September 30, 2014

Elyria
Partly cloudy
58°F
test

Second suspect arrested in cell phone rape case

Sherman Smith

Sherman Smith

LORAIN — A Lorain man suspected of filming on his cell phone a man being beaten and ordered to have sex with another man has been arrested.

Sherman R. Smith was arrested and charged with attempted rape Monday.

Smith, 19, of the 3500 block of Denver Avenue, is accused in a June incident, police Detective Sgt. Buddy Sivert said Monday.

Police wouldn’t release a report on the incident Monday night. On Thursday, Sivert said a homeowner cleaning out a rental home found the video about an incident occurring about two months ago. The video shows a mentally disabled 45-year-old man repeatedly punched and then urged to have sex with one of three men in a room before being dragged down stairs.

Sivert said Kenyatta Ephraim is shown ordering the man to have sex and dragging him down the stairs. Ephraim, of the 1100 block of West 18th Street in Lorain, was arrested Friday and charged with attempted rape.

Ephraim, 20, has convictions for domestic violence, carrying a concealed weapon and improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle. He appeared in Lorain Municipal Court on Monday and is free on bond.

Smith was being held at the Lorain County Jail in lieu of a $50,000 bond Monday night. Smith is scheduled to appear in court Thursday.


  • SniperFire

    Was that an Obamaphone?

    • Chan

      Does that matter?

      • Sis Delish

        Yes, because if its an Obamaphone, the evidence might suddenly disappear.

        • Chan

          Why is the President of the UNITED STATES a factor in every comment you post?

          • SniperFire

            He is the embodiment of the abject failure of the diseased liberal mindset which is destroying the great experiment of the United States of America, and some of us point out this failure of progressive thinking as the causality of most societal problems. You, on the other hand, wish to ignore the underline moral collapse and pretend to blame something else.

          • triumph1

            Is it “underline” or do you mean underlying? I think misuse of the language is one symptom of our societies collapse, as you so clearly demonstrate.

          • SniperFire

            ‘ is one symptom of our societies collapse’

            Nice syntax failure while running grammar smack.
            I’m guessing I aced my first linguistics class before your were born, chump. LOL

          • triumph1

            No syntax failure here, nice try, keep guessing.

          • SniperFire

            tsk. tsk. You meant:

            No syntax failure here. Nice Try. Keep guessing.

            Is yours an Elyria public school education, by chance?

          • triumph1

            I wrote it as I meant it and I don’t believe I was a classmate of yours.

          • SniperFire

            Clearly, we were not classmates. I rode the long buses.

          • Sis Delish

            Why? Because this POTUS makes himself a Factor in everything.

          • Bill Love

            except this

          • Sis Delish

            Including this… If Obama had a Son, he surely would be like one of the Perps in this story who’s name is, ready: Kenyatta Ephraim!

            Not making this up.

      • SniperFire

        Perhaps. Need to see the stats on what percent of rapes in America are committed by those who carry an Obamaphone?

        • Chan

          That would lead one to believe that the crime of rape has increased in the past 7 or years? I highly doubt it.

          • SniperFire

            So you don’t want to discuss the high corollary between Owebamaphone recipients and violent crime, then? LOL

    • michelle

      DId it ever occur to you that perhaps it was a stolen cell phone? Utilized before service was disconnected? Oh, wait……you just want to politicize everything you can.

      • Seeker

        Stolen by the 12% of our population that commits 87% of the crime ?

    • B4CE

      You mean a “Bush phone”? Considering the phone program was starter during the Bush Presidency. Don’t let facts get in the way of your one sided comments

      • SniperFire

        ‘You mean a “Bush phone”?

        the Program exploded when Pelosi took over, and she used the handout in budgeting as blackmail to fund the war effort. But you know that, and as a Leftist you live the Liberal lie. Remember last week when you called Michael Brown an ‘innocent child’? I do. LOL

      • brenda

        I thought that phone was in effect before President Obama came into office. And besides since when can you take pictures let alone make a video with a government phone?

