Connect with us

Northeast

Man accused of knifepoint NYC rape released due to technicality

Published

on

Man accused of knifepoint NYC rape released due to technicality

Read this article for free!

Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

A man who was arrested for the violent rape of a woman in Brooklyn last month — while his accomplice held two other women at knifepoint — has been freed on supervised release due to a technicality, according to the New York Post.

Mohammed Izzeddin, 22, who was arrested on Dec. 28 and charged by police with rape and a slew of other crimes including robbery and unlawful imprisonment, was sprung from custody earlier this week after a judge ruled that prosecutors didn’t file an indictment on time, law enforcement sources and Izzeddin’s lawyer told the Post.

Advertisement

Izzeddin, of Brooklyn, is accused of breaking into a business near 9th Avenue and 59th Street on Dec. 23 at around 6 p.m. and raping a 49-year-old woman, who is of Asian descent, according to local reports. 

NEW YORK CITY SUSPECT FORCED YOUNG WOMAN INTO STAIRWELL, RAPED HER: POLICE

Mohammed Izzeddin, 22, is walked from the NYPD’s 66th Precinct station house in Brooklyn New York City after being charged in the Dec. 23 rape of a 49-year-old woman. Izzeddin was freed after a judge ruled prosecutors didn’t file an indictment on time. (Gardiner Anderson for NY Daily News via Getty Images)

His alleged accomplice, Mohammed Alwi, 25, of Canarsie, has also been arrested and charged with rape and other crimes. Alwi allegedly displayed a knife to keep two other people inside the business “under control,” police said, according to the New York Post. 

But Izzeddin is now free since his lawyer, Lance Lazzaro, successfully argued to a judge that the DA missed a six-day deadline to file an indictment. Under New York state law, the District Attorney’s Office must file an indictment no later than six days after someone is placed in custody. 

Advertisement

Furthermore, if an arrest is made before 9 a.m. on a given date, the law states that the technical arrest date is the day before.

Izzeddin was arrested on Dec. 28 at around 3 a.m. but wasn’t formally charged until around 1 p.m., so the six-day timeline clock ran out for prosecutors and the judge agreed.

“He ruled that there was a violation, so he had no choice but to release him on [his own recognizance] or supervised release,” Lazzaro told the New York Post. 

Izzeddin and Alwi in a CCTV screenshot provided by the NYPD. They were both arrested and charged with rape.  (NYPD)

“So he chose supervised release. His hands are tied at that point.” 

Advertisement

The NYPD told Fox News Digital that both Izzeddin and Alwi had also been charged with sexual abuse, forcible touching, menacing, assault and harassment.

NYC RAPE SUSPECT REPORTEDLY TURNED IN BY FAMILY, ARRESTED

It is unclear why prosecutors waited so long to file the indictment. 

Izzeddin suffered an apparent drug overdose inside his 68th Street home in the early hours of Dec. 28 and EMS responded. They realized a warrant was out for his arrest and called the cops, the New York Post reported.

Izzeddin was taken to the hospital, where he remained cuffed and was then taken back to the 66th Precinct, the attorney told the publication, adding that his client “was never free to leave.” 

Advertisement

Izzeddin was arrested on Dec. 28 at around 3 a.m. by the NYPD but wasn’t formally charged until around 1 p.m., so the six-day timeline clock ran out for prosecutors and the judge agreed. (iStock)

Izzeddin was arraigned the next day, on Dec. 29.

The victim recounted the horrific experience to Pix11 News.

“When I opened the door, the bad guy hit me in the face very hard,” the woman said via a translator app a few days after the incident. “I was afraid of hurting the other two girls, so I opened the door for him.”

Advertisement

“I am slowly adjusting. I think I may see a psychiatrist next.”

She said Izzeddin and Alwi robbed the women of about $300.  

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Maine

Conservation, not courts, should guide Maine’s fishing rules | Opinion

Published

on

Conservation, not courts, should guide Maine’s fishing rules | Opinion


Steve Heinz of Cumberland is a member of the Maine Council of Trout Unlimited (Merrymeeting Bay chapter).

Man’s got to eat.

It’s a simple truth, and in Maine it carries a lot of weight. For generations, people here have hunted, fished and gathered food not just as a pastime, but as a practical part of life. That reality helps explain why Maine voters embraced a constitutional right to food — and why emotions run high when fishing regulations are challenged in court.

A recent lawsuit targeting Maine’s fly-fishing-only regulations has sparked exactly that
reaction. The Maine Council of Trout Unlimited believes this moment calls for clarity and restraint. The management of Maine’s fisheries belongs with professional biologists and the public process they oversee, not in the courtroom.

Advertisement

Trout Unlimited is not an anti-harvest organization, nor a club devoted to elevating one style of angling over another. We are a coldwater conservation organization focused on sustaining healthy, resilient fisheries.

Maine’s reputation as the last great stronghold of wild brook trout did not happen by accident; it is the product of decades of careful management by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), guided by science, field experience and public participation.

