Innocent Guilty (First Part)
Unveiling a Murder (Chapter One)
Luis was driving to the small town of Kidino in his car. He hoped to find peace in a new place. For the past few years, living in war-torn countries and witnessing death and destruction had exhausted him.
Luis had two deep scars on his face, which at first glance made him look intimidating. However, his kind eyes and calm demeanor fascinated everyone he met.
Luis was a reporter and had found a job at the local newspaper in Kidino City. Although he didn't make the good money he had in the past, he wasn't looking for wealth; he was looking for calm.
The green and beautiful road to the town suggested it was not a crowded place.
When he reached the town, its greenery and beauty led him to go straight to the city center and to the newspaper office before resting. Below the newspaper building, there was a local coffee shop.
The editor of the newspaper suggested he visit there because it was a cozy place, and Luis could find a room for rent from the advertisements on the wall. He could even post his own ad, and if anyone was looking to rent out a house, they could contact him.
Luis entered the coffee shop, and a beautiful, lovely girl came to take his order.
Luis stared into the girl's blue eyes. She looked familiar.
"Sir, are you ready to order?" the girl, Amy, asked again.
Luis thought that in the future, he could come here often and get to know this beautiful girl better. He suddenly remembered—she looked like Scarlett from the movie "Wasted," though more beautiful and innocent.
Amy looked at the man hesitantly. He was a disgusting stranger.
Luis said, "Please bring a drink according to your taste."
Amy asked, "Cold or hot?"
"Warm, like you," Luis replied.
Amy left in disgust and anger. When she brought the coffee to the table, she asked, "Do you need anything else?"
Luis, with the same annoying stare, asked, "Is it possible that you are looking for a roommate?"
Amy lost her control this time and said in a contemptuous tone, "It's not bad to take a look at yourself in the mirror and ask for your size."
Luis didn't say anything, even though he wanted to respond. He controlled himself and went to his motel room, where he had reserved a room beforehand. He realized he had made a huge mistake by starting in a new city and having such a useless discussion on the first day. He was truly angry and blamed himself, repeating that it was a big strategic mistake. But it had already happened, and there was nothing he could do about it.
Luis took a shower in the guest house to make himself feel better, but he was still shaking with anger. He thought to himself that he hadn't felt this bad after several years of working on the war front and seeing the deaths of children and teenagers. He told himself it was self-made. He sat down at the table, poured himself a glass of whiskey, and thought. He pressed the glass so hard that it broke in his hand, and blood flowed out.
He said to himself, "Damn, what a wonderful start."
He wrapped a towel tightly around his hand and tried to calm himself down with deep breaths, focusing on formulating a plan to take revenge and ensure that the Peruvian girl would learn a lesson. His hand wouldn't stop bleeding. He had to go to the clinic. He opened the door and, while trying not to touch the glass behind the door, he stumbled and steadied himself against the wall.
A cup of coffee with a note:
"I hope you accept this coffee as an apology from me.
Amy"
*To be continued...
About the Creator
Azadeh Afsharian
As a teen, I cried over harsh school rules. One advised me to become a journalist, and I did. But life showed me I couldn't change much that way. Now, I find purpose in writing, sharing stories to spark curiosity and self-discovery.
Keep reading
More stories from Azadeh Afsharian and writers in Criminal and other communities.
Innocent Guilty (Fourth Part)
Chapter Four: Amy walked all night, avoiding taxis and buses for fear of being seen. In the morning, she went to work as usual, and in the afternoon, she rented an electric bike to go to the forest hut to see Antonio, return him inside, and take her car. When she arrived and opened the door of the van, she was stunned for a few moments.
