Man arrested on sexual assault warrant; police concerned more victims exist
DENVER (KDVR) — In May 2024, a woman reported to Fort Collins detectives that an acquaintance had sexually assaulted her while she was incapacitated.
On Tuesday morning, the man accused of that crime turned himself into the Larimer County Jail after a felony sexual assault warrant was issued for his arrest. Police arrested Aaron Moore, 23, and he was given a $5,000 cash bond on Tuesday afternoon.
Man charged with first-degree murder in deadly shooting at adult venue
'We know that crimes involving sexual assault are often traumatic,' said Sgt. Dan Calahan, who oversees the Fort Collins Police Services Crimes Against Persons Unit. 'Our team of detectives and advocates are committed to guiding survivors through the legal system and supporting them on their path to recovery.'
In a release, police said the victim told officers she was part of a group of friends who were socializing and drinking in downtown Fort Collins. Afterward, she said she shared a ride with Moore to his residence, where the assault occurred. Police said they interviewed multiple witnesses about the evening's progression before requesting an arrest warrant for Moore.
Court records show that the alleged crime occurred on April 27, 2023.
Police said Moore was a Colorado State University student at the time of the assault and that CSU Police and the Title IX office are cooperating with the investigation. Detectives said details they've uncovered indicate that there could be other victims.
Suspect wanted in Vail for alleged $3K damage to ice sculpture
Moore is facing two felony charges:
Sexual assault – victim is physically helpless
Sexual assault – victim is unable to appraise their conduct
He is scheduled to appear in Larimer County Court on Feb. 25.
Anyone with information about this or other incidents is asked to contact Fort Collins Police Services Criminalist David Blake at dblake@fcgov.com. Anyone who would like to remain anonymous should contact the Larimer County Crime Stoppers at 970-221-6868 or stopcriminals.org.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Woman wants help after receiving $7,203 MLGW bill
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A woman is calling for help after she received an MLGW bill that's worth more than $7,000. Tracy Moore told WREG there has been an issue since she moved into government housing in 2023. Moore said MLGW told her there was a water leak at the residence before she moved in; however, despite the repairs, the bill continues to increase. Memphis OKs 3% raises for city employees in new budget She told WREG that MLGW cut her lights off, due to non-payment; however, she says she will never be able to make enough money to pay it. 'The light company said it wasn't on they side, that it was on the owner. I do not own this home and I shouldn't be responsible for this big, outstanding $7,000 something water bill,' said Moore. Moore said she moved into the Section 8 housing property in 2023, and she's had issues ever since then. She said that her first bill was nearly $1,500, and when she contacted MLGW, they told her that the matter was under investigation. FBI investigates viral DMV text scam; unpaid ticket message is fake Once the investigation finished, Moore says the utility company told her there was a water leak inside the home before she moved there. 'I contacted the owner, and the owner was like explaining to me that this problem should've been solved before I moved in and as months and years has passed, and you know, they constantly said that they going to fix it,' said Moore. Moore said MLGW told her the water leak appeared to be underneath the home, but a few months ago, the owner brought in a crew that made repairs inside the home. Millington hires new girls' basketball coach WREG reached out to the real estate company, Memphis Passive, and they claim the utility company told them there wasn't a water leak and it's the tenant's responsibility to pay her bills. 'I'm taking care of three disabled. I'm working. You know, I'm trying. And so, you know, having car problems. You know, trying to get back and forth to work and all of this, it's really took an impact on us,' said Moore. Moore said she hopes the issue gets fixed sooner rather than later. She said MLGW previously removed $700 from her bill, but they told her that the remaining balance is her responsibility. WREG also reached out to the utility company, and they said they can only release information to the account holder. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Clarifying claims Louisiana voted 'to force a 9-year-old girl to deliver her rapist's baby'
