On Monday, police in Tequesta, Florida walked in on Austin Harrouff biting chunks off a dead man’s face. The man he was eating was a complete stranger who he’d just stabbed to death, along with the man’s wife whose bloody body was lying nearby.

Police struggled to get the 19-year-old Florida State University student to release his victim, deploying stun guns and a K-9 to no avail. It eventually took three or four cops to pull the former high school wrestler off the dead man. Reports say he was making “animal noises” and “grunting and growling” as officers carried him away.

Now the whole world is wondering what would make a seemingly normal college student turn into a psychotic cannibalistic murderer. If it wasn’t premeditated, and it wasn’t a psychotic break or the beginning of a zombie outbreak, could bath salts or its newer counterpart Flakka be to blame?

Florida man, 19, kills older couple and eats man’s face off while “grunting and growling” https://t.co/Tnu6pYNSz1 pic.twitter.com/eRjdvJ98V4

— Boing Boing (@BoingBoing) August 17, 2016

What Happened?

On the night of the attack, Harrouff was eating dinner with his family in a nearby sports bar when he suddenly became enraged–possibly due to slow service–and stormed out of the restaurant. According to the Miami Herald, the teen was in town to visit some of his Alpha Delta Phi fraternity brothers.

He then walked a few blocks in the direction of his father’s house, before coming across John Joseph Stevens, 59, and his wife, Michelle Mishcon Stevens, 53, sitting inside of their garage at 19009 SE Kokomo Lane. This is where the story turns violent.

The Herald reported that multiple “weapons of opportunity” were used to beat, slash, and attack the couple, including a switchblade the suspect was known to carry. Officials said it looked like the husband tried to fight back. A neighbor tried to intervene, but suffered several stab wounds before fleeing to call police.

Couple brutally killed in Martin Co. were raised in South Florida; friends & family in shock. @WPLGLocal10 at 11pm pic.twitter.com/vUCapYZTtV

— Janine Stanwood (@JanineStanwood) August 17, 2016

Why Didn’t the Police Shoot Him?

After news broke of the gruesome murder, several users on Twitter couldn’t help but wonder why the police chose to use non-lethal force.

How come police officers didn’t shoot the 19 year old white kid who ate the flesh off of, and killed a married couple? Hmm.

— Gigi Zamora (@gigizamoraa) August 17, 2016

He ate a man’s face & the police didn’t shoot/called him a good kid. Tell me again how white privilege isn’t real https://t.co/wlDPuU0ikF

— bex (@iguanamilkshake) August 17, 2016

During a press conference Tuesday, Martin County Sheriff William Snyder told reporters that the responding officer used a taser instead of a gun because “the angles there were extremely dangerous, and had there been a gun shot it could have hit the victim.”

Was He High on Flakka?

Doctors tested Harrouff for common drugs such as cocaine, opiates, methamphetamine, and marijuana, but all of the results came back negative. They are still awaiting the toxicology results for more unique synthetic drugs, but Snyder said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if Flakka was involved based on his bizarre behavior.

Harrouff is currently under sedation at a nearby hospital, and is in stable condition after undergoing multiple surgeries for an unspecified life-threatening condition.

Austin Harrouff in stable condition at unnamed Palm Beach County hosp. Had mult surgeries today, “stable, conscious” per @MartinFLSheriff

— Alex Harris (@harrisalexc) August 17, 2016

Find out more about Flakka here.

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 Did Flakka Make a Florida Frat Bro Kill 2 People and Eat his Victim’s Face? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, CNN aired a documentary called “The Hunting Ground.” It’s posited as a film that delves into the systematic problem of sexual assault and rape on campus, and since it was first shown at the Sundance Film Festival in January of 2015, it’s been making waves. But in light of last night’s national airing, it may have just hit a seriously high-profile legal controversy. Tampa Bay Buccaneers QB Jameis Winston may be threatening to sue CNN for the documentary’s coverage of rape allegations against him when he was a student at Florida State University.

