Florida to execute killer of newspaper employee by lethal injection
A 48-year-old man is to be executed by lethal injection in the southern US state of Florida on Tuesday for the 2000 murder of a newspaper employee who was abducted while on her lunch break.
Michael Tanzi is scheduled to be put to death at 6:00 pm (2200 GMT) at the Florida State Prison in Raiford for the murder of Janet Acosta, 49.
Tanzi would be the third Death Row inmate to be executed in Florida this year and the 11th in the United States.
Tanzi confessed to the murder of Acosta, an employee of the Miami Herald newspaper, and was sentenced to death in 2003.
He kidnapped Acosta while she was eating lunch in her van, forced her to withdraw money from ATM machines and sexually assaulted her before strangling her and dumping her body.
He also confessed -- but was never charged -- with the murder of another woman, and a police detective described Tanzi to the Miami Herald as a "fledgling serial killer."
Tanzi's lawyers have tried to halt his execution arguing that there could be problems with the lethal injection because he is "morbidly obese," but their appeals have been rejected.
His execution is one of two scheduled to be carried out in the United States this week.
Mikal Mahdi, 42, is to be executed by firing squad in South Carolina on Friday for the 2004 murder of an off-duty police officer.
Mahdi would be the second person executed by firing squad in South Carolina this year.
The vast majority of US executions since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 have been performed using lethal injection.
There were 25 executions in the United States last year.
The death penalty has been abolished in 23 of the 50 US states, while three others -- California, Oregon and Pennsylvania -- have moratoriums in place.
President Donald Trump is a proponent of capital punishment and on his first day in office called for an expansion of its use "for the vilest crimes."
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced last week that federal prosecutors would seek the death penalty for Luigi Mangione, charged with the December 4 murder in New York of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
cl/des
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
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.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to Social Security data. Here's what personal information is at stake
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE's access to that data in April. The nation's highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out "in order for those members to do their work." More from Personal Finance:Millions would lose health insurance under GOP megabillAverage 401(k) balances drop 3% due to market volatilityTrump administration asks Supreme Court to lift ban on Education Dept. layoffs Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to "carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems." Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency "will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data," they said, while vowing to "use every legal tool at our disposal" to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward. The dispute focuses on how much access DOGE should have to Americans' personal data. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in early March, stating the Social Security Administration had "abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy" of the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans under DOGE's influence. The Social Security Administration collects and stores some of the "most sensitive" personally identifiable information of millions of Americans, ranging from seniors to adults to children, the complaint notes. When applying for a Social Security number, the agency requires the disclosure of place and date of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, race, sex, phone number and mailing address. It also requires parents' names and Social Security numbers. But the agency is also privy to other personal data, including personal health information, the complaint notes. That includes: The Social Security Administration also collects tax information, including total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages and annual employee withholdings. DOGE has not only accessed the agency's sensitive and protected information; it has also publicly shared it, according to the complaint. The actions of the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, DOGE and leaders including former head Elon Musk, have deprived Americans of privacy protections guaranteed by federal law and made their personal information vulnerable, the complaint alleges. In her dissent, Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, notes that records show "DOGE received far broader data access" than the Social Security Administration usually allows in fraud, waste and abuse investigations. Typically, those investigations start with high level, anonymized data, with more access to more detailed information only granted as necessary. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented in the 6-3 decision. "The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," Justice Jackson wrote. While litigation is pending, the government has asked to temporarily suspend the lower court's temporary limitations on DOGE's access to Social Security data, she noted. "But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court's intervention," Justice Jackson wrote.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump travel ban takes effect Monday. What we know
President Donald Trump's new ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday. Dig deeper The Associated Press reported that President Donald Trump's travel ban, which was signed last week, applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. Separately, the travel ban does make exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, typically individuals who worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there. RELATED: Trump announces travel ban on a dozen countries: Here's what to know This new ban does not cancel visas previously issued to individuals from countries on the list, the AP noted, citing guidance issued last week to all U.S. diplomatic missions. But unless an applicant meets a requirement for an exemption to the travel ban, his or her application will be rejected beginning Monday. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the U.S. even after the ban takes effect. The AP reported that Trump also connected the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, claiming it reinforced the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. U.S. officials told the AP that the man charged in the attack overstayed a tourist visa. He is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The backstory During his first term in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. Travelers from those countries were either banned from getting on their flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after they landed. They included students and faculty as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family. The order, often referred to as the "Muslim ban" or the "travel ban," was revised amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The ban impacted multiple categories of travelers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. The Source Information for this story was provided by previous LIVENOW from FOX reporting and the Associated Press, which offers background on the Trump travel ban. This story was reported from Washington, D.C.
