Attack in Boulder, Colorado, burns 12 people at march for Israeli hostages, officials say; suspect charged
A suspect is in custody after what the FBI is calling a "targeted act of violence" during a peaceful march in support of Israeli hostages at the outdoor Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, Colorado, on Sunday.
Witnesses said the suspect used a "makeshift flamethrower" and threw Molotov cocktails that burned multiple victims, police and the FBI said. Boulder police initially said eight people were injured; they raised the total to 12 on Monday afternoon after officials said four more people with less serious injuries came forward.
The suspect was identified as 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, FBI Special Agent in Charge Mike Michalek said Sunday evening. Soliman was allegedly heard yelling "Free Palestine" during the attack, according to Michalek, who said that it was "clear this is a targeted act of violence" and it is being investigated as an act of terrorism.
Soliman has been charged with multiple felony counts, including attempted murder, and a federal hate crimes charge.
Soliman is an Egyptian national, government officials confirmed to CBS Colorado. He arrived in California in 2022 on a non-immigrant visa, the Department of Homeland Security said. That original visa expired in February 2023, and he had applied for asylum. Soliman had recently been living in Colorado Springs.
The FBI said later Sunday night it was "conducting court-authorized law enforcement activity related to the attack on the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder" in El Paso County, Colorado, where Colorado Springs is located.
Soliman has been charged with multiple felony counts and a federal hate crimes charge.
The walk to remember the Israeli hostages who remain in Gaza was taking place in Boulder's downtown at the time of the attack. Two sources said witnesses told investigators the suspect also yelled "End Zionist!" during the attack.
Among those injured were four women and four men ranging in age from 52 to 88, police said. One was seriously injured, with Boulder Police Chief Stephen Redfearn saying it would be "safe to say" that person was in critical condition.
Rabbi Israel Wilhelm, the Chabad director at the University of Colorado Boulder, told CBS Colorado the 88-year-old victim is a Holocaust refugee who fled Europe, calling her a "very loving person." Another victim is a professor at CU, Wilhelm said.
The people who were injured were outside the historic Boulder County Courthouse at 13th Street and Pearl Street. A burn scar could be seen in the space in front of the building. Witnesses said they saw people writhing on the ground and people running with water to try to help immediately afterward.
UCHealth confirmed that two victims were flown by helicopter to its burn unit. Four others were taken to Boulder Community Health, police said, but they had all either been transferred or discharged later Sunday night, the hospital said. It did not provide specifics on how many had been discharged.
Following the attack, which happened at 1:26 p.m. local time, three blocks of Pearl Street were evacuated. Investigators said there was a vehicle of interest in that zone, which an FBI official later said belonged to the suspect. The evacuations were lifted after nightfall.
Omer Shachar, Run for Their Lives Denver co-leader, told CBS News the group reached out to Boulder police about security concerns surrounding the walk several times before Sunday's event. CBS News has reached out to Boulder police for comment.
FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino described the incident as a terrorist attack and said FBI agents were at the scene Sunday afternoon.
U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi released a statement Monday after the federal charge was filed. "The Department of Justice has swiftly charged the illegal alien perpetrator of this heinous attack with a federal hate crime and will hold him accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Our prayers are with the victims and our Jewish community across the world," she said.
Bondi added, "This vile anti-Semitic violence comes just weeks after the horrific murder of two young Jewish Americans in Washington DC," referring to the fatal shooting of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky outside the Capital Jewish Museum on May 21. "We will never tolerate this kind of hatred. We refuse to accept a world in which Jewish Americans are targeted for who they are and what they believe."
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on social media that the "National Counterterrorism Center is working with the FBI and local law enforcement on the ground investigating the targeted terror attack against a weekly meeting of Jewish community members who had just gathered in Boulder, CO to raise awareness of the hostages kidnapped during Hamas' attack on Israel on Oct. 7. Thank you to first responders and local authorities for your quick response and action."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement that the victims were attacked "simply because they were Jews" and that he trusted U.S. authorities would prosecute "the cold blood perpetrator to the fullest extent of the law," according to the Reuters news agency.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, who is Jewish, condemned the attack in a news release, saying it was a "heinous and targeted act on the Jewish community."
