'Hero' Teen Gamer Thwarts 'Mass Casualty' Attack on California School
File photo of a young man gaming, taken at the Comic Con festival, in Moscow, Russia, 2019.
File photo of a young man gaming, taken at the Comic Con festival, in Moscow, Russia, 2019.
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A "hero" gamer seemingly thwarted a plan to carry out a school attack intended to kill more than 100 people.
The Tennessee resident called the Tehama County Sheriff's Office on May 9 to report that a teenager they had been playing online games with was speaking about school violence.
When officers investigated, they found that a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old had built and tested two improvised explosive devices as part of their plans to attack Evergreen Middle School in Cottonwood, California, Tehama County Sheriff Dave Kain said at a press conference on Tuesday.
"The suspects were hopeful to amass a casualty count in excess of 100 individuals," Kain said.
Both teenagers were arrested for criminal threats, possession of a destructive device, manufacturing a destructive device and conspiracy to commit a felony. They were booked into Tehama County Juvenile Justice Center.
Kain said: "In the end, I'd like to celebrate this young man—this particular young man out of Tennessee—this young hero, and focus the attention of this event on what it deserves to be: that this young man had the courage and heroic instincts to call our agency and notify us in order to mitigate any possible threat to our citizens, and particularly our young people.
"I think this is a good case of where it's evident—if you see something, say something. And in this case, it worked."
More to follow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Diddy Prosecutors Raise Concerns After Witness Identity is Leaked
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Prosecutors in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial raised concerns to the judge on Tuesday after an online streamer and outlet leaked the identity of a key witness in the case. Combs' former personal assistant, who utilized the pseudonym "Mia," finished her testimony on Monday. Judge Arun Subramanian barred a YouTube streamer who shared Mia's identity from returning to court. Prosecutor Maurene Comey said another outlet posted Mia's real name on X. Prosecutors want the post removed and the source barred from court. Subramanian asked the prosecution to draft a possible court order for consideration. Why It Matters Mia worked for Combs from 2009 to 2017. Throughout her multiple days on the stand, she detailed multiple alleged incidents of physical and sexual assault by Combs. Combs is facing federal charges of sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. Sean 'Diddy' Combs, right, turns around and looks at the audience during jury selection at Manhattan federal court, Monday, May 5, 2025, in New York. Sean 'Diddy' Combs, right, turns around and looks at the audience during jury selection at Manhattan federal court, Monday, May 5, 2025, in New York. Elizabeth Williams via AP The identification of Mia comes as another witness is expected to testify under a pseudonym. "Jane," also identified as Victim-2, is expected to take the stand this week. What To Know Shortly after prosecutors spoke about Mia's identity being leaked, a woman was removed from the courtroom for causing a disturbance. "Everyone is laughing at Diddy," the woman said. "It's not right what they're doing to him!" Subramanian asked for her to be escorted out "right now." Eddy Garcia, who worked as the security supervisor at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles in 2016, testified on Tuesday. Combs was seen on the hotel's surveillance footage physically attacking his then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura. Footage of the 2016 incident was released by CNN last year. Combs said he wanted the video taken off a server and a copy of the video because it could "ruin his career" if the footage was made public, Garcia testified. Garcia said he then spoke to his supervisor, who agreed to do it for $50,000. Garcia said he signed an NDA, which would charge him $1 million if the agreement was broken. Combs then returned with a brown paper bag containing $100,000, Garcia testified. Garcia said he kept $30,000, gave $50,000 to his supervisor and $20,000 to another security officer. Derek Ferguson, a former CFO for Combs-founded company Bad Boy Entertainment, also testified on Tuesday. He said he never saw anyone help Combs commit crimes or acts of violence. What People Are Saying Garcia, referring to communications with Combs during his testimony: "On Easter, he said, 'Happy Easter my angel, God is good,' and then proceeded to ask if anyone had asked about the incident or the video. I said I hadn't heard anything and he said, 'OK.'" Ferguson, referring to Combs in his testimony: "He just worked constantly. His passion for what he did was really high so his work ethic and the number of hours that he put in was something that really pushed the entire team." What Happens Next Combs' trial is currently in its fourth week. Proceedings are expected to last eight to 10 weeks. Combs is facing life in prison if convicted. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
JD Vance Is Being Proven Right About Europe's Free Speech Problem
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. When JD Vance stood before European leaders in Munich this past February, warning that free speech was "in retreat" across the West, his remarks were met with audible discomfort in the room. The gravest threat to democracy in Europe, he argued, wasn't external—it was the internal erosion of liberal principles like free expression. "If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you," the U.S. vice president told a visibly stunned room of diplomats. At the time, his comments were widely dismissed in both U.S. and European policy circles as either populist pablum or unnecessarily provocative. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius called them "not acceptable." Vance had cited arrests in the UK and restrictions under the European Union's Digital Services Act as examples. Months later, however, his warnings seem less abstract. In England this week, Hamit Coskun was convicted and given a $325 fine for burning a copy of the Quran in public—a case that sparked debate not only for the act itself but for its broader implications. Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick accused the UK of enforcing "a two-tier justice system," suggesting similar punishment would be unlikely had the burned text been a Bible. "Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a copy of the Bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it," Jenrick said. The National Secular Society, which supported Coskun on his case, also condemned the ruling, calling it "a significant blow to freedom of expression" and "a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes." Hamit Coskun arrives at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, Monday June 2, 2025. Hamit Coskun arrives at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, Monday June 2, 2025. Aaron Chown/PA via AP The case echoed examples Vance had raised in Munich, including the case of a Swedish man prosecuted for burning a Quran during a protest — in a ruling handed down five days after another man also being prosecuted over the incident was shot dead. In both cases, Judge Göran Lundahl ruled that "freedom of expression does not constitute a free pass to do or say anything"—a line Vance saw as emblematic of a retreat from Enlightenment values. In the UK, debates over religious speech have reignited calls for and against blasphemy-style protections. Jenrick wrote on X that the ruling "revives a blasphemy law" repealed by Parliament in 2008 after a secularist campaign. Writing in The Spectator, conservative commentator Douglas Murray warned that the Labour government was "reconsidering the introduction of a blasphemy law"—an idea the previous Conservative administration had rejected outright. He argued that efforts to define and police "Islamophobia" were increasingly blurring into efforts to criminalize offensive speech. "You may march through the centre of London or Stockholm week after week supporting groups that want to annihilate the Jewish race—but don't get caught upsetting Muslims," Murray wrote. "These are the rules of the game and everyone knows it." Prime Minister Keir Starmer's spokesman, Dave Pares, responded Tuesday: "We have no blasphemy laws in England and there are no plans to introduce any." Diverging Philosophies Vance's speech in Munich drew a stark contrast between U.S. and European views on free speech. In the U.S., the First Amendment prohibits government restrictions on speech in most cases, even when it's offensive, hateful or inflammatory. The legal default is to protect speech unless it causes direct harm or incites violence—a principle that has been fiercely defended across party lines for generations. US Vice President JD Vance gestures as he speaks with NATO Secretary General during a meeting on the sidelines of the 61st Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Munich, southern Germany on February 14, 2025. US Vice President JD Vance gestures as he speaks with NATO Secretary General during a meeting on the sidelines of the 61st Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Munich, southern Germany on February 14, 2025. Photo by Tobias SCHWARZ / AFP) (Photo by TOBIAS SCHWARZ/AFP via Getty Images European nations, by contrast, typically criminalize "hate speech," broadly defined as language that insults or incites hatred against protected groups. Supporters argue such laws maintain social harmony and prevent violence. But as Vance warned, these protections can suppress dissent, satire and religious or political expression. Resistance to European speech laws is increasingly reflected at the ballot box. Populist and nationalist parties—often critical of immigration and political censorship—are gaining traction, mirroring trends seen in the U.S. over the last decade. In Poland, Trump-backed conservative Karol Nawrocki narrowly won the presidency last weekend. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is polling at record highs. Vance's remarks weren't merely a defense of American legal norms—they were a direct challenge to a Western consensus that increasingly treats "hate speech" as a criminal offense, even when no violence is incited. Ideology and Influence Back in February, many in Munich dismissed Vance's speech as alarmist or extreme. But the controversies that followed—over blasphemy, protest, and political expression—have sharpened the very divide he described. To critics, Vance misunderstood Europe's emphasis on social cohesion. To supporters, he said what others wouldn't: that a democracy afraid of free speech is a democracy in retreat. U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and U.S. Vice President JD Vance greet visitors during the Memorial Day wreath-laying ceremony at the Memorial Amphitheater in Arlington National Cemetery on May 26, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia. U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and U.S. Vice President JD Vance greet visitors during the Memorial Day wreath-laying ceremony at the Memorial Amphitheater in Arlington National Cemetery on May 26, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia."His critiques of Europe derive at least in part from his ideological convictions," John Fousek, a professor in international relations at New York University, told Newsweek. Fousek explained that while Vance's views are grounded in constitutional arguments, they also reflect a broader worldview. "At the core of those convictions is American nationalism, and more specifically, Christian nationalism. These beliefs likely shape his views on the U.S. relationship with the 'outside' world more generally." Responding to Vance's criticism, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphasized the historical roots of Europe's approach: "Today's democracies in Germany and Europe are founded on the historic awareness that democracies can be destroyed by radical anti-democrats. That's why we've built institutions to defend them—and rules that protect, not limit, our freedoms." French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot also weighed in. "No one is required to adopt our model," he posted on X. "But no one can impose theirs on us. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in Europe."
