A man from Charlotte, facing serious allegations of planning attacks on five local educational institutions, found himself out of jail just a short stint before the school doors reopened. The timing raised eyebrows as students were only days away from returning to their classrooms.

On the morning of August 22, 33-year-old Drew Andres Owens walked out of Mecklenburg County Jail. Coincidentally, students from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools were set to resume classes just three days later, on August 25.

Back in March 2025, a grand jury in Mecklenburg County had charged Owens with five instances of issuing mass violence threats aimed at schools. Despite these serious allegations, Owens has maintained his innocence, pleading not guilty, with these legal matters still unresolved.

The indictment includes accusations that Owens dispatched alarming emails on February 15, 2025, targeting several schools: West Charlotte High School, Ardrey Kell High School, Community House Middle School, and Hawk Ridge Elementary School. Four specific charges detail these communications.

According to court documents reviewed by News Media, Owens allegedly sent messages threatening to “slaughter staff and students.”

A separate indictment alleges a mailed threat against Garinger High School. The affidavit claimed that a student, who was armed with two shotguns and an AR-15, would carry out the mass shooting. School administrators later determined that no student by that name was enrolled there, according to the affidavit.

The warrant affidavit states that Darryl Owens, Drew’s father and a West Charlotte High School ROTC instructor, told police he also believed his son was responsible for the school threats.

Darryl Owens allegedly told authorities that his son had harassed relatives, neighbors and family friends after being removed from the family home in 2021, and had sent unsigned emails and letters threatening to kill or shoot people at multiple locations.

The father told police he had previously obtained a restraining order against his son, that Owens had been arrested for violating it and that the order was later dismissed. He also told police that Owens had recently sat outside neighbors’ homes and photographed his car at West Charlotte High School “to try to lure him outside.”

RELATED: Brace for Impact: Storm Alert Skyrockets as Moisture Engulfs Region

According to court records, the bond in the four-school case was lowered from $135,000 to $60,000 in May 2026. Docket records indicate the four-school case had originally been set at a $135,000 secured bond with electronic monitoring in February 2025.

A judge reduced that amount to $60,000 on May 1, 2026. The separate case tied to Garinger High School carried a secured bond of $15,000. Owens satisfied the court-ordered pretrial bond conditions and was released Saturday, Aug. 22.

Court records showed a $60,000 secured bond in the four-school case and a $15,000 secured bond in the Garinger case. A professional surety posted the $60,000 bond the previous Friday night.

WSOC previously reported that Owens’ record included arrests for resisting arrest and shoplifting. The local outlet did not report a total number of prior arrests and News Media has reached out to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department for additional details.

Following his release, parents told WSOC that they are nervous to send their kids off to school as the school year kicks off.

“Is he going to show up at one of the schools? It’s not good,” said one parent. “I’m not going to feel at ease, I’m not going to pretend it’s OK.”

“In this situation it’s confusing because he had a $200K bond,” another parent said. “He’s clearly a public safety threat, so what took the threat level down?”

“He’s out and that’s it, and the rest of us have to deal with it and teachers have to go to school on Tuesday and deal with it,” another parent said.

It was not immediately clear if Owens had an attorney representing him.

In a rising storm of political discourse, Hasan Piker, the controversial Twitch streamer known for his far-left views, finds himself at the center of a heated debate. His provocative remarks concerning American Jews’ alignment with Israel have drawn intense criticism from Michigan Representative Hillary Scholten. The Congresswoman has publicly condemned Piker, particularly for comments she believes incite “talk of violence” against Jewish Michigan State Senator Jeremy Moss.

On Monday, Scholten unleashed a verbal barrage against Piker, characterizing him as “a hack who thrives on hate, shock and awe because he lacks substance.”

Scholten’s statement left no room for ambiguity, asserting, “Hasan Piker’s talk of violence against American Jews, and directly naming a Michigan elected official, and future member of Congress, Jeremy Moss, is unacceptable. Full stop. We should all be calling out this disgusting rhetoric so it loses its grip on our politics once and for all. It has no place in Michigan, and no place in our country.”