Jameis Winston played for Florida State University and won the Heisman trophy before being drafted by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers as a first round draft pick for the 2015 season. In December 2012, he allegedly raped another student named Erika Kinsman. While he was never charged, the investigation that followed was high profile, controversial, and messy. In fact, the New York Times claims that there was “virtually no investigation at all,” and also slammed Florida State for its handling of the allegations in a scathing investigation of the case.

Since the criminal portion of the case was put to rest, both Kinsman and Winston have sued each other. Kinsman sued Winston in April 2014 for the damage caused by the alleged assault, and he countersued her for defamation and other allegations the next month. Their suits have now been combined and will be heard in May 2017.

It’s within the context of this extensive legal back-and-forth, and Winston’s first NFL season, that “The Hunting Ground” is making headlines. The film features Kinsman talking about the alleged rape at FSU. Additionally, the film implies that Winston received preferential treatment during the investigation. Winston’s lawyers essentially threatened CNN with legal action if it actually showed the documentary. CNN’s Jeff Zucker received a letter that stated:

We are writing to formally caution CNN that the portions of the film ‘The Hunting Ground’ pertaining to Mr. Winston are false and defamatory to Mr. Winston. We urge CNN to reconsider the reckless decision to proceed with the broadcast of this deeply-flawed documentary in the face of the overwhelming evidence the film’s producers consciously and intentionally failed to adhere to any accepted journalistic standards.

“The Hunting Ground” has had plenty of other criticism levied against it–last week 19 Harvard professors (Harvard is one of the other schools featured in the documentary) claimed that the documentary distorted how it handled a sexual assault case.

Regardless of Winston’s threats, the documentary did air last night, so we’ll have to see if those threats of legal action were serious. And given the fact that not everyone seems happy with the documentary’s content and handling of certain cases, there may be more lawsuits down the road.

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 Jameis Winston May Sue CNN Over Campus Rape Documentary appeared first on Law Street.

Within the past few years there have been multiple cases of athletes putting their hands on women and suffering the consequences. Baltimore Raven’s running back Ray Rice and Texas Tech football player Nigel Bethel II both recently assaulted women and were dismissed from their teams. But most recently, Florida State University’s Quarterback De’Andre Johnson has made the news after an altercation with a young woman at a bar.

On June 24th at a night club called “Yiannis,” 19-year-old Johnson was caught on video shoving past a woman–a 21-year-old FSU student–waiting in line for her drink as he made his way to the front of the bar. The two then began to argue and the woman proceeded to hit him in the face. Johnson grabbed her arm and punched her across the left side of her face.

According to the Tallahassee Police Department incident report, the woman had bruises near her left eye, swelling of the left cheek and upper lip, and a small cut near the bridge of her nose. Jose Baez, Johnson’s well-known criminal defense and trial attorney stated on Monday:

While it is clear from the video that De’Andre Johnson was not the initial aggressor, his family wants to take the lead in helping him learn and grow from this experience. He is currently participating in community service and faith-based programs focused on battered women, substance abuse and the empowerment of children…De’Andre is extremely embarrassed by this situation and would like to express his heartfelt apologies to everyone, including those who were directly affected, Coach Fisher and his teammates, the entire Florida State University community, as well as his family and friends.

The Florida State Seminoles head coach Jimbo Fisher announced that Johnson had been suspended indefinitely from the FSU football program on June 25th. This week, just hours after the state’s attorney’s office released the video, Coach Fisher dismissed the freshman quarterback from the team. Johnson, who was named Florida’s “Mr. Football” as a senior at First Coast High School in Jacksonville was charged with misdemeanor battery. He turned himself in to Tallahassee police on June 30th and was released on a $500 bond. According to FSU’s athletics policy, if a student-athlete is charged with a misdemeanor or felony, or convicted of a misdemeanor offense, the department makes a decision on discipline on a case-by-case basis.

This is not the first time an FSU football player has been in the headlines due to trouble off the field. Jameis Winston, the former Florida State University quarterback-turned-top NFL draft pick, was accused of rape in 2012. Winston claimed the charges were false and they were eventually dropped. It does not seem that Johnson will be as lucky as Winston was.

