The state of South Carolina is suing Purdue Pharma over its alleged contributions to the opioid epidemic.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson announced the lawsuit at a press conference on Tuesday. It accuses the Connecticut-based company of deceptive marketing practices and downplaying the addictive qualities of OxyContin.

In particular, the suit addresses Purdue Pharma’s failure to comply with the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. In 2007, Purdue Pharma signed an agreement with South Carolina and other states, which required the company to correct its marketing practices.

However, according to Wilson, Purdue Pharma continued to encourage doctors to prescribe OxyContin for unapproved uses. Representatives also assured doctors that the users would become only “pseudoaddicted.” Supposedly, they could reverse their symptoms by taking even more drugs.

In reality, OxyContin is a Schedule II controlled substance, which means it is highly addictive.

“Opioid addiction is a public health menace to South Carolina,” Wilson said at the press conference. “We cannot let history record that we stood by while this epidemic rages.” Recovering addicts and family members of overdose victims stood around him.

“While we vigorously deny the allegations,” a Purdue Pharma spokesperson said in a statement, “we share South Carolina officials’ concerns about the opioid crisis and we are committed to working collaboratively to find solutions.”

Over 565 South Carolinians died of opioid overdoses in 2015. Last year, the state had the ninth-highest opioid prescribing rate in the country.

Comparatively, the U.S. as a whole had over 33,000 people die from opioid use in 2015. Experts predict that number will rise.

This is not the first legal action against Purdue Pharma. In January, the city of Everett, Washington. sued the company for negligence and inaction over the city’s OxyContin crisis. Six months later, the state of Ohio sued Purdue Pharma and four other companies over their marketing of OxyContin and other drugs.

Most recently, New Hampshire filed its own lawsuit on August 1. Like South Carolina, the state accuses Purdue Pharma of overstating the benefits of opioids and recommending it for unapproved uses.

In a similar action, the Cherokee Nation sued six pharmaceutical companies in April, accusing them of unjustly profiting from over-prescription of opioids.

Last week, President Trump declared the opioid epidemic a national emergency. Since then, he has not specified any plans or resources to combat the crisis.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Carolina Sues OxyContin Maker over Opioid Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Over the weekend, there was yet another clash between protesters over a Confederate monument. This time, the monument in question was an equestrian statue of General Robert E. Lee, located in Charlottesville, Virginia. On June 5, the Charlottesville City Council voted to change the name of the park where the statue is located from Lee Park to Emancipation Park, following up on its February decision to remove the statue. It was one block away from this location that two separate protest groups squared off: the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan versus a crowd of counter-protesters calling for the statue’s removal. The clash resulted in 22 arrests, according to the Washington Post.

The controversy over the Lee statue in Charlottesville is only the latest in a string of decisions and incidents relating to the removal of Confederate monuments. Read on to learn which statues have been removed so far and what both sides of the debate are saying.

Charleston Shooting Spurs Confederate Flag Debate

The catalyst for this debate was the 2015 Charleston church shooting, in which 21-year-old Dylann Roof killed nine parishioners of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Upon his arrest, Roof admitted to police that the shooting was meant to start a race war. Roof’s manifesto website and Facebook page were also discovered to contain photos of himself posing with several racist symbols, the most prominent being the Confederate flag.

Following the shooting, protesters took to the South Carolina State House in Columbia to demand the removal of the Confederate flag, which had flown on the state house’s grounds since 1961. Several South Carolina legislators supported the flag’s removal, but the cause only received national attention after police arrested 30-year-old Bree Newsome for climbing the flagpole and removing the flag on June 27, 2015. Two weeks later, the legislation passed and the flag was lowered for the final time.

Thousands gathered to watch the flag-lowering ceremony, but not everyone was celebrating. War reenactor Kenneth Robinson and his fellow “soldiers” held a vigil at the state house to “remember the 650,000 casualties of the Civil War,” he told WRAL. “Nine lives matter,” Robinson said referring to the church shooting victims. “All deaths matter, period.”

Cindy Lampley, another reenactor and a descendant of Confederate soldiers, worried that the flag removal would dishonor her relatives. “I think it’s important that we remember them,” she said. “It’s a sad day for me that my ancestors will no longer see their flag flying next to their memorial.”

Which Monuments Have Been Removed So Far?

The debate over the removal of the state house’s Confederate flag has since branched out to include all monuments and memorials to the Confederacy. As opposition grew, state and local lawmakers began to remove several of the Confederate symbols. Here are some recent examples:

New Orleans

Shortly after the Charleston church shooting, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu called for the removal of four Confederate era monuments. The monuments consisted of three statues of Confederate leaders–Lee, General P.G.T. Beauregard, and President Jefferson Davis–as well as a memorial to the Battle of Liberty Place, an 1874 insurrection by the Crescent City White League.

