Vyras, kuris anksčiau dirbo „Tesla“ gamykloje Teksase, vėliau prie judraus Ostino baro nužudė tris žmones ir sužeidė daugiau nei tuziną kitų. Elonas Muskas dabar viešai pasisakė apie ankstesnį ...
Antraštės ir trumpo aprašymo vertimas atliktas automatiškai. Sudomino? Įsijunkite vertimą.
A man who once worked on the Tesla factory floor in Texas later killed three people and wounded more than a dozen others outside a busy Austin bar. Elon Musk has now spoken publicly about the earlier workplace clash that led to the man’s firing. The details come from a recent interview, a civil lawsuit, and an official FBI update. Readers can weigh the known facts for themselves.
The story sits at the crossroads of workplace rules, personal history, and larger questions about how the country screens people who arrive from elsewhere. Some see a clear pattern of warning signs. Others point to the FBI’s conclusion that the gunman acted alone, with no outside direction. Both accounts rest on public records.
What Happened on West Sixth Street
Just before 2 a.m. on March 1, 2026, Ndiaga Diagne drove past Buford’s Backyard Beer Garden on Austin’s West Sixth Street. He fired a handgun from his vehicle into the patio and sidewalk crowd. He then parked, got out with an AR-style rifle, and kept shooting along the street. Austin police arrived within roughly a minute and shot him. He died at the scene.
Three people were killed: 19-year-old Ryder Harrington, 21-year-old Savitha Shanmugasundaram, and 30-year-old Jorge Pederson. About 15 others were injured. Diagne, 53, lived in the Pflugerville area. He wore a sweatshirt that read “Property of Allah” and a T-shirt with an Iranian flag design. A Quran was found in his SUV, according to reports at the time.
HOLY SH*T Elon Musk reveals that Ndiaga Diagne, the Muslim man who k*lled 3 people in Austin, was an ex-Tesla employee whom he fired. Diagne was fired after he assaulted a woman for stepping on his prayer rug. Months later, he carried out the shooting. https://t.co/cvqU6KyEly
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 20, 2026
The FBI later confirmed the sequence in a May 7, 2026 update. Diagne had legally bought the handgun in August 2017 and the rifle in October 2017, both in San Antonio.
Who Ndiaga Diagne Was
Diagne was born in Senegal. He entered the United States in 2000 on a tourist visa. He later married a U.S. citizen, received a green card in 2006, and became a naturalized citizen in April 2013, the FBI stated. He had lived in New York and the San Antonio area before settling near Austin.
Public accounts note prior contacts with law enforcement, including a 2022 hit-and-run that was reduced and later dismissed after probation, and allegations of domestic violence. Some reports also mention a history of mental health conditions. He was not under active FBI investigation before the March shooting, according to the bureau.
These background facts appear in the FBI update and contemporaneous local coverage. They do not by themselves explain the attack, but they form part of the public record that readers can review.
The Tesla Workplace Incident
In a civil lawsuit filed in Travis County, 65-year-old Tesla employee Lillian Mendoza Brady alleged that on December 4, 2025, Diagne grabbed her and threw her to the ground while he was praying in a common area of the Austin Gigafactory. The filing says Tesla allowed prayer breaks in shared spaces. Brady reported the assault to the company and to local authorities but said she did not learn Diagne’s name at the time. She recognized him only after seeing news photos of the shooter.
Her attorney has argued that Tesla either knew or should have known of Diagne’s aggressive tendencies and failed to protect other workers. The suit seeks more than $1 million and claims the company withheld his identity, which delayed any criminal complaint. Tesla moved the case into arbitration, so the claims have not been tested in open court. The company has not publicly confirmed the employment details or the firing.
A neighbor later told local reporters that Diagne had described a separate clash involving a supervisor and a prayer mat that ended with his termination. Brady has said she is not a manager and denied stepping on any mat. These accounts remain allegations outside the FBI’s shooting investigation.
What Elon Musk Said
In an interview with biographer Walter Isaacson for the new podcast series The Builders, released around October 20, 2026, Musk addressed the case directly. He said a worker at the Austin factory had been fired after assaulting a woman who stepped on his prayer rug. Musk described the woman as not expecting anyone to be praying in the factory area. He said the man violently assaulted her, was fired, and months later killed three people at the bar.
