Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/capitalwired/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318

A 25-year-old man from Arkansas was sentenced to half a century in prison for willfully getting infected with the HIV virus so he could give it to other people. On Monday, Stephen Koch pleaded guilty to allegations that he tried to infect another person with the virus.

He also admitted that he possessed and planned to sell methamphetamine and that he viewed child porn. Koch was initially taken into custody on drug charges, but a person familiar with the situation told the police that he possessed child pornography as well.

Investigators found on the man’s personal computer evidence that he had been diagnosed with HIV and planned to intentionally infect other people. The man wanted to take part in a double data and lie to his partner about the disease.

Man Pleads Guilty to All Charges

The man pleaded guilty to all charges and acknowledged that his behavior was “self-destructive.” When the court asked him if he was about to infect other people being fully aware that he carried the virus, he replied, “Yes.”

The judge sentenced him to 50 years behind bars and ordered for him to be registered as a sex offender.

Last fall, a gay British hairdresser was found guilty of trying to infect 10 men with the virus. He was able to infect five people before he was caught. He was charged with grievous bodily harm and sentenced to 12 years in prison in a case that is a nation’s first.

Prosecutors said that the man found new victims via a dating app for gays and coerced them into having unprotected sex. When the victims refused, he tampered with the condom. After having sex, he sent his sex partners short text messages telling them that he had HIV “LOL. Oops.”
Image Source: Benton County Jail

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/capitalwired/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318

A serial prankster from Wichita, Kansas, and two Call of Duty gamers involved in a fatal swatting case were indicted on federal charges this week.

The indictment, which was unsealed Wednesday, charged Tyler Barriss, 25, with involuntary manslaughter, false information, cyberstalking, hoaxes, wire fraud, and conspiracy.

Casey S. Viner, 19, the gamer that hired Barriss to stage a swatting prank on a COD rival but got the address wrong, was also indicted with multiple counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy, and wire fraud. Viner’s COD rival Shane M. Gaskill, 19, faces similar charges.

The case stems from the fatal shooting of Andrew Finch, 28, by the Wichita police on his family’s porch on December 28. The police arrived at Finch’s home after Barriss called 911 to report a hostage situation and a murder at the man’s address.

Barriss got Finch’s address from Viner who falsely believed that it belonged to Gaskill. Police officer Justin Rapp shot down and killed Finch after the man got out of the home to meet the cops. The police officer initially said that he though Finch was holding a gun.

Victim Had No Association with the Two Gamers

Barriss had lied to the 911 dispatcher that Finch killed his father and was keeping the rest of the family hostage while threatening to burn down the house and kill himself.

After the killing, the police said the victim didn’t comply with the officers’ commands. Finch carried no handgun, was not a gamer, and was not associated with the two COD gamers’ dispute.

Viner and Gaskill got in a dispute on December 28, when Gaskill accidentally “killed” Viner’s Call of Duty World War II character, prompting Viner to lose $1.5 in a bet. Gaskill played the game from his Wichita home, while Viner was playing the game from Ohio.

Viner called Barriss asking for his services that night. The 25-year-old was known as a serial “swatting” prankster in the gaming community.
Image Source: Wikimedia

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/capitalwired/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318

On Monday, First Lady Melania Trump will announce her formal agenda, about 16 months into her husband’s tenure. Her spokesperson, Stephanie Grisham, has recently unveiled that the central topic of Mrs. Trump’s initiative will be children’s well-being.

Grisham also unveiled that her boss would not be choosing just one topic as other First Ladies did in the past.

Mrs. Trump said days after her husband won the 2016 presidential race that her office would focus mostly on cyber-bullying. She will offer a glimpse into the details of the initiative on Monday.

Her husband’s critics noted that it is ironic that the First Lady of the United States has chosen to focus on cyber-bullying when her husband is slamming his critics on Twitter on a constant basis.

