Argentina’s Provincial Commission for Memory (CPM, in Spanish) filed a criminal complaint Monday against national government officials over the police operation that left more than 550 people injured during the fifth federal university march in Buenos Aires.
The complaint, submitted to the Federal Court led by Judge Sebastián Ramos, calls for an investigation into both the officers who took part in the operation and the political authorities who ordered the security deployment during the day of protest.
A report prepared by the autonomous body found that the police intervention stretched on for more than three hours.
Security forces fired rubber bullets horizontally at the bodies of demonstrators, deployed water cannons at high pressure and launched more than 120 tear gas grenades in what the report described as a disproportionate use of force.
The formal filing also stated that the attacks reached medical assistance teams, press workers and human rights observers. At the same time, the National Committee for the Prevention of Torture monitored the street actions and warned of an abusive use of force that led to the detention of four adults and two teenagers.
The figure of more than 550 people affected or injured gives the operation a scale recorded in Argentine protests. The Argentine Provincial Commission for Memory report documented the trajectory of the rubber bullets, the intensity of the water cannons and the volume of chemical agents deployed against a crowd that included students, teachers and ordinary citizens.
The fifth federal university march brought thousands of people into the streets across the country to demand that President Javier Milei enforce the University Financing Law. The legislation, approved by the National Congress and reaffirmed after being vetoed by the executive branch, has the backing of the judiciary to guarantee the budget of the public education system.
Human rights organizations demanded the urgent delimitation of criminal and institutional responsibilities in the face of the reported escalation of violence. Torture prevention bodies stressed that the use of less lethal weapons requires strict protocols to protect the integrity of those exercising their constitutional right to protest.
The advance of the legal actions keeps the conduct of the Ministry of Security and the management of social conflict in the Argentine capital at the center of national debate. The complaint before Judge Ramos seeks to establish who ordered the deployment and who allowed the operation to continue for hours despite the growing number of injuries.
University communities announced that they will maintain institutional and street actions to demand the budget allocation that the law grants to higher education institutions. The protest movement shows no sign of retreat, even as the judicial process begins to examine the events of the march.
The Provincial Commission for Memory (CPM, in Spanish), an autonomous body with a long record of documenting state violence, placed the operation within a broader pattern of concern. Its report argues that the use of force crossed the line separating legitimate public order maintenance from punishment aimed at those who dissent.
The case now rests with the Federal Court, which must decide whether to summon the security agents and the political officials identified in the filing. The outcome will shape how Argentina addresses the use of force against social protest, a question that has divided the country since the march left its toll of injured demonstrators on the streets of the capital.
San Francisco's federal courthouse held the detention hearing for Abdulrahman Alfozan, the arrested and fired OpenAI engineer, on Monday.
Brennan Smart/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Abdulrahman Alfozan will stay jailed pre-trial, a San Francisco judge decided Monday.
The engineer is accused of bugging a conference room at OpenAI, and he has been fired.
Alfozan posed a risk of non-appearance, the judge said, after discussing his ties to Saudi Arabia.
A former OpenAI engineer accused of bugging the AI startup's office was denied release by a San Francisco judge on Monday, meaning he'll have to mount his defense from jail.
The Justice Department arrested Abdulrahman Alfozan on October 9 and charged him with using or attempting to use a device to intercept oral communications. He's accused of placing a recording device behind a television in an OpenAI conference room — an FBI affidavit includes photos of the device wrapped in toilet paper, and a man they say is Alfozan peering behind the TV.
On Monday, the engineer wore a yellow surgical mask and a jail-issued orange sweatshirt to the San Francisco courthouse. Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse prodded Alfozan's legal team about the risk that he might not appear for a future court hearing.
Tse said that Alfozan's wife and son had traveled to Saudi Arabia with no plans to return, and went back and forth with Yasin about a one-way ticket that Alfozan had previously booked to the country. Tse said that Saudi Arabia and the US do not have an extradition agreement, and expressed skepticism that he had sufficient ties to the Bay Area to prevent his departure.
William Pernik, Alfozan's attorney, argued that, rather than being detained, Alfozan should be fitted with an ankle monitor, ordered to stay home, and have limits placed on his use of technology. The lawyer also said Alfozan is willing to put up "essentially all the money his family has" as bond, including a roughly $1 million investment account.
"Everything this man has, he's willing to surrender, and say, 'I'm not going anywhere,'" Pernik said.