        • Sis Delish

          Brenda, you just got your argument Stuffed back in your face by Seeker… What say ye?

        • Joe Smith

          Most any phone has the ability to video, take pics and text.

      • Seeker

        That’s funny I don’t see bush’s name on this website .!
        http://www.obamaphone.com/

        • SniperFire

          but.. but… but… LOL

        • Joe Smith

          From Obama phone site

          Who Started the Obama Phone?

          “Who started the Obama Phone?” is one of the questions that’s asked most frequently about this government program.

          The simple answer is that any number of Presidents could claim credit for it, but the program is usually called the Obama Phone because it expanded so rapidly during his administration.

          That growth, of course, is partially related to the financial meltdown, the subsequent recession, and lingering economic issues. The number of Americans eligible for the program has grown dramatically recent years and the program has expanded to meet that demand.

        • brenda

          Ok you showed the website…but what you felled to show is that the program started before..2008…. before President Obama took office….it also said that any number of presidents could take the credit for it……oh yea….no pictures or videos can be made with a government phone….you receive….250free talk/text…..so if that’s all you got…….and also it said that it is called the Obama phone because more people are getting them because more people are using them……mainly because they are free.

      • Sis Delish

        Hey, Mr. defender of all things wrong, Seeker just shut your argument down with his posting below… Big Time!

  • Summer Smart

    Free on bond…they should have locked him up and then he would face what he forced upon another.

  • Seeker

    Its one thing to have your face plastered in the paper for rape , but raping another man , that is classic .

  • Seeker

    Here is another thought. if everything was not given to them as a hand out , such as a Obama phone , maybe they would be out working instead of raping. It just amazes me how a person from Mexico will treck through the desert , risk being jailed for jumping the boarder just to come to America to get a Job , but yet there are so many here in America that would not work a job to save their life. They would just rather just live off of government handouts. What does that tell you ?

    • 2muchgovernment

      I agree and that may be true. However, that may also be happening because people from other countries are making these trips because they know how dumb our government is, and how easy it is to live for free in America (off the backs of us working stiffs) with all the handouts that are given out by our government. And there’s even more freebies and benefits if you pop out kid after kid.

    • Bob
      • Seeker

        Typical huh

        • Bob

          I know right.

    • jz

      It tells us that the War On Poverty was one of the worst policies our government ever instituted. It actually created more poverty and ancillary social problems that did not exist prior to its implementation. Much like the War that the psychotic sociopath Nixon created. Johnson and Nixon. One D and one R.

  • HankKwah

    The new breed of criminal? Dumber and dumberer.

  • luvmytoaster

    Ugh, another thug kept on the streets – why isn’t he still in jail?

  • Roy Benevidez

    Not to interrupt the soliloquy of the commentariat between sock-puppet accounts, but the phone you reference does not exist in the manner you describe. It was part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act so you can blame the 104th Congress — which had Republican majorities in both chambers though most would be dubbed “RINOs” by today’s anarchic nihilists.

    “Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than fifteen years. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and Presidents Clinton, Bush nor Obama has nothing to do with it.”

    • Pablo Jones

      Do the companies willingly give the money for the program to the government or are they assessed a fee/tax on each line? Are those costs, based on each line, passed onto the customers? Are those fees/taxes listed on a persons phone bill? They are taxes and they are paid by the customers.

      • Roy Benevidez

        Immaterial to this discussion. Take it up with the FCC or the Act’s legislative architect, Sen Larry Pressler, R-SD. Only two Republican Senators voted against the bill’s passage: McCain and Packwood.

        It was passed “without objection” by a Republican-controlled House.

        Take it up with your congressional delegation if it offends you so much and thanks for revealing another sock-puppet!

        • Pablo Jones

          It’s not immaterial. You said it’s not funded by a tax and it is funded by a tax on phone service.

