DOJ vs. Affirmative Action

The DOJ intends to direct its Civil Rights Division’s resources to investigate affirmative action policies, specifically what effects those policies have on white applicants. The DOJ may sue universities it believes are discriminating against white applicants. This is an odd use of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which was designed to address issues faced by minority groups in the United States.

Many have also pointed out the irony of the Trump Administration’s crusade against affirmative action:

The people who hate affirmative action because its ‘unfair’ are gonna be really mad when they find out how rich kids get into elite schools

— Ayatollah Cumonme (@Phonycian) August 2, 2017

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action policies was in 2016, affirming the University of Texas’ admissions policy was constitutional after white student Abigail Fisher sued the university. But that hasn’t stopped additional cases from moving forward. Two more, one against Harvard and one against the University of North Carolina, are pending. Unlike the Texas case, they both allege discrimination against African-American students.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Today is the best day of the year: #NationalPuppyDay. Puppies are great, because they a) aren’t trying to take health insurance away from 24 million people b) aren’t affiliated with Russia, and c) are much cuter than humans. In honor of #NationalPuppyDay, let’s take a quick look at the best political puppies so far in 2017.

Senator Thom Tillis Made a New Friend

Our official office mascot, Tilly, a 3lb Boston Terrier puppy.

A post shared by Senator Thom Tillis (@senthomtillis) on Jan 24, 2017 at 7:06am PST

Tilly, a Boston Terrier puppy, appears to belong to one of Tillis’s staffers. But she’s not the only dog in Tillis’s life. The senator’s love of dogs is well documented. During the 2016 election he released a video of his dog, Ike Tillis, whining about Hillary Clinton, Obamacare, ISIS, and the deficit. He also encouraged his dog to vote, which is definitely not legal, but Ike is too cute for us to care.

Biden, the Puppy Who Stole Our Hearts

This is a recent addition to best political puppies of 2017. Biden, a four-month-old golden retriever puppy, got to meet Joe Biden, a human and former VP, yesterday.

It seems like they got along well:

Joe Biden met a puppy named “Biden” and the internet lost its mind https://t.co/CW9LOeryq6 pic.twitter.com/dPDnAHcgI0

— Mic (@mic) March 23, 2017

Biden the puppy probably has a long political career ahead of him.

i have a dream

A post shared by biden (@bidenthegolden) on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:27am PST

Rep. Rick Crawford’s Office Has a Maltipoo

Representative Rick Crawford, a Republican representative from Arkansas, has a puppy named Brady who greets constituents who decide to stop by the D.C. office. News of Brady’s hiring broke in mid-January, and according to Crawford’s office, Brady “will be handling all of our canine related policies and will be my go to pup on the #woof caucus.” 

I’d like to introduce the newest member of my staff, Brady Handey. Brady will be handling all of our canine related policies and will be my go to pup on the #woof caucus. #capitolhilldogs #dogsofinsta

A post shared by Rep Rick Crawford (@reprickcrawford) on Jan 5, 2017 at 10:31am PST

Senator Deb Fischer Adopts Fred

Nebraska Republican Senator Deb Fischer has adopted a goldendoodle named Fred. Fischer is a big time dog lover and misses her dogs back home. So, she adopted a nine-week-old goldendoodle in February, who will live with her staff members on the weekends while she’s in Nebraska. Fred is all over the senator’s Instagram, and clearly a very hard worker:

Fred (and Nick) wishing all Nebraskans calling my office a Happy #ValentinesDay #HeartCity #valentinenebraska #hometown #FunWithFred

A post shared by Senator Fischer (@senatorfischer) on Feb 14, 2017 at 8:21am PST

He’s even at meetings on National Puppy Day! Good work Fred:

Fred at staff meeting. Happy #nationalpuppyday

A post shared by Senator Fischer (@senatorfischer) on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:30am PDT

All of the Puppies Visit the Hill

In February, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought a bunch of puppies to the hill, all adoptable. Some representatives jumped on the chance to hang out with them. Here’s Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democrat from California and her new friends:

Made some new animal friends here on the Hill thanks to the @ASPCA! I’m honored to fight in Congress for the well-being of animals. pic.twitter.com/EJjD6nB7wq

— Rep. Roybal-Allard (@RepRoybalAllard) February 15, 2017

Republican Congressman Tom Marino, from Pennsylvania, also stopped by:

Today, I stopped by the #PAWS4Love event hosted by the @ASPCA. pic.twitter.com/UoPSHbKR0C

— Rep. Tom Marino (@RepTomMarino) February 14, 2017

And Democratic Colorado Rep. Jared Polis had his dog selfies down:

Adopt a dog or cat today#paws4love @ASPCA pic.twitter.com/2idACR1OR0

— Jared Polis (@jaredpolis) February 14, 2017

The good news: nearly 20 animals (both dogs and cats) found homes during the event!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Political Puppies of 2017 for National Puppy Day appeared first on Law Street.

A judge in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, recently ruled that dogs can’t be treated like children, as part of a divorce case. And while I’m as big a fan of puppies as the next person, Justice Richard Danyliuk’s argument makes a lot of sense.

