Falls police investigating after man shot in legs on 19th Street

Niagara Gazette, Niagara Falls, N.Y.

Feb. 15—Niagara Falls police are investigating a Sunday night shooting incident on the 600 block of 19th Street.

About 9:15 p.m. Sunday, a 24-year-old city man arrived at Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center with several gunshot wounds to his legs. The man had been driven to the hospital by a private vehicle which then sped away, according to reports from the scene.

City officials said the man was uncooperative with police and medical personnel and at one point walked out of the hospital without treatment. He was located by police and returned to the hospital out of concern for the severity of his injuries. He was eventually treated by hospital staff.

He would not cooperate with investigating officers but the shooting is believed to have happened on the 600 block of 19th Street. According to reports from the scene, surveillance video from a nearby gas station showed a male who wasn't the gunshot victim jump out a second-floor window. Several drops of blood were reportedly found in the gas station parking lot.

The investigation of this incident is ongoing. Anyone with information is asked to call Niagara Falls Police detectives at 286-4553.

Latest Stories

  • Marjorie Taylor Greene calls for armed troops to be placed in schools on Parkland anniversary

    The National Guard was in Washington DC in response to the attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters

  • California Realtor Loses Job After Racist Video Harassing Asian Woman Goes Viral

    A real estate agent from Brentwood, CA was fired recently after a video of him hurling racist comments at an Asian woman surfaced online. This man singled me out bc I was an Asian girl walking by myself and took advantage.

  • Democrats Flirt with Destroying Another Senate Guardrail

    Senate Democrats considering the destruction of another set of Senate rules might want to heed the words of English lawyer and chancellor Sir Thomas More to his son-in-law centuries ago: And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? Then-Senator Harry Reid started this modern clearcutting of the rules back in 2013. He used the “nuclear option” to lower the vote threshold for confirmation in order to stack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Senator Mitch McConnell escalated by using the same standard to confirm Supreme Court nominees. As Majority Leader Chuck Schumer toys with the idea of blowing up the legislative filibuster as well, he is potentially poised to first unravel another important — if lesser-known — Senate rule in pursuit of an all-encompassing COVID-relief bill under the terms of “budget reconciliation.” We’re talking about the Byrd Rule (named after the late Senator Robert Byrd), which limits the ability of the majority to stuff extraneous legislative goodies into budget-related proposals and still pass them with a simple-majority vote under that process. Senator Byrd saw the danger of using reconciliation, which limits amendments and debate, to pursue broader, non-budgetary legislation outside regular order. As a defender of the right of all senators to debate and amend legislation, he fastened these restrictions onto the reconciliation process. This is for the greater good: the Byrd Rule protects Social Security from the reconciliation process, for instance, while limiting committees to proposals in their jurisdiction and requiring that the budget relevance of any proposal considered under this process be more than “merely incidental.” What this means is that major legislative policy changes can be made only when all senators have the right to fully debate and amend legislation — and to filibuster. Reconciliation otherwise “streamlines” this process at the expense of the minority. Today, fueled by rage and revenge, the leaders of the Senate care nothing for the reasons behind the rules; they want only to pass their legislation as quickly as possible. Most of the attention these past weeks has gone to the $15 minimum wage contained inside the COVID-relief package. This hardly meets the reconciliation standard on its own, but there will be other violations of the Byrd Rule in the bill the House will send to the Senate. That’s why Senate Democrats could aim to break the glass on Senate rules. As described by parliamentary expert Martin Gold, there are two ways to achieve this. First, there’s the more targeted attack on the Byrd Rule. Say Vice President Harris is in the chair when a senator raises a point of order against, for example, the minimum-wage hike. The Senate parliamentarian advises her that this particular section of the reconciliation bill is out of order. Despite all evidence and precedent that the section is out of order, the VP rules otherwise. Now the section takes only a simple majority to pass. However, if a senator who supports the Byrd Rule challenges the ruling of the chair, it will require a 60-vote majority to overrule Harris. That’s a high bar. So here, the chair’s judgment, which likely would stand, changes the precedent so that any other item in the bill that violates the Byrd Rule can be ruled acceptable under the new standard just established by the vice president. Republicans would have loved this when they were trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, but they respected Senate rules protecting the rights of the minority. This limited, surgical strike on the Byrd Rule would still disrupt the precedent in perpetuity. Meanwhile, there’s a broader attack that could be implemented. In this scenario, the majority leader addresses the chair and says that waiving the Byrd Rule only takes a simple-majority vote. It is clear under the rules and the precedents that this is false. If the chair rules that it takes 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule, the majority leader then appeals the ruling of the chair, which takes a simple-majority vote to overturn. Bingo — the protections of the Byrd Rule are dead, and now it takes only a simple-majority vote to put any legislative proposal the majority wants into the budget-reconciliation bill, bypassing legitimate debate and amendment. The result of this action would threaten any rule in the Senate. If at any time the majority wants to get rid of any rule, all they would have to do is appeal the ruling of the chair and muster a simple majority — silencing the opposition and forcing their will on the American people. Once upon a time, the U.S. Senate was called the world’s greatest deliberative body. As envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, there were rules that protected the minority and allowed for thorough debate. Sadly, it appears this current Senate majority cares little for the precedents that earned the U.S. Senate that title. But some caution on their part might be well-advised self-interest; tables have been known to turn. Editor’s Note: This piece has been updated with a corrected version of the quote attributed to Sir Thomas More.