Piker, unbowed by the criticism, fired back at Scholten, accusing her of being an “Israel 1st congresswoman.”

Taking to X, Piker wrote, “if i was an israel 1st congresswoman with a possible cheating scandal with a republican in the state, i wouldn’t spend so much time vying for the spotlight by actively defaming a prominent antizionist voice to harm the dem senate majority chances over a 90/10 issue.”

Piker, who holds a large social media following, has been particularly visible in Michigan this election cycle. He backed Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who defeated Rep. Haley Stevens in a primary earlier this month. El-Sayed was criticized for appearing with Piker during his campaign, with some saying that the streamer’s rhetoric was too extreme.

Scholten backed Stevens last month, calling her a “smart, capable, and common-sense leader.” She later praised Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for endorsing Stevens.

El-Sayed also responded to Piker’s comments, and while he did not condemn the streamer outright, he denounced antisemitism and rhetoric that puts the Jewish community in danger.

“I believe all Americans deserve the right to advocate for what they believe without fear of violence. This is particularly true for communities that have been intimidated for their beliefs in the past,” El-Sayed wrote.

“My commitment to Jewish safety is the same as my commitment to the safety of my own daughters,” he added. “Antisemitism is a scourge, and we need to address it in all its forms. And I stand against any rhetoric that puts the community at risk.”

In his statement, El-Sayed stressed that Piker did not speak for his campaign, writing that, “nobody speaks for this campaign besides me and my campaign spokespeople.”

In addition to politicians, Piker was also criticized by Jewish organizations. 

RELATED: Democrat Initiates New Impeachment Effort Against Trump

In a statement to Fox News Digital, the Jewish Federation of Detroit said that “Hasan Piker’s talk of violence against Jewish Americans while displaying a picture of a Michigan lawmaker who is Jewish is repugnant and antisemitic.”

“We call on all responsible leaders to condemn this extremist, attention-seeking conduct which divides Americans, foments hate, and makes our Jewish community less safe,” the Jewish Federation of Detroit’s statement read.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) also said on Monday that by using an image of Moss, “Piker put a target on the backs of Sen. Moss, Jewish candidates and officeholders, and American Jews alike.”

“Blaming Jews for the antisemitism directed at them is itself antisemitism,” AJC wrote on X. “Every public official who has shared his platform now has a choice: denounce this and walk away, or be complicit. There is no third option.”

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt weighed in as well, questioning whether elected officials who associate with Piker really watch his streams or if “they just see his reach and ignore the rampant antisemitism.”

“The Jewsplaining is extraordinary: Piker appoints himself an authority on antisemitism, lecturing Jews about what is and isn’t antisemitic while blaming the Jewish community for the hatred directed against it,” Greenblatt said of Piker.

During his Aug. 20 stream, Piker seemed to warn American Jews against supporting Israel, saying that doing so could lead to violence against them.

“People don’t f— with Israel any longer. And if Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they’re singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone will come around and take action not against Israel, mind you, but against American Jews,” Piker said.

When he made the comment, Piker had an image of Moss, who is running to fill Stevens’ seat, in his background.

Piker’s remarks came amid a controversy over an audio clip circulating online in which Moss purportedly said that the “entire purpose” of his congressional campaign was to ensure America’s continued support for Israel.

However, the Michigan Democrat said that the clip was fabricated, calling it “a manipulated and unsourced audio, with things I never did and never would say.”

“We are in a dangerous era of disinformation. Circulating a lie because it affirms your bias or belief is equally bad whether it comes from the left or the right. We all have a choice not to spread fabricated images, videos, and audio about candidates and campaigns. We all have a role in stopping the erosion of our democracy,” Moss said about the controversy over the audio clip.

Fox News Digital reached out to Piker and Moss for comment but did not immediately receive a response. 