After a pause, Musk stated that the country should not let people like that in. In related remarks he has argued that screening should filter for those who hold extreme views that lead to violence, while noting that many people from the same background are reasonable. The full interview is available on the podcast platforms that carry The Builders.
Musk’s comments supply the prayer-rug detail and the explicit link to the later shooting. They go beyond what appears in the civil petition, which describes the assault during a sanctioned prayer break but does not mention a rug or a firing. Readers can compare the two accounts.
What the FBI Concluded
The FBI’s May 7 update is clear on several points. Diagne was a lone actor. Investigators found no evidence that he belonged to a foreign terrorist organization or received direction, funding, or operational support. He had never been the subject of an FBI investigation before the attack.
At the same time, the bureau noted that Diagne admired the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and that his affinity for Iran was a factor in his mobilization to violence. The attack came a day after U.S. and Israeli strikes involving Iran. The FBI described an escalation in violent behavior tied in part to personal grievances over those events, resulting in what it called a violent, impulsive attack. No conclusive evidence explained why he chose that bar or that night.
The investigation involved hundreds of personnel, thousands of hours of video, and millions of digital files. It remains open. The official statement is available on the FBI website.
How Different Accounts Treat the Same Facts
Coverage has split along familiar lines. Some outlets emphasized the clothing, the Iranian flag shirt, the prior workplace assault, and Diagne’s path from tourist visa to citizenship. They frame Musk’s remarks as a practical warning about screening for patterns of intolerance that can turn violent. They note that an employer saw enough to fire the man, yet the larger system had no later mechanism to act on that history.
Other accounts stress the FBI finding of no foreign direction, the possible role of mental health issues, and the fact that Diagne had lived in the country for more than two decades as a citizen. They treat the prayer-rug story as an allegation still in civil court and caution against linking the shooting to broader immigration policy. Initial reports sometimes focused on the Iran conflict timing while giving less space to the clothing and the earlier factory incident.
Both approaches draw from the same core documents: the FBI update, the lawsuit filings, and Musk’s interview. The difference lies in which details receive the most weight and what policy conclusion, if any, readers are invited to draw. Related discussions of border and visa rules appear in other reporting on labor certifications and enforcement priorities.
Open Questions That Remain
Several points are still unsettled. Did Tesla have earlier internal records of aggressive behavior that could have been shared with authorities? Why did the company not provide Brady with Diagne’s name after she reported the December assault? The arbitration process means those questions may never be answered in a public trial.
The FBI has not identified a single conclusive motive or a clear reason for the choice of location. Diagne’s admiration for Iranian leadership and the timing of the attack are documented, yet the bureau found no evidence of outside control. Prior arrests and family-violence allegations existed, but he was able to buy firearms legally years earlier and hold a factory job until the prayer-rug incident.
These gaps do not require any reader to accept one political reading. They simply show where public information ends. For context on broader migration and enforcement debates, see reporting such as the recent Labor Department pause on certain green-card certifications for large tech and outsourcing firms, available at Planet Today.
What the Record Actually Shows
Ndiaga Diagne entered on a tourist visa, became a citizen through marriage, worked at Tesla’s Austin plant, and was alleged to have assaulted a coworker during a prayer break in December 2025. He was later fired. On March 1, 2026, he killed three people and wounded others outside an Austin bar while wearing clothing that referenced Allah and Iran. The FBI says he acted alone, with no foreign direction, but notes his affinity for Iran’s former leader as relevant to his decision to act. Elon Musk has described the factory firing and argued that people who respond to an accidental contact with a prayer rug by committing violence should not be admitted.
Every one of those sentences can be checked against the FBI statement, the civil filings, and the interview. Readers may reach different conclusions about what, if anything, should change in screening or workplace reporting. The facts themselves are now on the public record.
Original source: Reporting based on the October 20–21, 2026 article by Steve Watson via Modernity.news and ZeroHedge: ZeroHedge and Modernity.news. Primary documents include the FBI San Antonio update of May 7, 2026, and the Travis County civil petition filed by Lillian Mendoza Brady.
Disclaimer for fact-checkers: This article draws from public statements by Elon Musk, court filings that remain allegations, and an official FBI investigative update. Claims about motive, employer knowledge, and policy implications are presented as reported and are subject to further verification. Readers are encouraged to consult the primary sources linked above.