Here’s the backstory: a divorcing couple–married 16 years–were dealing with a “custody” case involving their two dogs, Kenya and Willow (a.k.a. Willy). The wife wanted the dogs, with only visitation rights for the husband, and vice-versa. They argued that this should be treated like a “traditional” custody argument, one that would usually include human children.

This whole dispute ended up in front of Danyliuk, who seemed pretty annoyed that this landed in his courtroom, saying: “To consume scarce judicial resources with this matter is wasteful. In my view such applications should be discouraged.” Danyliuk also expressed frustration that the legal filings by the couple included a lot of extraneous information, including the wife’s claim that her husband had not been very attentive to their cats earlier in their relationship.

But Danyliuk also made a few different compelling arguments why dogs simply aren’t children:

In Canada, we tend not to purchase our children from breeders.

We tend not to breed our children with other humans to ensure good bloodlines, nor do we charge for such services.

When our children are seriously ill, we generally do not engage in an economic cost/benefit analysis to see whether the children are to receive medical treatment, receive nothing or even have their lives ended to prevent suffering.

When our children act improperly, even seriously and violently so, we generally do not muzzle them or even put them to death for repeated transgressions.

Danyliuk pointed out that pets aren’t legally treated exactly the same as traditional property, as there are laws that protect them from abuse and harm, but at the end of the day they are, for all intents and purposes, property.

So, despite how  much you might love your furry friend, they aren’t going to be treated like children in the courtroom–at least in front of this one Canadian judge.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Judge Rules That Dogs Aren’t Children appeared first on Law Street.

New Jerseyans might wonder why they’re suddenly seeing billboards featuring a pleading dog, next to the text “Don’t kill man’s best friend for medical testing.” It’s part of a Washington D.C. based physicians’ non-profit’s new campaign, targeting the Morristown Hospital in New Jersey for practicing surgery on live dogs that are euthanized after the session. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has posted billboards near the Morristown train station and is planning one along the highway as well.

 The group writes on its website:

At Morristown Medical Center in New Jersey, emergency medicine residents are taught procedural skills using live dogs. Trainees are instructed to make incisions, insert a tube into a dog’s chest cavity, crack open the breastbone in order to access the heart, and insert or drill a needle into the animal’s bones. At the end of each training session, the animals are killed,

The group claims this procedure is at odds with today’s standards of practice. Out of 200 similar programs in the country, the group has surveyed 160 hospitals. Reportedly, 89 percent of surveyed emergency medicine programs use non-animal methods to practice operations, such as human body simulators or cadavers, which allow medical students to make mistakes and learn at their own pace, without it ending with an injured or dead animal.

NJ Hospital using live dogs to train surgical residents! Where is @peta ? https://t.co/w7fIVltWYJ pic.twitter.com/jb8JWRikhn

— Johnny Rivera (@prjohnnyrivera) November 17, 2016

The physician’s group was founded in 1985 and lobbies to end all kinds of animal testing. John Pippin, the group’s director of academic affairs, said that Morristown is the only hospital that reported it uses dogs for its residency training program. The few others that still use live animals typically use pigs instead, a less controversial practice.

But Morristown Hospital’s spokeswoman, Elaine Andrecovich, defended the practice. She said it is an essential way for emergency medicine doctors to practice crucial skills that they can’t learn through simulation or through training devices. According to Andrecovich, the dogs are only used when preparing for “rare, life-saving procedures uncommonly seen” in actual life. She also pointed out that simulators couldn’t compete with “the physiological or anatomical equivalent of live tissue.”

The hospital has not revealed where it performs the procedures on the dogs, only that it is not at the hospital or its property.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nonprofit Campaigns Against New Jersey Hospital Using Dogs for Medical Training appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an annual tradition that always draws big crowds of protestors–the dog meat festival in Yulin, in southern China. On Friday, animal rights activists from around the world, joined by celebrities like Carrie Fisher, handed over a petition with 11 million signatures to the Chinese Embassy in London, in an attempt to stop the festival from taking place. The habit of eating dog meat is nowadays widely criticized in China, with activists saying pet dogs are stolen from their owners, treated with cruelty, and that the phenomenon is an “embarrassment to China.”

This backlash may be  due to the Westernized and increasingly young population of China–previously having pets was seen as too elitist, particularly under Mao Zedong’s rule. Today, having dogs as pets is more and more popular, and dying your dog’s fur to make it look like a panda is a huge trend.

so this is a panda dog…and I didn't know they were real…and I'm buying one… pic.twitter.com/xOFr61DD9P

— jules (@juliawrightt__) May 29, 2016

What seems morally impossible for many Westerners is actually a cultural-historical tradition dating back thousands of years for the Chinese. About 30 million dogs are slaughtered for their meat every year in Asia, and activists say more than a third of that number is in China alone. In the southern parts where the summers get scorching hot, dog meat is believed to help you keep cool. And as many other animals are said to help your health–tiger for potency, shark fin soup for showing off wealth, bird nests for better health in general–different dog parts are said to be good for different ailments.

