Skip to main content

Alleged Bomb Maker Arrested in Murder-for-Hire Plot

TAMPA, FL—On Friday, April 23, 2010, the Tampa FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), which consists of numerous representatives from local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, arrested JOHN NICHOLAS COORS, age 20, without incident. COORS was arrested in Tampa, Florida, after meeting with an undercover law enforcement asset (UCA) and attempting to detonate an improvised explosive device (IED). COORS resides at 702 East 51st Street, apartment 916A, Bradenton, Florida.

According to the federal complaint, the JTTF initially learned about COORS during November 2009. The JTTF received information that COORS was trained in “special forces” type military tactics, considered himself a mercenary, was proficient in building explosive devices, and had made pipe bombs in the past. He was allegedly in possession of precursor chemicals that could be used to make explosives as well as bomb making books, including the “Anarchist Cookbook”, which where stored in Bradenton, Florida. Resultantly, OPERATION ROCKY BULLET was launched.

During the investigation, contacts between COORS and the UCA involved plans to kill someone by blowing them up in their vehicle. COORS and the UCA discussed building an IED, COORS furnished instructions on how to build such a device, and how to plant the device in a vehicle to carry out the assassination.

COORS agreed to construct and provide an improvised explosive device capable of killing a person sitting in a car. COORS told the UCA that he would build the bomb in such a way that it could be remotely detonated and that he would install the device himself to ensure it was done properly. COORS agreed to build and detonate the bomb for $8000.00.

COORS constructed the bomb triggering device himself and used inert explosives which were provided by the UCA to ensure the public’s safety.

The related charge in this arrest involved the use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire. This investigation is ongoing.

Criminal prosecution of this matter will be addressed by the United States Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Florida.

The charges in the federal complaint are merely allegations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...