"As the Jewish community reels from the recent antisemitic murders in Washington, D.C., it is unfathomable that the community is facing another antisemitic attack here in Boulder, on the eve of the holiday of Shavuot," Polis said. "Several individuals were brutally attacked while peacefully drawing attention to the plight of hostages who have been held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza for 604 days. Hate is unacceptable in our Colorado for all, and I condemn this act of terror. The suspect should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
Run for Their Lives, which organized the walk, said, "This is not a protest; it is a peaceful walk to show solidarity with the hostages and their families, and a plea for their release." The group met at 1 p.m. at Pearl Street and 8th Street to walk the length of the Pearl Street Mall and back with a stop at the courthouse for a video.
Av Kornfeld and Ed Victor
CBS
Ed Victor, who was participating in the walk, said they've been holding these silent marches every week since Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack to raise awareness for the hostages still in Gaza. They stop at the courthouse to sing songs, tell stories and read the names of the hostages each week. He said around 30 people were participating in Sunday's walk.
Victor said that the marchers occasionally encounter hecklers, but they try not to respond and continue peacefully down Pearl Street. People also often nod, clap or thank them as they walk by, he added. He said that he never expected that someone would attack them.
"So we stood up, lined up in front of the old Boulder courthouse, and I was actually on the far west side. And there was somebody there that I didn't even notice, although he was making a lot of noise, but I'm just focused on my job of being quiet and getting lined up. And, from my point of view, all of a sudden, I felt the heat. It was a Molotov cocktail equivalent, a gas bomb in a glass jar, thrown. Av [another marcher] saw it, a big flame as high as a tree, and all I saw was someone on fire," said Victor.
Victor said they tried to put the fire out. As another marcher with medical experience stepped in to take care of her, Victor stayed with her husband to comfort him. He said volunteers also rushed in to help, bringing water.
"I saw the aftermath," said street performer Peter Irish. "It was like minutes after. I came out, it was chaos, people were writhing on the ground. It was traumatic to watch, to be honest with you. It was chaos."
University of Colorado system President Todd Saliman said in a statement Sunday, "My deepest sympathies go out tonight to those keeping weekly vigil who were viciously attacked in Boulder today. I hope that they and their loved ones feel the support of our community as they struggle to comprehend what has happened. I know the shock and horror of today's violent act will have long echoes for each of the victims, their loved ones and members of the community. We must vocally and forcefully condemn this hateful act of violence targeting the Jewish community and prosecute those responsible."
A joint statement from Boulder's Jewish community said:
We are saddened and heartbroken to learn that an incendiary device was thrown at walkers at the Run for Their Lives walk on Pearl Street as they were raising awareness for the hostages still held in Gaza.
We don't have all the details of what is unfolding, and we promise to keep our community informed.
Our hearts go out to those who witnessed this horrible attack, and prayers for a speedy recovery to those who were injured.
We are in touch with law enforcement about our Boulder Jewish community, and safety is our highest priority. We are working closely with SCN, Boulder PD, and the FBI. We are grateful for the first responders who are caring for our injured.
We will continue to work together to share information and provide support for our community. When events like this enter our own community, we are shaken. Our hope is that we come together for one another.
Strength to you all.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser denounced the attack and offered to help the victims in a release Sunday afternoon:
My thoughts are with those injured and impacted by today's attack against a group that meets weekly on Boulder's Pearl Street Mall to call for the release of the hostages in Gaza.
From what we know, this attack appears to be a hate crime given the group that was targeted. I have been in touch with Boulder District Attorney Michael Dougherty and have offered support from the Attorney General's Office.