In a bold and unusual move, Congressman Al Green has once more called for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, leaving Democrats grappling with a potential political quagmire just as the fall midterm elections ramp up.

On Monday, Green put forth a resolution charging Trump with ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ focusing specifically on the contentious immigration-enforcement policies of his administration.

This initiative stands apart from any larger Democratic-led impeachment efforts, accentuating the friction between Green’s assertive stance and the party’s leadership, which insists that any impeachment proceedings should be rooted in thorough investigations.

Such tensions have long simmered. During Trump’s initial term, prominent House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, pushed back against Green’s impeachment drives, advocating for more patient, investigative diligence.

A similar scenario unfolded during Trump’s subsequent term. In February 2025, Pete Aguilar, a then-leader within the House Democratic caucus, reaffirmed that Democrats were not prioritizing impeachment at that time.

Later that year, Hakeem Jeffries and other Democratic leaders again declined to fully embrace Green’s effort. Jeffries said impeachment ‘requires a comprehensive investigative process’ and that the necessary investigative work had not been done.

Josh Gottheimer has also been skeptical of another Trump impeachment, saying, ‘We saw that movie twice and it didn’t work,’ while urging Democrats to focus on congressional oversight.

Jamie Raskin, meanwhile, has remained open to impeachment but wants a strong factual and legal case built first.

The divide is about strategy. Green pushes for immediate action whenever he believes Trump has crossed a constitutional line, while Democratic leadership favors investigations, evidence-gathering and a coordinated approach.

That could matter enormously if Democrats retake the House. They are preparing to launch broad investigations into Trump and his administration, with impeachment becoming an option if those investigations produce a case for it.

ALSO READ: Explosive Transfer Secrets Revealed: Arsenal’s Alvarez Pursuit, Chelsea’s Midfield Dilemma, Leeds’ Signing Spree

Green, however, is once again moving ahead on his own.

Monday’s articles argue that Trump’s conduct violates his constitutional oath, and accuse his administration of allowing ICE and CBP to trample Americans’ constitutional rights.

Green alleges violations of the First and Fourth Amendments: interference with speech and protest, unlawful searches, seizures and arrests, excessive force, and violations of due process and equal protection. He describes ICE and CBP as ‘quota-driven, unaccountable paramilitary police forces.’

The Texas Democrat’s argument is that Washington’s authority to enforce immigration law does not give it license to ignore constitutional protections. He claims enforcement has involved racially targeted arrests, unjustified detention and unjustified uses of deadly force — not disputed policy, he says, but potential constitutional violations for which the president must be held responsible.

Among the cases he cites are the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, both 37-year-old US citizens killed during encounters with federal immigration-enforcement personnel in Minneapolis, which Green holds up as examples of excessive or unconstitutional force. He also points to the fatal shooting by an ICE agent of illegal migrant Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston.

Because Trump controls the executive branch and sets its immigration-enforcement policies, Green argues, the president cannot distance himself from what federal agencies do under his authority. Allowing or directing unconstitutional conduct, in Green’s view, is fundamentally incompatible with the presidential oath and potentially rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

Monday’s filing is far from Green’s first attempt. It is at least his third of Trump’s second term, part of a years-long campaign to remove him from office.

In May 2025, Green introduced H.Res. 415, titled ‘Impeaching Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and went no further.

Weeks later, on June 24, he was back with H.Res. 537, which contained actual Articles of Impeachment accusing Trump of abusing the powers of his presidency. The House voted to table it the same day.

On December 11, Green introduced H.Res. 939, branding Trump an ‘abuser of Presidential power’ and arguing that leaving him in office would allow him to keep undermining democracy and inciting violence.

Green has said he helped lay the groundwork for Trump’s first impeachment in 2019. Trump was impeached twice by the House during his first presidency, though neither impeachment resulted in his removal by the Senate.

Now Green is back again – putting Democrats in the familiar position of deciding whether to embrace his latest effort or keep their powder dry for a broader, leadership-driven strategy against Trump.