Courts

TikTok’s grip on our collective attention spans might be even more dangerous than we thought. According to the company’s own research, users may only need to watch 260 videos before developing addictive behaviors. The findings also link excessive use to a series of mental health issues, including impaired memory, loss of analytical skills, diminished empathy, and heightened anxiety.

Lawsuits have filed against TikTok, accusing the platform of falsely advertising its algorithm and putting children at risk. The lawsuits claim that the company prioritized user engagement over the well-being of its younger audience.

The unredacted documents suggest that TikTok struggled to balance safety with its desire to keep users engaged. While the platform implemented features like screen time alerts and usage limits, its own data shows these measures had little effect. In fact, the screen time limit feature reduced usage by only 1.5 minutes per day, raising concerns that such interventions were more about optics than actual safety.

The platform’s effect on body image also emerged as a significant issue. The documents allege that TikTok’s algorithm has a bias toward promoting content from conventionally attractive users. Meanwhile, harmful content—such as videos related to eating disorders and suicidal ideation—often slipped through moderation and became part of algorithm-driven “bubbles” that young users were frequently exposed to.

In a statement to NPR, a TikTok spokesperson responded to the allegations, saying, “We have robust safeguards in place, which include proactively removing suspected underage users, and we have voluntarily launched safety features like default screen time limits, family pairing, and privacy settings for minors under 16.”

A Colorado football fan has filed an explosive $100 million lawsuit against the National Football League, claiming league owners conspired to sabotage Shedeur Sanders' draft position after the star quarterback shockingly fell to the fifth round of the NFL draft. The federal lawsuit alleges the once consensus top-5 pick became victim of "collusive practices" that caused the fan "severe emotional distress."

"It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion," the plaintiff, filing as "John Doe," told The Independent. "Every time they passed on Shedeur for some second-rate player, I felt physically sick. This wasn't football - this was personal." The 22-page complaint details how Sanders' draft freefall allegedly violated The Sherman Antitrust Act, with owners collectively suppressing his value. Legal analysts immediately dismissed the case as frivolous, but acknowledge it taps into growing fan skepticism about draft transparency. "They think they're untouchable," the fan said of NFL owners. "Well, not this time."

League sources point to Sanders' reportedly poor combined interviews and off-field concerns as the real reason for his slide. But the lawsuit has ignited fiery debates across sports media about fairness in the draft process. With legal experts giving the case less than a 1% chance of success, the fan's nine-figure demand appears more about making a statement than expecting a payout, potentially opening the floodgates for lawsuits over similar grievances.

The NFL has yet to formally respond, but the case has already accomplished one thing: turning Sanders' disappointing draft night into one of the most talked-about football stories of the year.

Possible Preaching Angle:

While this story may not have much legal basis for a case, it does illustrate the need for believers and churches to be open and transparent in all decisions and business matters. We must be “above reproach” and “blameless” (2 Cor. 4:2; Phil. 2:15; 1 Tim. 5:7; Titus 1:7).

In a landmark moment in U.S. legal history, the family of Christopher Pelkey utilized artificial intelligence to create a video of him delivering a victim impact statement at the sentencing of his killer. Pelkey, a 37-year-old Army veteran, was fatally shot during a road rage incident in Chandler, Arizona, in November 2021. His sister, Stacey, collaborated with her husband and a friend to produce the AI-generated video, which featured Pelkey's likeness and voice, conveying messages of forgiveness and compassion.

The AI-generated Pelkey addressed his killer, Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, stating, “In another life, we probably could have been friends.” He expressed his belief in forgiveness, and in a God who forgives, saying, “I always have and I still do.” Wales wrote the script for the video, reflecting her brother's faith and forgiving nature. Judge Todd Lang, who presided over the case, was moved by the video and commented, “As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness.” Horcasitas was sentenced to 10.5 years in prison for manslaughter.

In response, the Arizona Supreme Court has convened a steering committee focused on AI and its use in legal proceedings. Chief Justice Ann Timmer acknowledged the potential benefits of AI in the justice system. But she also cautioned against its misuse, stating, “AI can also hinder or even upend justice if inappropriately used.” Its mission includes developing guidelines and best practices to ensure the responsible use of AI, mitigating potential biases, and upholding the principles of fairness and justice.

