Bay Area man threatened execution of school official over Pride flags, police say
A Petaluma man has been arrested on suspicion of threatening to execute a school district official if Pride flags weren't removed from city campuses, police said.
Josh Garzoli, 54, was arrested shortly after noon Thursday after leaving a voicemail and email demanding removal of the LGBTQ flags, as well as a visit to the Petaluma City Schools administration office, police said.
Garzoli first left an email with the district official on May 30 threatening 'harsh consequences' if the flags weren't removed from city campuses, according to the Petaluma Police Department. He also visited the district's office last Monday demanding removal of the flags, but left without further incident, police said.
Officers responded at 9:18 a.m. Thursday after Garzoli sent an email saying he would have the district official, who has not been identified, 'executed' if the flags were not removed by the end of the school day, police said. The threat was time sensitive and caused safety concerns for school officials, police said.
Detectives located and arrested Garzoli without incident and booked him on suspicion of making criminal threats, a felony, police said. The agency was granted a bail enhancement of $750,000, police said.
Petaluma City Schools, which have flown the Pride flags on campuses from late May through the end of June since 2022 after a unanimous resolution by the board, issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to diversity, according to the Press Democrat. District officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday.
'The Petaluma Police Department takes all criminal threats seriously,' police said in a statement. 'We are working closely with Petaluma City Schools to ensure additional security measures are in place and that district personnel feel supported and protected. The safety of our school staff, students, and broader community is our highest priority.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
2 days ago
- CBS News
Police name suspects in deadly shooting after Pride celebrations in Philadelphia
The Philadelphia Police Department has identified two suspects wanted in connection with the shooting death of Derwin Darnell Joseph Matthews Jr. after Pride celebrations in the Gayborhood earlier this month. Police said Thursday that they're looking for 22-year-old Nysheem Hinson-Rakley and 24-year-old Tyrik Ransom. Hinson-Rakley's last known address was on the 900 block of Parrish Street, and Ransom's was on the 7100 block of Buist Avenue, according to police. Police are looking for Nysheem Hinson-Rakley (left) and Tyrik Ransom (right) in connection with the shooting death of Derwin Darnell Joseph Matthews Jr.. Philadelphia Police Department Investigators did not state what Hinson-Rakley's and Ransom's involvement in the deadly shooting was, but they did identify the two as suspects. Matthews, 31, was shot in the stomach in the 200 block of South Camac Street just after 2:30 a.m. on June 2, several hours after the Philadelphia Pride March and Festival were held in the Gayborhood, police said. He was rushed to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 6:20 a.m. Jacen Bowman, the president of Philadelphia Black Pride and a member of the House and Ballroom Community, told CBS News Philadelphia that Matthews was known to his friends as Derwin West Prodigy. Bowman said he had known Matthews for 10 years and watched him grow. He said he last hugged his friend during the Pride celebrations in Philadelphia. "I am at a loss for words," Bowman said. "It was more disbelief. Like I just hugged you last night. I literally just hugged you, and now you're no longer here with us." I still can't even believe that I am writing a rest in peace to him, it doesn't seem real." The police department is asking anyone with information about Rakley or Ransom to contact its homicide division at 215-686-3334 or leave an anonymous tip at 215-686-TIPS (8477).
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Boston Globe
Judge that restored NIH grants after Trump order echoed famous McCarthy-era lawyer from Boston
McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, smeared people left and right, using innuendo instead of evidence, acting — as Erwin Griswold, a former Republican solicitor general and dean of Harvard Law School put it — as 'judge, jury, prosecutor, castigator, and press agent, all in one.' Welch was a partner at the Boston firm of Hale & Dorr and lived in Walpole. In the spring of 1954, McCarthy went after the Army, accusing it of lax security, leaving it open to communist infiltration. Welch took on McCarthy for the Army. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up For 30 days, Welch appeared before McCarthy's committee, making the Army's case, systematically showing that McCarthy's claims about the Army being soft on communism were unfounded. Advertisement Frustrated by Welch's ability to show the paucity of McCarthy's claims, McCarthy waved one of his distractions, asserting that Fred Fischer, a junior associate in Welch's law firm, while a student at Harvard Law School had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild, which McCarthy called the legal arm of the Communist Party. This violated an agreement that Welch and Cohn had made before the hearings, that Welch would not bring up Cohn's ability to avoid the draft in the Korean War, and the committee would not bring up Fischer having been associated with a legal organization that represented accused communists while in law school. Advertisement Welch's response to McCarthy would go down in history as 'Until this moment, Senator,' Welch said, 'I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.' When McCarthy tried to interrupt, Welch added this dagger: 'Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?' Fast forward to another June, 71 years after Welch spoke those immortal lines, when US District Judge William G. Young, sitting in federal court in Boston, On Monday, Young accused the Trump administration of discriminating against minorities and members of the LGBTQ+ community and ordered the National Institutes of Health to restore hundreds of research grants that the Trump administration had dismissed as DEI-inspired 'woke' nonsense. 'I've sat on this bench now for 40 years. I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young said. 'Is it true of our society as a whole? Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?' 'Have we no shame' sounds an awful lot like, 'Have you no sense of decency?' Young said the cuts to grants that funded research into racial disparities in health care were 'arbitrary and capricious,' that they were based not on reasoned policy, but on pure bias. The White House fired back, accusing Young of being, well, biased. Advertisement 'It is appalling that a federal judge would use court proceedings to express his political views and preferences,' White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. 