California Man Charged with Hate Crime for Threats to Jewish Center
Paul Dean Andrews faces felony hate crime charges for allegedly threatening to shoot up a Jewish Community Center; he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 3, 2026, 2:15 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 3, 2026, 2:15 a.m. ETFirst report
California Man Charged with Hate Crime for Threats to Jewish Center
Paul Dean Andrews, 43, of Lomita, has been charged with felony hate crimes, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, as reported by BNO News. The charges stem from alleged incidents on Aug. 11 and Aug. 13, in which Andrews is accused of calling the Jewish Community Center in Redondo Bay and making antisemitic remarks, including threats to shoot up the place.
Andrews faces more than nine years in prison if convicted. The case is at the charging stage, and Andrews is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The charges are allegations, and the matter has not been decided by a court.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 13 Sept 2026, 06:23current
First published.
- Version 13 Sept 2026, 06:15current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.