Possible Preaching Angle:

The power of forgiveness, the importance of bearing witness to truth, and the ethical uses of technology are all integral aspects of living a Christ-centered life.

London's metropolitan police force has seen just about everything in terms of crime, and they've saved much of the evidence. A forward-thinking officer in 1874 began saving items from historic cases to show new recruits. The museum includes items like: Letters from the Jack the Ripper case, an oil drum used to dissolve murder victims in acid; Cannibal Dennis Nilsen's cooking pots; The umbrella-fired ricin bullet that the KGB used to kill a Bulgarian dissident in London during the Cold War; Items that once belonged to Charles Black, the most prolific counterfeiter in the Western Hemisphere, including a set of printing plates, forged banknotes, and a cunningly hollowed-out kitchen door once used to conceal them.

The museum houses evidence from some of the most twisted, barbaric criminal cases of recent history. It is not open to the public, as some people think it's just too gruesome for public viewing, but it is used as a teaching collection for police recruits. It also may show the monstrous side of humanity, what we have been and still are capable of doing to each other.

A Michigan judge is taking a unique approach to combat shoplifting, ordering offenders to wash cars in a Walmart parking lot as part of their community service. Judge Jeffrey Clothier hopes the “Walmart wash” sentence will deter future thefts and serve as a reminder of the consequences of stealing.

Judge Clothier explained, “I don’t think everybody that steals is a bad person. Sometimes people are just down on their luck. But there’s going to be consequences when you break the law.” The judge introduced this unusual form of punishment in Grand Blanc Township, located 50 miles north of Detroit, and expects to assign 75 to 100 people to wash cars at weekend events in March and April.

Walmart has agreed to provide water and supplies for the community service events. Clothier said he was shocked by the extent of retail thefts after taking the bench in January, with many offenders coming from both Michigan and out of state. “It’s just crazy,” he remarked, recalling a day when he had 48 such cases on his docket.

The judge believes that the community service will not only be effective but also humbling. “I think it will be humiliating to be out there washing cars if you see someone you know.” Thus emphasizing the potential embarrassment of being caught in the act. Clothier even plans to lead by example, adding, “I will be there washing cars with them.”

For over two decades, a vibrant mural featuring "The Wizard of Oz" characters adorned Stead Park. Painted by local graffiti artists in 2001, it became a beloved landmark. However, last spring, a new group of artists replaced it with a whimsical scene of toy buildings and a toddler, symbolizing the neighborhood's evolving culture.

The transformation sparked controversy when Roger Gastman, one of the original muralists, sued Cory Stowers, the leader of the new team. Gastman claimed the new mural destroyed his original work, while Stowers argued that the old mural had deteriorated and needed repair. The dispute has reignited debates about ownership and creative control in street art, pitting preservation against evolution in the ever-changing landscape of graffiti.

The case is unique as it involves artists suing other artists over the alteration of building art, rather than building owners. Stowers, a prominent figure in D.C.'s graffiti scene, had secured funding and permission from the property owner to repaint the wall. However, Gastman, now well-known in the graffiti world, argues he wasn't consulted before the work was altered.

This conflict has raised concerns within the graffiti community about the future of murals and how artists navigate issues of ownership. It also highlights the tension between preserving artistic legacy and embracing the fluid nature of street art. As community member Renée Vara noted, "It's a shame that a beautiful collaboration has kind of come to this," encapsulating the mixed emotions surrounding the dispute.

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Transformation; Renewal - The replacement of the old mural with a new one echoes biblical themes of transformation or the idea of a new creation; 2) Conflict between generations: The dispute between the original artist and the new group mirrors biblical stories of generational conflict, like Jacob and Esau or Joseph and his brothers; 3) Stewardship and responsibility - The debate over who has the right to alter the mural reflects biblical themes of stewardship and responsibility for God’s creation. 4) Legacy - Gastman's desire to preserve his artistic legacy echoes biblical themes of leaving a lasting impact and honoring one's legacy.

A recent study by The Washington Post has revealed a startling number of cases where innocent people have been accused or arrested for crimes because they were identified through a faulty deployment of AI-driven facial recognition software.

Katie Kinsey is chief of staff for the Policing Project at the NYU School of Law. According to Kinsey, such software is often used to analyze low-quality, grainy surveillance photos or images, and as a result perform demonstrably worse in real-world situations compared to laboratory tests involving crystal-clear, high-resolution images.