No matter how traditional, many old-fashioned delicacies are illegal in China. In 2014 a Chinese businessman was sentenced to 13 years in jail for hiring poachers to kill tigers, so that he could drink their blood and eat their penises, which he believed would make him more potent. Three tigers died and were eaten before the police found out after another man filmed one of the killings with his phone.

Here's an idea. Why don't we stop eating meat altogether?
Yulin Dog Meat Festival 101: All You Need to Take Action https://t.co/4mp6TljGJK

— Kimberly Ventre (@KimberlyVentre) June 10, 2016

In the U.S., selling meat from cats and dogs is illegal–but personal consumption is actually legal in 44 states. The big problem is the treatment of the animals. A representative for the animal advocacy group Born Free USA told Consumer Affairs:

According to the tradition, if you scare the dog before it dies it makes the meat more tender. Dogs are either hung, electrocuted, or beaten to death while cats are boiled alive. The inhumane treatment of animals for the sake of a cultural tradition can no longer be justified in civilized society.

The dog meat festival in Yulin is scheduled to start on June 21, but activists hope it will not be a tradition for much longer.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Largest Ever Petition Against China’s Annual Dog Meat Festival Launched appeared first on Law Street.

Cesar Millan is well known for his hit shows “Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan” and “Cesar 911.” A dog behavior specialist, the shows feature Millan working with dogs who have behavioral issues, often aggression. However a recent incident aired on “Cesar 911” now has the “dog whisperer” under investigation in Los Angeles.

In the episode in question Millan was attempting to train a dog named Simon, a French bulldog/terrier mix, who has been aggressive with his owner’s other animals. Millan was trying to condition Simon to be around those animals. He used one of them, a pot-bellied pig, in his training attempt. At one point Simon charged the pig and bit its ear. Some animal rights advocates are arguing that the use of the pig was abuse and the incident sparked the involvement of Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies and animal control officers. Here’s the clip from the show:

A petition urging National Geographic to take “Cesar 911” off the air has been launched on Change.org. It states:

Cesar Millans methods are inhumane and his shows need to be taken off the air. In this episode, Cesar used pigs as bait for a dog who was a known pig killer and all for ‘entertainment’ purposes and this is not the first time he has used bait animals. This is wrong! Using animals for bait is against the law.

However a statement from National Geographic essentially argues that the incident was taken out of context. It reads:

Millan was working with Simon, a French bulldog/terrier mix, who frequently attacked other animals, including his owner’s pet pot-bellied pigs. A short clip from the episode was shared online and showed Simon chasing a pig and nipping its ear, causing the ear to bleed. The clip caused some concern for viewers who did not see or understand the full context of the encounter. The pig that was nipped by Simon was tended to immediately afterward, healed quickly and showed no lasting signs of distress.

The investigation is ongoing, but Millan is reportedly confident that there will be no evidence of wrongdoing found.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Dog Whisperer” Cesar Millan Under Investigation for Animal Cruelty appeared first on Law Street.

The use of drug dogs is a relatively normal practice in American policing, and they’re often used to conduct searches, and catch people who have drugs (or sometimes other contraband) in their possession. But, new evidence has shown that the dogs may not be as reliable as once believed–they are often susceptible to the biases of their handlers.

The issue with drug dogs is not that they can’t sniff out drugs–they can. But dogs are assigned to handlers within their units, who they aim to please. Studies that test the accuracy of drug dogs have discovered that dogs will sometimes take cues from their handlers–tests that aim to “fool” handlers are more successful than tests that aim to “fool” the dogs. Dan Hinkel and Joe Mahr, of the Chicago Tribune, pointed out that there are certain things that handlers do that make dogs more likely to alert for drugs where there are none, such as leading a dog too many times around a car suspected of containing drugs.

Studies indicate that this can lead to issues with racial bias–according to the Chicago Tribune:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Reliable are Drug Dogs? appeared first on Law Street.

Amber Heard, actress and wife of Johnny Depp, is pleading not guilty to illegal animal importing charges, after being accused by Australian officials of smuggling the couple’s two Yorkshire terriers into the country on a private jet. Heard was charged this week with two counts of illegally importing “Pistol and Boo” into Australia and one count of producing a false document.

Amber Heard pleads not into Brguilty to illegally importing dogs into Australia and begs for… https://t.co/2rCwUgvW2T pic.twitter.com/QBsAYFiiQm

— Eye Witness Reporter (@eyewitnessblog) December 7, 2015

The whole matter came about after the “Friday Night Lights” actress flew to Australia with the tiny terriers in May 2015 to visit Depp, who was in the country filming the next installment in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise. Heard allegedly falsified her immigration arrival card to conceal the arrival of the two tiny pups, as they traveled to Brisborne by private jet.

By doing so, she bypassed Australia’s strict Quarantine Act, which requires pet owners to apply for a pet permit and quarantine their animals on arrival for at least ten days. The act was designed to prevent infectious diseases, such as rabies, from spreading.

