Tubing company responds to public backlash following June 21 Cuyahoga River tragedy
As the Cuyahoga Falls community mourns the June 21 river incident, which resulted in the death of 5-year-old Braxton Cross and his 27-year-old father, one local company has reportedly faced public backlash for accusations of being involved in the tragic accident.
"We honestly didn't want to make this post. Our hearts are heavy for the family and friends affected by the recent tragedy on the river, and we've been trying to stay focused on that," Float the River, the Cuyahoga Falls-based tube and kayak rental company said on Facebook. "But after receiving hundreds of threatening messages, comments, calls, and emails suggesting that Float the River was involved, we feel it's necessary to clarify."
Braxton, his father and his mother and brother went tubing down the Cuyahoga River near the Portage Trail Bridge when the tubes they were floating on capsized. Braxton's father was able to save his mother and brother before he and his father disappeared beneath the river.
Despite some thinking otherwise, Float the River did not rent out the inflatable tubes that led to Braxton and his father's deaths, the company noted.
"We were not open this past weekend, at all. Nobody on the river last weekend were our customers. We had already canceled all floats ahead of time due to unsafe, high water conditions," the company wrote. "The decision to close was made before the weekend even began, not in response to the tragic events that followed."
The Cuyahoga Falls Fire Department has resumed its search as of 8:30 a.m. June 24 along the Cuyahoga River near Gorge Metro Park, the City of Cuyahoga Falls said in a release.
The fire department deployed a number of resources in its search for the missing father on June 24, including about 40 search and rescue personnel, three boats, two drones and assistance from both the Summit County Incident Management Assistance Team and the Salvation Army.
"We are attacking the main parts where most of these incidents occur, and we are going to the areas that seem less likely, but we are checking every nook and cranny," Cuyahoga Falls firefighter Daniel Pittman said during a June 23 press conference.
The dropping water level was expected to aid in the search, Pittman said. Water levels were near 8 feet on June 22 but have since dropped to 4 feet, however, "(the river) remains extremely fast-moving and dangerous," the city said June 24.
"Things that were inaccessible (June 22) are absolutely accessible (June 23)," Pittman said. "We've gone further up-river (June 23) and we have located more high hazard areas since the water has gone down."
River safety: Cuyahoga River can be unpredictable; here's how to plan for a safe paddle or float
Braxton's body was recovered the morning of June 22.
Multiple agencies have provided assistance to the Cuyahoga Falls Fire Department, including Akron Fire, the Summit County Water Rescue Team, Metro Parks Rangers, and the Ohio State Highway Patrol.
Reporter Anthony Thompson can be reached at ajthompson@gannett.com, or on Twitter @athompsonABJ
This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: Float the River receives threats after Cuyahoga River tragedy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Iranian leaders' religious decrees, legislation escalate legal crackdown
Two Iranian grand ayatollahs have issued separate fatwas, saying that any insult, threat or aggression against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei coming from "a government or individual" will be seen as an "insult and aggression to the essence of Islam." Such action, based on these fatwas -- religious decrees issued on Sunday by Grand Ayatollah Hosein Noori Hamedani and Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi -- carry the ruling of "waging war against God." This is considered one of the most severe security crimes in Islamic Republic's sharia-based law, punishable by execution. However, Noori Hamedani's fatwa goes even further adding that "whoever provides assistance in this crime will carry the same guilt." While there is no mention of any specific individual or countries in the text of the fatwas, they were issued in response to inquiries about President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's comments on possible intentions to kill Khamenei amid the tensions between Israel and Iran. The fatwas were shared widely on Iranian media right after some details of a newly passed bill in the Iranian parliament were also published on Sunday. The bill introduced higher levels of criminal labels for activities that are interpreted as action against the Iranian government or national security. Coupled with the newly passed bill -- which still awaits a final confirmation before turning into a law -- the fatwas have created concern among lawyers and human rights activists in the country. They are unsure about the implications for legal cases, especially for the freedom of speech and any level of involvement in protesting against the regime. According to the new bill published by Iran's semi-official Tasnim News Agency, anyone involved in "any action or cooperation in carrying out political, cultural, media and propaganda activities, creating and reflecting