Additionally, police often succumb to a phenomenon known as “automation bias,” where people tend to believe that machines or computers are less biased and more trustworthy. This phenomenon, combined with other identification techniques with limited efficacy like witness testimony, often create scenarios where officers hastily jump to conclusions without doing their due diligence. Sometimes officers fail to account for the possibility that innocent citizens might bear physical similarities to criminal suspects. Other times, they rely on the facial recognition hit without using other forensic evidence for confirmation.

For example, a medical entrepreneur named Jason Vernau spent three days behind bars after being arrested for check fraud after police used facial recognition to ID him as a bank customer. In this case, the software was correct; Vernau had been in the Miami bank where the fraudulent check was deposited, but he was there to deposit a legitimate check. Had officers done even a cursory examination of his financial documents, or the time stamps in the security footage, they would’ve ruled him out as a suspect.

“This is your investigative work?” That’s what Vernau asked the detectives who questioned him. “You have a picture of me at a bank and that’s your proof? I said, ‘where’s my fingerprints on the check? Where’s my signature?’”

After Vernau was released, prosecutors later dropped the case, but Vernau said he is still working to get the charges removed from his record.

Possible Preaching Angles:

This story highlights several themes that resonate with biblical narratives, particularly concerning justice, false accusations, and the dangers of relying on flawed systems or human biases.

Document MS 165, also known as the ‘Shark Papers,’ is a unique manuscript found at the National Library of Jamaica. It tells the enthralling story of the American brig the ‘Nancy,’ implicated in a court case for smuggling, filed by British Commander Hugh Whylie.

Hugh Whylie's vessel, the Sparrow had captured the ‘Nancy’ in 1799 in the waters of the Caribbean (an area that was forbidden at that time for American vessels), on suspicion of smuggling contraband. However, its captain, Thomas Briggs provided documentation to show that the vessel was Dutch and not American, and therefore had authority to sail in that area. He insisted they were not doing anything illegal. Although not having concrete proof, Captain Whylie, on suspicion, nevertheless sent the crew of the ‘Nancy’ to Jamaica for a court hearing.

Since the captain of the ‘Nancy’ seemed to have his paperwork well in order, for a while it looked like the case could not be sustained due to a lack of evidence of smuggling or of the brig being of American origin.

The story took a new twist however with the arrival of another British vessel, the ‘Ferret,’ whose crew had caught a large shark off the Haitian coast around the same time. To the surprise of the crew, they found sealed documents from the ‘Nancy’ in the shark’s belly. They had apparently been thrown overboard to avoid being convicted for smuggling.

The documents taken from the shark’s belly contained receipts, letters, notary documents, and bills from the ‘Nancy,’ and eventually proved vital in convicting Captain Briggs of smuggling and perjury.

Possible Preaching Angle:

In Luke 12:2, Jesus, speaking about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees said, “There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.” Numbers 32:23 further warns us, “...be sure, your sin will find you out.”

Jana Monroe had a distinguished 22-year career in the FBI, including in the FBI Behavioral Science Unit. She knows in depth the disturbing depths of human depravity that FBI agents must cope with. In her book, "Hearts of Darkness,” Monroe covers a variety of topics and issues, including her dismay over the often-light sentences given to guilty lawyers, judges, and cops.

For a brief period of her time, Monroe was placed in charge of the FBI’s Financial Institution Fraud department in San Diego. They had received reliable information that there was blatant public corruption in the local courts. After two years, the tireless work of FBI agents and federal prosecutors resulted in the indictments of two local Superior Court judges and a prominent local attorney.

However, Monroe was deeply disappointed by the lenient punishments. One judge and the lawyer received 41 months in prison, and the second judge received 33 months. Monroe writes:

When those sentences were handed down, I immediately thought of all the people doing hard time in serious prisons for being stupid enough or otherwise desperate enough to rob at gunpoint a convenience store where a good haul might be a hundred bucks.

No matter how the money gets stolen - at the point of a gun or by cooking the books - there are repercussions that the law is too ready to ignore when the crook works in a paneled corner office and belongs to all the right clubs.

I strongly believe in ethics. Those to whom law enforcement and justice have been entrusted - police officers, FBI agents, district attorneys, especially judges - are obligated (serve) with integrity and honesty. When they don't, they deserve no better treatment than a guy who tries to knock over a 7-Eleven.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Monroe is right. Lawyers, judges, and law enforcement officers represent government, law and order, righteousness, and indirectly God (Rom. 13:1-7), and must therefore be held to high standards when they blatantly disobey laws and are guilty of crimes.