While this might seem like a straightforward case of yet another instance of violence from a promising young football player, there is another thing worth noting–a double standard. Although Johnson was obviously very much in the wrong, the woman who hit him has not yet been charged. I have always been a firm believer that no man should ever put his hands on a woman, but I am also a believer that no woman should put her hands on a man, and I’m not alone.

I think De’andre Johnson should be kicked out of FSU and charged with battery, but the woman (clearly the aggressor) should be charged too..

— Marcus Aurelius (@marcusjordandoe) July 7, 2015

Everyone deserves to be punished if they behave inappropriately and violently. The student who was hit should be charged for hitting him as well–regardless of the high profile nature of this case, respect should still be key. Obviously, Johnson’s behavior was completely over the line here; by putting his hands on the woman he lost the respect of many and a promising future. Violence is never the answer–that’s a lesson worth repeating again and again.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FSU Quarterback Pays the Price for Bar Brawl with Young Woman appeared first on Law Street.

Midway into a new football season, there are certainly plenty of controversies surrounding the National Football League. Between the ongoing debate on concussions and player safety and the number of NFL players who are under public and legal scrutiny for their actions on and off the field, the NFL is no stranger to scandal. But one of the hottest topics for a while now has been the status of the Washington Redskins’ name. Read on to learn about the controversy, and where it now stands.

Washington Redskins’ History

Up until the 1970s, high school, collegiate, and professional sports teams across the country used mascots depicting Native American historical figures and culture to evoke values of courage, strength, and tenacity, in order to signify these values in the realm of sports. Fans became emotionally attached to these mascots and these symbols; showing their appreciation by performing rituals such as “tomahawk chops” and dressing up in makeshift Native American regalia to support their team. However, these mascots and rituals received backlash during the late 1960s and 1970s, as Native American advocacy groups brought attention to the stereotypical nature of these mascots and their negative portrayal of American Indian culture.

At the request of local tribes, many of these teams abandoned their mascots for less controversial ones, leaving a relatively small number left carrying names such as “Braves,” “Indians,” and the most controversial “Redskins.” In addition to a handful of high school and collegiate teams, five professional sports teams retain their use of American Indian nomenclature: the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Cleveland Indians, and the Kansas City Chiefs. Debate has raged over the past couple decades as to whether these teams and their mascots represent racial slurs and harmful, derogatory stereotypes; or whether they are merely evoking Native American culture out of respect and honor for their courageous spirit.

A lawsuit, which has bounced back and forth between various overturned decisions, was brought against the Washington Redskins in 1992 arguing that its name used a racial slur and should be changed. More resolute than ever in the face of this opposition, the team’s owner Daniel Snyder went on record in 2013 that the Redskins would “NEVER” change its name. In response, a bill was introduced to the House of Representatives in March 2013 by Representative Eni Faleomawaega of Samoa called the “Non-Disparagement of American Indians Trademark Registrations Act of 2013,” a bill that would essentially cancel all trademarks on the name “Redskins” and prevent future parties from trademarking the name. While the bill does not look likely to be passed, it raises interesting questions on the nature of Native American mascots and the legality of their use.

Cancellation of the Trademark

During summer 2014, the Washington Redskins trademark was cancelled by the US patent office. It was cancelled in response to a ruling by the independent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). As the Patent Office put it in its media fact sheet:

The TTAB — an independent administrative tribunal within the USPTO — has determined, based on the evidence presented by the parties and on applicable law, that the Blackhorse petitioners carried their burden of  proof. By a preponderance of the evidence, the petitioners established that the term “Redskins” was disparaging of Native Americans, when used in relation to professional football services, at the times the various registrations involved in the cancellation proceeding were issued. Thus, in accordance with applicable law, the federal registrations for the “Redskins” trademarks involved in this proceeding must be cancelled.

The lawyers and administration of the Washington Redskins have said that regardless of the Patent Office’s decision, they will continue to use the name, logo, and produce paraphernalia.