Fly-fishing-only waters are one of the tools MDIFW uses to protect vulnerable fisheries. They are not about exclusivity. In most cases, fly fishing involves a single hook, results in lower hooking mortality and lends itself to catch-and-release practices. The practical effect is straightforward: more fish survive and more people get a chance to fish.

Maine’s trout waters are fundamentally different from the fertile rivers of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states. Our freestone streams are cold, fast and naturally nutrient-poor. Thin soils, granite bedrock and dense forests limit aquatic productivity, meaning brook trout grow more slowly and reproduce in smaller numbers.

A single season of low flows, high water temperatures or habitat disturbance can set a population back for years. In Maine, conservation is not a luxury; it is a biological necessity.

Advertisement

In more fertile southern waters, abundant insects and richer soils allow trout populations to rebound quickly from heavy harvest and environmental stress. Maine’s waters simply do not have that buffer.

Every wild brook trout here is the product of limited resources and fragile conditions. When fish are removed faster than they can be replaced, recovery is slow and uncertain. That reality is why management tools such as fly-fishing-only waters, reduced bag limits and seasonal protections matter so much.

These rules are not about denying access; they are about matching human use to ecological capacity so fisheries remain viable over time. Climate change only raises the stakes, as warmer summers and lower late-season flows increasingly push cold-water fisheries to their limits.

Healthy trout streams also safeguard drinking water, support wildlife and sustain rural economies through guiding and outdoor tourism. Conservation investments ripple far
beyond the streambank.

Lawsuits short-circuit the management system that has served Maine well for decades. Courts are not designed to weigh fisheries science or balance competing uses of a complex public resource. That work is best done through open meetings, public input and adaptive management informed by professionals who spend their careers studying Maine’s waters.

Advertisement

Man’s got to eat. But if we want Maine’s trout fisheries to endure, we also have to manage them wisely. That means trusting science, respecting process and recognizing that
conservation — not confrontation — is what keeps food on the table and fish in the water.



Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Massachusetts gas prices slightly declined from last week. Here’s how much.

Published

on

Massachusetts gas prices slightly declined from last week. Here’s how much.


State gas prices slightly declined for the second consecutive week and reached an average of $2.86 per gallon of regular fuel on Monday, down from last week’s price of $2.88 per gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The average fuel price in state declined about 8 cents since last month. According to the EIA, gas prices across the state in the last year have been as low as $2.86 on Jan. 5, 2026, and as high as $3.11 on Sep. 8, 2025.

A year ago, the average gas price in Massachusetts was 3% higher at $2.95 per gallon.

>> INTERACTIVE: See how your area’s gas prices have changed over the years at data.southcoasttoday.com.

Advertisement

The average gas price in the United States last week was $2.80, making prices in the state about 2.3% higher than the nation’s average. The average national gas price is slightly lower than last week’s average of $2.81 per gallon.

USA TODAY Co. is publishing localized versions of this story on its news sites across the country, generated with data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Please leave any feedback or corrections for this story here. This story was written by Ozge Terzioglu. Our News Automation and AI team would like to hear from you. Take this survey and share your thoughts with us.



Source link

Continue Reading

New Hampshire

High number of NH households lack emergency savings – Valley News

Published

on

High number of NH households lack emergency savings – Valley News


A broken furnace, medical bill, or car repair could quickly become a financial crisis if it were to happen in any one of over 120,000 New Hampshire households with very little savings. An analysis recently published by the Urban Institute found that nearly one in four New Hampshire households lacked at least $2,000 in non-retirement savings in 2022, representing a basic financial cushion for weathering emergencies. According to the analysis, about 23% of New Hampshire households did not have non-retirement savings, such as money in a checking or savings account, totaling more than $2,000 in 2022. That figure rose to 30% for Granite Staters in rural northern and western New Hampshire, 32% for Manchester residents, and 31% for Granite Staters of color statewide.

The Urban Institute published this analysis in November 2025 using the latest consistently available data for each type of financial well-being measured. A previous version of the analysis, published in 2022, found about 26 percent of New Hampshire households lacked $2,000 in emergency savings in 2019, although the $2,000 threshold was not adjusted for inflation between those two years. The researchers also measured overall wealth, income relative to key expenses, and certain other metrics.

Unpaid debt

Researchers at the Urban Institute also found that about 16% of Granite Staters had some form of debt that was at least 60 days past due in 2023. Two percent of all residents specifically had delinquent student loan debts.

Advertisement

Housing expenses

About 87% of all households with less than $50,000 in annual income, which was about one in four New Hampshire households in 2023, paid more than 30% of their incomes for their housing costs, such as rent or mortgage payments, utilities, property taxes, and insurance costs. For Granite Staters of color, about 96% of households with these lower incomes were cost-burdened, or paying at least 30% of income, by housing costs.

This percentage varied for different areas within the state as well. While about 78% of all residents with lower incomes in Coos, Grafton and Sullivan counties combined were cost-burdened by housing, about 95% of Manchester residents and 91% of Strafford County and northern Rockingham County residents were cost-burdened in this manner.

