An Augusta man was arrested after he was released from the hospital Wednesday night.
Robert Farrington, 27, received treatment for his injuries sustained Sunday when Augusta officers responded to a house on South Belfast Avenue at about 12:30 a.m., looking for Farrington.
Inside the house, Officer Sabastian Guptill and Farrington met in what Police Chief Jared Mills described as an armed confrontation, during which Guptill shot Farrington. Mills confirmed Farrington had a gun and that one other person was at the house at the time of the shooting.
Upon his release from the hospital, the Augusta Police Department arrested Farrington for his outstanding warrant obtained by the Fairfield Police Department on the charges of assault (domestic violence) and cruelty to animals that occurred on Nov. 23 within their jurisdiction.
Farrington was also arrested on a warrant obtained by the Augusta Police Department for criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon as a result of the incident that occurred in Augusta on Sunday morning while officers were attempting to arrest him on the aforementioned warrant out of Fairfield.
Farrington’s bail has been set at $750 cash for the charges in Fairfield and $5,000 cash for the charge in Augusta, according to a press release from the police department.
Farrington also has several bail conditions in place. He was transferred to the Kennebec County Correctional Facility for holding.
In an interview with AP News, Mr Barr said the jailhouse suicide, which came as Epstein awaited trial, was due to a “series” of mistakes.
His comments come after two guards who were responsible for Epstein were charged with falsifying prison records.
Lawyers for Epstein’s victims are urging Prince Andrew, a longtime friend of Epstein, to speak to US police.
The US attorney general said he had personally reviewed CCTV footage that confirmed nobody entered the area were Epstein was detained on the night he died.
“I can understand people who immediately, whose minds went to sort of the worst-case scenario because it was a perfect storm of screw-ups,” Mr Barr said in an interview as he flew to the US state of Montana for an event on Thursday.
Epstein, a wealthy financier who partied with the rich and famous, died in Manhattan’s Metropolitan Correctional Center while awaiting trial on charges of sexually abusing girls as young as 14.
Earlier this week, two guards tasked with watching over Epstein’s jail unit were charged with sleeping and browsing the internet during their shift as Epstein died.
Officers Tova Noel and Michael Thomas were supposed to check on Epstein every 30 minutes. According to an indictment, the guards had not done their 03:00 or 05:00 checks.
Epstein was placed on suicide watch after he was found on 23 July on his cell floor with bruises on his neck.
He was taken off suicide watch about a week before his death, though kept on a heightened watch that required him to have a cellmate.
But his cellmate was transferred on 9 August to another prison a day before Epstein’s death, which a medical examiner ruled to be suicide by hanging.
Mr Barr, who leads the US Department of Justice, said: “I think it was important to have a roommate in there with him and we’re looking into why that wasn’t done, and I think every indication is that was a screw-up.
“The systems to assure that was done were not followed.”
Mr Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist and progressive, laughed and said: “Well, it depends on what you mean by tear down the system.”
“The agenda that we have is an agenda supported by the vast majority of working people,” he said. “When I talk about raising the minimum wage to a living wage, I’m not tearing down the system. We’re fighting for justice.”
Elizabeth Warren, another left-leaning frontrunner, struck a more conciliatory tone, choosing to praise Mr Obama’s trademark health care policy, the Affordable Care Act.
Students and teachers spoke of how they barricaded themselves in classrooms amid chaotic scenes, carrying out an active shooter drill that many schools have implemented in recent years following deadly attacks around the country.
What do we know about the shooting?
It was first reported at 07:38 local time (15:38 GMT) on Thursday, LA county sheriff Alex Villanueva said, adding that police were at the scene within two minutes.
The suspect was standing in the school courtyard when he took a .45-calibre semi-automatic pistol from his backpack and opened fire for about 16 seconds before turning the gun on himself, Sheriff’s Captain Kent Wegener said.
“He just fires from where he is. He doesn’t chase anybody. He doesn’t move,” Capt Wegener said.
Students barricaded themselves in classrooms under an active shooter drill for more than an hour as police tried to determine if the gunman was still at large.
