Trump Admin Could Be Looking At Ghislaine Maxwell As Epstein's 'Client List': Defense Attorney
Watch the full interview above.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Man Convicted of Killing Fellow Bus Passenger Because Victim Allegedly Bumped into Him and Didn't Apologize
James Richburg, 62, shot and killed William Womack, 30, on an MTA bus in Baltimore in 2024NEED TO KNOW James Richburg, 62, has been found guilty of second-degree murder, along with several firearm charges, after he shot a fellow bus passenger in 2024 The Maryland man shot the victim, William Womack, 30, after he allegedly bumped into him and failed to apologize Richburg's sentencing is scheduled for NovemberA Maryland man has been convicted on several charges after he shot a fellow bus passenger who allegedly bumped into him and then refused to apologize. James Richburg, 62, was found guilty on three counts — second-degree murder, use of a firearm in a crime of violence and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person — on Friday, Aug. 8, according to a press release from the Maryland State Attorney's Office. Richburg shot and killed William Womack, 30, in Baltimore on Nov. 30, 2024, "following a dispute" on a Maryland Transit Administration bus, according to authorities, per Law & Crime. Court documents obtained by WBFF reportedly state that Richburg and Womack were riding the same bus when Womack bumped into Richburg without apologizing while exiting at the rear of the vehicle. The men began arguing, and Womack then got back on the bus as the argument continued — at which point Richburg took out a firearm and shot the other man. Womback was taken to a local hospital, where he later died, CBS affiliate WJZ reported. Richburg fled the scene before authorities arrived, but he was later arrested on a bus without incident on Dec. 9, 2024, according to the outlet. "Our family got justice," Tamika Johnson, Womack's mother, said in a statement to WBALTV 11 regarding the conviction. "It has been long-anticipated. I've been going through up-and-down emotions. This is closure." Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases. 'This egregious act of violence is despicable and completely unacceptable and stands as a stark reminder that we must reject any form of brutality in Baltimore,' State's Attorney Ivan Bates said in the office's press release. He added, 'Since day one of my administration, I have been adamant that carrying an illegal firearm is an incredibly dangerous offense that I take very seriously because it leads to deadly outcomes like what we saw in this case.' Richburg's sentencing is scheduled for November, per WMAR. Read the original article on People
CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
A new law could have led to the Manhattan shooter's guns being confiscated. It went into effect a month before the rampage
Crime Gun violence Mental health Gun controlFacebookTweetLink Follow A new Nevada law that went into effect last month gives police officers the power to confiscate firearms from a person placed on a mental health crisis hold. Experts say it was designed to work in cases like the gunman who opened fire in a Manhattan office building on July 28. Shane Devon Tamura, 27, of Las Vegas, owned guns and was placed on a psychiatric hold in 2022 and 2024 after his mother reported to police her son was threatening to take his own life, according to records from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Tamura had a Nevada license to carry a concealed weapon when he killed four people at the 345 Park Avenue office building in New York and injured another before he died by suicide, police said. The key to the state's new law is it allows police to confiscate the firearms of someone experiencing a mental health crisis before a court's ruling. It authorizes a law enforcement officer who places someone on a mental health crisis hold to 'immediately confiscate a firearm owned or possessed by the person' and provide them with a notice detailing the procedures determining the return of the firearm. The state's earlier red flag law is similar to others around the country. It is intended to keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or others but requires a court process, after law enforcement or family members initiate a request to temporarily restrict their access to firearms. The earlier form of the law was the only available tool that could have led to the removal of Tamura's firearms after his two mental health crises, according to Thomas Chittum, former associate deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The two incidents were 'critical touchpoints' where the red flag law could have been triggered, and they represent one of the major indicators of future acts of violence, which is when those closest to the individual have tried to intervene, according to Christian Heyne, a gun violence survivor and the chief programs and policy officer at Brady, a gun violence prevention organization. 'These tools exist, but even when people are calling law enforcement, they may not be aware they have the ability to prevent them from purchasing firearms or possessing them or pushing law enforcement to pursue these tools as well,' said Heyne. The law is not widespread nationally, but states such as Texas, Florida and California have similar ones with variations. All 50 states have a legal procedure for taking a person into custody for a mental health crisis hold but not all of them have added a provision about what to do if they possess or own guns, according to Chittum. Depending on the circumstances of his psychiatric holds, which are still unclear, Tamura would not have necessarily been prohibited from obtaining his license in 2022 or buying firearms because of the holds alone, gun law experts say. Under federal law, only involuntary commitments or an 'adjudication of mental defectiveness' are disqualifying, Chittum said. The federal government and most states – with some variations – restrict firearm ownership in cases where a person was declared incompetent by a court, faced a restraining order, involuntarily committed or deemed a danger to themselves or others due to a mental illness, Chittum said. An extreme risk protection order, or red flag law, allows law enforcement or family members to petition a court to seize a person's guns in cases where they pose a danger to themselves or others. 'It might have worked in this case if they had sought an ERPO, which goes into the background check system and would have blocked him from buying a firearm,' Chittum said of Tamura. Gun rights advocates who oppose such laws argue they deprive a person of their Second Amendment rights without having been convicted of a crime, according to Chittum. The Nevada Firearms Coalition, a gun rights group, wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee members, strongly opposing the bill and comparing it to the red flag law. 