In the past, President Trump used Twitter to slam the “fake news” media and even criticize some people over their physical appearances.

The First Lady Poised to Help Children

In March, the First Lady replied to the criticism during a meeting with Silicon Valley leaders. At the time, she vowed to do anything in her power to address cyberbullying and other threats to children’s well-being.

It will not stop me from doing what I know is right. I’m here with one goal: helping children in our next generation,

Mrs. Trump said back then.

Usually, first ladies pick a specific topic or cause and focus on it as long as their husbands are in office. Former First Lady Michelle Obama launched an initiative called “Let’s move” to encourage America to move more and eat healthier. Laura Bush focused on boosting childhood literacy rates in the country.

Mrs. Trump will unveil her initiative on Monday during a Rose Garden ceremony. It will be the first time she delivers an official speech from the White House’ West Wing’s historic location.
Image Source: Defense.gov

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/capitalwired/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318

On Wednesday, Hawaii’s legislature passed a bill to outlaw the sunscreen that contains octinoxate and oxybenzone, two chemicals known to harm marine life. Scientists have been warning for years that the two compounds can boost the risk of coral bleaching.

Around 14,000 tons of sunblock reach coral reefs every year.

The two chemicals are found in nearly all chemical sunscreen brands, which are the most popular types of sunblock with the public. Some people started thinking about what risks chemical sunscreens pose to the human body if they can be so devastating to the coral reef.

Nevertheless, sunscreen is not the only danger for the planet’s coral reefs. According to the researchers at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), global warming, agricultural pollution, and excess fishing can also kill off corals.

Chemical Sunscreen Can Cause Cancer Too

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) noted that its experts have been raising concerns about chemical sunscreen for more than a decade. EWG has found traces of oxybenzone in nearly all Americans’ bloodstream.

Past studies have shown that the chemical can damage the endocrine system, and lower the testosterone levels in boys through adulthood.

Octinoxate is suspected to be dangerous as well, even though fewer studies have researched its effects on the human body. EWG recommends using other types of sunscreen as they are equally effective.

Experts recommend sunblock that contains minerals like titanium oxide and zinc oxide. Mineral sunscreen physically blocks harmful sun rays instead of creating a chemical reaction on the skin like chemical sunscreen does.

All Good, a company that manufacturers safer sunscreen, noted that chemical blockers aka as UV absorbers damage the human health and marine systems. All Good warned that the recently banned chemicals can lead to cancer, endocrine issues, and infertility.
Image Source: publicdomainpictures.net

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/capitalwired/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318

Judge Merrilee Ehrlich who was so verbally abusive to a 59-year-old defendant that she reduced her to tears won’t be allowed to return to the courthouse after the incident. The defendant was found dead in her bed two days later.

A video shows judge Ehrlich yelling at a woman who was in court on a battery charge following a dispute at her apartment in Lauderhill, Fla. The incident happened April 15.

The woman who was in a wheelchair in the video told the judge that she had several medical conditions including asthma. At one point, the judge got so angry that she told the defendant that they were not there to discuss her breathing treatments.

The defendant’s sister confirmed after her death that the woman lived with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes. The woman was bailed out of prison on Monday, but she was found dead in her bedroom on Wednesday.

Judge Won’t Return to Courthouse

The woman’s sister criticized the judge for being so “nasty” and for not allowing the inmate to get a much-needed breathing treatment while in jail.

Chief Judge Jack Tuter announced over the weekend that the judge would not return to her job after the incident.

I am saddened and disappointed in the way Judge Ehrlich behaved on the video,

he said.

Judge Ehrlich will reportedly retire on June 30 and will not be allowed to return to work until then. Tuter is reportedly seeking a substitute for her division. Ehrlich couldn’t be reached with a request for comment.