Twenty-four-year-old Lionardo Tapia was sentenced to three months of electronic monitoring for stealing over a dozen beef cattle. And while cattle theft is not exactly uncommon in the ranching industry, this particular crime was executed in novel fashion, even if it wasn’t exactly successful.

Presiding over the case, Yakima County Superior Court Judge Richard Bartheld expressed disbelief at Tapia’s method of transportation. “Who would believe you could put a cow in the back seat of a blue Honda Accord?”

Tapia was apprehended on March 5th after a man from Sagebrush Ranch witnessed a Honda Accord leaving the ranch around 7:30 am. He followed the car to the Outlook rodeo grounds, where deputies discovered Tapia in a cattle pen with 16 calves. The affidavit revealed that Tapia had cow manure on his boots and the Honda’s interior was also covered in manure.

The car’s owner, a friend of Tapia’s, stated that her son had lent Tapia the car to search for a job and neither she nor her son were involved in the theft. Tapia confirmed this, admitting to Judge Bartheld that the car's owner was no longer his friend due to the incident and the mess.

Tapia pleaded guilty to livestock theft, admitting to taking a calf and attempting to sell it. During the sentencing hearing, Judge Bartheld asked Tapia if he thought he would escape consequences. Tapia responded, “No.” The judge then asked, “What were you thinking?” to which Tapia replied, “I wasn’t thinking anything.”

Despite the seriousness of the crime, Prosecuting Attorney Bret Roberts recommended a three-month sentence, the minimum under state guidelines, citing Tapia’s cooperation, clean record, and desire to resolve the case. Sixteen calves valued at $500 each were recovered, and no restitution was sought.

Judge Bartheld, ordered Tapia to begin his sentence no later than December 12th. The judge reminded him of the historical severity of livestock theft, asking, “Do you understand that in our earlier history, they used to shoot people who stole livestock?”

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon asked an unusual question to attorney Janet Hoffman during the sentencing phase of a recent case. “Do you want me to refer to your client as Mr. Pearce, Mr. Doe or Mr. Casper?”

Normally a defendant’s name is one of the first established facts in a criminal proceeding, but in this case, it was a mystery behind the whole thing. Hoffman’s client was a well-known attorney who went professionally by the name Roger A. Pearce Jr. He had spent more than three decades practicing law in Oregon and Washington. Now, at age 77, he was living a comfortable life, having retired with his wife to a million-dollar condo on Lake Washington in Seattle. But recently authorities discovered that he’d been living a lie. Roger A. Pearce Jr. was not his legal name.

The ruse was discovered in 2022 when the State Department flagged his passport application because he applied for a new social security number as an adult. So, prosecutors indicted him as “John Doe,” after he was arrested on a warrant. After pleading guilty to misdemeanor identity fraud, the judge asked his courtroom deputy to have the defendant state his name for the record.

He said, “My birth name was Willie Ragan Casper Jr.” Casper, a.k.a. Pearce, explained that he went to college at Rice University in Texas, but made a series of poor choices, dropping out of school, then quickly marrying and splitting apart. In desperation, he engaged in petty theft and check-kiting schemes.

He said, “I was a young person, confused, depressed. I felt the failure. I was ashamed that I had wasted a lot of my parents’ money supporting me in a distant city they couldn’t really afford. My marriage had fallen apart. I had no real career prospects.”

So, he illegally changed his name as a way of finding a fresh start. He purchased the birth certificate of a baby who’d died, then used that certificate to apply for a social security number.

Assistant U.S. attorney Ethan Knight said, “Every person is responsible for and owns their own history and really the shadow that that casts and the consequences that ultimately may bear out. The defendant’s choice in this case really is an abdication of that basic principle.”

The defendant intends to legally change his name to Roger A. Pearce Jr. and resume the remainder of his years under that name. He also has a chance to mend old fences with the family he left behind so many years ago. He said, “Perhaps paradoxically, this prosecution may give me the chance to recover some of what I’ve lost.”