Pernik and Nas Yasin, another of Alfozan's attorneys, cited his coming naturalization interview as evidence of his local ties.
"He was weeks away from achieving every immigrant's dream in this country," Pernik said.
Yasin told Tse that she learned Alfozan's wife had obtained a short-term visitor visa to return to the US, to help improve her husband's case for ties to the Bay Area.
Tse also asked Alfozan's legal team a slew of questions about his relationship with Saudi Arabia, including a commitment by the Saudi consulate to pay his bond and support his legal effort.
Nick Parker, an assistant US attorney, appeared for the prosecution. He argued that the threat of forfeiting a $1 million bond wouldn't be enough to convince Alfozan to return if he made it out of the US, because he might be able to earn more money in Saudi Arabia.
"There is a real threat here that once he leaves, the case is over," Tse responded.
The judge scheduled the case's next hearing for early November.
OpenAI called the recording device "sophisticated" when the arrest went public, though it said it hadn't found signs that he'd taken AI model weights, source code, or customer information. OpenAI fired Alfozan.
Alfozan's charge carries a maximum penalty of 5 years. Pernik said in a statement last week that the allegations "appear wholly out of character for him."
Alfozan, 35, has a green card that makes him a lawful permanent resident of the United States. He attended MIT, then worked at Facebook (now Meta) from 2017 to 2023. After a stint at the engineering startup Nash Technologies, Alfozan joined OpenAI in 2025.
FBI agents have already taken Alfozan's Saudi passport.
Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at scouncil@businessinsider.com, or over text, Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 415-757-8198. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.
Israel continues to imprison her without charge or trial. Her lawyers have not been able to visit her. Her prolonged solitary confinement is a violation of international standards – Supporters ask the Red Cross to urgently intervene
The EU has demanded a reform of Ukraine's notoriously corrupt and politicized prosecution service and called for making the procedure for picking the prosecutor general less political and more merit-based. Meanwhile, anti-corruption activists and pro-reform lawmakers have accused the Ukrainian authorities of sabotaging rule of law reforms and resisting the demand for depoliticizing the Prosecutor General's Office.
A man described as Abdulrahman Alfozan, a Saudi national employed as an OpenAI engineer, looks behind a television where a recording device has been placed in a conference room at OpenAI.
DOJ/Reuters
Prosecutors say an ex-OpenAI employee accused of planting a recording device appears to have received support from the Saudi government.
A federal magistrate judge ruled on Monday that Abdulrahman Alfozan should remain in custody.
Prosecutors said that Alfozan frequently communicated with a member of the Saudi Royal Family.
Prosecutors made the disclosure in a motion to keep Abdulrahman Alfozan, a Saudi national and former OpenAI employee, in custody pending trial. US Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse ruled on Monday that Alfozan should remain in custody.
Alfozan had been in contact as recently as October 5 with an unnamed member of the Saudi Royal Family, whom he frequently communicated with on WhatsApp over the last two years, prosecutors said.
"In May 2026, the individual told the defendant, 'Saudi needs you more then [sic] the US!' to which the defendant responded '100,"' indicating he agreed," prosecutors wrote.
The FBI arrested Alfozan on October 9. According to a criminal complaint, Alfozan planted a recording device in the back of a TV in an OpenAI conference room where sensitive discussions take place. OpenAI's security cameras caught Alfozan near the conference room on multiple occasions, despite his lack of authorization to the high-level meetings held there, prosecutors said.
"In the days surrounding the time period that the device was installed, OpenAI executives met with government officials in that very room," prosecutors wrote in a filing on Sunday. "Defendant's conduct could pose a danger to the national security of the United States."
The complaint included a photo of what prosecutors said was Alfozan peering behind the TV where the recording device was found.
In addition to his WhatsApp messaging, prosecutors wrote that an unnamed member of the Saudi military booked a flight for Alfozan's wife and son on October 11, despite an existing reservation for an October 12 flight, which prosecutors said was "paid for by the Saudi government."
Prosecutors also disclosed more information about Alfozan's alleged efforts to plant the device. According to the filing, Alfozan's iPhone had photos of "what appear to be the input/output panels on televisions and other electronic devices in various locations in OpenAI buildings."
Those locations, prosecutors wrote, included "another conference room where sensitive meetings frequently occurred."