Authorities were tipped off to the dogs’ illegal arrival after photos surfaced of the pampered pooches at an Australian groomer’s shop. Officials gave the couple 72 hours to send Boo and Pistol back to the U.S., threatening that they would euthanize the dogs if they didn’t comply. In the words of Australia’s Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce,” if we start letting movie stars–even though they’ve been [voted] the Sexiest Man Alive twice–to come into our nation, then why don’t we just break the laws for everybody?” Joyce added, ” it’s time that Pistol and Boo buggered off back to the United States.”

Watch Joyce’s full comments below

Joyce’s intensity over the matter quickly became parodied worldwide and social media responded with the ironic hashtag #WarOnTerrier. The dogs were eventually flown back to the U.S. under the guardianship of Heard’s father in order to avoid potential harm from the Australian government.

Even though the matter came off as joke for some, the potential sentence is no laughing matter. According to NBC, Heard could face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $75,000 fine for the importation charges, while the false document charge carries a penalty of a year in prison and a fine of $7,500. Depp, however, was able to avoid charges altogether because the dogs are solely registered under Heard’s name.

Despite the severity of the charges, Depp didn’t shy away from firing back at the Australian minister during an interview at the Venice Film Festival joking, ” I killed my dogs and ate them, under direct orders of some kind of, I don’t know, sweaty, big-gutted man from Australia.”

Heard on the other hand seem to be taking the charges more seriously. In a statement released by her lawyers Heard said,

Whilst I am unable to comment on the specific matters before the court I would like to say that I respect the importance of Australia’s laws. My decision to defend these charges, as will become apparent in the appropriate forum of the court, is not intended to in any way diminish the importance of Australia’s laws. I look forward to attending the hearing of these matters. However as the matters are to be determined by the court, I will not be making any further statements.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amber Heard Will Plead Not Guilty to Illegally Bringing Dogs to Australia appeared first on Law Street.

Now that winter is in full swing, we go to extensive measures to make sure that our roadways and sidewalks are passable and safe. As we plow and shovel, we also use salts to serve as ice melt. While they come in numerous forms, many of them are strong salts that pose problems for the roadways themselves, the environment, and our pets.

As it is, I work hard to clean snow and ice out of my dog’s paws when she comes inside on a winter day. If those things become lodged they can irritate the sensitive pads or cause an infection. But if she steps on salt-based ice melt during the course of our walk, potentially serious problems can occur. First of all, it burns. I’ve seen my dog limp and try walking on three feet with the other raised up in the air because it is painful to step down. She’s whimpered and cried, and licked obsessively in an attempt to remedy it. This can cause further problems; ingesting these salts can cause gastrointestinal ailments such as vomiting and internal burns in the mouth and digestive tract. Extreme cases might even lead to liver failure or pancreatitis. I clean and disinfect her paws, apply soothing sprays, but can only do so much to prevent her from eating snow and ice outside that may contain some of the salt.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

There is no reason to use these types of salts. Sometimes salts are not necessary at all; laying down sand can provide traction enough. In many areas a homeowner is directly responsible for the portion of the sidewalk that is in front of his house. While some people are quite neglectful of this duty, others take it to the extreme. I have encountered stretches of sidewalk that are so choked with strong salts that my dog and I are better off walking in the middle of the street. There are plenty of ice melts that are labeled “pet safe.” These are not nearly as problematic, though they are not necessarily perfect as they may still contain some similar ingredients. It is best to ask your vet or an employee at the store for more information.

Little boots are an option, as well. They are cute and fashionable and will protect the paws; however, I know my dog would not tolerate them. She would feel restricted and would spend the walk trying to tear them off. While they could help some dogs, this is avoiding the problem rather than eliminating it.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

It is also worth noting that we track these salts into our homes on our shoes, as well. This can cause damage to wood floors and rugs. In addition, stronger salts crack the roadways. This is one of the reasons, in addition to the expansions and contractions induced by temperature changes, that roads are riddled with deep potholes by the time spring arrives. This gets expensive for taxpayers to fund repaving year after year, as well as poses dangers to drivers and can damage car suspensions, axles, and tires. Recently there were even several accidents on New Jersey’s Palisades Parkway largely due to incredibly rough roadways.

Remember how when Rome sacked Carthage they sowed the soil with salt so that nothing would ever grow again? We too are doing damage to the environment by sprinkling salt everywhere. It can burn grasses and plants, poison birds, and wash into waterways. From there it can harm aquatic life. This is a major issue; there is a sharp contrast in biological characteristics between fresh water creatures and salt water ones. Salt in fresh water is incredibly deadly.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

We are therefore dealing with an environmentally irresponsible set of practices. Ideally an alternative to salting in its entirety would be a nice development, but in the meantime reducing or eliminating one of the problems that it causes would be a good step forward. So that our best friends can safely take steps outside, let it be with concern to pet friendly salts.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Say No to Ice-Melting Salt This Winter appeared first on Law Street.

It may have been the first full week of 2015, but that doesn’t mean that our criminals are any more normal than they were in 2014. Read on to see the top five weirdest, funniest, and downright bizarre arrests of this week.

