Sheriff says riot in Tennessee prison contained
The Trousdale County Sheriff's Department says it got word just after 10 p.m. Sunday of the trouble at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center.
"A multi-agency response followed a short time after the initial call," the department said. "The incident was contained inside the facility fences. The prison staff reported all prisoners were returned back to their cells."
CBS Nashville affiliate WTVF-TV was told by CoreCivic, which runs the facility, that the incident began when several inmates refused to go back to their cells.
WTVF said three guards were held hostage but all got out safely and with no major injuries.
At one point, there were roughly 100 officers on the scene from several agencies.
WTVF quotes Trousdale County Sheriff Ray Russell as saying, "There's no threat at all. The prisoners never got to the main fence where they could escape. They were in a yard and contained," adding that officers "shot gas into the yard and forced them back into the cell block."
Kristi Noem says "we are not going to let a repeat of 2020 happen" amid L.A. crackdown
Magic in the dark: The fantastical worlds of Lightwire Theater
One mom's goal to buy American-made products can teach us all something
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 minutes ago
- Newsweek
We Must Protect American Courtrooms From Foreign Interference
In most American courtrooms today, a party in court could be financed by foreign interests (and other unrelated third parties) without the other party ever knowing it. This alternate funder may be an investor hoping for uncorrelated returns, a wealthy donor with personal or business interests in the case, or an affiliate of an adversarial nation seeking to undermine U.S. competitiveness. The third-party litigation funding industry operates in the Wild West. Any outside group can pay the bills for a party in a legal dispute. They do this often in exchange for a percentage of an eventual settlement. Absent a handful of states that have passed disclosure laws affecting their own state court systems, the vast majority of state and federal courts do not require parties to disclose who's paying their legal costs—not to other parties and not even to the presiding judge. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. Getty Images But disclosure is critical and not just for transparency's sake. Incentives matter in the courtroom. The American civil litigation system is premised on fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice. If a party's funders have hidden motives that stray from the desire to fairly resolve a dispute, trust in the system is put at risk. Foreign sources of litigation funding introduce a whole new set of perverse incentives. A foreign funder may finance a case in order to gain access to sensitive intellectual property or even to evade sanctions that prohibit transactions or investments in U.S. capital markets. Also, since litigation funders have their own monetary and non-monetary goals, the funder may push its client to demand steeper settlement terms than the client would otherwise consider. These are not hypothetical situations. In 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a group of sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York and London thus allowing the oligarchs to steer (launder) tens of millions into western financial institutions. In another instance, China-based technology firm PurpleVine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. This was discovered by a lone overseeing judge in Delaware who luckily requires litigation financing disclosure in his courtroom. Had the case not crossed his desk, the defendants may never have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge but, in actuality, a case with national security importance. Foreign donors may also fund lawsuits that advance their personal agendas. Last year, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings revealed that an Australian mining billionaire was paying the legal bills for a coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil. The billionaire, Andrew Forrest, runs a mining empire that he aims to convert into a clean-energy provider—demonstrating both ideological and anticompetitive reasons to target an American oil major that he would not otherwise have standing to sue. This backdoor litigation is getting foreign companies and even foreign governments into American courtrooms they otherwise wouldn't be able to access. Since the third-party litigation funding industry is entirely unregulated, each of these examples only came to light by accident: strong investigative reporting; a lone judge's standing transparency order; and a buried FARA filing. But in each instance, the discovery of foreign funding changed both public perception and legal strategy. Routine civil suits became vehicles for money laundering, corporate espionage, and personal grievance. Unregulated third-party litigation financing is a crucial vulnerability for American competitiveness and national security. In order to secure a just and fair civil justice system, it's only common sense that parties should know who they're up against. We must act quickly as this "hidden party" industry is growing at a pace stressing the non-existent regulatory regime. One estimate values the global market at $17.5 billion in 2025, and it is forecasted to grow to $67.2 billion by 2037. Naturally, it's also becoming more complex. Opportunistic actors are developing secondary markets—a "stock exchange for lawsuits"—which, if left unregulated as well, will only create new avenues for foreign actors to distort the civil justice system and surreptitiously move capital. Regulators can be certain that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other adversarial nations have taken notice of this influx of cash into the industry. The CCP may be responsible for a significant part of this cash flow, but we cannot be sure. Under the current system, neither national security officials nor legal professionals have any way to discern the source of billions of dollars propping up civil suits from behind the curtain. A number of bills in state legislatures and in Congress have been introduced to require disclosure of any third-party litigation financing—of foreign funding in particular. This is a welcome development. Lawmakers in Washington and in statehouses across the country should move with alacrity and act on this issue before American companies, our justice system, and our capital markets are subjected to further foreign meddling. Former Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-Ill.) previously represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the Committee on the Judiciary. An attorney, he previously served in the U.S. Army and retired at the rank of captain. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Epoch Times
5 hours ago
- Epoch Times
US, Ecuador Sign Police Exchange Agreement to Combat Organized Crime
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem met on July 31 with Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa and members of his administration to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) establishing a law enforcement exchange program between the United States and Ecuador. 'In the war against drugs and crime, information is our strongest weapon,' Noem said in a statement released the same day.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
White House denies Stephen Miller's alleged ‘arrest targets' for ICE agents exist
White House attorneys have denied that the Department of Homeland Security gave ICE agents specific targets for immigrant arrests, despite previous statements from senior advisor Stephen Miller. In a court filing last week, reported by The Guardian, lawyers said that although an advisor may have made the remarks, that 'no such goal has been set as a matter of policy, and no such directive has been issued to or by DHS or ICE.' Miller told Fox News in June that agents had been set a target of a 'minimum' of 3,000 arrests a day, as well as reportedly advising officials to target community hubs, Home Depot parking lots and 7-Eleven convenience stores to find suspects, according to The Wall Street Journal. A report in Axios also detailed a 'tense' meeting attended by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Miller in late May, in which they told senior ICE agents to supercharge arrests in order to hit the 3,000 target. 'DHS has confirmed that neither ICE leadership nor its field offices have been directed to meet any numerical quota or target for arrests, detentions, removals, field encounters, or any other operational activities that ICE or its components undertake in the course of enforcing federal immigration law,' the court filing read. '[The] allegation that the government maintains a policy mandating 3,000 arrests per day appears to originate from media reports quoting a White House advisor who described that figure as a 'goal' that the Administration was 'looking to set.' 'That quotation may have been accurate, but no such goal has been set as a matter of policy, and no such directive has been issued to or by DHS or ICE.' The filing added that, while enforcement of federal immigration law was 'top priority for DHS, ICE, and the Administration,' that all government enforcement activities were based on 'individualized assessments, available resources, and evolving operational priorities – not volume metrics.' Despite this claim, the WSJ previously reported that Miller had asked top ICE officials in June if they believed it was possible to reach one million deportations by the end of the year, citing people with knowledge of the meeting. To achieve this, he told law enforcement to 'just go out there and arrest illegal aliens,' the outlet reported. However, such a hardline stance has been defended previously by the Trump administration, including Donald Trump's 'border czar' Tom Homan. Last month Homan said that although public safety threats were a priority, those who were in the country illegally were 'not off the table,' in regards to deportation. 'We're gonna enforce immigration law,' he said.