Other files on the phone, including a note modified as recently as September 13, listed "Riyadh tasks" like "finding an apartment and a job for the defendant's wife, as well as obtaining an ID and a Saudi passport for his son," the filing said.
Another note titled "OpenAI leave" suggested that Alfozan "was planning an '[e]arly … pick up' of the devices he had installed or intended to install and then extending his planned parental 'leave to full.,'" prosecutors wrote.
As part of their reasons for requesting that the former OpenAI engineer remain in custody, prosecutors wrote that Alfozan's wife and son left the US without him and are now in Saudi Arabia. The filing also said "both of his parents and all (or all but one) of his siblings" are in Saudi Arabia.
In a separate filing, William Pernik, Alfozan's attorney, said that the former OpenAI engineer did not pose a flight risk.
"Mr. Alfozan was made aware of OpenAI finding the device per its own filings and OpenAI's public statements, approximately eight to ten days before he was arrested," Pernik wrote. "If his intention was to flee, he would have done so at that time."
Pernik said that prosecutors' previous disclosure that Alfozan had purchased a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia lacked context.
"Seventy percent of the airline bookings in his email since January 2021 (96 of 138) were one-way tickets," Pernik wrote.
It all begins in Ravenna, a historic city and major Italian port on the Adriatic coast. The port of Ravenna is a civilian port: bulk cargo, fertilizers, containers, cruise ships. Yet in a brief filed this summer with the Council of State, the State Attorney General’s Office attributed “military significance” to it within the country’s maritime defense system. The reason lies in a single sentence: making certain data public would pose an unacceptable risk because “a ‘piecemeal’ and ‘hybrid’ world war is underway, involving, among others, Italy as well.”
The data did not consist of routes, schedules, or ship names. They were aggregate figures: the amount of military equipment that left the port in 2025, broken down by four-month period and categorized as exports or transit. Journalist Linda Maggiori had requested this information in January under the general right of access to public information—Italy’s equivalent of the FOIA—which does not require justification. On October 13, Il Fatto Quotidiano turned the statement into a national issue. On October 16, the Sixth Section of the Council of State rejected the Customs Agency’s appeal.
In February, the Customs Agency, which reports to the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), denied the request entirely, citing national security, public order, and commercial confidentiality. Maggiori, represented by attorney Andrea Maestri, filed an appeal with the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court (TAR), which on July 1 partially upheld the appeal: the quantities must be made public because the numerical data is “neutral,” while the destinations may remain confidential. Customs, represented by the State Attorney’s Office, filed an appeal. The Council of State upheld the Regional Administrative Court’s ruling: the administration failed to demonstrate either the necessity or the concrete nature of the harm. It also noted “apparently contradictory” conduct, as the Livorno Customs Office had previously provided similar data without objection.
In February 2025, approximately 13 metric tons of forged parts bound for an Israeli defense company were seized in Ravenna without export authorization; the proceedings are ongoing, and the presumption of innocence applies. It appears that on October 14 of this year, another 4 metric tons were at the port.
What does “war” mean, who decides, and the arms law
The word has three meanings, and memory confuses them. The first is constitutional. Article 11 establishes that Italy “rejects war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means of resolving international disputes.” Article 78 entrusts the Chambers with the authority to declare a state of war and to grant the necessary powers to the government; Article 87 assigns the declaration of war to the President of the Republic. In the history of the Republic, a state of war has never been declared: neither in 1991, nor for Kosovo, Afghanistan, or Libya.
The second meaning is international: under international humanitarian law, armed conflict exists de facto, but supplying weapons to a belligerent party—according to prevailing legal opinion and that of the International Committee of the Red Cross—does not make one a party to the conflict. The third issue is political-strategic. “Hybrid warfare” (cyberattacks, sabotage, disinformation below the threshold of armed conflict) and “proxy war” are analytical tools, not legal categories. In a judicial ruling, therefore, a political term was used to justify an exception to a legal right. The Council of State rejected the postponement.
Parliament declares a state of war, authorizes missions (Law 145/2016), and receives the annual report on exports. The government authorizes exports through the UAMA of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Prime Minister is the sole custodian of state secrets (Law 124/2007), under the oversight of COPASIR. The President of the Republic chairs the Supreme Defense Council. The Ministry of Defense signs the classified aid packages for Ukraine. The State Attorney’s Office, which reports to the Prime Minister’s Office, defends government agencies in court: its briefs are legal documents, not foreign policy statements. No minister has yet clarified whether they agree with the statements made therein.
