Man killed in Frayser shooting
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A man was killed after a shooting in Frayser on Saturday afternoon, Memphis Police said.
At approximately 12:34 p.m., officers responded to a shooting in the 2600 block of Frayser Boulevard.
A male victim was found and pronounced dead on the scene.
Police said the suspect was a male wearing a black ski mask and a black hoodie. They said he was occupying a late-model silver sedan.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
Ex-sheriff accused of shooting judge in chambers says state skirted law, should toss murder case: report
The attorneys representing the former Letcher County, Kentucky sheriff who stands accused of murdering the county's judge in his chambers have filed a new motion to have their client's indictment dismissed, according to a report. Former sheriff Shawn "Mickey" Stines' lawyers say the state failed to record a November 2024 meeting between state prosecutors and the Letcher County grand jury that eventually indicted Stines, according to a court filing obtained by KAVE. The filing says the grand jury was "deprived of information known to the Commonwealth [of Kentucky], sought in question by grand jurors, but not disclosed." Stines allegedly shot District Judge Kevin Mullins in Mullins' own chambers in the Letcher County Courthouse on Sept. 19, 2024. The incident, which rocked the tiny rural town, was caught on a surveillance camera. Both Stines and Mullins were well-known pillars of the community for decades. Specifically, the motion filed by attorney duo Jeremy and Kerri Bartley says the grand jury was denied information about an ongoing civil lawsuit, in which Stines is named as a defendant, that could provide context for the shooting. The lawyers also claim that testimony before the grand jury from Kentucky State Police Detective Clayton Stamper, the lead investigator in the case, was unfairly prejudicial. Stines' attorneys claim that allegations of sexual abuse plagued the Letcher County Courthouse. Just three days before the shooting, Stines was deposed in a civil case against his former deputy, Ben Fields, who is currently serving prison time for raping a woman inside the courthouse in exchange for removing her ankle monitor while she was on home confinement during criminal proceedings. Jeremy Bartley told Fox News Digital that the sheriff had threatened to keep his mouth shut in the civil case, and that he feared for the safety of his wife and daughter. "On the day that this [shooting] happened, my client had attempted multiple times to contact his wife and daughter, and he firmly believed that they were in danger," Bartley said. "He believed that they were in danger because of what he knew to have happened within the courthouse. And there was pressure, and there were threats made to him to sort of keep him in line, to keep them from saying more than these folks wanted him to say." "I think one of the big things is that my client felt there had been pressure placed on him not to say too much during the deposition, and not to talk about things that happened within the courthouse, particularly in the judge's chambers," Bartley said. Body camera footage from the immediate aftermath of the shooting shows a paranoid Stines afraid for his life while being questioned by police. "Come on, be fair to me now," Stines can be heard saying to Stamper. "I seen the look… Y'all come on now, don't kill me. Don't punish me, you know. Let's be fair. Don't shoot me, nothing like that." "Y'all are gonna kill me, aren't you?" he asked. "Y'all are gonna kill me, I know you are. Let's just get it over with. Let's just go." Bartley is planning an insanity defense. Experts have denounced that defense as "frivolous." Fox News Digital reached out to Bartley and prosecutor Jackie Steele for comment.
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
Lost DoorDash driver ends up on the tarmac at O'Hare Airport
Surveillance video shows a DoorDash delivery driver accidentally entering an 'unauthorized secured area' at Chicago O'Hare Airport, according to police. The driver pulled up near parked planes before being stopped by airport staff.