Media Response 

Within the last year or so, more and more TV newscasters, journalists, and media outlets have refused to use the word “Redskins.” Instead, they refer to it as the Washington Football team. As of this summer, the Washington Post announced that in its editorials it will not use the name of the team. As the editorial board put it:

While we wait for the National Football League to catch up with thoughtful opinion and common decency, we have decided that, except when it is essential for clarity or effect, we will no longer use the slur ourselves. That’s the standard we apply to all offensive vocabulary, and the team name unquestionably offends not only many Native Americans but many other Americans, too.

Who wants to keep the name as is?

Advocates of Native American mascots argue that they represent a respectful portrayal of the culture that highlights positive attributes and offers opportunities for cultural education and understanding. Throughout the debate, teams have maintained that their use of American Indian imagery is done with the best intentions of portraying values such as strength, courage, and pride. These portrayals, advocates argue, honor Native Americans and their ancestors, and serve as a respectful tribute to these proud nations.

While many Native American groups have been vocal in their opposition, a recent poll suggested that as much as 90 percent of Native Americans do not find these mascots offensive or harmful. If a majority of American Indians themselves do not have a problem with these mascots, advocates argue, then the mascots are not entirely the offensive, stereotypical caricatures that opponents have portrayed them to be. Additionally, many advocates argue that these mascots provide opportunities for cultural education that benefit Native and non-Native Americans alike.

Many teams, especially at colleges, work closely with local tribes to provide some form of educational tools for fans and visitors to gain an accurate representation of the Native Americans that their mascots portray. Many tribes are opposed to bans on the use of culturally sensitive mascots because these bans would scuttle potential opportunities such as these to create educational bridges to Native American culture and to promote a harmonious inter-cultural working relationship. To this end, some sports teams using American Indian mascots have received the support of local tribes in the interest of maintaining a respectful portrayal of Native American culture. Florida State University receives the support of the Florida Seminole tribe, which has provided input into decisions regarding the University’s mascot and sports ceremonies. In return for their support, the tribe receives numerous scholarships and reduced tuition for its youth seeking higher education. Advocates argue that this relationship is a vision of the positive effects that could result from the continued use of Native American mascots.

Who wants to change the name?

Opponents argue that cultural references such as the term “Redskins” are inherently derogatory and harmful to the way Native and non-Native Americans view American Indian culture. Merriam Webster states the term “Redskin” is “an offensive term and should be avoided;” Native Americans often equate it to racial slurs used against African Americans and Jewish individuals. Additionally, mascots such as the Cleveland Indians’ “Chief Wahoo” are considered racist caricatures that are equally offensive and should be changed in favor of less controversial mascots.

The recent uproar over comments by the NBA’s Donald Sterling has empowered arguments by opponents seeking to root out racial negativity in professional sports. Opponents argue that these mascots promote racial stereotypes that produce harmful psychological and societal effects on Native Americans. The American Psychological Association recently announced its support for the removal of Native American mascots after the publication of numerous reports revealed links between these mascots and a decrease in self-esteem of Native American youth. A 2004 paper published by Dr. Stephanie Fryberg, a cultural and psychological scholar and a registered member of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington State, uses empirical evidence to argue that these Native American mascots have a negative psychological effect on American Indians and a positive psychological effect on European Americans. Dr. Fryberg indicates that these mascots harm the self-confidence and sense of cultural identity of these youth, which could potentially contribute to lower achievement later in life.

Cancelling the trademark on the term “Redskins,” opponents argue, could provide a legal push for the Redskins team to finally change its name and bring professional sports into the standards of equality and anti-discrimination that the federal government expects. Opponents of Native American mascots argue that their concern is not only the way these mascots influence outsiders’ views, but also how Native Americans view themselves.

Conclusion

The Redskins’ battle to keep its name is really starting to look like a losing one. Although the argument has waged on for years, as the the trademark is now null and void, and members of the media rebel against the name, we may be at a turning point. Public pressure is on — it’s up to Dan Snyder to respond.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: HR 1278 Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2013

Additional

CNN: Native American Mascots: Pride or Prejudice?