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Woman Suing Taylor Swift Asks Her Attorneys to Help Her in the Case
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Kimberly Marasco, the Florida artist suing Taylor Swift for copyright infringement, asked Swift's legal team if they would accept service of the lawsuit on Swift's behalf. Marasco made the request in a motion filed Friday after facing persistent difficulties in locating Swift and being notified that the Florida secretary of state's office was backed up with service requests. Newsweek reached out to Marasco and a representative for Swift for comment. Why It Matters Marasco's inability to serve Swift could result in the lawsuit being dismissed or having Swift dropped from it. In a previous lawsuit, Judge Aileen Cannon agreed to drop Swift as a defendant because Marasco was unable to properly serve her. If Swift is dropped from the suit, Cannon may allow the lawsuit to proceed with the other defendants, which is what she decided in a previous suit. Taylor Swift performs during the Dublin stop of the Eras Tour on June 28, 24. Taylor Swift performs during the Dublin stop of the Eras Tour on June 28, 24. Press Association via AP Images What To Know Marasco reported months of unsuccessful attempts using process servers and sheriffs in multiple states to locate and serve Swift with legal documents. Efforts included visits to properties associated with Swift in California, Tennessee, New York and Rhode Island. Security personnel at a California residence denied access to process servers, while a Tennessee sheriff confirmed property ownership but stated Swift did not reside there. In Rhode Island, authorities told a process server they would face arrest for trespassing if they attempted service again. When conventional means failed, Marasco attempted to serve Swift via the Florida secretary of state. This form of substituted service is permitted for defendants who conduct business in the state of Florida, provided that the procedural requirements are met. However, Marasco indicated to the court that the secretary of state's office was experiencing a substantial backlog, further delaying her efforts. Marasco said in an email submitted into court records that she had sent a request for waiver of service via email and certified mail to one of Swift's attorneys, James Douglas Baldridge, on March 28. Marasco asked Swift's attorneys to confirm whether he received the communications in the May 27 email. Katherine Wright Morrone, an attorney for Swift, responded by saying they were not authorized to accept the subpoena on the singer's behalf and informed Marasco that they would oppose her motion. Marasco's suit alleges Swift, collaborators Jack Antonoff and Aaron Dessner, Universal Music Group, and Republic Records infringed on her poetry in lyrics and visuals from multiple albums, including Lover, Folklore, Midnights, and The Tortured Poets Department. Marasco is seeking $25 million in damages. Swift's attorneys have repeatedly denied the allegations in the current and previous lawsuit, arguing for dismissal and noting that Marasco's claims are unsupported and, in many instances, time-barred under federal copyright law. What People Are Saying Kimberly Marasco, in a motion filed Friday: "Plaintiff diligently attempted to serve Defendant Taylor Swift, a high-profile individual with extensive security measure, but personal service has proven impracticable." James Douglas Baldridge and Katie Wright Morrone, in a memorandum filed May 20: "In what is now Plaintiff's second frivolous lawsuit against Artist, Plaintiff has again failed to perfect service. Instead, Plaintiff asks the court for a range of relief without meeting any of the required burdens to show it is warranted." What Happens Next Cannon has yet to rule on Marasco's latest motion. Cannon set June 15 as the deadline for Marasco to serve Swift. The court has ordered all defendants not to respond until everyone has been properly served. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