By Azadeh Afsharianabout a year ago in Criminal
Minneapolis ICE Shooting Updates
In recent weeks, Minneapolis has found itself at the center of a growing legal and political controversy following a shooting involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. What initially appeared to be a straightforward federal use-of-force investigation has evolved into a broader dispute between state authorities and federal officials, raising serious questions about transparency, jurisdiction, and accountability. The most significant development so far is the state’s claim that it has been denied access to key evidence related to the incident. As public attention intensifies, the case is no longer just about what happened during the shooting. It is increasingly about who controls the facts, who gets to investigate them, and how justice is supposed to function when federal and state systems collide. What We Know About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting The shooting occurred during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. ICE agents were reportedly conducting official duties when gunfire erupted, resulting in injuries and immediate emergency response. Federal authorities confirmed the incident and stated that internal protocols were activated, including an automatic review by federal oversight bodies. From the beginning, details were limited. Officials cited the ongoing nature of the investigation and concerns about officer safety. This lack of information, while not unusual in federal cases, quickly became a point of friction for Minnesota state authorities, who argued that the public deserved clarity and that the state had a legal role to play in examining the incident. State Authorities Push for Transparency Minnesota state officials, including investigators and legal representatives, formally requested access to evidence connected to the shooting. This evidence reportedly includes body camera footage, surveillance recordings, forensic reports, and internal communication logs from the operation. According to state representatives, these requests were either delayed or denied outright. The state has since gone on record stating that it cannot independently assess the legality of the shooting without full access to the materials. This denial has fueled concerns that federal agencies are operating without sufficient external oversight, especially in incidents involving potential civilian harm. State leaders emphasized that their position is not adversarial by default. Rather, they argue that cooperation between federal and state agencies is essential to maintain public trust, particularly in communities already wary of immigration enforcement. Federal Response and Jurisdictional Limits Federal officials, for their part, maintain that the investigation falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. ICE operates as a federal agency, and shootings involving federal officers are typically reviewed internally and, when appropriate, by federal prosecutors or inspectors general. In statements released following the controversy, federal representatives cited legal restrictions that limit the sharing of evidence during an active investigation. They also stressed that premature disclosure could compromise witness testimony or investigative integrity. This explanation, while legally grounded, has done little to ease state frustrations. Critics argue that “ongoing investigation” has too often been used as a blanket justification for withholding information, even in cases where transparency could prevent misinformation and public unrest. Community Reaction and Public Trust The Minneapolis community has responded with a mix of concern, anger, and fatigue. For many residents, particularly in immigrant and marginalized communities, the shooting has reopened long-standing fears about aggressive enforcement tactics and lack of accountability. Community leaders and advocacy groups have called for the immediate release of non-sensitive evidence, arguing that transparency is a prerequisite for trust. Peaceful demonstrations and public forums have highlighted a broader demand: that no law enforcement agency, federal or otherwise, should be beyond scrutiny. Local officials echoed these concerns, noting that Minneapolis has spent years attempting to rebuild trust between residents and law enforcement. The perception that evidence is being withheld threatens to undermine that progress. Legal Implications of Denied Evidence From a legal standpoint, the state’s inability to access evidence raises complex questions. While federal agencies do have authority over their operations, states also have a responsibility to investigate deaths or injuries occurring within their borders. Legal experts suggest that this dispute could set a precedent. If states are routinely blocked from reviewing evidence in federal use-of-force cases, it may limit their ability to pursue independent inquiries or bring charges under state law when applicable. Some analysts believe the issue could ultimately be resolved in court, with judges determining whether the state has a legal right to access certain materials. Such a ruling could have national implications, influencing how future federal-state conflicts are handled. Political Dimensions of the Case The Minneapolis ICE shooting has also taken on a political dimension. Immigration enforcement remains a deeply divisive issue, and incidents like this tend to amplify existing ideological divides. State officials critical of federal immigration policies view the denial of evidence as symptomatic of a larger lack of accountability. Meanwhile, supporters of strict federal enforcement argue that state interference could hinder effective operations and put officers at risk. This political tension complicates the path forward. What might otherwise be a procedural disagreement risks becoming a symbolic battle over immigration, law enforcement authority, and states’ rights. What Happens Next? As of now, the investigation continues under federal oversight, while the state explores its legal options. Negotiations between state and federal officials have reportedly not been ruled out, suggesting that a compromise could still be reached. Potential next steps include limited evidence sharing under confidentiality agreements, congressional inquiries, or judicial review. Each option carries its own risks and consequences, both legally and politically. What remains clear is that public pressure is unlikely to fade. Minneapolis residents, like many Americans, are demanding clarity, fairness, and accountability in cases involving law enforcement use of force. A Broader Conversation About Accountability The Minneapolis ICE shooting is no longer just a single incident under investigation. It has become a lens through which broader issues are being examined: the balance of power between federal and state authorities, the limits of transparency, and the role of public oversight in a democratic society. Whether or not the state ultimately gains access to the evidence, the controversy has already sparked an important conversation. How that conversation translates into policy, practice, or reform remains to be seen, but its impact will likely extend far beyond Minneapolis. In the end, accountability is not only about assigning blame. It is about ensuring that systems function openly and fairly, especially when lives are affected. The outcome of this case may help determine how well those principles are upheld in the future.
By Saboor Brohi 6 days ago in Criminal
Comments (2)
I really enjoyed it Keep up with the good work Azi
Wow, so interesting