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Identity in Christ - While the defendant sought to create a new identity for himself through deception, the Bible teaches that true identity and renewal come through faith in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17); 2) Forgiveness; Second Chance - The story suggests the possibility of forgiveness and a second chance (Lam. 3:23;1 John 1:9); 3) Accountability - The prosecutor's statement about owning one's history and facing consequences illustrates personal accountability (Rom.14:12).

The U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on a small number of cases, and most of the cases have national implications—except in the strange case of Stuart Harrow.

The Department of Defense employee is before the Court to find out whether a missed email spells an end to his 11-year quest to get $3,000 of pay (and interest) he says was wrongly withheld during 2013 budget cuts that briefly forced him out of work.

His case would feel right at home in small-claims court. But in March of 2024, the nine justices of the highest court in the land heard oral arguments about whether the government should let him continue his fight for six days of back pay.

With the nine justices lined up on the bench, Justice Neil Gorsuch wondered how the issue had come to this. “Here we are in the Supreme Court of the United States over a $3,000 claim,” said Gorsuch. “I’m— I’m just wondering why the government’s making us do this.”

The legal answer trudges a decadelong path including a three-person federal board that couldn’t make a quorum for five years. There was a missed email to an abandoned account.

The human answer is that Harrow, 73, hasn’t given up. Largely representing himself, Harrow has seen his appeal be rejected by the Defense Department, an administrative law judge, and a federal board.

The case writing Harrow’s name in the annals of jurisprudence considers only whether that deadline is so inflexible that it would prevent his claim from ever getting its day in court. So, the Supreme Court will render a decision on something that might seem beneath it.

Possible Preaching Angles:

As Jesus would say, “Will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?” (Luke 18:7)

A Florida mother has sued artificial intelligence chatbot startup Character.AI accusing it of causing her 14-year-old son's suicide in February of 2024. She said he became addicted to the company's service and deeply attached to a chatbot it created.

Megan Garcia is on a mission to raise awareness about the dangers of AI. Garcia maintains that the site’s protocols to protect children are woefully inadequate, and wants to spare other parents from the pain she’s had to endure.

In an interview, Garcia said, “I want them to understand that this is a platform that the designers chose to put out without proper guardrails, safety measures or testing, and it is a product that is designed to keep our kids addicted and to manipulate them.”

Garcia maintains that her son, Sewell Setzer III, had been chatting with an AI chatbot on the platform for months, and that as a result, he’d become more withdrawn and sullen. Sewell eventually quit the JV basketball team during this time.

It was only after confiscating his phone as punishment for misbehavior that Garcia discovered that many of the chatbot’s conversations with her son were sexually explicit. “I don’t think any parent would approve of that,” said Garcia, adding that the discovery was “gut wrenching.”

In the lawsuit, Garcia says that her son had been specifically chatting with it in the moments before he died. In the exchange, Sewell had mentioned considering self-harm, and the chatbot seemed to encourage that desire. Sewell then shot himself with his stepfather's pistol "seconds" later, the lawsuit said.

Garcia said, “There were no suicide pop-up boxes that said, ‘If you need help, please call the suicide crisis hotline.’ None of that. I don’t understand how a product could allow that, where a bot is not only continuing a conversation about self-harm but also prompting it and kind of directing it.”

After the lawsuit was announced, Character.AI announced a sweeping set of changes designed to protect its younger users, a move that Garcia derided as “too little, too late.”

After a public outcry and a round of bad press against the entertainment behemoth, Jeffrey Piccolo’s lawsuit against Disney will proceed as planned.

Piccolo and his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, were dining in a restaurant called Raglan Road, which is of part of the Disney Springs shopping center adjacent to the Disney World entertainment complex. Despite making her food allergies clear and being reassured that her meal would be allergen free, Tangsuan suffered an allergic reaction after her meal, and died of anaphylaxis.

Piccolo subsequently sued Raglan Road, and included Disney in its list of defendants, despite the fact that Disney didn’t own the restaurant but merely leased it the space to operate. As part of Disney’s defense, it cited some fine print in the Disney+ end user license agreement (EULA), in which the user agrees to resolve any future disputes in arbitration rather than court. Similar legal language is included any time a customer books a ticket to any of its theme parks.

Corporations like Disney often prefer arbitration over litigation because it’s faster, more cost efficient, and its rulings are binding. Also, because arbitration proceedings are private, there’s no risk of dirty laundry being exposed in court.