'How is a judge going to deliver an impartial decision when he explicitly stated his biased opinion that the Administration's retraction of illegal DEI funding is racist and anti-LGBTQ?' Casting Young as some lefty activist jurist is a stretch. Early in his career, he served as chief counsel to Massachusetts Governor Frank Sargent, a Republican. Young was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of modern conservatism. Having watched Young in action for 40 years, I'd say he's biased mostly toward the Constitution. Brittany Charlton, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, and one of the plaintiffs that challenged the Trump administration's cuts, said the administration was accusing the judge of the very bias it showed in making the cuts in the first place. She said Young's decision 'is an important step in protecting public health and allowing critical research to continue. Research that helps us understand and treat serious diseases should be based on science, not politics.' In his ruling, Young made it clear that he believed the Trump administration's rationale for cutting research about racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people was unsupported by facts. Welch said the same thing about McCarthy's claims about the Army being soft on communists. 'This court finds and rules that the explanations are bereft of reasoning virtually in their entirety,' Young said. 'These edicts are nothing more than conclusory, unsupported by factual development.' Young asked the Department of Justice attorney representing the Trump administration to explain how funding research related to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion led to 'unlawful discrimination.' Advertisement 'Where's the support for that? Any support? Any rational explanation?' Young said. 'I see no evidence of that. Point me to any particular grant or group of grants being used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race. From what I can see, it's the reverse.' Young said the government was guilty of the very thing it claimed the research causes. 'I am hesitant to draw this conclusion, but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it, that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community,' Young said. 'That's what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.' Like Welch, Young is a Harvard grad. Maybe the Trump administration can chalk all this up to Harvard's revenge. Young's comments were not nationally televised, and they have not ignited the backlash against the Trump administration that Welch's remarks did against McCarthy. Still, as Martin Luther King Jr. observed, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Justice is inevitable. But it takes time. Five years after dressing McCarthy down, Welch played a judge in Otto Preminger's film, 'Anatomy of a Murder.' His portrayal won him a Golden Globe nomination as best supporting actor. But his best performance was on June 9, 1954, when he exposed a bully for what he was, inspiring a nation to do the same. Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Tougher sentences for criminals who abuse LGBT people ‘vital step forward'
Tougher sentences for violent offenders who hurt people based on their sexuality would mark a 'vital step forward', a Labour MP has said. Jacob Collier called for new aggravated offences as part of the Government's Crime and Policing Bill, as he warned many LGBT+ people 'don't feel safe in reporting hate'. More than 100 cross-party MPs backed the proposed amendment, originally put forward by Rachel Taylor, which would create the new offences if violent crimes are motivated by hostility towards a person's sexuality, transgender identity or disability. Home Office minister Dame Diana Johnson has vowed to broaden the framework for aggravated offences. Mr Collier said: 'I know what it means to think twice how you walk down the street, to pause before holding somebody's hand, to wonder whether that shout from across the road is something you can ignore or something you can't afford to. 'And I know that I'm not alone in that. 'I've spoken to my constituents and people from far beyond who tell me that they don't feel safe in reporting hate when it happens. They don't believe that they'll be taken seriously and there's a profound failure of trust, and one that we in this House have a duty to repair.' The Burton and Uttoxeter MP also told the Commons: 'I think it's also fitting that we are introducing this amendment in Pride Month, and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish amongst the trans community.' He said the move 'represents a vital step forward in the protection of some of the most marginalised people within our society' and added: 'Too many victims still believe that the system is not on their side and this new clause gives us the opportunity to change that. It gives police and prosecutors a clear route to charge and convict offenders in a way that truly reflects the nature of these crimes.' Mr Collier said the proposed change was 'about dignity, about recognising that whether you're a trans teenager being punched in the park, a gay couple being spat on on the Tube, or a disabled man being harassed on his way to work, all people deserve the full protection of the law'. Aggravated offences would also offer 'vital protection for disabled people, who often remain far too invisible in the public conversation around hate crime', he added. The law already provides for aggravated offences, if they are motivated by hostility towards a victim's race or religious group membership. 'That discrepancy cannot be right. We cannot as a society say that some forms of hatred are more evil than others,' Ms Taylor told the Commons. The Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth added she was 'at university when section 28 was introduced', part of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned town halls from promoting or teaching 'the acceptability of' homosexuality in schools. 'I remember it vividly, it was more than the law, it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly,' she said. 'It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people, it pushed us out of public life. 'I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented.' Ms Taylor said her amendment would be 'an important step forward for equal rights'. Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge who also backed the amendment, said the proposal 'would foster respect and equality for all by ensuring justice for disabled victims of hate crime'. Responding to the debate, Dame Diana branded these crimes 'disgraceful', and said the increase in hate crime towards transgender people 'cannot be tolerated'. On the proposed new clause, Dame Diana said: 'The Government supports this change, as set out in our manifesto last year. 'And I can confirm to the House that we will bring forward a suitable Government amendment to give effect to this commitment in the Lords at committee stage.'