          • Roy Benevidez

            Immaterial. Change the law as passed and implemented via Congress.

        • Pablo Jones

          I guess a sales tax isn’t a tax on people it is just a tax on businesses also.

          • Roy Benevidez

            “Businesses are people, my friend.”

            Sales tax also applies to them.

    • SniperFire

      Not a single free cell phone involved there, but then again, you probably know that and just enjoy living the Lefty lie.

      • Roy Benevidez

        Sorry that factual information interrupts your limited cognitive ability and epistemic closure.

        • SniperFire

          The fact stands, your free Owebamaphone thesaurus app, notwithstanding. LOL

          • Kit

            Why do you keep calling him Owebama, DiperFire, uh sorry, I mean SniperFire? Seeing it done with YOUR handle in print looks sort of juvenile wouldn’t you say? I’m no fan of Obama or Bush (which some call Shrub) but it’s fairly juvenile to do so in what should be an adult conversation.

          • Joe Smith

            Not juvenile to those with a sense of humor and if we didn’t laugh, we would cry. Which is better?

          • Kit

            I think the state of the US for the last 20years(actually, much longer) is something to definitely cry about but point taken.

          • michelle

            DiperFire…..You win the internet! LOL.

          • http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/3229/benavidez-roy-p.php Roy Benevidez

            Last refuge of a sock-puppet scoundrel: mocking of the obvious disparate education levels.

  • Chan

    Interesting that every time something bad happens it is some how related to Obama. He has been the President for 2 terms and was elected by the people which means there are WAY more people who’s believes defer from the people who choose to post on here. Probably because those people who don’t post are at work and deal with every day realities and don’t have time to rant on a keyboard. To all of the naysayers, you may want to keep in mind what happens to citizens of other countries when they speak negative of their leader….ijs

    • Pablo Jones

      Elected by 66 million out of 310 million in the country 2012. That is roughly 21% and down from 2008.

    • Seeker

      Are you at work ?

    • Seeker

      ” To all of the naysayers, you may want to keep in mind what happens to citizens of other countries when they speak negative of their leader….ijs”
      Humm like have the IRS attack you , have the NSA spy on you , what other country does that sound like ?

  • Bruce Tennant

    Q: Has the
    Obama administration started a program to use “taxpayer money” to give free cell
    phones to welfare recipients?

    A: No.
    Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for
    more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by
    taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

    FULL QUESTION

    Is this e-mail true?

    I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at
    the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former
    employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his
    “Obama phone.”

    ⬐ Click to
    expand/collapse the full text ⬏

    I asked him what an “Obama phone” was and he went on to say that welfare
    recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70
    minutes of FREE minutes every month. I was a little skeptical so I Googled it
    and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING
    REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES.. This program was
    started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it’s
    sinking fast. The very foundations that this country was built on are being
    shaken. The age-old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out
    the window and are being replaced with “Hope and Change” and “Change we
    can believe in.” You can click on the link below to read more about
    the “Obama phone”…just have a barf bag ready.
    https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx Google: Safelink
    Wireless

    FULL ANSWER

    Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the
    program is not funded by the government or taxpayer money, as the e-mail
    alleges. And it’s hardly new.

    How It
    Works

    SafeLink Wireless, the program mentioned in the e-mail, does indeed offer a
    cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless
    services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to
    apply and
    prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits,
    such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the
    poverty line. Using
    2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under
    $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and
    Hawaii.

    SafeLink is run
    by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth
    largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for
    directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with “tax payer money,” as the
    e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is
    administered by the Universal
    Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation
    set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by
    contributions from telecommunications companies such as
    “long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone
    companies, paging companies, and payphone providers.” The companies often charge
    customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal
    service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then
    parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as
    SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income
    households.

    History

    The SafeLink program has actually been offering cell phones to low-income
    households in some states since
    2008, not beginning “earlier this year,” as the e-mail claims. But the program
    is rooted in a deeper history.