Moreover, the information has never been classified as a state secret. Customs authorities have invoked the relevant provisions of Article 5-bis of the Transparency Decree (Legislative Decree 33/2013), which allow for a refusal only if necessary to avoid “concrete harm” to national security, defense, or international relations.
Law No. 185 of 1990 prohibits the export and transit of arms to countries engaged in armed conflict in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, to countries whose policies conflict with Article 11, to countries under embargo, or to those responsible for serious human rights violations. However, it excludes government-to-government transfers and transits for NATO forces. The annual report to Parliament (Art. 5) lists authorizations by country and company, not by port: no public document specifies how much passes through a single port. This is the gap that the Ravenna petition sought to fill. According to the Peace and Disarmament Network, the government’s reform bill, approved by the Senate in 2024 (A.C. 1730), would reduce the data included in the report; based on the sources consulted, it has not yet been definitively approved.
Those who defend confidentiality argue that harmless data—aggregated and cross-referenced with maritime tracking data—could reveal supply routes: this is the argument used by the Trieste Customs Office to deny an identical petition. Also important are obligations to allies and corporate confidentiality. Those advocating for transparency point out that Law 185 stems from the idea that arms require more public oversight, not less, because they pertain to Article 11 and, in the case of free transfers, involve public funds. An annual total does not enable hostile actions, and data published in Livorno does not become dangerous simply because it is in Ravenna.
Secrecy has a legitimate place. The Constitutional Court has linked it to national security since Ruling 86/1977 and reaffirmed this in the Abu Omar case (106/2009). Secrecy becomes problematic when it loses its criteria: concrete evidence of harm, proportionality, a time limit, consistency among agencies, and oversight by a judge or Parliament. The argument of a “piecemeal world war” failed on all counts. It did not identify any harm, rejected the Regional Administrative Court’s (TAR) compromise solution, treated data from a past year as if it were an ongoing operation, and contradicted the Livorno ruling. If merely invoking a widespread conflict suffices, then that justification applies to any data and indefinitely: hybrid wars, as described in official documents themselves, have no declared beginning nor anticipated end.
That language has a specific origin: the Ministry of Defense’s non-paper from November 2025, according to which Italy is already embroiled in a hybrid conflict. Committees and unions believe that part of Ravenna’s cargo is destined for Haifa and Ashdod: the withheld data would make it possible to verify this.
The political paradox
The government states in Parliament that Italy is not at war; one of its agencies writes the same in court to conceal a figure. The case was successfully closed, but only thanks to a journalist willing to pursue the matter through two levels of appeal. Yet, even with the case closed, the gravity of what was stated remains.
If the state deems the international situation serious enough to restrict the right to information, that assessment cannot be confined to a customs office or a legal brief. The logic of Article 78 applies even on a small scale: whoever invokes the exception must answer for it before Parliament. All that is needed is the uniform publication of quantities for each port—as requested by the Ravenna Region and Municipality—their inclusion in the report on Law 185, and a review of the classifications by COPASIR, with predefined deadlines.
An emergency becomes permanent when no one declares it and no one revokes it. One question remains for Parliament: if the State considers itself to be at war, why does it not state so where the Constitution requires it to do so? And if it does not consider itself to be at war, by what authority does one of its bodies write as much?
Cooley has made billions doing what law firms do: hire great lawyers, bill for their time, and keep clients happy. Artificial intelligence is scrambling that formula. If machines can do in minutes what once took an associate hours, what exactly should clients be paying for?
Rachel Proffitt thinks she has the answer.
On a toasty October afternoon in San Francisco, I met Proffitt for lunch to talk about the future of the global law firm she now leads. When the check arrived, neither of us knew how much the restaurant paid the dishwasher or how many minutes the chef spent preparing our meal. We were paying for the experience, not the labor behind it.
Why, she wondered, should legal services be so different?
"Clients have never been excited about the fact that it took us 82 hours to do something. They don't care," she says. "They just want the outcome. They want the results."
The billable hour is only the beginning. AI is forcing law firms to rethink how many associates they really need and how those young lawyers learn their craft. Client relationships are changing as companies use software to get a head start on the work they send to outside counsel. Some of that work may never reach a lawyer at all.