Claim: In early June 2025, Louisiana lawmakers voted "to force a 9-year-old girl to deliver her rapist's baby." Rating: What's True: In early June 2025, Louisiana lawmakers rejected a bill that would have added exceptions for rape to the state's abortion ban, specifically allowing young rape victims to terminate their pregnancies. What's False: The proposed bill did not reference or target any specific case of a pregnant 9-year old. What's Undetermined: The claim originated from Louisiana state Rep. Patricia Moore's mention of a pregnant 9-year-old girl in her district. However, she did not provide additional details, and we were unable to independently confirm the existence or circumstances of the case. In early June 2025, a rumor spread that Louisiana lawmakers voted to deny abortion to a 9-year-old rape victim. One X post (archived) on the topic, which as of this writing had over 958,300 views, read, "Louisiana votes to force a 9-year-old girl to deliver her rapist's baby." It also quoted Democratic state Rep. Patricia Moore allegedly saying, "I'm constantly hearing that God would take a bad situation and turn it into good," additionally claiming that Moore spoke out against the bill "even after being made aware of the pregnant 9-year-old girl living in her district." Another Facebook post (archived) making the claim, which amassed over 25,000 reactions, read, "If a 9-year-old walked into an adoption agency with plans to be a mother, they would laugh her out of the room and explain that she's too young to become a mom. But if a 9-year-old is raped, conservatives believe he's the perfect age for motherhood." Similar claims spread on social media platforms including Instagram (archived) and Reddit (archived). In short, the claim was a mixture of true, false and undetermined information. In early June 2025, for the third year in a row, Louisiana lawmakers rejected a bill that would have added exceptions for rape to the state's abortion ban. Namely, the bill would have allowed young rape victims to terminate their pregnancies. However, the proposed legislation did not reference any specific case of a pregnant 9-year-old. The claim stemmed from a statement by Moore, who said she was aware of a 9-year-old girl in her district who had become pregnant. We were unable to independently verify the existence or circumstances of the child mentioned. We reached out to Moore to request more details about the case of the pregnant 9-year-old and will update this story if and when we hear back. Louisiana's abortion ban took effect in 2022 following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. That decision eliminated federal protections for abortion and allowed individual states to set their own laws. Under the state's law, abortion is banned except in limited cases, such as when the pregnant woman's life is at serious risk, the fetus is "medically futile" or in cases of ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage. There is currently no exception for rape or incest. The in-question legislation was Democratic state Rep. Delisha Boyd's third attempt to create exceptions to Louisiana's abortion law. The proposed bill aimed to allow abortions for victims under 17 who became pregnant as a result of specific offenses such as rape or sexual battery that, if committed against a minor, would make an abortion legal in those cases. The bill said the victim wouldn't need to provide a police report, forensic evidence or proof that someone was being prosecuted for the crime in order to get the abortion. Legislators discussed the bill during a House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice hearing on June 3, 2025. As shown in the image below, the bill that "provides for exceptions to the abortion laws of this state relative to rape and certain sex offenses" received three votes in favor ("Yea") and nine votes against ("Nay"). Therefore, the law did not proceed to the House floor for further consideration. (Louisiana House of Representatives) You can access the full text of the in-question bill here. A video circulating alongside the claims on Louisiana "denying abortion to 9-year-old rape victim" originated from an April 11, 2025, KLFY News 10 segment that aired before legislators voted on the bill. Moore made the statement about the pregnant 9-year-old during the hearing at 38:57 of the video recording available via the Louisiana House of Representatives' official website. Moore stated that she was "aware of a nine year old, in [her] area, pregnant" and that she was struggling to reconcile her feelings about the case with her religious beliefs. Moore also added that her mother was raped at the age of 13 and had her at 14. "So I do struggle with it. I know we got to protect our children, but this point right now, I cannot vote yes," she said. Boyd, who authored the bill, also mentioned she was aware of a "Louisiana girl who was raped and gave birth at 13 years old and a 9-year-old girl who became pregnant after being sexually assaulted." All in all, while it's true that Louisiana lawmakers rejected a bill that would have allowed abortion in cases of child rape, there was no confirmed evidence that the decision directly affected a specific 9-year-old. Moore mentioned being aware of such a case during the hearing but provided no details, and we were unable to independently verify the claim. As of this writing, Louisiana abortion law does not include an exception for rape or incest. - YouTube. Accessed 11 June 2025. Agenda - Administration of Criminal Justice. Accessed 11 June 2025. HB215. Accessed 11 June 2025. ---. Accessed 11 June 2025. LA House On-Demand Video. Accessed 11 June 2025. Louisiana House of Representatives 24-28. Accessed 11 June 2025. "Louisiana Lawmakers Reject Adding Exceptions for Some Rape Cases to Abortion Ban." AP News, 3 June 2025, Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature. Accessed 11 June 2025.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal Prosecutors Are Starting To Sound Like Campus Activists About Sex and Consent