'The entire purpose and point of individual constitutional rights is that they must be protected by the government, and cannot be taken away by the government without due process,' the coalition's president Duncan Rand Mackie wrote. Mackie said rules around 'the confiscation and return of the firearms are vague, and both place an undue, unconstitutional, and expensive burden on the accused for the return of his property, ownership of which is a constitutional right.' Some law enforcement officers have expressed support for the new law because they wanted 'protection and clear direction on what they should do when they're dealing with people in a mental health crisis. It's not radical,' Chittum said. Data from the non-profit Everytown for Gun Safety show 21 US states have implemented a red flag law, while at the federal level, a red flag bill passed by the House in 2022 has not moved forward. The bill would authorize and establish guidance for federal courts to issue extreme risk protection orders, allowing family members to request a federal court order which would remove access to firearms for someone who is deemed a danger to themselves or others by the court. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of red flag laws, which is still an emerging area of law, Chittum said. 'We're still trying to figure out this issue where people have a constitutional right but at the same time, we know some people are dangerous.' 'Must we wait until they've committed a crime and been convicted? That's the tension – we've got to do something and yet we've got this right, so how do we protect it?' In previous high court cases where police took away someone's firearms under the 'umbrella' term of community caretaking, they were sued and the court determined such justification does not give officers blanket authority to seize them, according to Chittum. One of those cases is Caniglia v. Strom. Police confiscated firearms from a man they took for observation, and he later sued them for violating his Fourth Amendment rights of unreasonable seizure of property. While the First Circuit Court approved the seizure under the community caretaking function, the Supreme Court ruled it was not a 'blanket exception' and remanded, Chittum said. 'On remand, the court found the officers had qualified immunity because it wasn't settled law,' he added. In another case last year, U.S. v. Rahimi, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote historic laws 'confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.' The case is notable because it upheld a civil process for disarming a person – while most such mechanisms are handled in criminal court – and involved a process granting the subject a hearing before a court issued an order, similar to red flag laws, Chittum said. Nevada's new gun law compares to California's 5150 law, allowing an involuntary detention of someone who is deemed a danger to themselves or others, during which authorities can temporarily seize their firearms and could lead to a five-year prohibition. 'That's a model that is trying to narrowly tailor a firearm prohibition for people who are at an imminent and immediate risk,' said Heynes. 'It's something that other states have leveraged and utilized too and has shown to be an effective way of preventing violence.' Most states barely touch on the area of mental health when a person applies for a gun license due to concerns over privacy issues and stigmatizing people who have mental health issues, CNN has reported. People living with a mental illness are far more likely to be a victim of gun violence than a perpetrator, said Heyne, who stressed the importance of not being 'broadly overinclusive' of individuals who are in the category of additional risk. 'These hospitalizations or involuntary commitments carry a lifetime worth of consequences,' said Heyne. 'The answer to gun violence can't be more hospitalizations. The answer to gun violence can't just be more commitments.' It is why tools such as extreme risk protection orders 'become critically important' to not just be enacted as law but 'heavily utilized by both law enforcement and families when appropriate,' Heynes added. 'That's a civil process. There may be people who don't need to actually be committed but you want to separate them from firearms.' Firearm prohibitions rooted in temporary holds, he added, can be the difference 'between life and death' for individuals who are at an increased risk of behavior, particularly around self-harm. CNN's Josh Campbell contributed to this report.
New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Nominates Tammy Bruce for U.N. Role
President Trump said on Saturday that he was nominating Tammy Bruce, a spokeswoman for the State Department, as the next deputy representative of the United States to the United Nations. Mr. Trump said on Truth Social that Ms. Bruce had done a 'fantastic job' in her State Department role and that she would 'represent our Country brilliantly at the United Nations.' Ms. Bruce has served as the State Department's spokeswoman since January and has conducted regular press briefings on U.S. foreign policy. She has defended the Trump administration's response to Israel's war in Gaza, as well as its decisions to withdraw from UNESCO, the U.N. cultural agency, and to freeze nearly all U.S. foreign aid funded by the United States Agency for International Development and the State Department. 'I'm blessed that in the next few weeks my commitment to advancing America First leadership and values continues on the global stage in this new post,' Ms. Bruce said on X after the announcement. Ms. Bruce was a political commentator and a contributor to Fox News for more than 20 years before joining the Trump administration. She had been a longtime organizer for the Democratic Party before breaking away to 'expose and help defeat the leftist agenda,' according to her website. She has written several books criticizing the American left. Her nomination for the role, which requires Senate confirmation, comes weeks after the confirmation hearing of Michael Waltz, Mr. Trump's former national security adviser, to serve as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Mr. Trump nominated Mr. Waltz in May after Mr. Waltz stepped down from the national security role, where he faced intense scrutiny earlier this year for a group chat on Signal in which senior officials discussed sensitive details of a military operation in Yemen. His nomination is still awaiting Senate confirmation.
