Man shot by Kenyan police during protests is in intensive care, father says
(Corrects to add dropped word "range" in first paragraph)
NAIROBI (Reuters) -A man shot at point blank range by a Kenyan police officer during protests in the capital Nairobi against extrajudicial killings by security forces is alive but in intensive care, his father said on Wednesday.
Protests broke out in Nairobi and Kenya's second-largest city, Mombasa, on Tuesday over the death of blogger and teacher Albert Ojwang in police custody on June 8.
A video posted on Kenyan broadcaster Citizen Television's X account on Tuesday showed two policemen repeatedly striking a man - subsequently identified as Boniface Kariuki - on the head before one of them fired at him with a long-barrelled gun as he tried to walk away.
Police said late on Tuesday an officer had been arrested in connection with the shooting.
On Wednesday, the victim's father Jonah Kariuki said the 22-year-old was in the intensive care unit at the government-funded Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi.
"He is on machine support," Kariuki said in a video posted on X by The Standard newspaper. "I have seen he has a heartbeat ... I have some hope."
A Reuters journalist saw the young man on the ground on Tuesday with a heavily bleeding head wound, his hand clutching a packet of face masks.
"He was selling masks, it's not that he is a criminal. I have never heard him steal," Kariuki said.
The death of 31-year-old blogger Ojwang stoked anger over long-standing accusations of extrajudicial killings by security forces in the east African country.
Police had initially attributed his death to suicide, but apologised after an independent autopsy found that his wounds were the result of assault.
President William Ruto, too, said Ojwang had died "at the hands of the police".
Human rights groups, the Law Society of Kenya and the judiciary have expressed concern at the increased incidents of alleged police brutality.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox Sports
an hour ago
- Fox Sports
Ex-NFL player Ramzee Robinson sues Chiefs for wrongful termination, racial discrimination
Associated Press KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — A former NFL defensive back is suing the Kansas City Chiefs for wrongful termination from his job as director of player engagement after accusing the franchise of discriminating against him because he is Black. Ramzee Robinson, who spent nine years with the Chiefs, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Sunday. In the lawsuit, Robinson claims that he was called into a meeting in February and accused of attacking a female co-worker, and that Chiefs refused to show him security video of the encounter. Robinson ultimately was fired from his position, which involved locker room management, mentorship and other responsibilities within the team. The lawsuit claims that Robinson was paid a salary of $125,000 by the Chiefs, but that his research found other NFL teams paid comparable positions an average salary of $171,932, not including other benefits. It also claims that "the Chiefs paid African-American business employees less than their white counterparts.' Chiefs spokesman Brad Gee told The Associated Press on Wednesday that while he could not comment on pending legal matters, 'to be clear, the Chiefs do not tolerate discrimination of any kind." 'We look forward to the facts of this case coming to light,' Gee said. The 41-year-old Robinson was the final player chosen in the 2007 draft by Detroit. He played in 19 games over two seasons for the Lions, then appeared in three games for Philadelphia and four for Cleveland in 2009. He never played for the Chiefs. ___ AP NFL: recommended in this topic
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
How Trump's ‘big, beautiful' bill targets transgender medical procedures nationally
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on transgender medical procedures for minors — a controversial practice that could be outlawed nationally if President Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill clears the Senate intact. The House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes a provision barring the use of taxpayer money to fund so-called 'gender-affirming care,' for both children and adults. The provision, championed by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), would ban Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIPs) and Affordable Care Act (ACA) funds from being spent on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgeries, such as double masectomies and genital reconstruction. The so-called 'Crenshaw Amendment' — a last-minute addition to the massive piece of legislation — specifically amends the Social Security Act, halting federal payments for what the provision deems as medically unnecessary procedures. 3 Crenshaw's provision will save taxpayers $2.5 billions over the next 10 years, according to his office. REUTERS The provision will have to survive the Senate's strict rules governing the reconciliation process, specifically the Byrd Rule, to make it into the upper chamber's version of the legislation. The Byrd Rule prevents the inclusion of measures deemed 'extraneous' to the budget process. For instance, provisions that don't directly affect spending or revenue. The Byrd Rule is interpreted and enforced by the Senate parliamentarian. Crenshaw's office notes that taxpayers will save 'about $2.5 billion over 10 years' if the provision becomes law. 'That's the estimated savings from blocking federal funding — via Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA — for gender transition procedures,' the congressman's office states. 'With transition costs running up to $75,000 per patient, the numbers add up fast. This amendment cuts it off—saving money and saving lives.' Last month, Crenshaw vowed that his provision 'will become law,' arguing that it is 'long overdue.' 'Gender transition procedures are the lobotomy of our generation,' he said in a statement. 'So-called 'gender-affirming care' isn't healthcare — it's fringe science with no proven benefit and massive risks.' 