A male is accused of knocking multiple victims amid violent robberies in downtown Chicago last summer.

Michael Seawood, 24, of East Chicago, Indiana, is charged with robbery, aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, and aggravated battery in a public place, CWB Chicago reported.

The victim was struck in the back of the head and knocked to the ground, after which Seawood and his accomplices allegedly took his phone, wallet, and other items, the outlet noted, citing prosecutors.

Seawood and at least one accomplice attacked a 52-year-old around 2:30 a.m. July 6 in the 400 block of North Lower Michigan Avenue, the outlet said, citing prosecutors. During the attack, the victim fell to the ground motionless and suffered a broken jaw that required surgery to have plates installed, the outlet added.

What’s more, a 28-year-old man visiting from Las Vegas tried to intervene in the attack, but prosecutors said Seawood allegedly punched him and knocked him to the ground where he also was motionless, CWB Chicago reported.

While the two victims were incapacitated, Seawood & Co. allegedly went through their pockets and took cash and phones before leaving the area, the outlet said.

On Aug. 1, Seawood and multiple accomplices allegedly attacked a 29-year-old man in the 100 block of East Illinois Street in the Streeterville neighborhood, CWB Chicago said. The victim was struck in the back of the head and knocked to the ground, after which Seawood and his accomplices allegedly took his phone, wallet, and other items, the outlet noted, citing prosecutors.

RELATED: Chicago thug accused of randomly punching mother of 11 in face, knocking her out on downtown street — and White House reacts

Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune

On Aug. 2, Seawood and two accomplices allegedly attacked and robbed two brothers, ages 19 and 22, near the corner of Michigan Avenue and Lake Street in the Loop, CWB Chicago reported.

The two victims were walking south on Michigan Avenue when Seawood allegedly punched the younger brother in the face, after which the victim fell to the ground and briefly lost consciousness, the outlet said. When he regained consciousness, the victim saw Seawood and two other men going through his pockets and stealing his wallet, the outlet said, citing prosecutors.

The older brother told police one of the attackers hit him and knocked him to the ground as well, but he wasn’t sure which one attacked him, CWB Chicago said. Once the older brother was on the ground, Seawood & Co. allegedly went through his pockets and took his phone, cash, and cards, the outlet added.

Three Chicago police officers subsequently recognized Seawood as one of the violent robbers, prosecutors told CWB Chicago.

Judge John Hock ordered Seawood detained pending trial, CWB Chicago said.

Cook County Jail records indicate Seawood was booked Sunday on no bond; his next court date is Jan. 20.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Physical attacks, Chicago, Arrest, Robberies, Knockouts, Aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, Aggravated battery in a public place, Downtown, The loop, Crime 

By now, you have seen the headlines about Grok creating nonconsensual images of real people and reposting them online for the world to see. You may even have spotted these images in your X feed. Not only is the emergence of this kind of content a problem for the platform, but it’s especially risky when you remember that the fate of the republic rests partly on the shoulders of X and Elon Musk.

The story so far

This is a rapidly developing story, so the details are likely to expand in the coming weeks. So far, this is what we know.

Last week, a barrage of X users were found using Grok to digitally remove the clothing of photos containing real women, often putting them in bikinis or other skimpy outfits. While this is bad enough on its own, some users even targeted minors — including one of the prominent actors in “Stranger Things” — to swap outfits for something inappropriate, and Grok complied.

We have to address how Grok’s behavior could impact X on the world stage.

After plenty of blowback on the web, Elon Musk issued a firm statement, warning, “Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.” The X Safety account later doubled down with the same message, explaining that the platform takes action against CSAM content on X by removing the images, suspending accounts, and even working with local law enforcement as necessary.

That wasn’t enough, however. Although Musk and company scrubbed the social network of the illegal imagery depicting minors, users continued to undress photos of real adult women without discretion. As a result of further inaction, U.S. Democrats asked Apple and Google to remove X from their app stores (though that hasn’t happened yet), the U.K. instated a law that makes it illegal to create nonconsensual intimate images, and Malaysia and Indonesia blocked Grok altogether.

This ultimately prompted Musk to remove Grok’s image creation and editing tool from public access, instead restricting it to paid users, where any illicit activity can be attached directly to users’ accounts and identities.

A self-imposed problem of reckless proportions

The problem of Grok creating nonconsensual images is bad enough on its own. In the United States, we have nonconsensual intimate images laws that prohibit the threat and distribution of private photos and videos. More specifically, the Take It Down Act was designed to protect victims of such content, and posting it on X violates the platform’s user policies.

The worst part is that none of this needed to happen. The fact that Grok can remove the clothes of unconsenting users — adults or otherwise — is an entirely self-made problem that could have been avoided with some proper guardrails. It should not have been an option in the first place, but now that it is, we have to deal with it. Even more important than that, we have to address how Grok’s behavior could impact X on the world stage.

RELATED: Ted Cruz pelted with insane AI memes as X bans unpaid users from editing pics with Grok

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

1. One more reason to block free speech

Foreign governments have already been looking for excuses to ban X from their slice of the public square ever since Musk opened the platform to free speech in 2022. This latest stunt is the final reason they need to prove that X is “dangerous” to their people, and places like the U.K., Malaysia, and Indonesia are already moving ahead with laws to restrict or downright ban access. This is bad, of course, because X is one of few online platforms that not only values free speech but encourages it. When users lose access to X, wherever they are, they lose access to the truth.

2. A test of political loyalty

While the governments that already hate Elon Musk are a lost cause, legal missteps with Grok unnecessarily test the loyalty and values of U.S. politicians who are friends with Musk. Lawmakers on the right now have to choose between regulating Grok to protect X users who were harmed by the photos and giving Elon a pass while he self-governs the platform into a better place. Meanwhile, the left will continue to villainize Musk, Grok, and X every chance they get, no matter what happens. It’s a tough position to be in, and it’s a shame that it had to come to this at all.

3. Users lose when Grok goes out of control

The deepfake photo scandal has made users — especially young women — more cautious about posting photos of themselves on the platform. Users shouldn’t have to worry about someone creating and sharing intimate images crafted out of their own content. At the same time, users who flock to X for news, engagement, and information shouldn’t have to dodge these photos as they pop up in their feeds, either. The worst part is that Grok is complicit in the whole thing. At this point, Grok’s behavior is making users leery about coming to X instead of bringing them to the platform, which is the last thing X needs as Threads gains ground.

4. Grok is better bot than this

If nothing else, the images Grok has created are legally dubious, and whether the image creation/editing feature is available to the general public or locked behind a subscription paywall, this isn’t a capability that Grok should have. Other AI platforms, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google Gemini, block this type of content wholesale. Yes, Grok has always valued free speech above the others, and that is great for users, but deepfakes go beyond the First Amendment. It’s simply illegal to create nonconsensual intimate content of real people and share it online. Further, Musk’s AI platform is far too clever and sophisticated to debase itself down to an adult content creation bot, and that bit needs to be removed from Grok’s source code.

We need X more than Grok

X is so much more than the public square. It’s a bastion of free speech where people of all walks of life from around the globe can speak their minds and share ideas that otherwise would go unheard.

Because of X, the truth about so many topics that would otherwise have been relegated to the shadows has been exposed. Just this past week, footage of Renee Good surfaced, showing that she tried to run over the ICE agent who took her life in self-defense. Without X, the leftist media narrative that she was an innocent woman simply driving away from the scene would have permeated the web and we never would have known the truth. Before that, we saw the protests in Iran erupt as its oppressed citizens fought for freedom. And before that, Nick Shirley exposed the multibillion-dollar fraud unraveling in Minnesota over the Somali-run business debacle. And on and on and on.

X is a vital piece of our political landscape, helping the people combat lies, scandals, censorship, and the left (though I repeat myself), and we’ll need X again in the future when the time is right. The platform it has become is far too important to be a test bed for Grok’s edgiest features. The prevalence of the digital public square, the ability to expose corruption, and the sustainability of the republic all hinge on X maintaining its position as a free, open, and truthful platform, and it would be a terrible shame if Grok’s unchecked features got in the way.

​Tech 

Despite their vilification by Democrat officials and an 8,000% increase in death threats, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents continue in Minneapolis and other dangerous sanctuary jurisdictions to make arrests — 70% of which are reportedly of criminal illegal aliens charged or convicted of a crime in the United States.

When attempting to make one such arrest on Wednesday evening, a federal law enforcement officer was savagely attacked not only by the illegal alien he was pursuing but by a pair of onlookers who apparently felt compelled to frustrate the administration of justice.

‘Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence.’

The incident resulted in an apparent defensive shooting, which radicals seized upon as yet another excuse to attack police, engage in wanton destruction, and altogether ramp up what the Department of Justice is now referring to as an “insurrection.”

The shooting

The Department of Homeland Security indicated that around 6:50 p.m. local time, federal agents attempted to arrest an illegal alien from Venezuela. The suspect peeled away in his vehicle and fled the scene but ultimately crashed into a parked car.

While the suspect proceeded to take off running, an agent, who has been identified as an ICE officer by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commander Gregory Bovino, caught up with the Venezuelan in the 600 block of 24th Avenue North.

When the ICE officer attempted once again to make the arrest, “the subject began to resist and violently assault the officer,” said the DHS.

Seeing the two men struggling on the ground, two individuals exited a nearby apartment and allegedly began attacking the officer with a shovel and a broom handle, enabling the illegal alien to break free.

The Venezuelan allegedly proceeded to use one of the two improvised hitting implements to strike the outnumbered officer.

RELATED: Blocking ICE with ‘micro-intifada’: Good’s group taught de-arrest, cop-car chaos before her death

Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Image

“Fearing for his life and safety as he was being ambushed by three individuals, the officer fired a defensive shot to defend his life,” said the DHS.

The two alleged attackers and the Venezuelan — who sustained a non-life-threatening gunshot wound to the leg — reportedly barricaded themselves in the apartment but were ultimately flushed out. The illegal alien and the officer were taken to the hospital, and the two suspected attackers were placed in custody.

Minneapolis police were ultimately joined at the scene by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the FBI.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara confirmed that a broom and a snow shovel were found at the scene of the struggle and indicated “at least one person may have assaulted federal law enforcement.”

The Minneapolis reflex

O’Hara indicated that in the wake of the struggle and shooting, a mob assembled and began “engaging in unlawful acts.”

In addition to pelting law enforcement officers with incendiary devices, ice, rocks, and other projectiles, rioters ransacked and vandalized federal vehicles, videos showed.

Mayor Jacob Frey (D) wasted no time in fanning the flames, referring to ICE during a press conference on Wednesday night as an invading force that’s supposedly rounding up American citizens.

“I’ve seen conduct from ICE that is disgusting and is intolerable,” said Frey.

After demonizing ICE and championing anti-ICE protests, Frey suggested that radicals “taking the bait” weren’t helping.

Gov. Tim Walz (D) also responded with mixed signals, characterizing federal agents as villains and recommending resistance but also suggesting that Minnesotans should remain peaceful.

“You’re angry. I’m angry. Angry is not a strong enough word,” Walz said in a video address on Wednesday night. “You are not powerless, you are not helpless, and you are certainly not alone. All across Minnesota people are learning about opportunities, not just to resist, but to help people who are in danger.”

The Justice Department evidently saw the signal through the noise and accused the two Minnesota Democratic Party leaders of incitement.

“ICE operates in thousands of counties without incident. Men and women doing their jobs, protecting us from criminal aliens,” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. “Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It’s disgusting.”

“Walz and Frey,” continued Blanche. “I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday morning to invoke the Insurrection Act “if the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job.”

Trump noted that many presidents have utilized the Insurrection Act of 1807 and that it would “quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great state.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Minneapolis, Minnesota, Us immigration and customs enforcement, Immigration, Trump administration, Ice, Department of homeland security, Homeland security, Dhs, Shooting, Venezuela, Venezuelan, Riot, Protest, Insurrection, Politics 

A few days ago, I found myself in a text exchange about two women killed by agents of the state.

One was Renée Nicole Good, a 37-year-old activist mother shot last week by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. The other was Ashli Babbitt, a 36-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran shot by a Capitol Police lieutenant inside the Speaker’s Lobby on January 6, 2021.

Are words being used to think — or to show whose side someone is on?

I asked what I thought was a simple moral question: Does the state ever have the moral right to kill an unarmed person who poses no immediate lethal threat?

I did not try to provoke. I did not claim the cases were the same. I said plainly that the facts, motives, and political contexts differed. My own answer was no. The purpose was not to merge the stories, but to test whether the same moral rule applied in both cases.

I was asking my friend to reason with me.

The response was not an argument. It came as a rush of narrative detail, moral verdicts, and firm insistence that the question itself was illegitimate. “Not comparable.” “Straw man.” The stories did not clarify the rule. They aimed to shut down the conversation.

But what struck me most was not the emotion. It was the disconnect.

I asked about a principle. I received a story. I tested a rule. I got a verdict. We used the same words — justice, murder, authority — but those words did very different work.

The exchange failed not because of tone or ideology. It failed because we spoke different civic languages. More troubling, we no longer agree on what civic language is for.

More than a failure of civility

For years, we have blamed polarization and tribalism. We shout past one another. We retreat into bubbles. All of that is true. But the deeper problem runs deeper than disagreement.

We no longer share a civic vocabulary shaped by common expectations about clarity, restraint, and universality.

We still speak words that are recognizably English. But we use the same words to reach very different ends.

One civic language treats words as tools for reasoning. Call it “principled” or “rule-based.” Questions test limits and consistency. Moral claims aim at rules that apply beyond one case. Disagreement is normal. When someone asks, “What rule applies here?” the question is not an attack. It is the point.

This language shapes law, constitutional argument, philosophy, and journalism at its best. Words like “justified” or “legitimate” refer to standards that others can test and challenge. If a claim fails under scrutiny, it loses force.

The other civic language works differently. Call it “narrative” or “moral-emergency” language. Here, words signal alignment more than reasoning. Stories carry moral weight on their own. Urgency overrides abstraction. Questions feel like invalidation. Consistency tests sound like hostility.

RELATED: The day the media taught me it’s always wrong to be right

treety via iStock/Getty Images

In this mode, terms drift. “Murder” no longer means unlawful killing. It means moral outrage. “Straw man” stops meaning logical distortion and starts meaning emotional offense. “Not comparable” does not mean analytically distinct. It means do not apply your framework here.

Neither language is dishonest. That is the danger. Each serves a different purpose. The breakdown comes when speakers assume they are having the same kind of conversation.

The principled speaker hears evasion: “You didn’t answer my question.” The moral-emergency speaker hears bad faith: “You don’t care.”

Both walk away convinced the other is unreasonable.

Moral certainty over moral reasoning

Social media did not create this divide, but it rewards one language and punishes the other. Platforms favor speed over reflection, story over rule, accusation over inquiry. Moral certainty spreads faster than moral reasoning. Over time, abstraction starts to feel cruel and questions feel aggressive.

That is why so many political arguments stall at the same point. Facts do not resolve them because facts are not the dispute. The real question is whether rule-testing is even allowed. Once someone frames an issue as a moral emergency, universality itself looks suspect.

A simple test helps. Is this person using words to reason toward a general rule, or to signal moral alignment in a crisis?

Put more simply: Are words being used to think — or to show whose side someone is on?

RELATED: I don’t need your civil war

Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Once you see this, many conversations make sense. You understand why certain questions trigger anger. You see why consistency tests go unanswered. You recognize when dialogue cannot move forward, no matter how careful you sound.

This does not mean outrage is always wrong. It does not mean people should stop caring. It does mean we need better civic literacy about how language works. Sometimes restraint is a virtue. Walking away is not cowardice. Declining to argue is not surrender.

What cannot work is trying to make a principled argument within a moral-emergency frame.

America’s founders understood this. They designed institutions to slow decisions, force deliberation, and channel arguments into forms governed by rules rather than passion.

If we fail to see that we now speak different civic languages, we will lose the ability to talk calmly about the ideas and ideals that should bind us together. The alternative is full adoption of moral-emergency language — where persuasion gives way to force.

Too many Americans have already chosen that path.

​Renee nicole good, Shared language, Law and order, Social media, Opinion & analysis, Argument, Civic institutions, Language, Debate, Good faith, Disagreement, Logic and reason, Immigration and customs enforcement, Ashli babbitt, Facts, Civility, Tribes