    When phone lines were first laid out in the late 19th century, they were not
    always inter-operable. That is to say the phone service created by one company
    to serve one town may not have been compatible with the phone service of another
    company serving a different town nearby. The telecom companies themselves saw
    the folly in this arrangement, and so in 1913, AT&T committed itself to
    resolving interconnection problems as part of the “Kingsbury
    Commitment.”

    That common goal of universal service became a goal of universal
    access to service when Congress passed The Telecommunications Act of
    1934. The act created the FCC and also included
    in its preamble a promise “to make available, so far as possible, to all the
    people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide
    wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable
    charges.” There was a fear, expressed
    by telecom companies themselves, that market forces alone might encourage
    companies to pass on providing service to hard-to-reach places. This would both
    hurt the people who wouldn’t have service as well as existing customers who
    wouldn’t be able to reach them. So the new FCC was tasked with promoting this
    principle of “universal service.”

    This informal practice was codified when the Universal Service Administrative
    Company (USAC) was created
    as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to “ensure all Americans, including
    low-income consumers and those who live in rural, insular, high cost areas,
    shall have affordable service and [to] help to connect eligible schools,
    libraries, and rural health care providers to the global telecommunications
    network.” The USAC includes four programs
    to serve rural areas, high cost areas, rural health care providers, and schools
    and libraries. Since 1997, USAC has provided discounted land line service to
    low-income individuals. (A more limited program to offer assistance to
    low-income individuals was created a decade earlier; the telecommunications act
    expanded and formalized it.) According to Eric Iversen, USAC director of
    external relations, the Universal Service Fund more recently began funding
    programs that provide wireless service, such as the pre-paid cellular SafeLink
    program mentioned in the chain e-mail.

    The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call
    these devices “Obama Phones,” as the e-mail author does. This specific program,
    SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent
    company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act
    passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement
    reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President
    Woodrow Wilson.

    Wilson Phones, anyone?

    – Justin Bank

    Update, Nov. 5: A public relations representative from SafeLink Wireless
    contacted us to note that the América Móvil subsidiary that
    operates the SafeLink program and receives funds from the USF is TracFone
    Wireless, based in Miami, Fla.
    from fact check .org

  • Otter

    Some sick losers, feel the need to prove their “manhood” by attacking a disabled man, and the only thing some people care about is what kind of phone they were using?

    • Bill Love

      I no you have this pos doing these crimes and we are arguing about Obama why not be pissed he get out on bail

    • SniperFire

      We are just having some fun, Otter. Please don’t consider the C-T as some sort of standard-bearer organization where all the news that is fit to print should be solemnly and methodically weighted. They haven’t anywhere near that gravitas.

    • michelle

      They have to direct everything to politics to relieve their feeble minds.

  • SniperFire

    Democrats would vote for Hitler if he promised free phones.

    • Joe Smith

      They already did……sorry, couldn’t help myself

      • SniperFire

        Barry justs needs to grow one of those funny little totalitarian mustaches to complete the effect!

      • lilbud

        Good job!! Love your humor!!

  • brenda

    Wow….nexts it’s going to be the blacks fought for the “free cell phone” lololol…you guy’s are really sad.

    • SniperFire

      Hey, Brenda. Question for you. If free-gubmit cell phone service is used to commit crime – you know, becomes a criminal tool – should it be confiscated? For example, if Ferguson rioting and looting was coordinated by free gubmit cell phone messaging, should that be considered a criminal use of free gubmit phones and be cause for taking them away from perps?

      • Seeker

        It should be

    • Sis Delish

      Brenda, can you defend any other segment of the general population with more vigor, please?

  • lilbud

    You’ve got to be kidding me!! What sick people!!!!

  • jess

    I went to school with this jerk he was a bully still is makes me sick

  • http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/3229/benavidez-roy-p.php Roy Benevidez