‘Lack of communication' led to unpermitted group home where murder occurred, Bartow official says
'I feel like I'm doing a mission that God wants me to do. It's my calling,' said Thornton.
Since 2020, Thornton has run a state-licensed adult family care facility in her home with a focus on people with mental health issues.
'They don't have nowhere for them to go because they can't afford to go to assisted living because they may not have long-term care plus their income is low. They can't afford to live on their own. Their family's not taking them in so they go back to the street,' she said.
In February, she opened – what the city of Bartow considers to be – a group home in a rental house across the street on Bluebird Avenue.
Unlike with her adult family care home, she did not notify any governmental agencies.
'Because the people were living independently,' she said. 'I always heard that as long as you're not doing nothing for them, then you're OK. It's like they're just renting a room.'
'You're collecting money. You are engaging in a business where your sole goal is for people to live there as a group then that would be considered a group home,' said Tray Towles, director of code compliance and neighborhood services for the city of Bartow.
Towles said group homes require an application and permit approval.
'It goes to our planning and zoning board who reviews that application, makes sure it fits within the scope of the ordinance,' said Towles.
Towles said the violation was the result of a 'lack of communication.'
'When she actually opened her licensed facility, she reached out to the city of Bartow and made sure that she was in compliance with all of our codes at that time. She did not do that in this instance when she opened up the group home at 2226 Bluebird,' said Towles.
The owner of the home, a Texas-based company, is in the process of evicting Thornton as a renter. All the residents have moved out.
Towles said, because the residents are no longer there, there will be no further action or fines imposed on Thornton.
'The Bartow Chief of Police has been in touch with representatives of the Wind Meadows HOA to strengthen communication and a team approach to addressing safety concerns in the neighborhood,' said city manager Mike Herr in a statement.
Towles said there are no other known group homes in the neighborhood.
A neighbor tells News Channel 8 that many residents have concerns about who Thornton is housing in the neighborhood.
The violation was discovered when, earlier this month, Thornton allowed an 18-year-old named Moses Ojeda to move in.
Thornton said a placement agency and Ojeda's mother contacted her as Ojeda was being released from the hospital after being Baker Acted.
'I looked at the psychiatric evaluation. He had issues for him to get Baker Acted but the psychiatric evaluation said that he was calm and stable, normal, had good talk and he said he was ready to get discharged and go home with his mom,' said Thornton.
Thornton said she was not able to meet him but allowed him to move in because of his mother's desperation.
Later that night, Thornton saw Ojeda outside.
She said she tried calling his mother to pick him up because of his strange behavior but she did not answer.
Thornton said she slept on the sofa in the group home to keep an eye on Ojeda and talked to him that morning.
'He sat down and he was talking to us about God and about life and death and all this stuff…[while] the man in the room dead!' said Thornton.
According to the Polk County Sheriff's Office, Ojeda fatally stabbed an 81-year-old man more than 100 times in the night.
'This tragedy happened to me to not put my heart first but to always make sure I follow my steps – no matter if the person is gonna be homeless. That's not my problem. I'll see you tomorrow,' said Thornton.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: No, both sides don't gerrymander the same
Texas Republicans are apparently going big with their brazen attempt to redraw the state's congressional maps in the middle of the decade, outside of the normal redistricting process. A draft map released Wednesday would add three new districts that would have voted for President Donald Trump in 2024. That would mean 79% of the state's districts (30 out of 38) would have backed the president compared to his 56% share of the vote in the state. It would also put two House Democrats who won Trump districts in significantly more danger in 2026. The proposed map is intended to help the GOP hold on to the House — where they have a historically narrow majority and history suggests Democrats are very likely to pick up seats — in the midterm elections. The map could help Republicans flip five seats, significantly raising the bar for a Democratic takeover of the chamber. All of which has set off a predictable round of whataboutism on the right. Yes, Texas Republicans are going for the bare knuckles on this one. But what about all those egregious Democratic gerrymanders? Both sides play this game, right? Yes, both sides gerrymander. But that doesn't mean they are equal-opportunity offenders. Republicans pretty clearly benefit more from gerrymandering, and there's an increasingly strong case to be made that they go further in using the tools available to them. Gambits like what Texas is doing are rare, and it's been Republicans who have led the charge. But this is the subject of plenty of debate, and there's a school of thought that gerrymandering