Isaac Zamora made the chilling comment twice at the brief hearing in Skagit County District Court while investigators wrapped up their work at eight crime scenes. The 28-year-old is being held on $5 million bail in the wake of Tuesday's rampage, which left six people dead and four injured.

District Court Judge Warren Gilbert read each charge and the penalties, which carry a maximum sentence of life in prison. That doesn't mean the death penalty is off the table, according to the Skagit County prosecutor.

"Do you talk about it? Sure you talk about it," Prosecutor Rich Weyrich told the Skagit Valley Herald. "Where it goes, it's way too early to decide that."

Zamora was not required to enter a plea Friday. The charges filed in District Court allow Zamora to be held in custody for 30 days. He will later be formally charged in county Superior Court.

In a precedent-setting move, a divided Federal Communications Commission last month determined that the company is violating a federal policy that guarantees unfettered access to the Internet.

Comcast challenged the FCC decision Thursday in the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington.

Comcast executive vice president David L. Cohen said in a statement that the company is seeking "review and reversal" of the FCC order and that the commission's action was "legally inappropriate and its findings were not justified by the record."

The Comcast case arose from complaints by users of a type of "file-sharing" software often used to download large data files, usually video.

Tests by The Associated Press and others found that file-sharing transmissions were aborting prematurely. It was later discovered that the company was cutting off transfers without informing customers.

More than a year after the agreement was announced, the sudden recusal of a retired judge unanimously selected to review the priests' files has threatened to undo the fragile deal and could send both sides back to court for months. At the same time, an attorney who has been paid by the church to defend accused clergy is fighting to keep those records sealed — and plaintiffs accuse the archdiocese of using him as their proxy.

The developments have been gut-wrenching for alleged victims, who believe the church papers will contain evidence of criminal wrongdoing by church leaders. The Los Angeles settlement — by far the nation's largest — was supposed to close the book on the nationwide church abuse crisis that erupted in Boston in 2002.

"Many of us survivors went to litigation to produce the documents," said Esther Miller, one of more than 500 plaintiffs included in last year's agreement. "People want to move on and heal and they still have our feet to the fire. The money did nothing. It just pays for expensive therapy sessions."

Sanjeev Nanda, 30, who pleaded innocent, was convicted on manslaughter charges in what is known as the BMW case.

The high-profile case has been seen as a test of whether India's judicial system, which has a long history of favoring the well-connected, is willing to hold the wealthy accountable.

Judge Vinod Kumar sentenced three other defendants to prison terms ranging from six months to one year on charges of destroying evidence.

"This is a harsh penalty," said Nanda's attorney, Prem Kumar, adding that he would appeal the verdict in New Delhi's High Court.

However, Ved Marwah, a former police commissioner and a prominent commentator on criminal affairs, said Nanda should consider himself lucky that he didn't get the maximum punishment of 10 years in prison.

A police officer found the weapon when the 22-year-old man arrived for a hearing Tuesday at District Judge Jonathan Grine's office in State College.

The man was arraigned on new charges including possession of a firearm in a court facility and taken to Centre County jail in lieu of $10,000 cash bail.

Court documents indicate the man's earlier actions led court staff members to believe he was armed. Police say he called asking if there was a locked box to store his gun, later entered the office and ran out, returned and checked the court calendar, then took pictures of signs saying weapons are prohibited.

"The main issue is that AT&T's 3G network isn't strong enough to support the millions of people who are iPhone 3G users," Michael Rott, a partner with the San Diego-based law firm Hiden, Rott & Oertle, LLP, told ABCNews.com. "Apple violated [California law] by misrepresenting the actual speed and performance of its 8G and 16G models."

Rott filed the suit in San Diego Superior Court on behalf of iPhone user William Gillis. Rott said Gillis, a former executive with Chicken of the Sea, purchased Apple's flagship 16G iPhone in California for personal use. Despite advertisements touting the new phone's ability to run on the 3G network, he found that the phone frequently regressed to the slower EDGE network, Rott said.

"We're stating that they falsely and deceptively represented their products and services -- both them and ATT," Rott said.

AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel told ABCNews.com that the company doesn't comment on pending litigation.

Apple representatives did not immediately respond to requests from ABCNews.com for comment. But previously, the company also hasn't commented on such suits.

Gillis' complaint asks for appropriate disclaimers to be provided by the companies and for money to be returned to iPhone customers, Rott said.

"The whole thing is by providing consumers with disclaimers -- essentially to disclose complete and accurate info about the product -- you let customers [decide to purchase] your product or another one. [Apple] didn't give that info -- neither did AT&T," Rott said.

A similar complaint was filed against California-based Apple by an iPhone customer in Alabama about two weeks ago.

In that U.S. District Court case, plaintiff Jessica Alena Smith alleged that despite aggressive marketing stating the 3G iPhone is "twice as fast for half the price," the device is actually much slower than advertised and prone to dropping calls.

Both lawsuits followed a string of highly publicized complaints -- from spotty service to dropped calls to slow data speeds.

Despite the onslaught of criticism, many industry observers maintain that Apple customers are a loyal breed willing to withstand the blips.

But some analysts say that though Apple's reputation is certainly strong, it is not impenetrable.

"The more this kind of thing happens, the more the image becomes tarnished," Rob Enderle, an independent technology analyst, told ABCNews.com.

"[Apple is] unique in that they have a fan base that will see them through almost anything," he said. But the word "almost" is important, he emphasized.

"It's getting to the point where it's going to do damage. ... There are enough people who are upset. But if it were anyone else it would have already done more," Enderle said.

When Apple released the first generation iPhone it also had to defend itself against lawsuits brought by dissatisfied customers.

In 2007, Apple was hit with complaints filed in Illinois and California over reported short battery life. The suit filed in California was ultimately withdrawn. The Illinois case is still pending. Apple has moved to dismiss the case but the judge has not yet issued a ruling.

In 2005, Apple compensated some owners of first- and second-generation iPods with $50 of in-store credit or $25 cash to settle yet another class action suit over the batteries in an earlier edition of the iPod.