  • Powerful Japan quake sets off landslide, minor injuries

    Residents in northeastern Japan on Sunday cleaned up clutter and debris in stores and homes after a strong earthquake set off a landslide on a highway, damaged buildings and parts of bullet train lines and caused power blackouts for thousands of people. The 7.3 magnitude temblor late Saturday shook the quake-prone areas of Fukushima and Miyagi prefectures that 10 years ago had been hit by a powerful earthquake that triggered a tsunami and a meltdown at a nuclear power plant. Tokyo Electric Power Co., the utility that runs the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant that was hit by the March 2011 disaster, said the water used to cool spent fuel rods near the reactors had spilled because of the shaking.

  • Home appraisal for Black couple skyrockets after white friend pretends to be homeowner

    Black Americans continue to face discrimination when it comes to building wealth through homeownership. Paul Austin and his wife, Tenisha Tate Austin, of Marin City purchased their first home off-market from another Black family in 2016. “I read the appraisal,” Tate Austin told ABC7.

  • Bangladesh to move more Rohingya Muslims to remote island, despite outcry

    Bangladesh is moving 3,000-4,000 more Rohingya Muslim refugees to a remote Bay of Bengal island over the next two days, two officials said on Sunday, despite concerns about the risk of storms and floods lashing the site. Dhaka has relocated around 7,000 to Bhasan Char island since early December from border camps in neighbouring Buddhist-majority Myanmar, where more than a million refugees live in ramshackle huts perched on razed hillsides. The Rohingya refugees will be moved to Bhasan Char by ships on Monday and Tuesday, Navy Commodore Rashed Sattar said from the island.

  • Majority of Republican voters support forming new third party, poll finds

    More than half of the Republican respondents said they wanted Mr Trump to continue leading the party

  • 500 Black and Asian Community Members Rally in Oakland as Holiday Weekend Sees Wave of Attacks, Robberies

    Members of Black and Asian communities convened on Saturday in Oakland, CA to rally against recent anti-Asian attacks, especially those in the Bay Area. What happened: During the rally, various speakers discussed the importance of solidarity among Black and Asian communities. More than 500 people showed up at Madison Park, according to NBC Bay Area.

  • Takeaways: AP investigation of China COVID-19 disinformation

    As the coronavirus spread last year, former President Donald Trump and leading U.S. conservatives floated the idea that the virus may have escaped from a Chinese lab or was created by China as a bioweapon. China pushed back. A nine-month AP investigation, conducted in collaboration with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, found China launched what may be its first global digital disinformation campaign, using its growing presence on Western social media to seed and spread stories suggesting the U.S. created COVID-19 as a bioweapon.