The chief judge insisted that Ehrlich’s behavior does not reflect other 17th Circuit judges’ work ethics. He added that all citizens have the right to be treated with respect and dignity.
Image Source: Printscreen

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/capitalwired/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318

An 18-year-old student from Riverview High School in Sarasota, Florida, sparked a huge debate after asking his girlfriend to the prom in a less ordinary way. The boy sent the girl a photo of himself holding a racist sign via Snapchat on Sunday.

If I was black, I’d be picking cotton, but I’m white, so I’m picking u 4 prom,

the sign reads.

The school district confirmed that the photo shows Riverview student Noah Crowley, 18. The boy’s girlfriend replied to the proposal with a couple of heart-eye emojis, which means that she was happy with the request.

The photo was retweeted hundreds of times by Monday morning. One of the re-tweeterers blasted the teen for being clueless about American history. One of them even asked for the teen to be banned from the prom.

The school district reportedly launched an investigation into the issue. School administrators reportedly contacted the boy and his family via a robocall.

Prom Proposal Sparks Instant Backlash

The schools’ principal Kathy Wilks noted on Monday that the administration first learned about the sign on Sunday night. Wilks, who deemed the post “racial in nature,” also said that many people who saw the image were offended by its contents and the girl’s commentary to the photo.

The principal insisted that the boy’s behavior is not condoned by the high school.

Anton Kernohan, who is a senior involved in gun control activities on the school’s grounds, said his friends were “disgusted” with the proposal. Kernohan thinks racism is “still alive and well” in America and should be addressed.

The local NAACP chapter asked the school district to issue an official statement, condemning the boy’s post. NAACP wants other students to learn that such behavior won’t be tolerated in the county’s schools and that it would trigger “severe consequences”.

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/capitalwired/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318

On Wednesday, the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, announced that he plans to allow paroled felons to vote again. If everything goes as planned, 35,000 people will have their voting rights restored.

Cuomo’s plan is highly unusual, as he plans to fend off the opposition to his criminal justice reforms in the GOP-controlled state Senate. Under the proposed reform, all felons on parole in New York will be given “given consideration for a conditional pardon.” Cuomo also plans to consider pardon for new felons every month, as they get convicted.

The governor unveiled the move Wednesday at the National Action Network’s yearly gathering. He also unveiled that he had pushed for laws to restore paroles voting rights, but without success.

“I’m unwilling to take no for an answer. I’m going to make it law by executive order,

Cuomo said about the new proposal.

Felons’ Voting Rights to Be Restored Without Delay

Later, the governor’s office explained that Cuomo had unveiled the plan during the budget negotiations, but lawmakers blocked it. Under the upcoming executive order, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision will have to make lists of all paroled felons across the state starting May 1.

The lists will be updated each month, so that newly convicted felons on parole could be given consideration for the pardon that will restore their voting rights. Cuomo wants the rights restored “without undue delay.” However, the pardon will not clear felons’ criminal records or restore other types or rights.

The New York governor is not the first governor to come with such proposal. Eighteen other states, including D.C., have enabled paroled felons to cast a ballot. In 14 states, voting rights are automatically restored when the felon is paroled.
Image Source: Flickr

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/capitalwired/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318

According to an administration official, Trump got angry at his staffers for misleading him on the number of Russian diplomats about to be expelled from the United States following the assassination of a British spy by Russian counterintelligence.

The U.S. leader was reportedly upset that the U.S. has expelled more diplomats than he was informed although he had been assured that the United States wouldn’t oust more diplomats than Europe.

Trump was furious that its European allies, Germany and France, have expelled only eight diplomats in total, while the U.S. decided to send home 60. The president became furious that his country ended up as the country with the toughest stance on Moscow.

Even when his staffers told him that the total number of Russian diplomats expelled by the EU would match the U.S. number, he got angrier. “I don’t care about the total!,” the president reportedly yelled at his briefers.

Cabinet and Trump Not on the Same Page about Russia

The incident shows that the Trump administration is divided over the Russia issue. While his Cabinet is trying to stop him from getting closer to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump is opposing the Cabinet’s penalties on Russia.

