News
Georgia Shooting Case Sets New Legal Precedent for Parental Responsibility
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/06147/061476eac102276b1601a6f0912808ee9d17bcf9" alt=""
In a groundbreaking legal move, murder charges have been filed against the father of a teenager involved in a deadly school shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia. Colin Gray, 54, is accused of purchasing an AR-style rifle as a Christmas gift for his 14-year-old son, Colt, despite the boy’s history of making online threats related to school shootings. Investigators believe Colt used this weapon in the Wednesday attack that claimed four lives and left nine others injured.
This case marks a significant shift in the way parental responsibility is treated in the aftermath of school shootings. Colin Gray now faces two counts of second-degree murder, four counts of involuntary manslaughter, and eight counts of cruelty to children, with the potential for a maximum prison sentence of 180 years. The second-degree murder charges pertain to the deaths of two students, Christian Angulo and Mason Schermerhorn, both 14 years old, who were among those killed in the shooting.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) stated that the charges against Mr. Gray are due to his decision to “knowingly allow his son to possess a weapon.” This move underscores the legal stance that parents can be held accountable if their negligence directly contributes to such tragic events.
Georgia law defines second-degree murder as causing the death of another person during the commission of cruelty to children, regardless of intent. This specific legal wording may have influenced the charges brought against Mr. Gray.
While the charges have been rapidly filed, legal experts advise caution as the full details of the case continue to emerge. The case is expected to test the boundaries of parental responsibility in situations involving minors and firearms, potentially setting a precedent for future cases.
News
Australian Nurses Suspended Over Antisemitic Video Amid National Crackdown on Hate Speech
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a094c/a094c10349cb80d463f7617adbf25a40c96b0b7b" alt=""
Two Australian nurses have been suspended after a video surfaced showing them making violent antisemitic remarks, including threats to harm Israeli patients. The incident, which allegedly took place at a hospital in Sydney, has sparked outrage and is now under police investigation.
New South Wales (NSW) Health Minister Ryan Park confirmed that the two individuals had been stood down immediately and would never work in the state’s healthcare system again. Authorities are conducting a thorough review of hospital records to ensure no patients were harmed, though a rapid preliminary check found nothing unusual.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the video as “sickening and shameful,” emphasizing that antisemitism has no place in Australia. His comments come just days after the country passed stricter hate crime laws in response to a surge in antisemitic incidents.
The video, shared online by Israeli content creator Max Veifer, appears to have been recorded in a hospital setting. In the footage, a man claiming to be a doctor tells Veifer he has “beautiful eyes” but adds, “I’m sorry you’re Israeli,” before making a throat-slitting gesture and stating he sends Israelis to “Jahannam” (an Islamic concept of hell). A woman later appears on screen, saying she refuses to treat Israelis and will “kill them” instead.
Despite the video being edited with emojis and censoring certain comments, authorities have not questioned its authenticity. NSW Police stated they have identified the individuals involved and are investigating whether criminal charges should be pursued.
Albanese vowed that anyone found guilty of committing hate crimes will “face the full force of our laws.” Park echoed this sentiment, apologizing to the Jewish community and reassuring them that NSW hospitals remain committed to providing “first-class” healthcare to all patients, regardless of background.
News
Coca-Cola May Increase Plastic Bottle Use Due to Trump’s Aluminium Tariffs
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/981e6/981e663b51f90109a00cd4c2410e7754706a42fd" alt=""
Coca-Cola has warned that it may have to increase the use of plastic bottles in the U.S. if President Donald Trump’s new tariffs make aluminium cans too expensive. The announcement was made by Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey during a call with investors.
Trump’s recent order imposes a 25% import tax on all steel and aluminium entering the U.S., a move expected to raise costs for canned food and beverage manufacturers. Quincey acknowledged that Coca-Cola could shift more emphasis to PET plastic bottles to manage affordability.
“If aluminium cans become more expensive, we can put more emphasis on PET bottles,” he said, while noting that packaging costs are only a small fraction of the company’s overall expenses.
This shift comes shortly after Coca-Cola scaled back its sustainability goal of using 50% recycled materials in its packaging by 2030, adjusting the target to 35-40% by 2035. The beverage giant has been under pressure from environmental groups, which have labeled it the world’s “top global plastic polluter” for six years in a row.
Aluminium cans, despite being pricier, are far more recyclable than plastic bottles. The U.S. imports nearly half of its aluminium, according to the United States Geological Survey, making the tariffs a significant factor in production costs. Unlike in 2018, when some can-makers received exemptions from similar tariffs, Trump has now ruled out any exceptions for products or countries.
In a separate move, Trump also signed an executive order rolling back efforts to replace plastic straws with paper alternatives in government facilities—undoing a policy introduced by former President Joe Biden, who had called plastic pollution a “crisis.”
News
U.S. Justice Department Orders Prosecutors to Drop Corruption Case Against NYC Mayor
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3590b/3590b97efa8f141ababa38d80c57052a1ad9dcee" alt=""
The U.S. Justice Department has directed federal prosecutors to drop the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, citing concerns that the indictment was hindering his ability to address illegal immigration and crime.
The directive came from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, a former defense attorney for President Donald Trump, who stated in a memo that no further investigative steps should be taken until after the 2025 mayoral election. The memo also instructed prosecutors to work toward restoring Adams’ security clearance.
Adams, a Democrat, has recently forged a closer relationship with Trump and ordered city law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration raids—a move that critics argue undermines New York’s sanctuary city policies. However, he denies having discussed his case with Trump.
Adams was indicted in September on five charges related to accepting over $100,000 in illegal gifts and campaign contributions from Turkish officials in exchange for political favors, including allegedly assisting with safety regulation exemptions for a Turkish consulate in New York. He has pleaded not guilty.
Despite the Justice Department’s order, prosecutors have not yet confirmed whether they will comply. Any decision to drop the case must be formally submitted to the court and approved by a judge.
The move has sparked concerns about political influence in the justice system. While Bove’s memo states that the decision does not assess the strength of the evidence against Adams, it acknowledges that his past criticism of immigration policies under the Biden administration “cannot be ignored.”
Adams, who attended Trump’s presidential inauguration and recently met with him in Florida, has faced backlash from Democratic leaders for aligning with the Republican president. Meanwhile, Trump has previously claimed that both he and Adams were “persecuted” for opposing Biden’s immigration policies.
The Justice Department’s decision to delay potential future prosecution until after the next mayoral election raises questions about the case’s trajectory and whether it may be revisited under a new administration.