[SlideDeck2 id=31723 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Thanksgiving is the time of year when you sit back and think about all the things for which you are thankful. I made up my list. Of course my family, friends, shelter, yada yada yada, is all there. But let me move away from that boring stuff and tell you what I am really thankful for this year: that I don’t have neighbors with an annoying propensity to make noise all night.

Dog-Tired

Don’t we all hate when our neighbors cannot control their pets? Of course, it is a lot worse when they could control their pets but choose not to do so. However, worst of all is when they do not even have a dog, but still insist on blasting dog barking sounds over speakers pointed straight at our houses. Right?

So have you always wondered what it is like to be one of the rich and famous? Apparently it is a world full of annoying fake dog noises. At least it is in the case of former “Baywatch” star David Charvet and his wife Brooke Burke-Charvet, a former host of “Dancing with the Stars.”

The Charvets are in an interesting situation. Their neighbor, “The Bachelor” creator and Texas Chainsaw Masaacre producer Mike Fleiss, has decided to harass them in an unusual way. He set up speakers, pointed them toward their house, and played a new CD–“The Sounds of Dogs Barking” (at least I assume that is where he got his dog noises. It’s where I get all of mine.)–at all hours of the night. The Charvets are one of those unique couples who like to sleep at night, so they actually did not appreciate all this racket. And neither did the cops. They charged Fleiss with disturbing the peace.

This could possibly be good news for his neighbors who have tried and failed to get a restraining order against Fleiss in the past because what better way to prove you need one than to show the criminal record he got from the things he did to you?

One last note about this: where did Fleiss come up with this idea? Maybe it just popped into his very creative head; however, an alternate theory is that it came upon him in a dream … that was interrupted by the real barking dogs over at the Charvets’ house.

It’s Like (Not) Watching the Grass Grow

When I am asleep in the wee hours of the morning–meaning, of course, any time before noon–I do not want to be disturbed by my neighbors mowing the lawn. Wait until normal hours to do that, please–like 4:30 in the morning because I am still out partying at that hour.

Philip Ray Gage wanted to give his neighbors a nice surprise, but he chose an odd hour to do it. This is what I imagine led up to the crazy event: Gage was lying in bed and could not sleep. There was something weighing on his mind. The grass was growing right outside his window and there was nothing he could do about it. Wait! There was one thing he could do! Go out and mow the lawn. So he did. But he was not a selfish man. He did not want to be the only one to benefit from his stroke of genius. So when he was done with his own yard, he moved on to the neighbor’s.

Courtesy of Giphy.

One of his other neighbors was clearly jealous that he did not get special treatment, though, because when Gage was almost done with the lawns, the cops showed up and told him it was illegal to mow lawns at 4:30 in the morning. Then, they wrote him a ticket for the same thing that caused Fleiss to get one–disturbing the peace.

So, yeah, that is definitely what I am thankful for this year; kind neighbors who don’t disturb my peace. I need my sleep, after all.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Thanksgiving Be Grateful That These People Aren’t Your Neighbors appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s top three stories of the week ranged from the truly outrageous, to the infuriating, to the utterly baffling. Anneliese Mahoney  brought us the number one most read article of the week about a Canadian couple who dotted all their insurance i’s and crossed all their doctor’s permission t’s and still were hit with a million-dollar hospital bill when they unexpectedly had their baby while on vacation in the U.S.; Mahoney also wrote about the startling  sexual assault allegations surrounding Bill Cosby and the rape culture in which we’re immersed; and writer Ashley Shaw told the tale of the very worst neighbor you can imagine–one whose dogs dogs killed the neighbor’s beagle so she decided to sue them. I told you it was utterly baffling. ICYMI, here is the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Meet the World’s Most Expensive Baby

A Canadian couple decided to go on a nice, warm visit to Hawaii. Jennifer Huculak and her husband Darren Kimmel were three months away from the birth of their daughter when they came to the U.S. on vacation. Unfortunately, a few days after their arrival, Huculak went into labor and gave birth to a baby girl. Because their daughter was born premature, they racked up some expensive hospital bills. Well, actually, expensive is kind of an understatement. To be more precise, they are being charged $950,000 for the medical care they received. Read full article here.

#2 Bill Cosby Allegations: A Striking Example of Rape Culture

Bill Cosby has, to many, gained the sort of “elder statesman” distinction in the acting world. For all intents and purposes, things were going well for him this year. He signed up to do a new show on NBC and announced a Netflix standup special. Then a comedian named Hannibal Buress did a bit in which he accused Cosby of being a rapist. Read full article here.

#3 Woman Sues Neighbors After Her Own Pit Bulls Kill Their Beagle

I have a quiz for you (don’t worry, it’s only one question, it isn’t math, and it’s multiple choice): If your four pit bulls break through a fence and enter the neighbor’s yard, then kill Bailey the ten-year-old beagle that resides there, what do you do? a. Apologize. b. Offer to buy the neighbors a new dog. c. Both a and b. d. Sue the neighbors for $1 million. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome, readers, to a new series focused solely on sharing the most ridiculous laws that actually exist in our country. From banning women from parachuting on Sundays to making swearing loudly unlawful, the 50 United States are chock full of laws that really make you wonder how they ever came to be.