In March, Russian diplomats were expelled in droves, while Russian billionaires lost billions of dollars weakening the Russian economy even more. Recently, Trump criticized Putin for the first time for supporting Syria’s leader Bashar Assad.

Over the weekend, the U.S. and two of its European allies launched 100 missiles onto Syria’s chemical weapon facilities in retaliation for a chemical attack on civilians. On Sunday, the U.S. ambassador threatened Russia with more sanctions for protecting Syria.

According to the White House, President Trump supports the latest military actions and incoming sanctions. People familiar with the matter, on the other hand, claim that Trump is being pressurized into taking a tougher stance on Russia.
Image Source: Wikimedia

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/capitalwired/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318

A sheriff in a California county was caught on tape saying that the county would be better off financially if deputies would kill suspects in the streets than just “cripple” them.

Sheriff Donny Youngblood (pictured) made the comments in front of several people in 2006, but the video surfaced this week, at a time when he seeks reelection. The controversial remarks were made during his first campaign.

The conversation starts with Youngblood asking a question about a hypothetical scenario in which a deputy shoots a suspect he is chasing in the streets.

Which way do you think is better financially, to cripple them or kill them…for the county?

the sheriff asked.

When one person suggested that killing them would be better, he replied, “Absolutely.” Youngblood even explained why gunning down and killing a suspect is cheaper: because a crippled inmate would require healthcare his entire life.

A Dead Suspect is Better for the County’s Budget

The sheriff concludes that leaving a suspect impaired for life is “millions and millions of dollars” more expensive than killing him. He added that, after a “bad shoot” that leaves the suspect dead, three million dollars given to the family will fix the issue for good.

The video surfaced Monday on the Facebook page of a group that backs Youngblood’s rival, Justin Fleeman, during this year’s election. After releasing the footage, the Kern County Detention Officers Association explained that the clip is proof that Kern County sheriff’s office is in “desperate need” for a change.

Youngblood replied to the criticism, claiming that he had no intention to instruct deputies to shoot and kill suspects. He was speaking hypothetically to make the cost of police violence clearer.

The sheriff acknowledged that how he discussed the issue was inappropriate and wished he would have “said it differently.”
Image Source: Printscreen

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/capitalwired/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318

Ethan Couch aka the “affluenza teen” was released from jail after two years and just a few days ahead his 21st birthday. The latest term was for a parole violation in connection to a conviction for killing four people in a drunken joyride when he was 16 years old.

Couch’s case made the headlines after a Texas judge ordered him to serve just two years in prison thanks to an elite defense team sponsored by his rich parents. In the car crash, four people were killed and one of his friends was left paralyzed.

After leaving Tarrant County jail on Monday, he will be required to wear an ankle monitor.

The affluenza teen would have faced 20 years in prison for manslaughter, but he got only two years after his lawyers argued that his upbringing barred him from understanding the consequences of his actions.

A volunteer chaplain who has counseled teen over the last two years said Couch was a changed man. “I haven’t seen arrogance in Ethan in more than nine months,” the cleric added. One of the four victims in the 2013 crash was the chaplain’s childhood friend, youth minister Brian Jennings.

The Crash

On the night of June 15, 2013, the affluenza teen had a blood alcohol level way above the legal limit. He plunged his Ford F-350 pickup into a stalled SUV mowing down four people who were trying to get the SUV going. The SUV driver, two women who had come to help, and Jennings were killed instantly.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has opposed Couch’s early release Monday. The group promised to support the family of his victims and continue to watch Couch to ensure that he doesn’t break the rules of probation.

During his trial, his lawyers argued that he was unable to be responsible for his actions because of his rich parents. Psychologist G. Dick Miller argued that the then-16-year-old was affected by “affluenza,” a condition not recognized by the medical community which puts the blame on his wealthy and dysfunctional family for his inability to know right from wrong.
Image Source: Flickr