3 The transgender surgery ban would codify and expand on President Trump's executive actions preventing federal agencies from using tax dollars to promote or fund gender transitions. AP 3 The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's transgender surgery ban on Wednesday in a 6-3 ruling. REUTERS In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court found that Tennessee's ban on transgender puberty blockers and hormone therapy treatments for minors does not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. More than half of US states have similar laws on the books. 'Today was not just a win for basic biology and common sense, but for human decency, sound medicine, and the dignity and safety of children everywhere,' Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said of the high court's ruling. 'As a doctor for over 25 years, I understand the gravity of these harmful so-called treatments radical activists have been pushing on children. They leave permanent scarring, sterilization, and other horrible side effects,' he added. 'Make no mistake, there's more work to do, and I remain committed to eliminating taxpayer-funded transgender procedures on both minors and adults.' Marshall's No Subsidies for Gender Transition Procedures Act is the Senate's companion legislation to Crenshaw's measure in the House.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court ruling on trans treatments for minors decried by media as 'huge setback for transgender rights'
The legacy media was united in its disapproval of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling upholding Tennessee's ban on transgender medical treatment for minors. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a challenge to a Tennessee law restricting access to puberty blockers and hormone treatment to children who identify as the opposite sex. Several news organizations framed the ruling negatively and implied it was a "setback for transgender rights" for all ages, despite the decision affecting only minors. The result was also described as a "major blow," a "devastating loss," and a "stunning setback." "BREAKING: The Supreme Court upholds a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors in a huge setback for transgender rights," the Associated Press reported on X Wednesday. "BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds a Tennessee law restricting gender transition care for minors, delivering a major blow to transgender rights," NBC News similarly posted. "The US Supreme Court backed a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, in a setback for transgender rights that could bolster efforts by states to defend other measures targeting transgender people," Reuters wrote. "The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, a stunning setback to transgender rights," The Boston Globe also posted. While the Tennessee law was passed in 2023 and Supreme Court oral arguments were heard in December, some news outlets tied the ruling negatively to President Donald Trump's policies. Newsweek warned in its headline that the ruling was a "major setback for transgender rights," telling readers the decision "effectively protects from legal challenges many efforts by President Donald Trump's Republican administration and state governments to roll back protections for transgender people." The Washington Post described the 6-3 ruling as a "divided Supreme Court" and called the broader trans debate "a polarizing national issue the Trump administration has seized on in initiatives targeting transgender rights." NPR said the decision "plunged the Supreme Court into yet another culture war feud." The New York Times attempted to equate the ruling on trans-identifying minors to the Supreme Court's 2020 decision giving gay and transgender adults civil rights protections from employers under Title VII. "The decision, which came amid the Trump administration's fierce assaults on transgender rights, was a bitter setback for their proponents, who only five years ago celebrated a decision by the court to protect transgender people from workplace discrimination," the Times wrote. CNN went even further, decrying the ruling coming at a "critical time" for the transgender community. "The 6-3 decision by a conservative majority is a major blow to the transgender community and its advocates at a critical time," CNN wrote. "Since 2020, Republican-led states around the country have passed a wave of laws regulating the lives of trans Americans, with a particular focus on minors." "And President Donald Trump, who ran for reelection in part on ending the 'transgender lunacy,' has taken several steps intended to roll back gains made by that community," CNN continued. The Guardian called the ruling "a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children." CNN political director David Chalian said Republicans will use the ongoing transgender debate ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, but stressed there will be a "real human impact" on American families. "We're going to learn what the human impact is of this court decision among families across the country, but in the politics of it, I think the two things to watch are how Republicans will sort of hit the gas on this issue, what they believe is a winning culture war issue for them, and watch how Democrats, especially those considering a 2028 presidential campaign, respond to this court ruling. Have they learned to message around this issue in a way that's more politically palatable than what Kamala Harris was able to do back in 24," Chalian said on the channel. An MSNBC panel sounded the alarm about the "slippery slope" that could put transgender kids at risk as a result of the ruling. "Any transgender minor is now at risk because states are copycats. They see now that Tennessee has been successful, and so they're going to implement laws that copy the language here," MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade said. "So I think if you are a family today with a transgender child, your child is likely at risk if you live in a state that is hostile to transgender Americans."