USA Today: 50 Senators Sign Letter Urging Redskins to Change Team Name

ESPN: Time to Rethink Native American Imagery

University of Colorado Denver: Do American Indian Mascots = American Indian People?

Think Progress: Native American Group: Fight Against ‘Redskins’ About More Than Just the Name

ESPN: Tribe Supports Native American Mascots

The New York Times: Amid Rising Discord Over Indian Images, FSU Has Harmony

CBS DC: How Many Native Americans Think “Redskins” is a Slur?

Oregon Live: Two Tribes Call State’s Native American Mascot Ban Disappointing

Washington Post: Lawmakers Offer Bill to Ban ‘Redskins’ Trademark

USA Today: Bill in Congress Challenges Redskins Trademark

HeraldNet: The Debate: Indian Names, Mascots For Sports Teams

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Washington Redskins: What’s Next in the Name Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

It was difficult to discern reality from fantasy in Tallahassee last winter. Jameis Winston, the college football phenom who was leading Florida State to an undefeated season, was dealt a hard dose of real word problems when he was investigated for sexual assault in November.  If charged, he would likely face suspension, and FSU’s dream of becoming national champions would remain fantasy. In December however, Winston was cleared and no charges transpired. The following week, Winston won the Heisman Trophy, and a few weeks later he led his team to a dramatic victory to claim the national championship. It appeared that reality was indeed sweet, and the rape investigation was simply a bad dream. Or was it?

On April 3, the Federal Department of Education (DOE) announced that they would be investigating FSU for whether they improperly handled the Jameis Winston sexual assault case. Under the landmark legislation known as Title IX, universities are required to “promptly investigate” reports of sexual assault. FSU may not have investigated quickly enough, according to the DOE.

FSU’s alleged failings were highlighted on April 16, when the New York Times published an article detailing the missteps of both the University and the Tallahassee Police Department, and charging that the University didn’t investigate when they initially found out about the alleged incident in January 2013.

FSU fired back at the New York Times, claiming in part that “no university official outside the Victim Advocate Program received a report from any complainant naming Winston prior to when the allegations were made public in November 2013.” At first glance, the statement would seem to exonerate the University. On closer inspection, a rather high burden is placed on the victim in order for FSU to comply with Title IX. Must a university official receive a report from the complainant in order to investigate? Must an accuser be named in order to investigate?

A cursory look at the DOE’s guidelines on sexual assault suggest no. In fact, the following line seems to suggest that schools err on the side of caution:

“…if a school knows or reasonably should know about possible sexual harassment or sexual violence, it must promptly investigate to determine what occurred…”

It is possible that Winston’s accuser failed to tell anyone employed by the University about her assault. After all,Tallahassee police primarily handled the report because the incident happened off campus. I called both the Tallahassee Police Department and the Florida State University Police Department (FSUPD)  to follow up on this matter. I asked if there is a policy requiring that arresting officers, whether employed by the school or by the city of Tallahassee, notify the University upon arresting an enrolled student. FSUPD responded that it is practice for all officers to report student-arrests to the University, at which point the University handles any academic penalties according to the student conduct code.

Is it possible that Tallahassee Police report to the University only student-arrests and not allegations of sexual assault on students? The logic behind such a policy may be difficult for DOE investigators to understand, as would the general excuse that although the Tallahassee Police Department knew of a fairly detailed sexual assault accusation on an FSU student since December 2012, the University did not know until the following November.

In the ensuing months, one if not both institutions will be to blame. Either the Tallahassee Police failed to tell FSU, or FSU failed to investigate when they were told by police. If it’s the latter, expect harsh penalties from both the Department of Education and the NCAA. If FSU football thinks they’ll avoid that reality, they better wake up.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Zennie Abraham via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Did FSU Drop the Ball on Jameis Winston Rape Case? DOE Investigates appeared first on Law Street.