If tech is about to reinvent law firms, Cooley should be one of the firms with the clearest view of what's coming. From its early days on San Francisco's Market Street, it worked with semiconductor manufacturers and venture capitalists when the valley was still covered in fruit trees and canneries. Cooley grew up alongside the tech industry, and today it is as comfortable defending Meta in court as it is helping Andreessen Horowitz round up billion-dollar funds.
That evolution has been lucrative. Cooley says its gross revenue jumped from $912 million in 2015 to $2.4 billion last fiscal year. Its crosstown rival, Wilson Sonsini, brought in $1.7 billion in 2025, according to The American Lawyer. Still, the gulf between Cooley and Big Law's largest firms remains enormous. Kirkland & Ellis, the industry's revenue leader, cracked $10 billion last year. Latham & Watkins, another go-to firm for Silicon Valley, hit $8.3 billion.
The next wave of tech public listings promises a fortune in legal fees for the chosen few. Gibson Dunn landed SpaceX's IPO. Anthropic tapped Wilson Sonsini for its coming listing. And Cooley is reportedly sharing OpenAI's IPO work with Wachtell Lipton, one of Wall Street's most formidable law firms.
The irony is hard to miss. Big Law is fighting for a piece of the biggest technology companies in the world, even as those companies build the tools that could upend the business of law itself.
Proffitt came up as a lawyer under the old rules. Her next task is to figure out what it will take to build a great law firm under the new ones.
'The winner's circle'
Rachael Wright for BI
Profitt didn't grow up wanting to be a lawyer but liked how law school taught her to think. Litigation was out of the question: Public speaking during mock trials made her stomach turn. "It was transactional law or bust," she says.
She started her career as a summer associate at Wilson Sonsini and worked her way up to partner. She fell in love with the intensity of the work, pulling all-nighters at the financial printers where she marked up securities filings by hand. She recalls the Christmas Eve when her father marveled that she had made it through the day without taking a work call. After 15 years at the firm, she left for Cooley in 2017.
Three years ago, Proffitt got a call at home that she didn't see coming. Joe Conroy, then Cooley's chief executive, wanted to know whether she would consider succeeding him.
She was flattered, but also "a bit terrified," she says. She spent two decades helping startups, including Unity Software, Procore, and Instacart, raise money and go public. Running a firm with 3,000 employees was another matter. She talked to her family, then put herself forward for the job. She started in 2024.
Proffitt couldn't have guessed how quickly AI would jolt her industry from its steady state. It wasn't too long ago that clients insisted that the technology go nowhere near their work, fearing what would happen if their data disappeared into someone else's model.
"It was clear to me then that we don't get to just exist as we are and continue to be at the top of our game," she says.
Cooley had remade itself once before. The firm's Silicon Valley roots were both a strength and a liability, said Conroy in an interview. Cooley was known for helping startups get off the ground. The conventional wisdom was that as those companies grew, they would graduate to one of the elite New York law firms for their biggest deals and courtroom battles.
To keep clients from the garage to the boardroom, as Conroy put it, Cooley needed to expand. It opened new offices and built out its litigation and capital markets practices. The firm also spent years courting Wall Street banks, says Proffitt, so that when a company asked which law firm to hire for its IPO, Cooley would make its shortlist.
Today, its client roster reads like a Kiplinger roundup of hot tech stocks: Nvidia, Uber, Snowflake, and Zoom, to name a few listings it worked on. Since 2016, Cooley has advised issuers on 183 IPOs that raised nearly $59 billion, making it the second-most active firm by deal count after Latham, according to Deal Point Data. Proffitt wouldn't discuss reports that Cooley has landed OpenAI's IPO work.
For 16 years, Conroy pushed Cooley toward what he calls Big Law's "winner's circle." Proffitt's job is to get it there.
Startup speed
Rachael Wright for BI
Her strategy starts with making Cooley move more like the tech companies it represents.
Proffitt recruited David Wang, a former lawyer turned legal technology executive, with an ambitious mandate. She didn't just want to make Cooley's lawyers more productive, Wang said in an interview. She wanted to change how clients interact with them altogether.
Earlier this year, Cooley launched a tool with the startup Legora that lets Y Combinator founders review common contracts without calling a lawyer. OpenAI helped it build a tool for Cooley's lawyers to prepare paperwork for companies going public. Next, Cooley is working with Google on an AI agent that scans documents for confidential information before they're filed in court, then suggests redactions for lawyers to review.