But a firestorm of controversy erupted because of all the public attention on Disney. It appeared the company was using a legal technicality to avoid any measure of legal culpability in Tangsuan’s death. As a result, the company reversed course. Disney Experiences chairman Josh D’Amaro released a statement, which included the following:

At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss. As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Though there are advantages to avoiding the formality of court to settle informal disputes, the court is society’s official means of securing a measure of justice and accountability. Businesses which use loopholes to shortcut justice will fall under God’s condemnation (Prov. 11:1; Deut. 25:16).

Authorities say that, due to a clerical error, a suspected murderer was released from county jail, but he’s now safely back behind bars.

A warrant for arrest was issued for 22-year-old Amarion Sanders who’d previously been held in the Cuyahoga County Jail on $1 million bail. Sanders was facing aggravated murder charges in connection with a shooting in September of 2023.

Sanders was released on June 24, because another defendant in an otherwise unrelated case had his charges dismissed, and one of the court personnel incorrectly entered that case number into the database for dismissal. The next day, the second arrest warrant was issued, and Sanders was re-arrested without incident.

County, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Service, helped search for Sanders.

Possible Preaching Angle:

This is a great story to teach the lesson that small mistakes can have big consequences. It is important to maintain a system of checks and balances and to take immediate action when an error is discovered.

One of the lasting byproducts of the worldwide pandemic is the fact that many face-to-face institutional interactions of modern life have been conveniently relegated to virtual meetings. Among those institutions affected are our beleaguered court systems.

So, in late May, when social media feeds across America featured a clip of a man attending court via Zoom, the novelty was not in the platform itself, but about what the man was doing. Corey Harris appeared before the Honorable Judge J. Cedric Simpson on Zoom, while driving.

Harris told the judge, "Actually, I'm pulling into my doctor's office actually, so just give me one second, I'm parking right now.”

The judge said to the Harris’ public defender, Natalie Pate, "Maybe I'm not understanding something. This is the driving-while-license suspended (case)? ... And he was just driving and he didn't have a license?"

“Those are the charges, your honor, yes,” said Pate.

At this point in the video, Judge Simpson becomes quite incensed, and orders Harris to turn himself in or face arrest. People online got a good laugh at the man who appeared to be so flagrantly disobeying the law, virtually appearing in court driving while his license was suspended. Harris eventually spent two nights in jail over the offense.

There was only one problem: Harris’ license had actually been reinstated back in 2022, but because of a clerical error, the judge was not aware of the reinstatement. Harris was driving because he assumed that they knew his licensed had already been reinstated, and was surprised by the judge’s harsh reaction.

According to USA Today, the charges against Mr. Harris have been settled. As a result, many of the people who poked fun at him now owe Harris an apology for jumping to conclusions. Among them is Nate Burleson, co-host of CBS This Morning, who took a whole segment on the show to explain the situation for viewers.

“We’re sorry,” said Burleson, with co-host Gayle King nodding in light penitence. “You were right all along.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

We can show the love of Jesus to people by extending grace to them and not always assuming the worst about their actions or intentions.

A woman in Ohio who threw a burrito bowl at a Chipotle worker and was convicted of assault has been sentenced to an unusual punishment that includes working in fast food for two months.

During a dinner rush and while a restaurant was short-staffed, Emily Russell, then the store manager, said she made and then remade an order for Rosemary Hayne. Ms. Hayne was not satisfied with the final product. In a video shared widely online, she can be seen yelling at Ms. Russell before hurling the burrito bowl at her face.

“I didn’t expect it at all,” Ms. Russell, 26, said. “I just blinked and there was sour cream dripping from my hair.” Eventually, someone called the police, Ms. Russell said. The judge offered her a chance to reduce her sentence, with a catch—60 of her 90 jail days would be suspended if she worked 20 hours a week for eight and a half weeks (or 60 days) at a fast-food restaurant. Ms. Hayne, 39, agreed to take the judge up on his offer, he said. She must complete her time as a fast-food worker by the time she reports to jail.

The sentencing came as a surprise to Ms. Russell. “I thought she was going to get a slap on the wrist, but she didn’t. She is going to get to walk in my shoes,” Ms. Russell said.

Possible Preaching Angle:

That’s one way to learn how to walk in someone else’s shoes, but as followers of Jesus we should always be quicker to extend compassion and forgiveness to others.