Utility costs

About one in five New Hampshire households paid more than 10% of household income solely on utility costs, including electricity, water, gas, and heating fuels. While the lowest percentage of households facing these utility costs were near Nashua and a few other relatively urban parts of the state, about 46% of households in Coos, Grafton, and Sullivan counties, and 41% in eastern central New Hampshire encompassing Carroll and Belknap counties, paid more than 10% in utility costs.

Access to emergency savings varies throughout New Hampshire

Savings can be difficult to accumulate for a variety of reasons, and the primary factors include income and expenses. Both lower incomes and higher expenses make saving more difficult, while their opposites enable more opportunities to set money aside for a time of need. Some of the variations in savings across New Hampshire could be rooted in both factors.

The approximately 23% of Granite State households without at least $2,000 in savings during 2022 represents about 129,600 households of the estimated 557,200 in New Hampshire that year. In Coos, Grafton, and Sullivan Counties, which include the two counties (Coos and Sullivan) with the highest poverty rates in the state, about 30% of households lacked that level of savings. Coos County also had a median household income that was only slightly more than half of Rockingham County in southeastern New Hampshire. The cost of buying a house has also increased fastest in rural parts of New Hampshire, although the overall cost is still lower than in southeastern New Hampshire.

Advertisement

In Manchester, where 32% of households did not have at least $2,000 in emergency savings (the highest rate of the measured areas in the state) in 2022, the cost of renting the median two-bedroom apartment increased 31% from 2020 to 2024 to $1,838 per month. Median household income, at about $77,000, was below the statewide median of about $95,600 during the 2019 to 2023 period. Increasing costs, particularly regional housing costs, likely made saving very difficult for households in Manchester and elsewhere, particularly the families that are more likely to see incomes fall short of expenses than ten years ago.

Wealth is a critical factor and difficult to measure

Most common measures of financial well-being are based on income. Income is often measured through surveys and tax returns, and income from employment is also reported by businesses and other employers. As a result, income is more commonly measured than wealth. Income measures the money coming into a household in a given time period, while wealth measures the assets owned by the members of a household.

Wealth provides a form of economic security that promotes resilience, including the ability to weather a job loss or an unexpected expense, such as a car repair or medical costs from an illness. Even a higher income does not provide the security of having a substantial amount of money in a bank account, as that income could change, or new costs could appear, relatively quickly. Wealth provides a financial cushion that can be critical for individuals and families in times of need.

Local data difficult to access

While national measures provide insights into wealth and wealth inequality, which has risen substantially over the last six decades, local data are much harder to collect than data about the income of residents in states and counties. Researchers at the Urban Institute used publicly-available data and collaborated with a major credit bureau, employing anonymized data, to get a sample of about 10 million people nationwide. They also utilized models to understand the likely conditions facing people in less-populated areas and in smaller population groups when the sample sizes themselves were too small to create reliable estimates.

These data and methods allowed the Urban Institute researchers to estimate the percentage of households that had less than $2,000 in their bank accounts, stocks, mutual funds, and other non-retirement assets. However, the data were not granular enough to allow for consistent town- or county-level analyses in New Hampshire. The data were organized by regions of the state (and country) with a total of 100,000 people or more. While data for Manchester can be separated from the rest of the state with this strategy, every other city or town is combined with at least one other community in these data.

Advertisement

Different than other surveys

This methodology is notably different from a commonly-cited national-level survey conducted by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking, which asks U.S. residents nationwide a series of questions. These questions include asking about the methods the individual would use to pay for an unexpected $400 expense.

The latest survey indicates that 37% of U.S. adults would not have paid for an unexpected $400 expense with cash, savings, or a credit card to be paid off by the end of the month. While that indicates more than one in three U.S. adults do not have the savings to easily cover this expense, 13% said they would be unable to pay it by any means; others indicated they would carry a balance on a credit card, borrow money from a friend, family member, bank, or payday lender, or sell something to help pay for the expense. That suggests many adults would not spend their bank account down to zero, perhaps to preserve some wealth cushion for other unexpected expenses or to avoid fees.

While these survey data offer key insights and annual updates allowing for helpful comparisons over time, the Urban Institute’s methods seek to measure the actual balances in household accounts. The Urban Institute’s data also provide insights into the financial resilience of New Hampshire residents specifically.

Financial situations fragile for many Granite State families

Without $2,000 in savings, a Granite Stater could quickly spend their liquid assets to pay for an unexpected car repair, needed fixes for a house or an appliance, the deductible on their health insurance after an injury or illness but before coverage begins, losing a job, or other factors that could effectively require immediate, unforeseen costs. That would potentially lead to debt that could be difficult to pay off, unpaid bills, or forgone health or housing needs.

Housing, utility, health care, and child care costs have increased across New Hampshire. These rising costs have made building emergency savings increasingly difficult. With nearly one in four New Hampshire households in this fragile situation, small changes in physical or financial well-being, expenses facing families, public policy, or the economy overall could have big impacts on many Granite Staters.

Advertisement

The New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute is sharing these articles with the partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. NHFPI is an independent nonprofit organization that explores, develops and promotes public policies that foster economic opportunity and prosperity for all New Hampshire residents. For more information visit nhfpi.org. These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending