Media Shooting Suspect’s Note Reveals Disturbing Intentions

In a troubling incident that has sent shockwaves through the media community and raised concerns about violence targeting journalists, 63-year-old Anibal Hernandez Santana stands accused of opening fire on ABC 10’s building in Sacramento, California. The September 19th shooting, while fortunately resulting in no injuries, forced station employees to shelter in place and temporarily disrupted broadcasting operations. The case has taken an even more disturbing turn as investigators discovered evidence suggesting potential political motivations and plans for future violence.

Following Santana’s release on bail, law enforcement conducted a search of his vehicle, where they found a handwritten note with alarming content. The note read, “For hiding Epstein & ignoring red flags. Do not support Patel, Bongino, & AG Pam Bondi. They’re next. – C.K. from above.” This discovery suggests the attack may have been motivated by conspiracy theories related to Jeffrey Epstein and indicates potential threats against current FBI Director Kash Patel and others. The reference to “C.K. from above” remains cryptic, adding another layer of concern for investigators attempting to understand the full scope of Santana’s intentions and whether he might be part of a larger network or acting alone.

Further investigation into Santana’s home revealed additional evidence that has heightened concerns about premeditation. Detectives located a planner containing an ominous note under “Friday” that stated, “Do the Next Scary Thing.” This discovery suggests the attack on the TV station may have been planned in advance and, more worryingly, could potentially be part of a series of violent acts Santana intended to carry out. The combination of the threatening note in his car with this planner entry has prompted authorities to treat the case with utmost seriousness, particularly given the explicit naming of public figures as future targets.

The legal response to the shooting has been swift and comprehensive, with Santana facing charges at both the state and federal levels. Initially booked on state charges including shooting into an occupied building, assault with a deadly weapon, and negligent discharge of a firearm, federal authorities have since added charges of possession of a firearm within a school zone, discharge of a firearm within a school zone, and interference with a radio communications station. This dual prosecution approach underscores the seriousness with which authorities are treating the attack on a media institution, particularly in the current climate where journalists and news organizations have increasingly become targets of threats and violence.

Mark Reichel, Santana’s attorney, has emphasized the unusual nature of the case, noting that it is “remarkably uncommon for any individual to face simultaneous state and federal charges for the same alleged conduct.” While acknowledging the public’s desire for answers, Reichel stressed that his client is entitled to due process and remains innocent until proven guilty. The attorney’s statement highlights the complexity of a case that sits at the intersection of free speech concerns, potential domestic terrorism, and threats against both media organizations and public officials. As the legal proceedings unfold, they will likely raise important questions about how to address targeted violence against media outlets while respecting constitutional protections.

FBI Director Kash Patel, one of the individuals named in Santana’s threatening note, responded to the incident on social media, calling such targeted acts of violence “unacceptable” and assuring the public that they “will be pursued to the fullest extent of the law.” His statement acknowledges the serious nature of attacks on media organizations while affirming the FBI’s commitment to protecting both the free press and public figures who may be targeted for their positions or policies. As the investigation continues, authorities will undoubtedly be examining whether Santana was acting alone or if his actions and written threats represent a broader danger requiring additional security measures for the named individuals and media outlets across the country.