To kick start this series I will focus on one of the largest states, which has no shortage of bizarre laws on the books.

As you all know, California is home to Hollywood and major film and television production companies. If you are a parent wishing to take advantage of this to live vicariously through your child’s film career, beware. In the Golden State, film producers must have permission from a pediatrician before filming a child younger than one month.

Also, if you wish to include a scene with a dog pursuing a bear or bobcat in your film, you will have to change the plot. In California, it is unlawful to allow a dog to pursue either of the two aforementioned animals at any time.

Speaking of animals, while it is illegal to shoot at them from a moving vehicle, there is an exception for anyone wishing to play out a Moby Dick scenario: shooting at a whale from a moving vehicle is completely fine. So go ahead and release your inner Ishmael!

I’m sure you are all aware that some cities nationwide charge customers for plastic bags. San Jose and Sunnyvale, California take this to the next level, however; in those two cities, it is illegal for grocery stores to provide plastic bags at all.

Horny animals better control their natural instincts in Cali. Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. This law in particular is a major head-scratcher for me. How is it enforced? Who would be arrested in such a case? Would two dogs getting it on next to a church be sent to the pound? Oh, the confusion of it all… I have so many hilarious visuals playing out in my mind of cops leading handcuffed dogs to the holding cell.

The final law worth mentioning is one specific to the city of Fresno, where it is illegal to sell permanent markers within city limits.

Thus concludes this week’s edition in the series “The Dumbest Laws in the United States.” Tune in next week when we will explore the illogical laws throughout the rest of the West Coast.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: California Edition appeared first on Law Street.

I have a quiz for you (don’t worry, it’s only one question, it isn’t math, and it’s multiple choice): If your four pit bulls break through a fence and enter the neighbor’s yard, then kill Bailey the ten-year-old beagle that resides there, what do you do?

a. Apologize.

b. Offer to buy the neighbors a new dog.

c. Both a and b.

d. Sue the neighbors for $1 million.

Now this is kind of a trick question, I have to admit. You see, the answer depends in large part on the type of person you are. If you are anyone in the population other than Emerald White, you will probably choose a, b, or c (or whatever else normal people do when their dogs have just killed another dog). However, if you are Emerald White, you will choose option d.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Before you judge White (and I assume we you are all judging her and calling her crazy), let me tell you her side of the story. You see, she actually has a pretty legitimate claim: she was injured while trying to stop her dogs from killing Bailey. Her injuries were both physical and mental (she says the mental injuries are anxiety, fear, and trepidation, but I think her mental problems are something different entirely), and since her dogs cannot pay for her pain and suffering nor can the beagle, she has to find someone who can pay. Clearly it must be the Bakers, her neighbors.

During the dog attack, White received dog bites and “scratch-type injuries” as would be expected in the midst of this type of an event. She had to pull her dangerous dogs (as subsequently declared by the police) off of the beagle who had the audacity to both live next door and stay in his yard instead of laying around locked up in a kennel where all dogs should have the decency to stay–other than, of course, dangerous pit bulls.

All of this could have been avoided, White claimed, if the Bakers had done their job and kept Bailey better confined. Never mind that they had recently had part of the fence fixed to make it safer and more secure. It was not enough–if it had been, none of this would have happened. I mean, the Bakers had to have known they lived by these four dogs. I assume they were probably doing scary things behind the fence all the time like that dog from The Sandlot. So, since they knew all that, they had a duty to keep Bailey locked up inside because clearly the Whites could not keep dangerous animals inside their house.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Basically the Bakers were just asking for a fight, and White was the one that had to face the consequences when her neighbors got what they wanted. For example, outside of her injuries, she is now required to register her dangerous dogs annually, get a six-foot fence, and pay $100,000 liability on the dogs.

I have some advice for Ms. White. If for some crazy reason you do not win this case, I have someone else you can sue. In 1996, a Kentucky man threw a boomerang that then returned and hit him in the head, so he sued himself and won (and then his insurance had to pay the money, so all in all, it was actually a pretty smart idea by a guy stupid enough to hit himself in the head with a boomerang). Thus, Ms. White, maybe you should take a page from that guy’s book and drop the suit against the Bakers and sue someone who might actually be at fault: yourself.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Sues Neighbors After Her Own Pit Bulls Kill Their Beagle appeared first on Law Street.

Congratulations on surviving another Halloween, everyone! While recovering from your big night, you might as drag out the holiday a bit more and freak yourself out a little with all the weird things that people have gotten themselves arrested for this week. Check out the top five weird arrests from this week.

[SlideDeck2 id=27715 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

People tend to do some pretty clinically insane things to get back at their exes. Disgruntled men dumped by the girls of their dreams have posted naked pictures of them online, dated their best friends, and other concerning but far-from-deadly actions. However, the men starring in recent headlines have taken revenge to a whole new and disturbing level.

Recently, a dude was so peeved when his girlfriend left him that he concluded that feeding her dog to her was the best means of revenge. What ever happened to the saying “living well is the best revenge”? Not anymore, apparently.