There's something almost cannibalistic about a law firm building software that could eat into its own billable hours. But Cooley sees a bigger risk in letting someone else do it. In-house legal teams are increasingly using chatbots to take the first crack at work they would otherwise send to outside counsel. A new breed of "AI-native" law firms is promising cheaper, faster services.
Big Law does not want to be caught flatfooted. Firms are throwing money at startups like Harvey and Legora, and increasingly, they're building their own technology. Kirkland has committed $500 million to proprietary software, starting with a platform for private equity fundraising built with Palantir. Latham bought its own Nvidia servers so it can customize models in-house. Like Cooley, Wilson Sonsini has self-service tools that let companies handle basic legal work.
For Proffitt, the danger isn't lost billable hours. It's the missed connections. The scrappy startup that needs a contract reviewed today might need help closing an acquisition later. But if the bots take care of the small stuff, Cooley could miss its chance to build the relationship.
Proffitt says Cooley must find new ways to connect with clients. Putting technology in their hands is one option, even if it means giving away a little of the work.
"When you need the next thing that matters, the thing that you don't trust to put into the machine," she says, "how do I ensure that you want to talk to our team?"
The firm is also rethinking its own structure for the new era. Wang now leads Cooley AI, a wholly owned subsidiary designed to operate at something closer to startup speed. The separate company gives his team more freedom to hire engineers and put new technology through its paces, he says, without getting bogged down in the parent firm's bureaucracy.
The irony, Proffitt says, is that all this technology could leave lawyers with more time for the human stuff. Lawyers may visit their clients more. Talk through thorny decisions. Drop in on the strategy session to learn how their advice fits into a client's business.
Keeping those relationships alive might require a little more old-fashioned schmoozing. When I asked Proffitt whether the answer was throwing great parties, she didn't entirely disagree. "Everyone loves a party," she says.
The future of legal work
Proffitt doesn't pretend to have a crystal ball. She has ideas, though.
The billable hour? Not dead yet. She expects law firms to offer clients a menu of pricing options, from hourly rates to flat fees and outcome-based pricing.
Hiring slowdowns at the junior level? "Too early to tell," she says.
The apprenticeship model? That gets trickier. If software can write first drafts and spot issues, how will young lawyers get the practice they need? Proffitt says Cooley is exploring ways for associates to sharpen their skills on simulated legal matters, starting with AI-powered mock depositions.
Proffitt came up in an era when canceled dinners and all-nighters were a badge of honor. She's betting that the next generation won't need quite so many of them to become great lawyers. Her test will come a decade from now, when today's junior associates are ready to make partner.
If Cooley has found a better way to teach them, perhaps the old model won't be missed. If it hasn't, no amount of AI can make up the difference.
Melia Robinson is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, where she writes about how artificial intelligence is changing the legal industry.
Last week, not only did Oregon's restrictive gun laws fail to stop a shooter intent on killing innocent people, but a passing good Samaritan had to violate those laws to end the murder spree. Fortunately, authorities don't appear intent on prosecuting Kaylub Giamanco, father to two girls who attend the school, for ignoring the ban on guns on school grounds to save lives. But the law is clearly more of a threat to people with good intent than it is to those bent on doing harm. Such laws should and must be defied, but lawmakers need to remove these legal minefields before they do more damage.
A Hero Dad With a Gun Stops a Murder Spree
"I want to start by thanking and praising the quick thinking and courage of the Silver Rail Elementary School staff and parents—and the first responders who rushed to the scene," Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek commented in a press release after the attack by a 16-year-old shooter at Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon. "And to the community member who heroically intervened to stop further loss of life, your actions carry a heavy emotional burden—and my thoughts are with you."
That community member was Kaylub Giamanco, who had two daughters at the school. He was reportedly driving past when he saw the shooter approaching Silver Rail with a shotgun in hand. Giamanco parked his vehicle, grabbed his firearm, and followed the shooter, who had blasted his way through the facility's locked doors.
The shooter murdered four people, but Giamanco was able to kill him before he did any more damage. In the incident, the murderer obviously violated the law. But so did Giamanco.
Restrictive Laws That Had To Be Ignored
"Oregon gun laws are rated as the 12th strictest in the nation according to data collected by gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety, but they didn't stop the shooting of four elementary school children and two teachers at a Bend elementary school on Thursday," wrote Lillian Mongeau Hughes of The Oregonian. (Reports say three children and a teacher were murdered, with two others injured.)
The gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety boasts that "Oregon has passed a broad range of gun safety laws in recent years, including a requirement that guns be securely stored whenever they are not in their owner's immediate control, a prohibition on guns at the state capitol, and a law that gives universities the authority to prohibit guns on their grounds."
The similarly restriction-oriented Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives Oregon an A- for its laws, ranking the state 11th out of 50. The group notes that the state "allowed local governments to limit firearms in government buildings."
Of specific interest in this case, the state adopted a law in 2021 that, among other things, says "the governing board of a community college or a district school board" may adopt policies banning guns on school grounds, even for those "licensed to carry a concealed handgun."
Importantly, the Bend–La Pine Schools, which include Silver Rail, mandate that "no person on grounds of the schools controlled by the Board of Directors for Bend–La Pine Schools (including in school buildings) shall bring to, possess, conceal or use a weapon or firearm at any property under the jurisdiction of Bend-La Pine Schools, any activities under the jurisdiction of the district, or any interscholastic activities administered by a voluntary organization (i.e., Oregon School Activities Association). This prohibition includes those who may otherwise be permitted by law to carry such weapons or firearms."
The prohibition applies to the Silver Rail murderer, though it was unlikely to be a concern to a person already intent on slaughter. It also applies to Giamanco, who stopped the attack and who must now—probably successfully, given the case's high profile—rely on the authorities to not enforce their own laws.
A Long History of Defensive Use of Firearms
Giamanco is by no means alone in taking the initiative to stop an attack. I've written in the past about Jordan Salinas and others in the Twin Falls incident, as well as Elisjsha Dicken at the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana. The actions of bystanders are crucial given the evidence that would-be mass murderers must be countered with defensive force within the first 30 seconds to avoid a double-digit body count.
There were 634 active attacks in the United States between 2000 and 2025, according to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center at Texas State University. ALERRT defines an "active attack" as an incident in which "an individual or individuals is actively killing or attempting to kill multiple unrelated people in a public space." Of those, 374 were resolved before police arrived, with 29 concluded by civilians shooting the perpetrator and another 60 attackers otherwise subdued by civilians.
That's certainly not a full count of actions by armed citizens to defend themselves and others. The 2026 National Firearms Survey finds that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 2.2 million incidents per year. In most defensive incidents no shot was fired (76.3%), about half (50.8%) involved more than one assailant, and in 70.6% of incidents respondents report that the defensive use was successful, such that no crime remained to be reported to the police."
Undoubtedly, many of those incidents aren't reported to the police because people who have just averted a threat to themselves or others don't want to get entangled with a legal system that is all too often hostile to self defense. If all has ended well, why risk arrest for violating a law that would have prevented you from defending yourself or that you may not even have known about?
As The Oregonian points out, Oregon's "strong laws" didn't stop the shooting. Those laws ban murder, of course. They also specify that "guns be locked, stored in gun safes or in specialized gun rooms as a way to keep children from accessing firearms," according to the report. "Police have not said if those laws were violated." They also ban guns on the grounds of schools with restrictive policies.
Authoritarian Laws Don't Deter Evil and Should Be Defied
The thing about criminals, though, is that they don't obey laws. That's especially true of those who plan murder sprees they don't intend to survive. The consequences the perpetrators anticipate involve death, and if that's not a deterrent, the potential prosecution of their moldering corpses holds little weight.
Unfortunately, legal peril can be a deterrent to good people who intend no harm. The threat of authoritarian laws and malicious prosecutors who enjoy state protection could convince some people to leave the means of self defense at home. Fortunately, Kaylub Giamanco wasn't one of them.
Giamanco's example at Silver Rail Elementary School is one to be emulated. If we're to protect ourselves, our children, and our neighbors, we have a right and a duty to defy laws that seek to disarm us and put us at the mercy of human predators. But we shouldn't have to suffer the threat of such laws to exercise our natural self-defense rights. Given the inability of weapons restrictions to deter crime and the harm they pose for good people, government officials need to eliminate these embarrassing restrictions and get out of our way.
Thousands of sailors remain stranded near the Strait of Hormuz amid escalating attacks on commercial ships, the United Nations' top maritime official warned Sunday after Iran accused the U.S. military of using an international emergency radio channel to threaten civilian crews.