artificial damage, or preparing or publishing false news or any type of content that typically causes public fear and terror, creating division or harming national security," might be guilty of "corruption of earth." This is punishable by execution. Otherwise, at the discretion of the court, the sentence may be 10 to 15 years of imprisonment. "It is really terrifying," a Tehran-based Iranian lawyer, who did not want to be named for security concerns, told ABC News. "The new bill keeps the interpretation of the crimes so widely open that any activity can now be easily labeled as 'corruption [of] earth,' while formerly the same actions would be ruled as softer crimes like 'propaganda against the regime' and had shorter imprisonment sentences," the lawyer added. "Neither the new law nor the fatwa is in favor of the defendants." In Shia Islam, a fatwa is usually given by a marja who is a high-ranking scholar and is able to make decisions within the confines of Islamic laws. But his decisions are observed by his own followers. Shia people can choose which marja to follow when they come to the age of religious maturity. The fatwas mostly guide followers on matters related to prayer, fasting, business or modern issues like praying upon traveling on an airplane. However, there is a track record of massive social and political effects from some fatwas. One such fatwa was the one issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the previous supreme leader, against author Salman Rushdie, who was stabbed multiple times at the Chautauqua Institution in southwestern New York in 2022. Authorities did not specifically say the attack was motivated by the fatwa, but did note that the New Jersey man convicted of attempted murder in the 2022 stabbing attack was "an individual with strong indicators of ideological support for the Iranian regime." The Iranian government denied that its officials were responsible for the attack. Elaborating on the role of the fatwas in Islamic Republic's judicial system, the lawyer noted that, based on the Iranian constitution, the judges are allowed to ask for a fatwa or issue sentences based on "credible fatwas" if the existing law upon trial has not specified a crime. "Now we see both the law and the fatwa are issued and it is deeply concerning how it will affect the future trials," the lawyer said.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Supreme Court to hear long-running copyright case involving Cox Communications
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a major copyright case involving Georgia-based Cox Communications and major record labels that could have profound implications for trademarked works, liability for infringement, as well as internet access. At issue is a 2018 lawsuit filed by Sony and other record labels asserting Cox should be held responsible for customers who allegedly committed copyright infringement a decade ago by illegally downloading music. A federal jury in Virginia in 2019 found in favor of Sony, Universal and other music publishers that claimed Cox, one of the nation's largest internet service providers, failed to adequately prevent its customers from illegally downloading and sharing music. In February 2024, a federal appeals court tossed the $1 billion jury verdict, saying the broadband provider did not profit from the actions of subscribers who allegedly pirated music. In that ruling, however, the appellate judges upheld another part of the verdict in which the original trial jury found Cox bore some responsibility for not safeguarding against illegal behavior by its broadband customers. The appeals court panel sent the case back to a lower court for a trial on damages. Last August, Cox sought Supreme Court review, contending the appellate court's ruling threatens internet access nationwide and carries huge ramifications for Americans and the economy because the company said service providers might be compelled to end internet access for some customers for a small number of cases of infringement. The case will be heard during the high court's next term, which begins in October. In seeking Supreme Court review, Cox told the justices that if the current appeals court panel ruling stands, imposing liability for the acts of customers means internet providers would need to terminate service to internet connections "previously used for infringement" or face huge monetary penalties if infringement happens again. "The question of who is responsible for online copyright infringement carries immense public implications, affecting the interests of rights owners, businesses and users on a pervasive scale," lawyers for Cox wrote in the petition for cert. At the same time, copyrighted work has extensive legal protections for content creators. A Supreme Court decision in the case could better define who bears liability for copyright infringement, how the owners of content are protected and how internet service providers police customers' activity online. "We are pleased the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to address these significant copyright issues that could jeopardize internet access for all Americans and fundamentally change how internet service providers manage their networks," Cox spokesman Todd Smith