That has to be one of the most messed up ways to get back at someone in recent history. It wasn’t just her beloved pet, but one of the most adorable dog breeds around — a Pomeranian — with one of the most adorable names possible, Bear. He fed her precious pooch to her during a “reconciliation meeting.” He then bombarded her with disturbing text messages asking her how her pet tasted and saying he thought BBQ sauce would have been a welcome addition benefiting the flavor. As if that weren’t a massive enough blow to the poor girl, he left the poor pup’s paws in a box at her doorsteps a few days later.

Apparently, you don’t need to be suspicious just of exes, but of your current significant other as well. In England, a teenage guy killed his girlfriend in an attempt to emulate Dexter, the character from the hit TV series. The young man says he was overcome by an alter-ego who made him stab and dismember his girlfriend. I guess the people concerned about the effect of such violent television series wasn’t all wrong, though the teenage boy suffered from various mental problems including schizophrenia.

Another cringe-worthy incident is the recent case in which 18-year-old Aston Robinson murdered his pregnant girlfriend and wrote a letter to her mother with the acronym “LOL.” After the couple sneaked into Robinson’s house, he strangled her and abandoned her corpse. While awaiting trial, Robinson wrote multiple letters to the mother of his deceased girlfriend to really twist the metaphorical knife in her gut.

The bone-chilling element of these stories is amplified by the pathetic sentences the criminals received. In the case of the teenager killing his pregnant girlfriend, his prison time could be as low as 14 years. The juvenile who killed his girlfriend Dexter-style is only looking at about 25 years. The dog-murder’s punishment is not yet known.

Seriously? It is cases like these where judges need to get their hands dirty and lay down the law. These terrifying tales certainly reveal how messed up people can be when they are dumped. So, who CAN you trust these days? Who knows…

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Be Careful Who You Love appeared first on Law Street.

Stories of vicious dog attacks capture the imagination of concerned citizens and instill fear in communities. While dog-bite attacks are relatively rare, the viciousness of some attacks is enough to cause anyone concern. Localities turn to Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) as a way to regulate aggressive dogs and prevent attacks. Here’s what you need to know about BSL, why groups increasingly oppose it, and what other alternatives exist to be proactive about dog attacks.

What Are Breed-Specific Laws?

Breed-Specific Legislation is a blanket term that refers to any type of law designed to regulate certain breeds with the goal of reducing dog attacks. These laws are typically instituted by city and municipal governments. In its most drastic form, BSL includes a complete ban on a specific type of dog. The laws typically target “pitbull” types and other dog breed that are considered aggressive. Pit bulls aren’t a specific breed, but are a set of dogs that can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and other breed mixes. Bans in cities may also include bulldogs, rottweilers, and wolf-hybrids.

Other BSL has lesser requirements, such as mandatory spaying or neutering, muzzling, confinement, a minimum insurance, or preventing the chaining of dogs. Most BSL requires owners of dangerous breeds to carry liability insurance with coverage up to $500,000. If an attack does occur, victims can then receive medical payment. This also acts as a type of ban, since owners unable to afford such exorbitant insurance would not be allowed to own targeted breeds.

What is the reason for BSL?

The basis for these laws can be traced to numerous studies concluding pit bulls were implicated in a disproportionate number of attacks. A 20-year study (1978-1998) by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) showed that pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in 67 percent of dog-bite related fatalities during that time period. Numerous studies reveal similar conclusions. Some of the grizzly statistics can be seen below:

BSL advocates point to features specific to certain dogs that make them prone to harmful attacks. Pit bulls derive their genes from “the Butcher’s Dog,” which was originally bred for bull-baiting before being used for dogfighting. The dogs were bred to be muscular, aggressive, and agile. Reports claim these dogs are unique since they give no warning signs before attacking and will not retreat from an attack even when considerable pain is inflicted. These dogs will attack deep muscles and then hold on with their teeth and shake, causing tissues to rip.

Attacks by aggressive dogs can pose a large threat to communities and are too expensive of an issue to ignore. The AVMA estimates hospital expenses for dog-bite related emergency visits to be $102.4 million. A 2010 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality study showed that the number of Americans hospitalized for dog bites almost doubled over a 15-year period. The study also concluded the average cost of a dog-bite related hospital stay was $18,200, approximately 50 percent higher than the average injury-related hospital stay. In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

What arguments are made against BSL?

Numerous organizations, including the American Bar Association, American Humane Association, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publicly oppose BSL. Many opponents refer to the laws as “Breed Discriminatory Laws.”  In 2013 President Obama even issued an official response to the controversial laws:

“We don’t support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”

Listen to a discussion from the American Kennel Club below:

State bans

Seventeen states ban legislation against specific types of dogs, and other states are considering similar legislation. An interesting case was made in Denver after Colorado approved legislation banning BSL. Denver passed its pit bull ban in 1989, repealed the ban in 2004 to comply with state law, but then reinstated the ban in 2005. The city’s challenge to the state’s BSL prohibition was ultimately ruled in Denver’s favor as a home-rule exception. The court ruled a state ban on BSL could not infringe on Denver’s right to enforce ordinances on matters of local concern. Most court cases have upheld the laws because localities enjoy widespread police powers. As long as cities can prove a BSL is related to improving public safety, it will be upheld. Even following Denver’s BSL, the county has dog bite rates many times higher than other Colorado counties without similar laws.