The warning also came amid reports that 24 ships had been attacked on the waterway over roughly two weeks, underscoring growing concerns about maritime safety in the region, according to Financial Times.
"The situation continues to be severe and critical when it comes to international shipping," International Maritime Organization (IMO) Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez told Fox News Digital.
"There is a double blockade and too many vessels have been attacked, particularly in recent days.
"Seafarers have continued to perish in these attacks and around 6,000 seafarers remain trapped since the beginning of the conflict," he warned, adding that his message was not to transit the Strait of Hormuz or put seafarers at risk "until we have guarantees."
Dominguez's warning followed an Oct. 9 letter to the IMO in which Iran alleged that the U.S. military used VHF Channel 16, an internationally designated maritime distress and safety channel, to intimidate Iranian crews in the Persian Gulf.
"VHF Channel 16 has been repeatedly occupied for prolonged periods by the United States military forces operating in the Persian Gulf," the letter stated.
"During such transmissions, Iranian seafarers have been addressed in Persian with threatening, abusive and provocative language and in certain instances urged to abandon their vessels."
"The U.S. naval blockade has been in place for months and is professionally communicated to all international mariners," CENTCOM said.
"Vessels that refuse to comply with blockade enforcement receive multiple warnings, with ample opportunity to comply.
"American forces remain highly vigilant, focused and professional while fully enforcing the naval blockade against Iran."
Iran's complaint was submitted by Seyed Ali Mousavi and its ambassador to the IMO and circulated to member states on Oct. 9, according to a copy reviewed by Fox News Digital.
Tehran also accused American forces of turning the maritime safety channel into an "instrument of military intimidation and psychological pressure against civilian crews."
The letter cited commercial vessels, shipping companies and maritime operators but provided no recordings, transcripts or specific details of the alleged exchanges. Fox News Digital could not independently verify the accusations.
"Seafarers are not trained for combat, and they are not guilty of any conflicts that are happening around the world," Dominguez said.
"And we have seen this in several parts of the world where Channel 16, that should not be used for this kind of communication, starts receiving messages that may be perceived as actually threatening or that are outside the remit of why it was created."
Iran also asked the IMO to raise its allegations with member states and relevant international organizations, potentially including the International Telecommunication Union.
Dominguez said the IMO could review its regulations and procedures to determine whether stronger safeguards are needed, though he did not announce a formal investigation.
"Our role here at IMO is that when those situations take place, we will then look into any technical measures or any operational aspects that we may need to clarify further within our regulatory framework," he said, stressing that member states have equal rights to raise concerns, regardless of the conflict.
"We have a responsibility, and I have a duty as well, to circulate letters and notes that the countries actually put forward when they're also being affected."
"We take all that information, meet at the level of different meetings of the organization and have the discussions," Dominguez added.
"If it's demonstrated that we probably need to improve our rules in order to avoid communications issues, or that we need to enhance the knowledge of how these channels should be used, that is a role for us."
The IMO had recorded 100 confirmed maritime incidents across the region as of Oct. 9, with 24 seafarers killed since the conflict began Feb. 28. Dominguez also warned that fraudulent ship registrations and false flags have become major contributors to the danger.
"What we've also seen right now is an increase in fraudulent registries with false flags that are taking the risk and acting as shuttle tankers in order to bring goods in and out," he said. "That's one of the reasons that we're seeing an escalation.
"And it's the irresponsible shipowners that are taking the risk in order to actually be able to trade and move some of the goods and the cargoes."
"For me, any single case, any vessel that is attacked, any life of a seafarer that is lost, is a critical situation for me, because they are all relevant, they are all important."
Despite the confrontation, Dominguez said diplomatic channels with Iran remain open, though he has no direct contact with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
"I have communications with all the member states of IMO, and that includes the Islamic Republic of Iran," he said.
"Of course, that's through the diplomatic channels. I don't have direct contact with the IRGC.
"I have conversations with them and they respond to my messages. You know, the information flows. What is difficult is to get final decisions because of the conflict that is ongoing."
AI has already been trained on the works of Australian artists including Kylie Minogue and Nick Cave without compensation, the peak global body for music rights has claimed, as the Australian government has been warned against giving in to “strong-arming” from tech companies seeking to weaken copyright law.
The International Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMP) – which represents Sony, Warner and Universal as well as thousands of independent publishers on six continents – has warned that of the dozens of countries approached to water down copyright laws, Australia appears to be the only to consider doing so.
Login