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is now embracing ideas about coercion and consent that rose to prominence on college campuses during the Barack Obama administration. That's the implication of the OneTaste case, in which a jury has returned a guilty verdict against Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone, who stood accused of a conspiracy to commit forced labor during their time with the sexual and spiritual self-help organization. I have written many words about this case already, and I'm going to try to refrain from rehashing all of the details in today's newsletter. (If you're new to the case and want to dive deep, here you go. If you want a couple of overviews of how the trial played out, see here and here.) What I want to focus on right now is the larger implications of this case. They're not pretty. If these ideas about coercion and consent didn't start on the college campuses of the 2010s, that's at least when they became fully institutionalized —adopted as not just the framework favored by activist students and women's studies professors but by college administrators and the Title IX offices they were beholden to. There was affirmative consent, sure, but also a broader suspicion of consent as a worthwhile standard, or at least a willingness to dismiss it for more arcane ideas about sexual permissibility. Suddenly it wasn't enough to say no and it wasn't even enough to say yes—one had to consider a complex set of power dynamics, alcohol consumption levels, subtle nonverbal cues, and so on, to determine if consent counted. It stopped just short of taking astrological signs into account. We went from a reasonable corrective (acknowledging that sexual assault needn't necessarily involve force or violence) to women getting support for claims of sexual coercion and violation even when they seemed to willingly go along with sexual activity at the time but later said that they weren't enthusiastic enough about it and a partner should have known that and stopped. Basically, it was only consensual if a woman felt deep down in her heart, during and after, that everything had been OK. We saw this idea migrate from campus newspapers and Title IX offices to the broader world during the #MeToo movement. It's perhaps best exemplified by a story about the actor Aziz Ansari. A young woman went to dinner with him, then back to his house, and later excoriated him in Babe magazine for not reading her cues about not wanting to fool around and allegedly pressuring her to do so. The piece called it sexual misconduct and a violation. But when the woman explicitly told Ansari no, he stopped, per her account of things. And when she wanted to go, she left. The Babe article provoked a huge debate about whether this sort of thing—which in another era we might have just called a bad date or caddish behavior—was a form of sexual assault and where responsibility lies here. Are sexual partners supposed to be mind readers? Do women have any responsibility for explicitly making their wishes known? Obviously, not all or even most campus sexual misconduct or #MeToo stories were like the Aziz Ansari story. But there were enough that it was clearly not an isolated idea or belief system. It was a new paradigm—and one sold, perversely, as empowering to women. That was a lie. Broadening the parameters of nonconsensual sex like this does women a disservice, portraying us as somehow having less agency and less moral culpability than male peers (which could have consequences far beyond the bedroom) while also telling women that it's normal—desirable even—to just shut up and go along with unwanted or uncomfortable activity in the moment and then object afterward. Rather than encourage women to be bold and unflinching in expressing what they want and don't want, it encourages putting out with a promise that later they can get their vengeance in public opinion or in court. We're uncomfortable as a culture with "assigning women complete sexual responsibility, even though we want them to have complete sexual liberty," said Kat Rosenfield on a recent episode of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Rosenfield and her co-host were talking about the murky way we sometimes talk about women's actions when allegations of sexual misconduct are concerned. People can do a lot of "squirming around to try and make a choice that was made [into] not actually a choice," said Rosenfield. And once you're in that mode, you end up with some real mental shenanigans around consent. The OneTaste trial shows that these ideas have now crossed over from college values or cultural vibes to legal standards adopted by federal prosecutors with the power to help put people in prison. In the OneTaste trial, prosecutors elicited testimony after testimony from "victims" who admit they consented to various sexual activities, from orgasmic meditation (a core activity in OneTaste courses and communes) to random hook-ups to relationships with OneTaste community members, investors, and students. They not only did not say no, they affirmatively agreed to these encounters or even initiated them. The repercussions they now claimed to have feared if they didn't do these things—many of which were core parts of the intentional communities and/or classes they chose to partake in, applied for, paid