  • The Times Corrects the Record on Officer Sicknick’s Death, Sort Of

    A few days ago, the New York Times quietly “updated” its report, published over a month earlier, asserting that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick had been killed by being struck with a fire extinguisher during the January 6 riot. According to the update, “[n]ew information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police.” As I detailed in a column last week, what the Times calls “new information” actually began emerging the same day the paper filed its January 8 report. That report was (and still is) entitled, “Capitol Police Officer Dies from Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.” It was not the only such Times report from that day. There was another, entitled, “He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob,” in which the Times asserted: On Wednesday, pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy [i.e., the Capitol], overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. He died on Thursday evening. Yet, as early as the morning of January 8, KHOU in Houston reported that Sicknick had died from a stroke. The KHOU story made no mention of the officer’s being struck by a fire extinguisher. It did claim, however, that the stroke occurred “at the Capitol during riots,” and a caption under the officer’s photograph stated that he died “of injuries sustained during the riot at the Capitol.” The headline of the KHOU story attributes the conclusion that a stroke was the cause of death to the head of the Capitol Police union, Gus Papathanasiou. The body of the story identified Papathanasiou as its source for what turned out to be the erroneous report that Sicknick had passed away during the day on Thursday (the day after the riot); in fact, he was still on life-support at the time, and was pronounced dead late Thursday night. My aforementioned column noted that Fox News’s Tucker Carlson (relying on a report from the website Revolver News) had just reported that Sicknick was not taken to the hospital directly from the Capitol. To the contrary, not only had the officer made it back to police headquarters; he had texted his brother hours after the siege, stating that although he had been “pepper sprayed twice,” he was “in good shape.” Moreover, Carlson pointed to a CNN report on February 2, to the effect that, according to unidentified law-enforcement officials, medical examiners had found no evidence of blunt-force trauma on Sicknick’s body and concluded the fire extinguisher account was not true. To be clear, my purpose in focusing on this story has not been to break news, much less to claim credit for the Times’ implicit acknowledgement that its original stories were wrong. In addition to Tucker Carlson, Revolver News, and KHOU, Julie Kelly of American Greatness was also on this before I was — and has emphasized that I was duped. I have focused on the story for two reasons. First, I am one of the analysts who uncritically relied on the Times’ initial reporting, deducing from it the conclusion that Sicknick had been “murdered” by the rioters — not a long logical leap if you credit the assertion that a police officer was bashed over the head with a lethal object by rioters who were intentionally and forcibly confronting security forces. Julie Kelly took me to task again yesterday for having “regurgitated” the “narrative that Sicknick was murdered,” which I certainly did do — although I am not, as she describes, a political pundit of the “NeverTrump Right.” Because I repeated a very serious allegation that had not been supported by credible evidence from identifiable sources, I thought it was important to make clear, to the extent it is in my power to do so, that there is now immense reason to doubt the original reporting — while confessing (with a link to the column in which I included the “murder” allegation) that I was as guilty as any other analyst or reporter who amplified the dubious account. Second, and more significantly, the death of Officer Sicknick became a building block for the House’s impeachment of former President Trump and of the allegations posited by the Democratic House impeachment managers that were publicly filed in their pretrial brief on February 2. By then, there was already substantial reason to question the fire-extinguisher allegation. Prosecutors have an obligation, rooted in due process and professional ethics, to reveal exculpatory evidence. That includes evidence that is inconsistent with the theory of guilt they have posited. Even if Sicknick’s death was causally connected to the rioting, prosecutors would be obligated to correct the record if it did not happen the way they expressly represented that it happened. The House impeachment managers had not done that last week when NR published my column raising that issue, and to this day, although the impeachment trial is now over, we are still in the dark about the circumstances surrounding the officer’s tragic death, at age 42. Which brings us back to the original Times report. The “updated” version is, to put it mildly, confusing. At first, it attributes to unidentified “authorities” the claim that Sicknick “died from injuries sustained ‘while physically engaging’ with pro-Trump rioters.” The Times then describes Sicknick as “only the fourth member of the force to be killed in the line of duty since its founding two centuries ago.” That assertion is published as if it were an established fact, with no source. But has it been established that Sicknick was “killed”? Has it been established that he died from injuries sustained while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters? To my knowledge, it has not. And even the Times implicitly admits that it is unsure of what it is saying. A few paragraphs later, the same report now states: The circumstances surrounding Mr. Sicknick’s death were not immediately clear, and the Capitol Police said only that he had “passed away due to injuries sustained while on duty.” This seems very lawyered. Sustained “while on duty” is not the same as a sustained “while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters” (internal quotes omitted). The Times goes on to acknowledge that “law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher” but that “weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit,” and that “one law enforcement official” (unidentified, of course) says, “medical experts have said [Sicknick] did not die of blunt force trauma.” The latest Capitol Police version of events seems to be, “He returned to his division office and collapsed. . . . He was taken to a local hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.” What injuries? We’re not told. Although the Times further concedes that it is “unclear where Mr. Sicknick’s encounter with rioters took place,” the paper weirdly adds that “photos and videos posted by a local reporter during the night of chaos showed a man spraying a fire extinguisher outside the Senate chamber, with a small number of police officers overlooking the area on a nearby stairway.” Okay, but so what? The Times does not say these officers included Sicknick, and the paper’s original claim — which became the House impeachment managers’ formal allegation — was that Sicknick had been hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. In light of the way the Times has already confused matters, to the point of having to provide a not-very-edifying “update,” why speculate that the cited photos and videos are relevant to Sicknick’s death? Meantime, the word “stroke” does not appear in the Times’ updated story. So is the paper discounting the report that Sicknick died of a stroke, even though that assertion was attributed to a named person presumably in a position to know — the head of the Capitol Police union? And what is the basis for the Times’ continued claim that Sicknick died from injuries sustained while physically engaging with pro-Trump rioters? Of course, it is entirely possible — perhaps even probable — that this is true. But without an autopsy report, and with indications that Sicknick was able to get back to his office from the siege, later told his brother he was in good shape despite being pepper-sprayed, and bore no signs of blunt-force trauma, why maintain this assertion? After all, the Times has updated its story because the story, as originally published, was misleading. And the Democratic House managers — after resting their allegation solely on the Times’ dubious fire-extinguisher claim — essentially steered clear of the circumstances surrounding Sicknick’s death during their impeachment trial presentation. Irrespective of whether impeachment had ever been pursued, it is vital that we have an accurate accounting of what happened on January 6, including an accurate accounting of what happened to Officer Brian Sicknick. And since impeachment was pursued, we are also owed an explanation of why the House managers did not clarify the circumstances of Sicknick’s death after making an explosive allegation about how it came to pass.