People may have differing views about world events and the Israeli-Hamas conflict, but violence is never the answer to settling differences. Hate has no place in Colorado. We all have the right to peaceably assemble and the freedom to speak our views. But these violent acts—which are becoming more frequent, brazen, and closer to home—must stop and those who commit these horrific acts must be fully held to account.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
24 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump-Musk Alliance Dissolves as They Hurl Personal Attacks
Pinned President Trump and Elon Musk's alliance dissolved into open acrimony on Thursday, as the two men hurled personal attacks at each other after the billionaire had unleashed broadsides against the president's signature domestic policy bill. While meeting with Friedrich Merz, Germany's new chancellor, in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump broke days of uncharacteristic silence and unloaded on Mr. Musk, who until last week was a top presidential adviser. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon,' Mr. Trump said. 'I've helped Elon a lot.' As the president criticized Mr. Musk, the billionaire responded in real time on X, the social media platform he owns. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Mr. Musk wrote. 'Such ingratitude,' he added, taking credit for Mr. Trump's election in a way that he never has before. Mr. Musk had been careful in recent days to train his ire on Republicans in Congress, not Mr. Trump himself. But he discarded that caution on Thursday, ridiculing the president in a pattern familiar to the many previous Trump advisers who have fallen by the wayside. What started as simply a fight over the domestic policy bill sharply escalated in just a few hours. Within minutes of one another, Mr. Trump was making fun of Mr. Musk's unwillingness to wear makeup to cover a recent black eye, and Mr. Musk was raising questions about Mr. Trump's competency as president. The public break comes after a remarkable partnership between the two men. Mr. Musk deployed hundreds of millions of dollars to support Mr. Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. After Mr. Trump won, he gave Mr. Musk free rein to slash the federal work force. And just last week, Mr. Trump gave Mr. Musk a personal send-off in the Oval Office. The president praised Mr. Musk as 'one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced' and gave him a golden key emblazoned with the White House insignia. Mr. Musk promised to remain a 'friend and adviser to the president.' But now Mr. Musk, who has left his temporary role, has turned into the most prominent critic of a top presidential priority. Mr. Musk has lashed out against the far-reaching policy bill in numerous posts on X. He has called it a 'disgusting abomination,' argued that the bill would undo all the work he did to cut government spending and hinted that he would target Republican members of Congress who backed the legislation in next year's midterm elections. Mr. Trump on Thursday said Mr. Musk's criticism of the bill was entirely self-interested, saying he only opposed the legislation after Republicans took out the electric vehicle mandate, which would benefit Tesla, Mr. Musk's electric vehicle company. (Mr. Musk has previously called for an end to those subsidies.) The president also downplayed Mr. Musk's financial support for him during the campaign, arguing he would have won Pennsylvania without Mr. Musk, who poured much of his money and time into the critical battleground state. Mr. Musk also on Thursday rebutted Mr. Trump's statement that Mr. Musk 'knew the inner workings of the bill better than anybody sitting here.' 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Mr. Musk wrote, sharing a video of Mr. Trump saying he was disappointed in Mr. Musk.
Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Group In Tax Exemption Dispute Over Non-Religious Activities
The Catholic Charities Bureau provides services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Catholic organization qualifies for a tax exemption even though its operations were not primarily religious. The decision overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Under Wisconsin law, certain religious organizations may be exempt from paying taxes, including unemployment compensation taxes. This is similar to laws in other states that provide exemptions based on specific criteria. In other words, tax-exempt status for federal income tax purposes doesn't always translate to state income or other tax exemptions. In this case, Wisconsin law exempts any 'church or convention or association of churches' an services provided '[b]y a duly ordained, commissioned or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his or her ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order.' The exemption also covers nonprofit organizations 'operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches,' but only if they are 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. (CCB) and four related organizations sought an exemption because they are separately incorporated from the Diocese, but claim federal tax-exempt status under the Roman Catholic Church's group tax exemption (this 'umbrella' treatment is common in the tax-exempt world). The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, finding that CCB and the related organizations were not 'operated primarily for religious purposes because the charitable services went beyond theology. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, finding that drawing those lines violated the First Amendment. The Catholic Charities Bureau has, it says on its website, provided 'services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior' for more than 100 years. Today, CCB boasts more than 50 programs serving more than 10,500 people—services are not limited by race, color, national origin, or religion. That apparently innocuous distinction was one of the arguments used by the state against CCB. The organization's activities did not qualify as 'typical' religious activities because they serve and employ non-Catholics. The state also found that CCB does not 'attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith,' and its services to the poor and needy could also be provided by secular (non-religious) organizations. Congress enacted the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) in 1935 to provide benefits to unemployed workers. The FUTA tax rate is 6% on the first $7,000 paid to employees during the year and is paid by all employers unless they qualify for an exemption. Notably, FUTA