Profiling

Many take issue with BSL because it is difficult to predict a dog’s breed or behavior based on outward appearance. According to the American Pet Products Association, 31 million of 73 million pet dogs are classified by their owners as “mutts,” which makes them hard to classify as a specific breed. Laws banning “pit bulls” target a loosely-defined class of dogs or dogs with a similar appearance. In many localities, the decision of whether a dog is one of the prohibited breeds is left to a city manager or police who lack sufficient expertise in the matter. Other times animal control or a veterinarian will make the decision. The only certain way to tell a dog’s breed is by way of DNA tests, which can be very expensive. This means BSL is often difficult to effectively enforce.

Expense

The laws are typically enforced by animal control agencies on tight budgets. Counties rack up costs from enforcement, kenneling, euthanasia, and litigation. In 2008, Omaha proposed a BSL that would cost half a million dollars to enforce. A Baltimore auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.

Nature v. Nurture

Owners of these “dangerous” breeds contend any dog can become vicious if it is not treated properly. Dog owners who do not appropriately care for their dog, abuse it, or treat it as a guard dog rather than a pet make the dog more prone to attacks. In contrast, a loving family training a pit bull would raise a well-behaved dog with no aggression problems.

Unintended effects

Others believe BSL has more dangerous effects. Owners intent on keeping the outlawed breeds may keep their dogs in hiding, meaning the dogs do not get proper socialization or visits to the veterinarian. Opponents also claim these laws encourage ownership by the most irresponsible people, who own pit bulls as a status symbol to show disregard for the law. If there is a ban on pit bulls or rottweilers, owners can still have other unregulated aggressive breeds. One dog owner created a video against BSL below:

Have these laws been effective?

One highly cited case study comes from Prince George’s County in Maryland, as it was one of the few places to examine BSL effectiveness. The county of more than 900,000 people banned pit bulls in 1996. Any pit bulls found in the county after the ban were either put down or sent to live with families in other areas. A 2003 task force found the 15-year pit bull ban cost the county more than $250,000 each year, with no measurable effect on safety. The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit-bull is roughly $68,000. In fiscal year 2001-2002, the county spent more than half a million dollars enforcing the ban. Due to ineffectiveness, the task force recommended repealing the ban and found that other, non-breed-specific laws already were in place to cover vicious animals, leash laws, and other public health and safety concerns.

In 2000, the CDC looked at 20 years of data regarding dog bites and fatalities in the United States. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of total dog bite injuries, and that it’s impossible to calculate the bite rates of specific breeds. No evidence supports the idea that a specific type of dog is more prone to attacks. Furthermore, breed specific laws have not succeeded in reducing overall bite-related injuries in any area where they were implemented.

The U.S. Military also has contentious BSL. The Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force all ban large dogs with a predisposition for aggressive behavior. Dogs such as pit bulls and rottweilers are not allowed to live at base housing, and families wishing to have these dogs may be moved off base. Many feel this treatment is unfair to those who are fighting for their country.

Are there other alternatives to BSL?

Organizations who oppose BSL advocate a number of solutions they feel are more effective. The CDC proposes a community-based approach. This approach includes:

• Public dialogue identifying community issues
• Developing an advisory council
• Monitoring bite response
• Data reporting
• Public education campaign
• Businesses addressing prevention techniques
• Effectively conveying information through local media

The CDC reports that aggression in dogs is tied to a number of factors beyond breed. These factors include sex, socialization, heredity, and treatment. More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog. Eighty-four percent of bite cases involved dogs who were maintained by reckless owners — the dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or allowed to interact with children unsupervised. Seventy-eight percent of the dogs in bite cases were not kept as pets but as guard, breeding, or yard dogs.

The statistics show that rather than outlawing specific breeds, campaigns to prevent dog-biting should focus on creating caring owners and encouraging the spaying and neutering of dogs. Further, children must be educated to understand how to play with dogs and when to leave them alone. Dogs themselves may not be dangerous, but a bad situation can make any dog more prone to aggressive behavior. While pit bulls and other “aggressive” breeds can pose threats to a community, outlawing these dogs through BSL is not a surefire solution.

Resources

Primary

ASPCA: Breed Specific Legislation

DogsBite.org: Military Breed-Specific Policies

DogsBite.org: BSL by State

Additional

TIME: Obama Blasts Legislation Targeting Specific Dog Breeds

StopBSL.org: Expense of BSL

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Challenging Denver’s Pit Bull Ban

American Veterinary Medical Association: Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation

National Canine Research Council: Denver’s Breed-Specific Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective

Animal Law Coalition: Denver’s Holocaust: Call For an End to the Pit Bull Ban

United Kennel Club: Punish the Deeds, Not the Breeds

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying Pit Bulls: Do Breed-Specific Laws Work? appeared first on Law Street.