  • Israel plans to reopen restaurants in March, restart tourism with Cyprus

    Israel plans to reopen restaurants around March 9 and restart tourism with Cyprus as part of a gradual return to normality thanks to a COVID-19 vaccination campaign, officials said on Sunday. With more than 41% of Israelis having received at least one shot of Pfizer Inc's vaccine, Israel has said it will partially reopen hotels and gyms on Feb. 23 to those fully inoculated or deemed immune after recovering from COVID-19. To gain entry, these beneficiaries would have to present a "Green Pass", displayed on a Health Ministry app linked to their medical files.

  • What’s happening with Joe Biden’s gun control plan?

    ‘We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now,’ the president said on the anniversary of the Parkland massacre, America’s worst high school shooting

  • Indian police arrest more climate change protesters after charging Greta Thunberg supporter with sedition

    India has upped its ante against environment campaigners despite mounting outrage over a young climate activist’s arrest, and on Monday issued non-bailable arrest warrants against two more protesters. Delhi Police issued arrest warrants against two Mumbai-based activists for creating and circulating the so-called “toolkit” shared by Swedish environmentalist Greta Thunberg on Indian farmers’ protests. Police are expected to arrest more people in the case. "The main aim of the 'toolkit' was to create misinformation and disaffection against the lawfully enacted government," Delhi police official Prem Nath told reporters. "The toolkit sought to artificially amplify fake news through various tweets which they have created in the form of a tweet bank. And they sought the public to participate in the action on Jan 26 that was the Republic Day of India," Mr Nath said. Last month, thousands of Indian farmers overwhelmed police and stormed into the historic Red Fort complex in New Delhi, after tearing down barricades and driving tractors through roadblocks.

