Family on Pearl Street during terror attack returns 1 week later for Boulder Jewish Festival
BOULDER (KDVR) — Pearl Street in Boulder was filled Sunday afternoon after thousands of people came to show support for the Jewish community following the terrorist attack last weekend.
'It's really meaningful to have people come and support our community,' Rachel Cohen, who was walking with the Run for Their Lives group during the fire-bombing attack last Sunday. The group walks to raise awareness and call for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza.
FBI warns of threat to Israeli, Jewish communities after Boulder attack, others
Cohen shared her story and explained the moment her gut instinct told her something was wrong.
'As we came up to the courthouse, I noticed some people who seemed questionable,' Cohen said, 'particularly the man who was doing the work or pretending to do the work, we now know he was there to harm us.'
Cohen, alongside her kids, said the walking group had stopped, and then in a matter of moments, the attack started to unfold.
'Then we heard a crack. My daughter, my seven-year-old, describes it as a window crash, then there was a smell of petrol,' Cohen explained. 'I turned and saw fire, and I immediately moved as fast as I could and pushed my children out of the way.'
Cohen told us she has participated in at least 40 or more of the 'Walk for their Lives' walks. She said Sunday's walk, when the attack happened, was actually very peaceful.
Mother, 2 kids speak out after son in wheelchair aids in Boulder attack aftermath
'It was actually the first week we didn't have anyone heckling us, we had lots of people supporting us and thumbs up,' Cohen said. 'It was really nice; it felt like a great day, good weather and a good walk.'
She said that after she got her kids to safety, she called 911 and ran back to the chaos to help others in the attack.
'It might have been chaos, but everyone in our group did everything they could to make it work,' Cohen said. 'Make sure that everyone was cared for and protected, however we needed to do it.'
Back on Pearl Street, in a large crowd just seven days later, Cohen told us she definitely felt all the emotions.
'It makes me know that the possible sacrifice that could have happened last week with my kids, that it's not for nothing, and we walk every week,' Cohen said.
Tourist details newly obtained video of Boulder attack showing people on fire
She also wanted to thank not only the Boulder Jewish community but for everyone who attended the festival on Sunday, showing their support.
'Having people stand with us, it shows them we are not fearful,' Cohen said.
Alongside her family, they walked with hundreds on Pearl Street once again at the Boulder Jewish Festival and she said they will continue to go forward.
'Being a walker with Run for their Lives is to remind people that we are out here peacefully wanting these hostages to be released,' Cohen said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI in 2017 can move forward with their lawsuit, granting them a new day in court. The decision stems from a pre-dawn incident in which an FBI SWAT team broke down the family's front door, deployed a flashbang grenade, and pointed weapons at Trina Martin, her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son—only to realize moments later they had entered the wrong house. Although the agents quickly apologized and relocated to the correct address—blaming a GPS error for the mistake—Martin and Cliatt were left with emotional trauma and a damaged home. Their lawsuit against the federal government, alleging assault, false arrest, and other claims, was initially dismissed by lower courts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the agents were protected under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prioritizes federal law over state law. But Martin's legal team, backed by advocacy groups across the political spectrum, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such protections should not shield federal agents from accountability in clear cases of harm. The Court's decision reverses the lower rulings and revives a debate on law enforcement oversight and federal immunity. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court sends Atlanta family's lawsuit against FBI back to lower court for more review
Supreme Court sends Atlanta family's lawsuit against FBI back to lower court for more review Show Caption Hide Caption Can FBI be sued if agents raid wrong house? Supreme Court to weigh in. Trina Martin, son Gabe Watson and partner Toi Cliatt seek compensation after their house was mistakenly raided by the FBI. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court sent a case involving an Atlanta family seeking to sue the FBI for raiding their house back to a lower court for more consideration, but left unresolved the broader question of how much protection from lawsuits the courts should give law enforcement officers mistakes on the job. Trina Martin, her son Gabe and her partner Toi Cliatt awoke one morning in October 2017 to what she called the 'monstrous noise' of a half-dozen FBI agents barging into their home with guns drawn. But the Special Weapons and Tactics team was at the wrong home, 436 feet from a similar beige, split-level house where a suspected gang member lived. Federal courts dismissed the family's lawsuit for compensation over the mistake by ruling courts shouldn't second-guess law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissal of the case on June 12. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court that there are several exceptions to whether law enforcement officers can be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the appeals court should review them again. Martin, her son who was 7 years old at the time of the raid, and Cliatt each feared they could be killed when the SWAT team burst noisily into their house. The ordeal lasted about five minutes before the FBI agents realized their mistake and headed out to the correct house. The FBI agents described their meticulous planning to search the house by locating it with GPS during daylight, taking pictures and drawing up a tactical plan. Congress changed the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1974 to allow lawsuits against law enforcement after two wrong-house raids the year before. But the government argued that judges shouldn't second-guess agents doing their jobs. A District Court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case by finding the agents were immune.