for—were things like social disapproval or missing out on opportunities to move up in the OneTaste ranks. Some were not even employees when the activities in question took place, and even among those who were, much of the action they talked about took place in contexts outside their employment. Prosecutors argued that Daedone's ideas (like daily orgasmic meditation being good for you, orgasm as a way to clear out bad energy, and the importance of being open to sexual encounters that might be out of your comfort zone) and Cherwitz's encouragement or shunning amounted to a form of coercion that rendered these women's seeming consent invalid. We're supposed to ignore the fact that these women admittedly never told Daedone or Cherwitz, let alone their sexual partners, that they were uncomfortable or didn't want to do these things. We're supposed to ignore the fact that contemporaneous accounts of these acts—emails, texts, journal entries, social media posts—often showed sunny feelings about what was going on. And we're supposed to ignore the fact that these women didn't report any crimes or labor violations at the time and are only testifying after being approached by FBI agents a decade or two later. The defendants are being held accountable for how these women feel—or at least told FBI agents who were making promises and extolling their victimhood that they feel—about 10- and 15-year-old sexual activity that everyone seems to have been perfectly fine with at the time. We're looking at campus kangaroo courts come to a federal courthouse, with U.S. attorneys fully embracing ideas about consent that were weird and radical just a decade or two ago. I'm sure this will be cheered by some people. I find the prospect offensive and dangerous. It's a total affront to due process, giving people little notice about how to avoid liability (since consent in the moment clearly doesn't matter). And unlike on college campuses, the arbiters of these disputes now have the power to help put people in prison for long stretches. It creates a dangerous situation not only for people who engaged in sex acts with someone claiming, decades later, that their consent was invalid but also for anyone who might be said to have "conspired" to have encouraged these sexual encounters or to have "participated in a venture" that received any benefit from them. It opens the gate to forced labor or sex trafficking prosecutions based on sexual regret. It's also one more step in the total infantilization of women, negating the gains in sexual and social autonomy that we've won. This situation where we expect all the rights of adulthood but none of the responsibility can't last. We're going to start seeing—we are seeing—rights chipped away at, too. At a time when many are keen to use sexual "harms" to justify everything from online censorship to limiting LGBTQ expression, curtailing reproductive rights, and encouraging women to give up on college and just have babies, no feminist, friend of women, or woman who cares about her own bodily autonomy and ability to consent should be cheering this safe space–ification of the DOJ. • The slippery slope of age-verification laws for adult content is on full display in France, where the "government is considering designating X as a porn platform — a move that will likely have the platform implementing strict age verification requirements," per Politico. It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening in the U.S., rendering laws aimed at carding people who visit porn websites as a backdoor to either require age verification for social media, too, or make social media websites ban sexually oriented content and accounts of any kind. • President Donald Trump is expected to once again extend the deadline for TikTok parent company ByteDance to sell the company or be banned. "Remember when TikTok was supposedly an urgent national security threat that required emergency legislation? Funny how that 'emergency' keeps getting 75-day extensions," Techdirt Editor Mike Masnick writes. That "should tell you everything about how 'urgent' this national security threat actually was." • "It would help immensely if the critiques of porn, did not confuse 'sex' with 'porn.' The push to be 'sexy' and sexism are not rooted in one form of media," comments Mike Stabile, director of public policy at the Free Speech Coalition, in response to a New Yorker review of the new book Girl on Girl: How Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves. "But linking both evangelicals and anti-SW feminists is the idea that sexist evil can be traced to one tantalizing source. To do that, in these sexual monotheories, porn has to be a monolith. That it presents women one way (submissive) and with one look (skinny, with big tits). Antiporn texts depend on a charicature [sic] of porn, a flattening of sexual speech, in order to establish a clear directional effect on culture." As to the idea that focusing on consent in porn is somehow insufficient, Stabile posts: says: "We focus on 'consent'…because it's how we restrain the urge to police other people's fantasies and sexualities. Because saying 'your articulation of sexuality' is damaging to ME, is the same impulse that underlies anti-LGBTQ censorship." The post Federal Prosecutors Are Starting To Sound Like Campus Activists About Sex and Consent appeared first on
