissing off the ones who can ruin their special day?" —u/DookieShoez 28."Some people are claiming that every other industry requires people to bring their own food to work. I'm guessing these people have never worked in the food or hospitality industry, because practically every single one of them either has a staff meal or free food marked out per shift (my former Starbucks role is showing). Not to mention, there's almost always leftover food at a wedding. If the difference between having enough and running out is half a dozen vendors, you severely under-planned." —u/mathliability 29."I shoot weddings with my buddy three or four times a year. He does it year-round. It's written into the contract that we get food. We are with the bride and groom from moment zero until they leave. It is nonstop. We are scavenging cheese off of snack plates whenever we can. When we eat (first in line after the wedding party), it's the first meal we've had in about eight hours, and the only time we can actually decompress — and that is very short-lived. We are first in line so that we can get back up and running as soon as the wedding party starts again. Everybody eats at the same time, and then it just snaps back to all business. Everybody's working together, and it could mess some stuff up after dinner if one or two vendors were still off somewhere sorting food." —u/xxyzyxx 30."It's not required everywhere — only some venues. But honestly, in my opinion, it's weird to have someone hang out with you all day, talk to them, pose with them, and then be like, 'Forget you, eat a cold sandwich in the corner.' I enjoy having a good relationship with people I work with, and it makes me happy to help feed them while they are at work for me all day." —u/SparkleSelkie 31."It's not required. It's a courtesy." —u/NoDanaOnlyZuuI So, what do you think? Should couples be expected to feed their wedding vendors, or is it a personal choice? If you've worked in the industry — or planned a wedding yourself — share your experience in the comments below! Note: Responses have been edited for length/clarity. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EXCLUSIVE: Flight attendant with AIDS fired by United Airlines for going to the doctor too often, lawsuit says
A longtime United Airlines flight attendant battling AIDS claims he was fired for taking sick days to see the doctor or otherwise tend to his declining health, which the carrier deemed 'excessive medical absences,' according to state and federal court filings obtained by The Independent. Timothy Panzl, 62, began working for United in October 1990 and was diagnosed with AIDS in 2002, his complaint explains. From then on, it says Panzl, a San Diego resident, was forced to call out roughly twice a month 'for worsening health or medical appointments.' This continued for more than two decades without major issue, according to the complaint, which maintains Panzl got approval for his days off and always provided a doctor's note when he returned. But when he called out sick before a trip in June 2023, Panzl was informed he had been removed from the schedule, according to the complaint. He was then put under disciplinary investigation, and soon received a letter from management that said his 'dependability record warrants termination.' 'Your actions were inconsistent with the Working Together Guidelines in the areas of professionalism – communicate and perform all duties in a safe, courteous, helpful, competent dependable and businesslike manner; and working dependably – keep your attendance regular and arrive at work at the time and on the day you are scheduled,' the letter read. Panzl was stripped of all travel privileges, and instructed to FedEx back his crew badge and ID card, parking permit, company-issued flashlight and iPhone, battery packs, charging cables and 'United blue protective cover and phone storage case.' The complaint, which was initially filed June 5 in California Superior Court before being removed to San Diego federal court on August 8, says Panzl had 'never been given any warning prior to his termination,' and that he had requested 'approximately the same amount of excused absences as he had done for the past 21 years.' Attorney Mahru Madjidi, one of the lawyers representing Panzl, told The Independent that United 'unlawfully punished' his client after nearly 33 years of service. 'Instead of honoring their duty to accommodate his disability, which they had in the past, they in turn weaponized it to justify his sudden firing,' Madjidi said. 'We hope to hold United accountable for their actions against a dedicated employee who was forced to choose between his health and his livelihood.' United did not respond to a request for comment. Last year, an HIV-positive flight attendant for American Airlines sued the carrier after being sacked in a near-identical case to Panzl's. In 2017, a Delta employee with HIV was awarded $1.3 million following his termination for missing two days of work due to his illness. Five years earlier, an HIV-positive Delta baggage handler sued the airline over his firing, also allegedly for taking time off to deal with his health issues. The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 forbids discrimination against people with all manner of afflictions, including HIV and AIDS. To bring an ADA lawsuit against an employer, the aggrieved party must initially file an administrative complaint with authorities; Panzl preceded his own suit against United by first bringing his accusations to the California Civil Rights Department, which then issued him a so-called right-to-sue letter. Over the course of Panzl's career as a flight attendant, he always 'showed consistent dedication and performed his job excellently,' according to his complaint. It says his AIDS diagnosis 'impacted major life activities,' and Panzl 'required reasonable accommodation and an interactive process.' However, United uses a points system to monitor employee attendance, and once someone hits 30 points during a rolling 12-month period, they are issued a letter of investigation, pending discharge. Despite Panzl's medical status, which the complaint says were 'excused due to his disabilities,' he was 'consistently penalized with points for his absences.' According to the complaint, United instead 'used his disability and age as grounds for terminating his employment.' However, United has a slightly different take on the situation. In Panzl's termination letter, which United filed in court last week as part of the company's motion to dismiss, it says he failed to show up for his initial investigatory meeting on July 11, then appeared at a rescheduled sit-down on July 17, where he and representatives from both United and the flight attendants' union discussed the situation. According to the letter, Panzl had previously received four attendance warnings: the first on July 20, 2021, for 6 points; the second on September 2, 2021, for a total of 12 points; the third on November 14, 2021, for a total of 18 points; and the fourth on October 29, 2022, for 25 cumulative points. Panzl's points exceeded the maximum of 30 points when, the letter asserts, he missed a June 22 trip he was scheduled to work, and didn't call out sick until after his shift had already started. For his part, Panzl told his supervisor that he had tried to call twice, unsuccessfully, fell asleep, then tried to call a third time, but that his company-issued 'LINK' device, which lets United employees message each other, had malfunctioned. The supervisor then reminded Panzl that the LINK devices don't make or receive phone calls, and asked him to provide phone records proving that he had indeed attempted to call in, according to the letter. 'During our meeting you stated you were confused and couldn't provide us any additional information,' the letter said. 'You were unable to provide any phone records of attempting to call out sick.' The letter, which was written by a United inflight absence supervisor, concluded by telling Panzl he had been 'properly assigned' the points in each instance, and referenced the union's collective bargaining agreement which states: 'A Flight Attendant will be subject to discharge if she/he accumulates 30 or more points.' In its request for the case to be thrown out, United further contends that Panzl failed to show a 'causal nexus' between his firing and his claim of age and disability discrimination, that the legal theories in his complaint are unsupported by the facts, and that he never formally requested an accommodation for his disability. Panzl's complaint accuses United of, among other things, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 'As a proximate result of defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish,' his complaint states. Panzl is demanding a jury trial, with damages to be determined in court.