  • 14 killed in highway crash in India; 4 critically injured

    A speeding minibus jumped a road divider and crashed into a truck on a highway in southern India early Sunday, killing 14 members of a family, police said. The only survivors in the bus, four children under the age of 12, were critically injured, said police officer Fakirappa, who uses one name. The family was heading to Ajmer on a Muslim pilgrimage in western India, he said.

  • J&J's vaccine implementation study in S.Africa gets regulator nod

    South Africa's drugs regulator SAHPRA said on Monday it has approved an implementation study of Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine, clearing the way to start the country's first inoculations among health workers. South Africa is yet to start its COVID-19 vaccination programme and the government has decided to go with the J&J dose after trial results this month showed AstraZeneca's two-shot vaccine was less effective against the new variant of the coronavirus dominating South African infections. "SAHPRA has approved the implementation study," the regulator said in response to Reuters questions, but added it was still reviewing its separate full market application.

  • White House aide resigns after threatening reporter

    White House deputy press secretary T.J. Ducklo has resigned, the day after he was suspended for sending a sexist and profane threat to a journalist seeking to cover his relationship with another reporter.

  • Texas residents told to stay off roads as ‘historic Arctic outbreak’ leaves 2.5 million without power

    Areas of all of state’s 254 counties are currently under winter storm watch amid state of emergency

  • Myanmar rattled by army movements, apparent internet cutoff

    Sightings of armored personnel carriers in Myanmar’s biggest city and an internet shutdown raised political tensions late Sunday, after vast numbers of people around the country flouted orders against demonstrations to protest the military’s seizure of power. Public concern has already been heightened for the past few nights by what many charge is the military’s manipulation of criminals released from prison to carry out nighttime violence and stir up panic. Ambassadors from the United States and Canada and 12 European nations called on Myanmar's security forces to refrain from violence against those “protesting the overthrow of their legitimate government.”

  • Roadmap out of lockdown will be 'cautious, but irreversible', says Boris Johnson - but no guarantee it's the last

    EU vaccine drive is a 'fiasco', says Guy Verhofstadt Grim reality for first passengers to endure the UK's quarantine hotels Vaccines are working as over-80s deaths drop twice as quickly as under-65s Coronavirus latest news: Daily cases fall below 10,000 for first time since September Subscribe to The Telegraph, free for one month The roadmap out of lockdown will be "cautious but irreversible", Boris Johnson has said, as he stressed the need for coronavirus rates to come "really, really low" first. During a visit to a vaccine centre, the Prime Minister said his roadmap would include dates "by which we hope we can do something at the earliest", following demands from backbench Tories for greater clarity. But speaking later, he admitted he could not give a "cast-iron guarantee" that it would be the last lockdown. "We want this lockdown to be the last. And we want progress to be cautious but also irreversible," he told a Downing Street press conference. Mr Johnson said he was was "increasingly optimistic" about the possibilities to ease restrictions, with science "in the ascendancy" against the virus, but did not rule out more to come. "I'm very hopeful that we'll be able to go ahead and open things up, but to say I can give an absolute cast iron guarantee that we won't face further difficulties and have to think harder and deeper about some problems, no at this stage I can't," he said. Read the latest updates below.

  • India to ship COVID-19 vaccines to Canada as diplomatic tension eases

    India's Serum Institute will ship COVID-19 vaccines to Canada within a month, its chief executive said on Monday, in a sign a diplomatic row triggered by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's comments on political protests in India was easing. Trudeau said the months-long protests by farmers on the outskirts of Delhi were concerning, drawing a rebuke from the Indian government which said it was an internal matter. Last week, however, Trudeau spoke to Indian counterpart Narendra Modi and they discussed the two countries' commitment to democracy.