Officers found six people suffering from gunshot wounds and transferred them to local hospitals. The suspect was later identified as one of those injured.
What do we know of the victims?
The names of those who died have not yet been released. They were a 16-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy.
The three injured, also as-yet unnamed, were two girls, aged 14 and 15, and a 14-year-old boy. They are all in a stable condition.
All attended Saugus High School.
The suspect had no known connection to the victims, Capt Wegener said.
What has been revealed about the gunman?
The attack came on the suspect’s 16th birthday. The motive for the attack is unknown.
The FBI said it appeared he had acted alone and was not affiliated with any particular group or ideology.
The Associated Press quoted a fellow student, Brooke Risley, as saying the suspect was introverted but “naturally smart”, adding that he had a girlfriend and was a boy scout.
AP said the boy lived locally in a modest home, and that his father died two years ago. A neighbour told Reuters the boy had struggled with his father’s death.
Investigators have searched the home and interviewed the boy’s mother and girlfriend.
There were no initial indications that he had been bullied at school.
There were reports of an Instagram posting saying “Saugus have fun at school tomorrow”, but it was later revealed the account was not owned by the suspect.
How did students and parents react?
One student told NBC she was doing her homework when people started running. “I was really, really scared. I was shaking,” she said.
Another student, named as Azalea, told CBS she and her classmates had barricaded the classroom door with chairs. “It was just really scary, having everybody panic and call their parents, saying they love you.”
Teacher Katie Holt told NBC she was huddled in her office with 30 students when a girl ran in saying she had been shot. Ms Holt dressed the injuries as best she could her with her gunshot-wound kit, with a fellow student applying pressure.
There were emotional reunions once the lockdown was lifted.
Jeff Turner, 58, told the New York Times he found his daughter, Micah, upset and crying.
“She was saying, ‘I feel guilty that I didn’t stay and help the people who were shot,'” he said. “And that was the thing that made me break down in tears.”
How much security is there at Saugus?
The school has an unarmed sheriff’s deputy and nine “campus supervisors” with guard training, district administrator Collyn Nielson told Associated Press.
There are a number of security cameras but no metal detectors, and lockdown drills are held three times a year.
How have officials responded?
News of the attack emerged during a Senate debate on gun control legislation. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, was arguing for gun control when he was given a note with the news.
“We are complicit if we fail to act,” he said. “It is not just a political responsibility, it is a moral imperative.”
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said in a statement that his department took school shootings “very seriously” and would help the authorities “develop trainings and resources to improve response capabilities and better protect soft targets”.
Gun control, and the right to bear arms, is a divisive political issue in the US. About 40% of Americans say they own a gun or live in a household with one, according to a 2017 survey, and the rate of murder or manslaughter by firearm in the country is the highest in the developed world.
According to the Washington Post, more than 230,000 young people in the US have experienced gun violence at school since the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado in 1999.
In the last three weeks US authorities have arrested at least 28 people accused of threatening acts of mass violence. What’s behind this surge and could they all be convicted?
The threats ranged from posts on social media and video gaming sites to verbal comments to colleagues and friends. In at least two cases, suspects sent text messages to ex-partners. Hoards of weapons were also found in some cases.
The FBI won’t say what is behind the steep bump in apprehensions, some carried out by that agency, others by local police. It’s not clear if it marks a growth in threats or simply a rise in awareness and tip-offs.
But former FBI boss Andrew McCabe said on Friday there was undoubtedly a “renewed awareness” focused on the sort of threats that a few months ago might have been ignored by investigators mindful of the right to free speech as enshrined in the US Constitution.
The first amendment offers broad protection of free speech, even if that speech is racist or of a violent nature. Prosecutions in the US are further complicated by the second amendment which safeguards the right to bear arms.
So what can be done to stop a shooter before they strike?
When a threat becomes a crime
More than two dozen people are reported to have been arrested for making threats to carry out mass violence since the 3 August shooting in El Paso.
Many of the alleged plots foiled by US law enforcement included plans to target specific minority groups. But without any federal penalties in place for acts of domestic terrorism – like those that exist for international terrorism – the charges varied – false threats, terrorist threats, illegal possession of weapons and disorderly conduct.