The New Orleans City Council voted to remove all four monuments in 2014, but it wasn’t until April 2017 that the first of them–the battle memorial–was finally removed. The rest of the statues quickly followed suit, and the final Confederate statue of Lee was removed in May. The city replaced the statues of Lee and Davis with public art and a flag, respectively, but has not disclosed plans for the relocation of the actual monuments.

“These monuments celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, ignoring the terror that it actually stood for,” Landrieu said as Lee’s statue was hauled away by crane.

Charlottesville

Aside from voting to change the name of Lee Park and remove its statue, the city council also voted 3-2 last February to change the name of Jackson Park (after General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson) to Justice Park. However, the city is running into unexpected legal trouble.

The Monument Fund, the Virginia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans, and other groups filed a lawsuit against the city in June, claiming that renaming the parks would be illegal. Attorneys also claim that the deed in which the park land was granted to the city specifically states that the park cannot be renamed. The court has not filed an injunction preventing the city from renaming the parks, but the Lee statue will remain in place until a hearing begins next month.

Richmond

Mayor Levar Stoney announced on June 25 that he had charged a 10-member commission with finding ways to contextualize the city’s Confederate monuments. The Monument Avenue Commission has set up a website seeking public input to “make recommendations to the mayor’s office on how to best tell the real story of [the] monuments.” There are no concrete plans currently in place.

Stoney went on to say that he does not support the outright removal of the monuments. “I wish these monuments had never been built, but like it or not they are part of our history in this city, and removal will never wash away that stain.”

Baltimore

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the former mayor of Baltimore, ordered the city to put up interpretive signs beside the city’s four Confederate monuments. The decision came with less than three months left in Rawlings-Blake’s term. She admitted that it was a “short-term solution.” The city council had previously recommended that the city remove tributes to Lee and Jackson, along with a statue of Roger B. Taney.

The current mayor, Catherine Pugh, told the Baltimore Sun in May that she is exploring the possibility of removing the monuments altogether.

Mississippi

The Mississippi flag incorporates the Confederate flag in its top left corner. Carlos Moore, a black Mississippi resident, says the flag constitutes “state-sanctioned hate speech,” and has taken his grievance all the way to the Supreme Court. Moore intends to argue that the flag is a symbol of racism and violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all citizens. In October, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to take the case.

In addition, the city of McComb and all eight of Mississippi’s public universities have stopped flying the flag. The University of Mississippi announced last week that it will post signs on campus denoting which buildings were built with slave labor.

Washington, D.C.

While the nation’s capital has not removed any Confederate monuments as of yet, Georgetown University renamed two of its campus buildings in April. The move was meant to atone for the university’s ties to slavery. The original names honored two school presidents who oversaw an 1838 sale of 272 slaves to fund the school. The buildings’ new names honor Isaac Hawkins, the slave whose name appeared first in the bill of sale, and Anne Marie Becraft, a 19th-century black educator. The university is also giving admissions preference to descendants of the 272 slaves. Mary Williams-Wagner, one of Hawkins’ descendants, said that the university needed to take further steps, such as identifying all descendants of the slaves sold by Georgetown.

Other colleges, such as Harvard, Duke, Yale, Princeton, and Brown, have also addressed their links to slavery and racism. Last February, Yale changed the name of one of its residential colleges from Calhoun College to Grace Hopper College, honoring a distinguished alumna and a “trailblazing computer scientist.”

Arguments For and Against Confederate Monuments

Opposers

So why remove the monuments? The clearest answer is that they are offensive. The statues honor men who fought for the institution of slavery. Those in favor of removing them argue that the current U.S. government should not condone such motivations, even passively. Confederate symbols also played a role in the Charleston church shooting, proving that they can still be seen as symbols of black oppression and white supremacy. Many people are wary that they will inspire another massacre. A good portion of the country would be much happier if the statues were placed in museums and battlefield parks, away from public property.

Supporters

The other side of the debate is a little more complicated. There are those, like Robinson and Lampley, who believe that removing the monuments would dishonor the memory of the Confederate soldiers who fought and died for what they believed in. There are others who see the Confederacy as Southern heritage, and believe that removing its symbols would be akin to removing it from history itself. Others are wary of a slippery slope, pointing out that Washington and Jefferson, along with 10 other presidents, owned slaves themselves. What would stop the country from removing the statues of its founding fathers?

