Warrant issued for migrant gang member suspected of murder, sexual assault
An arrest warrant has now been issued for a suspected Tren de Aragua migrant gang member who was cut loose from custody in Chicago last week despite police believing they had probable cause to keep him detained in relation to a murder.
Pedro Colmenares, 33, a Venezuelan illegal migrant who already had a weapons charge against him when police cuffed him last week, is suspected of being involved in the shooting death of a 25-year-old Hispanic man last September, Fox News exclusively reported.
He is also suspected of kidnapping and sexually assaulting his former girlfriend.
Chicago Pd Says It 'Will Not Assist' With Upcoming Ice Deportations
Chicago police said probable cause existed to place Colmenares into custody for the murder of the Hispanic man, but ultimately the Cook County State's Attorney's office declined to press homicide charges, explaining they "carefully reviewed" the case and found insufficient evidence and "uncooperative witnesses."
Homeland Security had also tried to apprehend him on an ICE detainer for the weapons charges offense in October, but because of its sanctuary policy, Cook County refused to comply with the detainer and Colmenares was set free.
Read On The Fox News App
Immigration agents wanted Colmenares taken into their custody, having entered the U.S. illegally in September 2022. He was ordered deported by an immigration judge in November of that year, according to DHS.
'He Is Delivering': Trump's First Month Flips Script On Radical Biden-harris Border Policies
While appealing the deportation ruling, he ended up in Chicago, where he was roaming freely.
But Fox News can now confirm that an arrest warrant has been issued for Colmenares, although the warrant is for the kidnapping and sexual assault of his former girlfriend last October in Chicago.
The court document reads that the Colmenares' warrant was issued for two offenses: aggravated kidnapping and aggravated criminal sexual assault with a firearm.
Colmenares is alleged to have pulled up in a car to the 27-year-old Hispanic woman and told her to get in "or I'll shoot you."
Police say he drove the woman against her will to a separate location on Chicago's West Side, where he allegedly "battered and sexually assaulted the victim" over several days.
Colmenares was ordered to appear in person before a judge on March 5 in Chicago. He was ordered to surrender weapons and stay away from the domestic abuse victim, according to a court document, but he was not assigned electronic monitoring.Original article source: Warrant issued for migrant gang member suspected of murder, sexual assault
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
4 minutes ago
- Fox News
US Marines to deploy to Los Angeles to help quell anti-ICE riots
A battalion of 500 U.S. Marines are mobilizing to Los Angeles to respond to anti-immigration enforcement riots, Fox News has learned. The Marines will be tasked with protecting federal property and federal personnel, according to a senior defense official, and the deployment is open-ended. The Marines will not be carrying out a law enforcement role, but it's unclear what their use of force rules are if protesters throw things or spit at them. The new deployment comes after President Donald Trump sent some 2,000 National Guardsmen to the riot-racked city over the weekend. The Marines are from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines at Twentynine Palms, California. Moments before the deployment, Trump expressed optimism that the situation in Los Angeles is improving. "I mean, I think we have it very well under control," he told reporters. "I think it would have been a very bad situation. It was heading in the wrong direction. It's now heading in the right direction." The Marine mobilization is sure to draw outcry from liberal critics: California Gov. Gavin Newsom filed suit against the Trump administration on Monday for deploying the Guard. Newsom and the California attorney general claimed Trump and Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth "trampled over" California's sovereignty by calling up the state's National Guard without Newsom's approval. Meanwhile Trump defended the decision on Monday, and added that if protesters spit in the face of guardsmen in Los Angeles, they'll "be hit harder than they have ever been hit before." "IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT," Trump wrote. "Such disrespect will not be tolerated!" Federal law typically bars the U.S. military from carrying out domestic law enforcement purposes, unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act. Newsom claimed Trump is trying to "manufacture a crisis" and that the president is "hoping for chaos so he can justify more crackdowns, more fear, more control." The protests began in reaction to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the City of Angels as the Trump administration moves to make good on its promise of mass deportations. Over the weekend, protests devolved into violence that left vehicles charred to a crisp and windows smashed at the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Democrats' delusions go far deeper than Biden — but will the party ever learn?
