Florida man faces charges after allegedly threatening to assassinate the president
Prosecutors are moving forward with the case against a Cape Coral man accused of threatening to assassinate the President.
The U.S. Attorney announced that Christopher Davies has appeared in Federal court on one count of making threats against the President.
If convicted, Davies faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison.
Prosecutors claim that Davies wrote and mailed a letter to the Charlotte Correctional Institute, which included a detailed threat against the President's life.
The U.S. Secret Service investigated the letter before Davies was charged.
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump administration rolls back guidance specifying that ERs must offer abortion care when necessary
The US Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Tuesday that they were rescinding 2022 federal guidance to health care providers specifying that people should be able to access an abortion in the event of a medical emergency, even if state laws restrict such procedures. The previous guidance from the Biden administration does not 'reflect the policy of this Administration,' according to an announcement of the policy change. CMS added that it will continue to enforce the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA, and it specified that the policy included 'identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' However, it remains unclear exactly what the change will mean for emergency care, particularly in states with highly restrictive abortion laws. EMTALA requires all US hospitals that have received Medicare money — essentially nearly all of them — to screen everyone who comes into their emergency rooms to determine whether the person has an emergency medical condition without regard for their ability to pay for services. The 1986 law also requires hospitals, to the best of their ability, to stabilize anyone who has an emergency medical condition or to transfer them to another facility that has that capacity. The hospitals must also treat these patients 'until the emergency medical condition is resolved or stabilized.' Pregnant people were singled out in 1989, after reports that some hospitals were refusing to care for uninsured women in labor. Congress expanded EMTALA to specify that it included people who were pregnant and having contractions. In 2021, the Biden administration released the Reinforcement of EMTALA Obligation, which says it is a doctor's duty to provide stabilizing treatment that 'preempts any directly conflicting state law or mandated that might otherwise prohibit or prevent such treatment,' although it did not specify whether an abortion had to be provided. In July 2022, weeks after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that gave pregnant people a constitutional right to an abortion, the Biden administration's guidance further clarified that EMTALA included the need to perform stabilization abortion care if it is medically necessary to treat an emergency medical condition. If a state law banned abortion and did not include an exception for the life or health of the pregnant person, that law was preempted by the federal statute. After Roe was overturned, several states passed highly restrictive abortion bans. Thirteen have total abortion bans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on sexual and reproductive health that supports abortion rights. Twenty-eight states have abortion bans based on gestational duration: seven ban it at or before 18 weeks' gestation, and 21 states ban abortion at some point after 18 weeks. Idaho has one of the more restrictive laws, making it a felony to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy unless it was necessary to save the life of a pregnant person. In 2024, the US Supreme Court formally dismissed an appeal over Idaho's strict abortion ban. The decision was interpreted as meaning that pregnant people should be able to access an abortion in a medical emergency under EMTALA, but experts said that in reality, pregnant people were still being denied care. Some doctors even advised pregnant patients to buy life flight insurance in case they had an emergency complication that the doctors could not treat and the patient had to be flown out of state. In March, the Trump administration took a major step in support of states with abortion bans when it dropped a Biden-era lawsuit against Idaho that sought to protect abortion access in medical emergencies. Tuesday's announcement from CMS says the agency will 'work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.' The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a professional organization that represents the majority of practitioners in the United States, was critical of the move. 'Rescinding guidance clarifying protections for the care of pregnant people experiencing emergencies is a poor decision that will undoubtedly endanger the lives and health of pregnant women, who are already facing difficulties accessing needed abortion care during obstetrical complications,' Molly Meegan, the group's chief legal officer and general counsel, said in an email Tuesday. She said the announcement will 'deepen confusion' about when emergency care is legal and exacerbate 'overwhelming barriers to care' for people across the US. 'Abortion is an essential part of medical care, and EMTALA protections should be afforded to all patients in need of emergency care, including abortion,' Meegan said. The ACLU, Democracy Forward and the National Women's Law Center, organizations that have advocated for pregnant people's right to an abortion, were also critical of the new decision, characterizing it as 'caving to its anti-abortion allies' and saying it's a reversal of Trump's campaign pledge that he wouldn't interfere with abortion access. 'The Trump administration cannot simply erase four decades of law protecting patients' lives with the stroke of a pen,' Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement. No matter where a person lives in the United States, Kolbi-Molinas said, they should have access to emergency care, and the ACLU will 'use every lever we have to keep President Trump and his administration from endangering our health and lives.' Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center, called the administration hypocritical for its push for a new American 'baby boom' while making a decision that the group says will put people's lives at risk. 'To be clear: this action doesn't change hospitals' legal obligations, but it does add to the fear, confusion, and dangerous delays patients and providers have faced since the fall of Roe v. Wade,' Graves said in a statement.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is It 'Harassment' To Heckle Your Local Politician? A British Court Thinks So.