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
Brave The Awkward: Because Real Connection Requires Embracing Discomfort
We've never been more connected—yet we've rarely felt more alone. Chances are, you've witnessed it too: a group of young people sitting around a table at a restaurant, each staring at their phones instead of conversing with each other. They'd sooner take a selfie and post it than lay down their devices and talk about the insecurity that's driving their deep need to be seen and validated by 'likes' on the latest post. I call this the connection paradox: surrounded by communication tools, yet starved of real connection. At the heart of this paradox? Our growing reluctance to brave the awkward moments that real connection demands. The technology that's connected us has made it too easy to avoid the discomfort of genuine connection. The technology that's connected us has made it too easy to avoid the discomfort of genuine connection. We've become masters of impression management but amateurs at vulnerability. We filter our flaws, script our replies, and polish our professional personas—all while dodging the discomfort of direct, human-to-human interaction. From awkward silences to unresolved tensions, most of us would rather scroll, text, or disappear than risk a moment of raw, honest connection. The pressure to look like we've got it together—to say the right thing, to be perceived the right way—is amplified by status anxiety. Social psychologist Amy Cuddy calls this "presence under threat"—when fear of judgment overrides our ability to be authentic and present. Our natural need for approval has made us vulnerable to technologies that exploit our insecurities. Just last week, I heard through a mutual friend that someone had misinterpreted something I'd said. My first thought was to send a text, explaining the misunderstanding. But I caught myself and picked up the phone. Within five minutes, what could have become a drawn-out misunderstanding was resolved through the warmth of actual conversation where she could hear the tone of my voice—something that would have taken days of back-and-forth messages, if it could be resolved at all. Yet I constantly hear of people having conflicts via text exchanges because it feels safer. The data tells the story: in 1990, 75% of Americans had a best friend and only 3% had no close friends at all—today, those figures have plummeted to 59% and 12% respectively Digital communication can never replace the human When we choose AI-scripted messaging over less polished but fully human conversation—when we trade authenticity for something sanitized and 'perfect'—we cut ourselves off from the deep connection we crave and the many benefits it brings. We end up in carefully controlled exchanges that protect our ego but starve our soul. I call it the 'timidity tax'—the hidden cost we pay in our relationships, workplaces, and communities when we avoid the awkwardness of showing up fully human. In the end, it's our raw edges—not our perfection—that give others something real to hold onto. Younger generations are particularly vulnerable. While they may be fluent in memes and emojis, many haven't developed the interpersonal muscles needed for meaningful dialogue, emotional nuance, or face-to-face disagreement. The pandemic made this worse. Just when many young people should have been building the relational skills essential for navigating life's complexities, they found themselves isolated at home, tethered to devices that promised connection but delivered only its shadow. Those formative years—when resilience is built through awkward conversations, messy disagreements, and the trial-and-error of human interaction—were replaced by the sanitized safety of screens. Here's the thing: if the quality of our relationships is determined by the quality of the conversations we have within them, then those who've never learned to navigate the awkward terrain of addressing tension or sharing a personal challenge will struggle in the years ahead. They're entering marriages, friendships, and yes—workplaces—without the conversational courage needed to work through inevitable disagreements constructively, express vulnerability, or build the level of trust needed to sustain relationships over time. The more we rely on technology, the more we must practice what makes us human This connection crisis isn't contained to our personal lives—it's reshaped how we work too. A recent Gallup report revealed that only 23% of employees strongly agree they feel connected at work. According to McKinsey, Gen Z reports the highest levels of anxiety and loneliness in the workplace. This isn't coincidence—it's the predictable outcome of a generation that knows how to post but not how to pause, reflect, and connect through discomfort. Think about the executive who sends three carefully crafted emails instead of making a two-minute call that could resolve the issue. Or the team member who stays silent in meetings—not because they lack ideas, but because they fear saying the "wrong" thing might damage their reputation. The result? Declining engagement, rising burnout, and teams that struggle to collaborate beyond surface-level interactions. In the end, our willingness to express vulnerability will be our greatest source of strength, connection, and true security in a GenAI world that's increasingly scripted and superficial. Online relationships are more prone to becoming less human—reduced to performative exchanges that lack the messy authenticity of real connection. Digital interactions, no matter how frequent or clever, cannot replicate the subtle dance of in-person communication: reading between the lines, sitting with uncomfortable silences, or finding resolution through the shared vulnerability that is felt when two people occupy the same physical space. Connection doesn't happen by accident—it happens through shared discomfort, mutual vulnerability, and the courage to show up without a script. It requires us to step away from our screens and into the uncertain territory of genuine human interaction, where miscommunication is possible, feelings might get hurt, and resolution isn't guaranteed with the click of a button. The connection we crave most lays the other side of the awkwardness we least want to risk. If we want to build relationships and communities that unite people across generations, identities, and perspectives, we must be willing to 'brave the awkward'. That means embracing the awkward silences, leaning into our nervous vulnerability, and starting the conversations we'd sooner avoid. This requires courage—the courage to lay our vulnerability on the line, to show up fully, speak honestly, and risk the judgment we fear. It demands connection built on empathy, trust, and our common humanity. In a world where we can quickly curate our communication, outcomes won't be shaped by those who can say the smartest thing in the most polished way. Rather it will be shaped by those willing to brave the awkward and say the real thing—even when their words don't come out perfectly, even when the silence stretches too long, and even when there's no emoji to capture what needs to be said. Actually, especially then.