has become effectively a wash. Some analysts point to recent election results that show the percentage of House seats each side wins these days more or less matches their share of the nationwide popular vote for the House. Republicans, for example, won about 51.3% of the two-party vote in 2024. And 51.3% of House districts is about 223 seats. They won 220 seats. In fact, these numbers have tracked closely over the last four elections. While there was just a three-seat gap in 2024, it was only two seats in each of the previous three elections. Neither side is winning a significantly disproportionate number of seats. But just because the seat totals so closely mirror the overall vote shares doesn't necessarily mean gerrymandering didn't have an impact – or that one side or the other didn't go to more extremes to try and secure the seats they won. The ways in which populations are distributed matters greatly, for instance – particularly if one side's voters are a lot more concentrated. Just because a state is competitive doesn't mean that a 'fair' map would be a 50-50 one. Generally speaking, 'fair' districts are thought to group people with similar interests or backgrounds, and respect existing geographic boundaries. Sometimes in order to get that 50-50 split or even a narrow advantage for your side, you have to get pretty creative. In addition, gerrymandering can be a risky game. A really extreme gerrymander could backfire if your effort to create as many favorable districts as possible spreads your voters too thin and you wind up losing seats. (Some have wagered this could happen to Republicans in Texas, particularly if the GOP can't replicate Trump's big 2024 gains with Hispanic voters.) If the results of that gerrymander weren't as lopsided as envisioned, does it really mean it wasn't an extreme gerrymander? This reinforces why you can't just look at seat totals and vote shares. You really need to look at individual maps and how aggressively they're drawn. This is, of course, a somewhat subjective exercise that depends on what factors you look at. But some experts have attempted to do that. The Gerrymandering Project at Princeton University, which evaluates the maps holistically, gives a 'D' or an 'F' rating to slight majorities of maps drawn by Republicans and those drawn by Democrats. PlanScore, spearheaded by well-known academics, finds that more maps have a bias toward Republicans than Democrats across a number of metrics. These PlanScore numbers, too, come with caveats. One is that, in about half of states, the map-drawing process wasn't fully controlled by one party or another – either because the state has split legislative control, or because courts or redistricting commissions do it. So even if more maps favor Republicans, it's not just because they drew them that way. The second is that a big reason more maps appear to have a GOP bias is that Republicans simply get more opportunities to gerrymander. They have full control of more states because they hold the 'trifecta' of the governor's mansion and both chambers of the state legislature. In the most recent round of post-Census redistricting, Republicans controlled the drawing of 177 districts (estimates on this vary slightly), compared to just 49 for Democrats, according to a 2022 report from the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school. (Part of the reason Republicans have more control is their superior standing in state governments and the fact that blue states have been more likely to outsource this process to redistricting commissions.) The Brennan Center has also noted that Republicans appear to benefit from state courts having a more laissez-faire approach to partisan gerrymandering. All told, the center found 11 Republican-drawn maps that had extreme partisan bias, compared to four drawn by Democrats, ahead of the 2024 elections. Which brings us to the latest developments. They certainly reinforce the idea that Republicans are more ruthless about using this power. The reason Texas is so controversial isn't just that Republicans are drawing such a slanted map; it's mostly when they have chosen to do it – in the middle of the decade, outside the normal post-Census redistricting process. Maps are sometimes redrawn after that post-Census period, but usually it's because courts force states to do so. When state legislatures have done this of their own volition, it's been Republicans in charge. Depending on how you slice it, we've seen three or four modern attempts like this at mid-decade redistricting. The GOP did this in Texas and Colorado in 2003 (though the Colorado map was struck down) and in Georgia in 2005. They also redrew the maps in North Carolina in 2023 after a newly conservative-leaning state Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision and opened the door to partisan gerrymandering. State legislative expert Tim Storey told the Washington Post back in 2003 that the strategy appeared unprecedented at the time. And while Democrats are talking about a tit-for-tat in which they would do the same thing in states like California and New York, that would be a response to the GOP's own gambit. Not to mention, Democrats would also face major legal and political hurdles in these states to make that a reality. Indeed, Republicans seem to be leaning in on a mid-decade redistricting arms race, knowing they have superior capabilities and can take things further — just like they have before.