A court in Cardiff convicted two Welsh protesters on Tuesday of "harassment" for causing "alarm and distress" to Alex Davies-Jones, the member of Parliament for Pontypridd and the undersecretary of state for victims. Local citizens Ayeshah Behit and Hiba Ahmed had been out pamphleting against the war in Gaza last June when they ran into Davies-Jones on the street. They asked Davies-Jones why she abstained on a ceasefire vote—she says she was out of the country during the vote—and Behit posted a short Instagram video of the interaction, calling Davies-Jones a liar. "It was escalating in terms of passion and intensity. We walked off in the opposite direction. We felt scared and intimidated, and we wanted to leave the situation," Davies-Jones told the court, adding that Behit and Ahmed were "shouting and bellowing down the street." Just two hours after the video was posted, "over a dozen police officers swarmed my door and windows, with several male officers trying to climb in through open windows," Behit told the Network for Police Monitoring, a British civil libertarian nonprofit. She was let out on bail, with the condition that she refrain from posting about Davies-Jones or the case on social media. At Tuesday's trial, Judge Paul Goldspring sentenced Behit and Ahmed to a 650 pound ($880) fine as well as 18 months parole for Behit and 12 months for Ahmed. He said that their actions went "beyond the boundaries" of free speech and were a "deliberate and sustained campaign" to get Davies-Jones to stop canvassing. "I would love to say you are remorseful. I suspect you are not," Goldspring added. "I suspect your views will be held until something happens very differently in that area of the world." The British idea of free speech is at odds with the democratic tradition in a lot of the world, including the United States, where political debate is supposed to be rowdy and personal. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance gave a speech in February condemning British authorities for arresting a man who prayed outside an abortion clinic, and the U.S. State Department recently published an article pointing out that over 12,000 British citizens were arrested for online posts in 2023. British authorities are especially sensitive about threats to politicians because of two political assassinations in recent memory. A white nationalist killed Member of Parliament Jo Cox in 2016, and an Islamic State supporter killed Member of Parliament David Amess in 2021. But there's a big difference between threatening someone and simply making them feel uncomfortable. Ahmed claimed in court that running into Davies-Jones while pamphleting was completely unplanned, "like seeing a celebrity almost, like a unicorn in the wild." And being a celebrity means having to deal with the public—whether you like it or not. The post Is It 'Harassment' To Heckle Your Local Politician? A British Court Thinks So. appeared first on
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration moves to fast-track firings of federal workers for misconduct
By Daniel Wiessner (Reuters) -President Donald Trump's administration moved on Tuesday to make it easier to fire federal employees for misconduct, the latest step in a broader effort to overhaul the civil service and shrink the federal bureaucracy. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management published a proposed rule that would allow the office, which acts as the federal government's human resources department, to direct other agencies to fire employees for conduct such as tax evasion, leaking sensitive information and refusing to testify in other workers' disciplinary cases. The rule would extend OPM's existing power to designate job applicants as unsuitable for federal employment, to current federal employees, a change it said was necessary to hold government workers accountable to the public. Federal workers have for decades been covered by an array of job protections, including the ability to contest firings by engaging in a lengthy administrative process. The proposal would allow agencies to refer misconduct cases to OPM instead of going through the traditional disciplinary process. If OPM determines that removal of an employee is required, an agency would have five days to terminate them. "Illogically, the government has far greater ability to bar someone from federal employment who has committed a serious crime or misconduct in the past than it does to remove someone who engages in the exact same behavior as a federal employee," OPM said in the proposal. The publication of the proposal kicked off a 30-day public comment period. Since Trump's second term began in January, the administration has moved aggressively to shrink the federal bureaucracy, including directing mass firings and layoffs and implementing changes to the civil service. Many of those policies have been met with court challenges and some have been temporarily blocked by judges. OPM, which is closely linked to the White House, has played a key role in those efforts by attempting to give Trump more direct control of the federal workforce. Many unions, Democrats and advocacy groups have said Trump's various policies violate complex federal civil service and labor laws meant to regulate government employment and ensure that federal workers are insulated from political influence. OPM on Tuesday said the policies agencies have followed for decades rely on overly cumbersome and restrictive procedures that protect misconduct. "This arbitrary state of affairs seriously impairs the efficiency, effectiveness, and public perception of the Federal service," the agency said.