said Monday in a news release. "Today's development supports our goal of protecting consumers, preserving open internet access, and ensuring that broadband remains a reliable resource for the communities we serve. We look forward to presenting our arguments to the Court." An attorney for Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement, the Recording Industry Association of America said under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress gave internet providers immunity from financial liability "if they act with a modicum of responsibility - namely, that they impose real consequences on users who repeatedly violate creators' rights - an unprecedented approach by Congress intended to demonstrate its commitment to responsible technological innovation. Unfortunately, Cox breached its part of that bargain." "We are confident that on full review of the record, the Court - like the trial and appellate courts did before it - will find that Cox's willful failure to follow well-settled law contributed to massive infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights and will return the case to the trial court for final determination of damages," the RIAA statement said. Cox Communications is owned by Cox Enterprises, which also owns The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In May, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court, urged the justices in a friend of the court brief to take up the case, specifically some of the questions raised by Cox. During the 2010s, the music industry sent thousands of notices to internet service providers such as Cox about suspected music piracy by its customers. Record companies ultimately filed several suits and won judgments, though substantially smaller than the initial Cox case, against internet providers, including Frontier Communications and Grande Communications. At the time of the initial litigation, record labels bet big on selling paid digital downloads, and fighting piracy was key to protecting that business. Since that time, however, music streaming services have emerged and now dominate the market for digital distribution. The record labels alleged Cox customers illegally downloaded more than 10,000 songs and accused the broadband company of not having adequate safeguards. Cox has defended its anti-piracy protocols as well as its customer privacy protections. If internet providers face such steep penalties for the actions of customers, it could lead to the loss of internet service to some customers, Cox has argued. The harm from potential loss of internet access is more acute in areas with fewer providers, the company contends. "Imposing liability on providers merely because they continue providing service after receiving allegations of infringement at a given IP address will have dangerous and drastic consequences," Cox said in its petition. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Costco accused of selling ‘knockoffs' of popular athleisure brand's clothes: lawsuit
(NEXSTAR) – Lululemon is almost literally looking to sue the pants off Costco. In a lawsuit filed Friday, the Canada-based athleisurewear company claimed Costco was violating its patents by selling 'knockoff' versions of its pants, as well as its hoodies and jackets. 'Costco has unlawfully traded upon Plaintiffs' reputation, goodwill and sweat equity by selling unauthorized and unlicensed apparel employing knockoff, infringing versions of Plaintiffs' well-known trade dress and design patents (the 'Infringing Products') and to recover fully for the monetary damages and significant harm to lululemon's brands and reputation caused by Defendant,' reads a portion of the lawsuit. Lululemon's lawsuit specifically accused Costco of selling items that infringed on the design of its ABC line of pants, its Define line of jackets, and its Scuba line of zip-ups and hoodies. Lululemon also argues that Costco may be intentionally trying to 'confuse' customers into believing Lululemon was supplying the clothing to Costco for sale under the latter's 'private label.' In addition to forcing Costco to stop selling the alleged 'knockoffs' or 'dupes' (as the lawsuit refers to them), Lululemon is seeking unspecified monetary damages. A representative for Costco did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Lululemon's lawsuit also comes after articles in the Washington Post and The New York Times (both of which are cited in the court docs) reported on the similarities between Lululemon's products and Costco's offerings. In WaPo's article, which was published in January, the author noted that social media users were alerting followers to the Luluemon 'dupes' on their accounts. 'People just eat it up,' one of them told the outlet. In the NY Times article, published in April, the author pointed out several similarities between the ABC pants and the Kirkland (Costco) version, but ultimately found that Lululemon's were 'more thoughtfully designed.' Even still, Lululemon seems intent to show Costco who wears the pants in the athleisure retail world. 'We take the responsibility of protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights very seriously and pursue the appropriate legal action when necessary,' a Lululemon spokesperson told Reuters.