It’s unclear how these various cases will fare at trial. For charges asserting threats of violence, the threats must be highly specific, accompanied by evidence of imminent danger.
“The whole test is whether something is a clear or present danger,” says Martin Stolar, a civil rights lawyer based in New York. You must be expressing a clear intention to commit a crime, he continued, and close to committing it.
A case in Vermont shows how tricky it can be to prosecute. Jack Sawyer, 18, was arrested in 2018 after he threatened to cause mass casualties at his former high school. A friend had informed police, who searched his car and found a 31-page diary entitled Journal of an Active Shooter.
The state’s attorney charged Mr Sawyer with four felonies – two counts of attempted aggravated murder, and one count each of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, among the most serious charges in Vermont.
But within months, all four felony charges were dropped. Mr Sawyer walked free in April 2018 and has now been adjudicated as a youthful offender for carrying a dangerous weapon. He will remain under state supervision until he turns 22.
The court found that he had stated his intentions to commit harm but no action followed, says Vermont-based lawyer David Sleigh. “Simply contemplating a crime is not a crime in Vermont.”
All states have laws that bar violent threats. Threats made by US mail or interstate commerce, for example, are considered criminal. But those threats generally must include the incitement or solicitation of specific violent acts to be considered criminal.
“You don’t criticise someone for speaking, you criticise people for picking up a gun,” says Mr Stolar. “When speech crosses the line.”
Without a designated target, an immediate timeline, or clear preparations to commit assault, violent words may be protected speech.
There must be “action and imminent danger,” Mr Sleigh says. “As opposed to trying to criminalise evil or unpalatable thinking.”
What happens in other countries?
In terms of free speech protections, the US is singular.
“In some countries, they’ve criminalised certain types of hate speech that are protected here,” says Mary McCord, a former senior national security prosecutor, now legal director at Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.
“They have a tool available in those countries to prevent some of the type of speech that can be used to recruit new adherents to an ideology.”
What about other countries?
In the UK, for example, an expression of hatred related to a victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal.
In Canada, too, there are more restrictions on free speech than in the US. The federal criminal code includes multiple provisions barring hate speech, including those that impose criminal sanctions against anyone who willfully incites hatred in public against an identifiable group, including those distinguished by race, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.
Such sensitivities “present barriers,” Ms McCord says, “to effectively combat the spread of violent ideologies.”
But in the US, she continues, “we respect the first amendment.”
Is an arsenal legal?
The implications of the first amendment are complicated by the second, which enshrines the right to gun ownership.
In many of the recent arrests, suspects were found in possession of firearms and other weapons. But even where suspects were found with a hoard of firearms – like 18-year-old Justin Olsen, who was found with more than a dozen rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammunition – the cache of weapons uncovered were legally acquired, and do not provide grounds to prosecute.
“If a person’s not prohibited for having a weapon, he could have a bunch of weapons, he could not be breaking any laws at all,” says Ms McCord.
She has drafted a proposal to criminalise the stockpiling of weapons for use in a domestic attack.
“That would enable the government to prove his intent,” says Ms McCord, giving law enforcement an additional tool to thwart potential offenders before they act. Without standing law specifically addressing domestic terrorism, “law enforcement has to find something to charge [suspects] with because there’s nothing that directly applies. They’re cobbling things together to charge.”
Ms McCord is among a growing number of those within the intelligence community calling for domestic terrorism to be classified as a federal crime, giving law enforcement expanded preventative powers – similar to those that apply to international terrorist groups.
But some civil rights advocates and attorneys balk at giving the US government any more power. They argue that existing laws, when enforced, are sufficient.
“I think the rush to try to expand police authority into regulating rights of free speech or rights to gun ownership should be taken very, very carefully,” Mr Sleigh says.
Does the combination of the first and second amendment create a volatility that does not exist elsewhere, he asks.
“I suspect it does. But it’s been part of our national project to embrace that liberty and freedom, knowing that it comes with risk.”