Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The Tenors Crash ‘O Canada’ With “All Lives Matter” Lyrics

A member of the quartet singing group, The Tenors, decided it was a good idea to change up the lyrics to the Canadian national anthem at the MLB All-Star game in San Diego.

Correction: The Tenors altered O Canada lyrics in support of All Lives Matter. pic.twitter.com/Q0i6qqLB4Y

— Bill Cooney (@BillCooney) July 13, 2016

Awkward, right? Social media immediately lashed out against the obvious political act and the group has since issued a statement apologizing. An update revealed that the All Lives Matter singer acted alone. All Lives Matter is now said to be a countermovement working against Black Lives Matter. Sigh.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Zachary Hammond, 19, was on a date on July 26 when he was fatally shot twice by a police officer during a drug bust in South Carolina.

Hammond was driving his car when police attempted to make a stop. The undercover officers staged a drug bust with Hammond’s 23-year-old date, Tori Morton, who had ten grams of weed on her person ready to sell. During the encounter, Morton was arrested and charged with possession, and Hammond was shot twice, in the shoulder and in the torso. The police officer who shot him claimed it was in self defense. He claimed Hammond was driving toward him with his vehicle when he fired the two shots.

However, the autopsy report seems to clearly disprove the police officer’s claim of self defense. The family’s attorney, Eric Bland, stated,

The shots were so close in proximity to each other that it would be physically impossible unless the car was stopped and the officer came up very close to an open window.

Hammond’s death has prompted numerous questions, few answers, and, surprisingly, no national outrage. Hammond’s family wants to know why there hasn’t been much coverage, and looked to the so-called #AllLivesMatter advocates for answers. Bland told The Washington Post this week:

It’s sad, but I think the reason is, unfortunately, the media and our government officials have treated the death of an unarmed white teenager differently than they would have if this were a death of an unarmed black teen. The hypocrisy that has been shown toward this is really disconcerting…The issue should never be what is the color of the victim. The issue should be: Why was an unarmed teen gunned down in a situation where deadly force was not even justified?”

While it is extremely unfortunate what happened to Zachary Hammond, the reason there are no advocates responding in outrage to Hammond’s death is because the #AllLivesMatter movement does not really exist. Instead, the #AllLivesMatter movement serves as a detraction from the acknowledgement of black lives being targeted by the police. That is not to say those who advocate for “all lives matter” do not care about Hammond’s death, but there is no reaction because the movement does not really exist. As a result, the response from the #BlackLivesMatter movement has been in many ways focused on pointing out the lack of attention from #AllLivesMatter.

Hammond’s death however, does raise continued questions about the way police officers respond to what they classify as “dangerous situations.” What does this say about the way police officers have been trained? In the situations where their responses have resulted in the loss of black lives, it was very easy to assume their motives–usually proven through series of incidents with police officers who have histories of racist behavior, recordings that show intentions, and many deaths that often seemed staged or unclear. But in this specific case, the motive for killing Hammond is not clear at all. Police officers are now being faced with even more questions in regard to how they effectively execute their jobs. Now that these white parents are asking the questions, maybe everyone will get the answers they deserve.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unarmed White Teen Fatally Shot by Police Officer: Do #AllLivesMatter? appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton currently leads the Democratic polls for the presidential nomination. Although still early, Clinton appears confident and poised, and there is no denying that she is one of the strongest Democratic candidates. However recently there has been a lot of coverage focused on her remarks. For example last Tuesday, the Democratic candidate made a very controversial remark in an all-black church in Florissant, MO. Her comments are currently receiving significant backlash and add to the repertoire of outlandish and uneducated claims she has made in recent years. So, does Hillary Clinton need to watch what she says?

Let’s start with the incident in the Florissant church, where Clinton stated, ““All Lives Matter.” While the statement was made in the context of an anecdote Clinton was sharing about her mother, some observers seemed to disregard that notion and interpreted the comment as racist. The phrase “All Lives Matter” has been controversially used in contrast to the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” which gained particular popularity after the  shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, just a few miles south of where the service was taking place. As a result, many were outraged that Clinton would use such a loaded phrase.

Hillary Clinton, in a Black church, just said “All lives matter.” Fam…

— Pousbaé (@yoauntielikeit) June 23, 2015

Hillary Clinton really and truly said “All lives Matter” OMG SHE HAS TO BE ONE OF THE DUMBEST POLITICIANS THIS NATION HAS EVER PRODUCED — Nostradeptus (@adept2u) June 23, 2015

All lives matter? Hillary…sit down now. You’re embarrassing us. #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/IawPcGo7gO

— Citizen B (@Citizen__B) June 23, 2015

Hillary Clinton has attempted to be a much more empathetic and relatable candidate than during the 2008 primaries, and has sought to address racial issues in a more direct manner. But the middle of a presidential campaign is not a smart time for Clinton to try and compare her white mother and a black community that has recently faced an unspeakable tragedy.

The tweets and statements she made Friday morning when same-sex marriage was legalized also provide an example of Clinton’s hypocrisy. Have her supporters forgotten her original stance on the issue? In 2004 Hillary Clinton stated the following: “I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” In 1996, she stood next to Bill Clinton as he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which essentially made same-sex marriage at the federal level illegal. It doesn’t really matter whether or not she’s in favor of same-sex marriage, but rather her consistent habit of talking her way out of an issue and the hypocrisy she illustrates.

Not only are some of her recent comments questionable, but actions taken by her in the past also pose a threat to her run for the presidency, as the same recurring theme of hypocrisy ensues. Hillary Clinton’s claims about her “humble financial roots,” illustrate another attempt to relate to the average American, however her comments and actions create an absolute double standard. Clinton has repeatedly stressed that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke,” when they left the White House. But in 2000, months before leaving the presidential palace, the Clintons bought a seven bedroom home in Washington D.C.’s Embassy Row neighborhood for 2.85 million dollars. They paid $855,000 in cash and were approved for the remainder in a loan–that’s a far cry from “dead broke.”

Today, the Clintons’ combined net worth has risen to a staggering $55 million and their Clinton Global Initiative Foundation is valued at a humble $98.2 billion. Clinton’s campaign insiders have been quoted saying that Hillary will raise an “insane amount of money,” and furthermore will “dwarf anything seen in the history of presidential politics;” clearly something that the average American wouldn’t be able to do.

Although Clinton is making attempts to renew her image and make herself more approachable and relatable, Tuesday’s comment only added fuel to the fire and further pushed the notion of her being a humble candidate further from many voters’ minds. It is likely that her comment was not intentionally racist by nature, however it may have cost her a large group of voters. Moreover, Friday’s statements clearly indicate that her actions and words are not consistent, and it’s only a matter of time before people start to notice the recurring theme of hypocrisy associated with her political campaign.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary Clinton: A History of Hypocrisy? appeared first on Law Street.