Epoch Times
24 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Victim Profiles in Microsoft SharePoint Attacks Point to Targeted Intelligence Campaign, Researchers Say
Eye Security, a Netherlands-based cybersecurity company that has been tracking Microsoft SharePoint attack victims, says an analysis of victims shows that nearly a third were government sector systems. 'From the data, it's clear this wasn't a random or opportunistic campaign. The attackers knew exactly what they were looking for,' Lodi Hensen, Eye Security vice president of security operations, said on July 29 in a blog post.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court judges voice skepticism about legal basis for Trump's sweeping tariffs
A panel of appeals court judges on Thursday voiced deep skepticism with the Trump administration's attempt to justify sweeping tariffs based on a national emergency. As the clock ticks down to President Donald Trump's Aug. 1 deadline for the resumption of reciprocal tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is hearing arguments Thursday over whether Trump's sweeping tariffs are lawful. A group of small businesses and a coalition of states are asking the appeals court to invalidate the bulk of Trump's tariffs, arguing that Trump overstepped his power when he used a decades-old economic emergency statute to enact a flurry of tariffs in April. MORE: What to know about Trump's Aug. 1 tariff deadline "The President's chaotic assertion of that purported authority, which changed by the day and wreaked havoc on capital markets and the economy, illustrates both the breadth of powers that the President claims and the danger of unlimited authority in this domain," the coalition of states argued in their brief to the court. At the start of Thursday's hearing, judges on the appeals court panel questioned why Trump is relying on a law that has never been used to justify tariffs, saying that the law itself never mentions the word "tariffs" and voicing concern that the president justifying the unilateral action based on an emergency could amount to "the death knell of the Constitution." The hearing comes at a critical time for Trump, as he rushes to complete trade deals ahead of a self-imposed Friday deadline for dozens of reciprocal tariffs to restart. Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued that a court invalidating the tariffs would create a "foreign policy disaster scenario" as trade negotiations remain ongoing. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today," Trump wrote on his social media platform Thursday morning. "If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS." The legal authority for Trump's tariffs was thrown into uncertainty in May when the New York-based Court of International Trade ruled that the president did not have the power to unilaterally impose his global "Liberation Day" tariffs, as well as the tariffs on China, Mexico, and Mexico that Trump imposed to combat fentanyl trafficking. A federal appeals court quickly stayed the Court of International Trade's decision before it could take effect, while the Trump administration's appeal worked its way through the courts. At issue is whether Trump had the authority to enact tariffs without authorization from Congress through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president the power to impose tariffs under an "unusual and extraordinary threat." While the Trump administration has argued that the tariffs combat fentanyl trafficking and seek to settle the country's trade imbalances, the Court of International Trade was unconvinced that the Trump administration demonstrated an "unusual and extraordinary threat" and that those tariffs "deal with the threats." In court filings, the Trump administration has argued that court's decision is "riddled with legal errors" and "would significantly harm the United States if it were to take effect." They have justified the tariffs by citing the country's fentanyl crisis and the "grave threats to the United States' national security and economy" stemming from trade imbalances. "President Trump has found that America's exploding trade deficit, the implications of that deficit for our economy and national security, and a fentanyl importation crisis that has claimed thousands of American lives constitute national emergencies," lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued. MORE: What do Trump's recent trade agreements mean for the economy? The Trump administration has also argued that invalidating the tariffs would "deprive the United States of a powerful tool for combating systemic distortions in the global trading system, thus allowing other nations to continue to hold American exporters hostage to their unreasonable, discriminatory, and sometimes retaliatory trade policies." The group of small businesses and state attorneys general have pushed back against those claims, arguing that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give Trump "unlimited tariff authority" and that he has failed to prove "an unusual and extraordinary threat." "The President's chaotic assertion of that purported authority, which changed by the day and wreaked havoc on capital markets and the economy, illustrates both the breadth of powers that the President claims and the danger of unlimited authority in this domain," they wrote.