After a two-week battle with a sudden fast-spreading infection, Joshua Dean, a former quality auditor at Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, passed away. Dean had recently given a deposition alleging that his firing in 2023 was in retaliation for having disclosed what he called “serious and gross misconduct by senior quality management of the 737 production line.”

The Boeing 737 MAX has a troubled safety record, with high-profile crashes in 2018 and 2019 killing hundreds, and an Alaska Airlines flight in early 2024 that had to make an emergency landing after an explosive decompression due to an insufficiently secured door plug.

According to The Seattle Times, Dean was 45 years old, in relatively good health, and known for a healthy lifestyle. In February, he spoke to NPR about Spirit’s troubling safety practices.

"Now, I'm not saying they don't want you to go out there and inspect a job … but if you make too much trouble, you will get the Josh treatment,” Dean said, about his previous firing. “I think they were sending out a message to anybody else. If you are too loud, we will silence you.”

Dean’s death comes two months after another Boeing whistleblower, John Barnett, was found dead of a potentially self-inflicted gunshot wound. Barnett was also in the process of testifying against Boeing about potential safety lapses in the manufacturing of the Boeing 787, and claims that he was similarly retaliated against for his whistleblowing. Barnett was 63 at the time of his death, and known for a vocal criticism of what he perceived to be Boeing’s declining production standards.

Dean’s attorney Brian Knowles, whose firm also represented Barnett, refused to speculate on whether the two deaths are linked, but insisted that people like Dean and Barnett are important.

Knowles said, “Whistleblowers are needed. They bring to light wrongdoing and corruption in the interests of society. It takes a lot of courage to stand up. It’s a difficult set of circumstances. Our thoughts now are with John’s family and Josh’s family.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Sometimes telling the truth can be costly. But this should never inhibit us from standing for the truth.

An official investigation by The Washington Post has revealed a troubling trend of officers committing sexual abuse upon minors in their custody, many of whom were already attempting to report other different incidents of sex abuse.

By analyzing an extensive database of police arrests around the nation, reporters identified instance after instance of officers gaining the trust of minors, preying on them when they’re alone, and threatening them to ensure their silence afterward.

The Post highlighted the story of Officer Rodney Vicknair of the New Orleans Police Department. Officer Vicknair was recently sentenced to 14 years for violating the civil rights of a teenaged girl under his care.

Vicknair’s conduct was terrible, but also predictable. He’d been investigated for allegations of misconduct twelve times in his first twelve years on the job. Months before he assaulted the girl, he made inappropriate comments to her in the presence of another officer, but those comments went unreported. He also made a habit of visiting her alone in her home. After Vicknair’s pattern of inappropriate behavior had been reported to superiors, he remained on duty for another week, during which his assault took place.

The child eventually sued the city for allowing Vicknair to remain on the job. While the child’s attorneys were preparing for the trial, they deposed high level police officials to find out if Vicknair’s case had prompted any procedural changes. The truth, they found out, was disturbingly familiar.

“You don’t know of anything NOPD has done differently,” the attorney asked, “to prevent another Officer Vicknair?” “Correct,” replied the police official.

Experts say that part of the problem is the limited nature of police background checks, which often fail to investigate red flags or allegations of impropriety.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Those who serve in positions of power and influence are held to a higher standard; God will judge them even more harshly if they abuse their power.

For years, Jalon Hall was touted as a bright spot for Google’s reputation for diversity. Hall is an African American deaf woman, and had been highlighted on the company’s official social media channels. On LinkedIn, Google praised Hall and said she was “helping expand opportunities for black deaf professionals,” and on Instagram she was hailed as “making life at Google more inclusive.”

But for Hall, those platitudes were only words, and were not backed up with actions. Hall recently filed a lawsuit against Google for failing to provide the accommodations they promised her, and for creating a hostile work environment by characterizing her complaints according to racialized stereotypes.

In an interview Hall said, “Google is using me to make them look inclusive for the deaf community and the overall disability community. In reality, they need to do better. I’m standing in the gap for those often pushed aside.”

Hall says when she was hired as a content moderator in 2020, the company promised to provide interpreters to help her review content as part of YouTube’s child safety regulations, but the company refused. And a manager in another division called her an “aggressive black deaf woman” and advised her to “keep her mouth shut and take a sales role.”

Hall says she filed three HR complaints before she sued, and wants to remain at Google to help promote a better work environment for others.