If you haven't read the new book by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios's Alex Thompson, 'Original Sin,' you should. The book details how former President Biden's top aides, advisers and media contacts lied to the American people about the president's fitness for office and his suitability as a candidate, and argues that this series of cover-ups is ultimately responsible for President Trump's 2024 victory. If its revelations are even half true (and there is every reason to believe they are truer than that), this book should chill and sober Democrats, independents and anyone else who would prefer an alternative to Trump's GOP. 'Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again' raises one profound question with implications that extend far beyond 2024 or even 2028: Why did top Democrats think that they not only could but should shoehorn a sadly diminished and dangerously unfit Biden into a second presidential term? Here's one answer: Democrats' perception of their own virtue has somehow become inextricable from their unwillingness to acknowledge reality as it actually is, rather than as they would like it to be. It would have been quite convenient if Biden circa 2024 was in fact indistinguishable from Biden circa 2016 or even 2020. The fact that this was obviously not the case did not deter Democrats' insistence on it as not just true but unquestionable. The depth of this problem for the party cannot be overstated. The definitional tic of today's Democrats is a belligerent unwillingness (which ultimately seems to beget a helpless inability) to acknowledge any truth that they find inconvenient or troubling. Here's what I'm talking about: Many Democrats will still maintain that Michael Brown had his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. They will still argue that coronavirus could not have come from a lab in China, and they will maintain that it fully warranted the closing of schools. They hold fast to the idea that traditional masculinity and 'cisgender' normativity are social constructs that can ultimately be eradicated via progressive social programming. They will not abandon the notion that biologically male transgender athletes may fairly compete as female athletes. Many influential Democrats remain unwilling or unable to acknowledge that each of these statements has been proven demonstrably false. The sad irony, of course, is that elite Democrats' insistence on collective delusion with respect to such matters leads, inevitably, exactly where their lies about Biden did: to reactionary backlash. Because they did not insist on a timely, competitive primary to replace Biden, the U.S is stuck with Trump. Because they did not correct the lies and check the excesses of Black Lives Matter and its apologists in K-12 and higher education, we are left with decreased public safety and increased racial tensions. Because they did not ask the correct questions about COVID but parroted the mantra 'trust the science' in response to answers from those who did, we are left with an academic achievement gap that will disproportionately affect low-income, non-white students for the rest of their lives. Because they did not concede the biological facts of dimorphic sex and of characterological and psychological differences between most men and most women, we are left with decreasing societal acceptance for homosexual Americans and misogynistic attempts to regressively erase intragroup variance among women. I know that many of my fellow Democrats are primed to reply: 'But that's not fair! They are the ones who elected Trump, and who are harboring these racists and misogynists, and you blame us?' Well, yes. Here's why: By denying realities they find unsavory, Democrats leave any legitimate claim of truth to Republicans. And MAGA embraces that truth — with a literal vengeance. The Republicans' manner of denying reality is to wildly overstate it. So, for today's manosphere, for example, women are not just different from men on average, but so entirely unlike men that they should all, when possible, reflexively eschew any professional ambition in favor of 'tradwifery.' If Democrats did not deny fundamental truths altogether, fewer people would accept Republicans' bastardizations of them. Can Tapper and Thompson's book be positioned as one that uses Biden as a case study to help Democrats see that we gain nothing by denying reality, and behave accordingly? I hope so. Because the truth will out. And it would be really good for the country if that most fundamental reality of all did not so overwhelmingly favor today's patently cruel and often incompetent Republican Party. Elizabeth Grace Matthew is based in Philadelphia. She writes about books, education, and culture, including on Substack. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Censorship is no way to get people to respect transgender rights
There was good and bad news for transgender rights in the U.S. last week. The good news was that a transgender high school athlete won two events in a girls' state track meet. And the bad news was that the Supreme Court allowed a school to censor a student's expression of the belief that there are only two genders. Suppressing ideas is never a good look in the U.S., whose Bill of Rights presupposes a freedom of speech that cannot be legislated away. And if we deny that freedom to anyone, then all of us — including transgender people — will lose. Free speech was on full display at the California track-and-field championship in Clovis, Calif. Under a new rule promulgated by the state interscholastic federation, the girls who finished just behind transgender athlete AB Hernandez in the high jump and triple jump were elevated to share her medals. That seemed just fine to Hernandez and also the other girls on the podium, who all exchanged high-fives and hugs. But it was not okay with protesters who gathered outside the stadium, chanting 'No boys in girls' sports.' Taylor Starling, a cross-country runner went on Fox News with her father to denounce 'guys that are taking away girls' awards, their medals, their spots.' Starling is part of a lawsuit alleging that she was demoted from her varsity track and field team when a transgender athlete took her spot. President Trump, meanwhile, threatened 'large scale fines' against California for allowing a 'Biological male' to compete the 'Girls State Finals.' Hernandez's mother fired back, denouncing people 'in positions of power' for harassing her daughter. Hernandez also spoke up against her critics: 'I'm still a child, you're an adult, and for you to act like a child shows how you are as a person.' But as petty and small as it may be for Hernandez's detractors to malign her as a 'boy' or a 'male,' they have the right to say it — just as I have the right to call them out. That's called America. Alas, that's also a memo that educators in Middleborough, Mass. seem to have missed. Earlier this spring, they sent home a seventh-grader for wearing a T-shirt declaring, 'There Are Only Two Genders' because 'other students had complained about the T-shirt and that it had 'made them upset.'' Then the student came back in a T-shirt that said, 'There are CENSORED Genders.' The school told him that wouldn't be allowed, either. I'm sure the shirts did make some people upset, but I also imagine that some were upset by a student at the same school who wore a T-shirt that read, 'HE SHE THEY IT'S ALL OKAY.' Once we decide to censor upsetting speech, we won't be able to speak at all. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker could wear a black armband to her Iowa middle school to protest America's war in Vietnam. Schools cannot suppress speech out of 'a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' the court declared in Tinker v. Des Moines. The only justifiable reason for restricting speech was if it threatened 'material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.' Did the T-shirt saying there are only two genders pose that kind of danger? Of course not. But a federal trial judge ruled that the school could censor the student anyway, because he was threatening 'the rights of others' to attend school 'without being confronted by messages attacking their identities.' So what would prevent a school from prohibiting the 'HE SHE THEY' shirt, on the grounds that it threatened the identities of devout Christians and Muslims? And couldn't a school also bar speech in support of AB Hernandez, whose critics might claim that their own gender identities were under fire? In each case, the answer is yes. Nevertheless, an appeals court upheld the Massachusetts judge's decision. And last week, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. In doing so, it turned its back on Tinker v. Des Moines and its ringing affirmation of freedom, which is fundamental to our shared identity as Americans. 'Any word spoken in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance,' the Tinker ruling acknowledged. 'But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength.' In California, AB Hernandez demonstrated precisely that strength. But in Massachusetts, school officials closed off speech out of fear. That's a hazard to the freedom of everyone, no matter what they think about gender. And if you think otherwise, watch out. Someday soon, the censors may be coming for you. Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania and serves on the advisory board of the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