exempts church-controlled religious organizations 'operated primarily for religious purposes' from paying unemployment tax, the result of an exemption granted by Congress in 1970. Since then, 47 states have adopted language that is identical to, or nearly identical to FUTA's language. FUTA tax may be offset by credits of up to 90% for state unemployment taxes paid—all states have complementary statutes that impose, at a minimum, the coverage mandated by federal law. This tax is only paid by employers, not employees. The tax funds unemployment programs. (CCB noted in its petition that employees have separate unemployment coverage. Wisconsin bishops previously created the Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP) 'to assist parishes, schools, and other church employers in meeting their social justice responsibilities by providing church funded unemployment coverage.') CCB applied for an exemption under state law. The Department of Workforce Development determined that CCB and its sub-entities were not primarily operated for religious purposes and denied the exemption. CCB appealed, and after a hearing, the administrative law judge reversed the decision. However, the Labor and Industry Review Commission reversed the reversal (stay with me), finding that the exemption turns on an organization's 'activities, not the religious motivation behind them or the organization's founding principles.' Since CCB provided secular (non-religious) services, the Commission concluded that they do not qualify for an exemption The matter went to court (outside of the administrative channels) and ended up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held on March 14, 2024, that CCB's 'activities are primarily charitable and secular' and not religious, which means it would not qualify for the exemption. CCB filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in May of 2024. Parties do that when seeking a review of the case—typically, it's in response to another court decision. In that petition, CCB noted that in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in two cases (St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota and California v. Grace Brethren Church) to determine whether the imposition of state unemployment taxes on certain religious organizations under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and related state statutes violated the First Amendment. But, CCB argued, while those cases were resolved, the Court expressly declined to answer the First Amendment questions, resulting in a split among courts. If the Supreme Court decides to hear a matter, it's called a grant of certiorari—by practice, at least four justices must vote to hear the case to be granted cert. Usually, cert is granted in a case of considerable importance or one involving a split. A split happens when courts disagree on a matter of federal law, reaching different conclusions about its application—that's what CCB argued happened here. In its petition, the questions presented by CCB were: The state argued that no split of authority existed on the constitutional question and further contended that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision does not directly conflict with the decisions of any federal circuit or state high court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the state, granting certiorari in December of 2024. The scope of the case was, however, limited to Question 1. (Does a state violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior?) Dozens of amici curiae briefs were filed before the decision. When it comes to legal issues before the Supreme Court, those with an interest or expertise in the subject but who aren't a party to the litigation may also file briefs to explain their point of view. These briefs are called amicus briefs and are filed by a party known as an amicus curiae, which translates to "friend of the court.' The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute violated the First Amendment by discriminating against religious organizations based on their methods of religious expression. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Court, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' She went on to write that CCB would, under the state's interpretation, qualify for the exemption 'if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics.' However, CCB's Catholic faith, however, bars them from doing exactly that. That means, she explained, that eligibility for the exemption 'ultimately turns on inherently religious choices.' While the state argued that the exemption was intended to draw stark theological lines, Sotomayor went on to write that the exemption 'functions at an organizational level, covering both the janitor and the priest in equal measure.' The Court acknowledged the importance of the government maintaining 'neutrality between religion and religion.' But, Sotomayor wrote pointedly, 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.' With that, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case was overturned. The news was welcome by the Diocese. 'At the heart of Catholic Charities' ministry is Christ's call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception,' said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. 'We're grateful the Court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond.' 'Wisconsin shouldn't have picked this fight in the first place,' said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, who represented CCB. 'It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion. Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.' The Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Justice Sotomayor delivered the unanimous opinion for the Court, while Justices Jackson and Thomas filed concurring opinions. The case is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (No. 24–154).
Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Steel Deal Seen Closing by Merger Deadline After Trump Pivot
Nippon Steel Corp. and United States Steel Corp. are on pace to finalize their $14.1 billion combination with US President Donald Trump's administration ahead of a deal deadline later this month, capping an 18-month saga to combine the steelmakers into the world's second-largest producer. Talks on the deal between the companies and the US government are ongoing and expected to reach a conclusion before a June 18 merger agreement deadline, according to people familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity given that talks are confidential. US Steel and Nippon Steel declined to comment. A Treasury Department spokesperson declined to comment.