Conclusion

Racial tensions in this country are running high these days, and the debate over Confederate monuments fits in to that conversation. The statues represent a different era, with different ideals and different ways of life. While the modern world has made tremendous strides toward diversity and inclusion, some of these ideologies still persist. The two schools of thought will inevitably clash, and as long as the monuments stand, the protests and counter-protests will continue.

As for the subjects of the monuments, one in particular had some relevant remarks on the subject while alive. In an 1869 letter declining an invitation to a public meeting concerning the war, Lee wrote:

I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heritage or Hatred?: The Removal of Confederate Monuments appeared first on Law Street.

South Carolina recently passed a law that requires police officers in the state to undergo training to better recognize when a mental illness, not malicious intent, is behind a person’s actions. The legislation, passed unanimously by both chambers and signed by the governor in May, applies to all 16,000 officers, including corrections officers, in South Carolina.

Training in “mental health or addictive disorders,” as the law terms the newly required subjects, is already standard practice for 59 accredited police agencies in South Carolina. But for the remaining 240 or so agencies, the course will be added to the 40 hours of re-training officers complete every three years for recertification.

Supporters of the new training requirements say officers need to be equipped to deal with people whose actions can be ascribed to illness, not ill intent.

“Someone may be acting in a strange way,” said State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel, “and officers need to understand it’s not just out of meanness but someone has an issue going on and they need help — not necessarily jail, but a hospital.”

The legislation does not define the exact number of training hours officers are required to commit to mental health, nor does it outline what the course would include. Instead, the law says the course must be approved by the Criminal Justice Academy, which is working with the National Alliance on Mental Health to hammer out the details.

In its most recent training catalogue, the academy offers a course titled, “Law Enforcement Awareness for the Mentally Ill.” According to the course description, it will “help the first responder as well as the seasoned officer better understand what someone with a mental illness is dealing with.” The course will include “group discussions with mentally ill clients.” 

According to a recent survey conducted by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, 41 of 42 states (eight states did not respond to the study) “have standards for mental health training.” State standards for mental health training, the survey found, are often instituted by a state’s officer training entity. Some states, like South Carolina, use the state legislature to pass legislation that addresses training. 

South Carolina is no stranger to the problems that can arise when officers are not properly trained to spot mental illness.

In August 2010, Andrew Torres’ family asked three officers to come to his Greenville home, and enforce a court order that would commit him to a mental hospital. Torres did not willingly comply, and the officers tasered him (the exact series of events are in dispute). Torres, who had been diagnosed as schizophrenic, went into cardiac arrest, and died at a hospital. Torres’ family sued the officers, and in 2014 were awarded $500,000 for the death of their son.

The recently-passed bill, sponsored by Senator Vincent Sheheen (D-Camden), is meant to prevent such episodes from happening again. Sheheen recently said that if officers are not properly trained, a confrontation with a mentally ill subject “escalates to criminality or violence or trouble.” He added: “It’s not fair to law enforcement to put them on the street and not equip them.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New South Carolina Law Requires Officers to Undergo Mental Health Training appeared first on Law Street.

Next year could be the year that South Carolina establishes a legal medical marijuana program. Representative Todd Rutherford, a Democrat, recently pre-filed the “Put Patients First Act,” or H. 3128, which would allow people suffering from certain diseases to be prescribed medical cannabis by their doctors.

H. 3128 would permit marijuana to be provided to patients with cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, and potentially other medical conditions such as cachexia, severe pain or nausea, seizures, and muscle spasms. Patients could possess up to two ounces of marijuana and, while waiting for dispensaries to open, could grow up to six plants in their homes.

The most recent legal movement for marijuana in South Carolina came in 2014, when the state passed a bill that permitted hemp farms, and allowed children to use cannabidiol for medical trials. But the last time the state legislature took up a medical marijuana proposal was in 2007; that bill failed to pass.

“The time has come to put aside archaic misconceptions of medical marijuana and put patients first,” Rutherford said in a statement to Columbia-based news outlet WLTX. “I hear devastating stories every single day from people who are battling epilepsy or suffering from a brain tumor who desperately need medical marijuana to treat the debilitating symptoms.”

Rutherford pre-filed another medical marijuana bill, House Bill 3162, which would allow veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder to use marijuana. In order to reach a House vote, both bills would need to pass a committee vote. If the House passes the bills, they would move to the Senate, and finally, to the governor’s desk.

Cannabis remains illegal in much of the South, save for Florida, which passed a medical marijuana bill on Election Day, and Louisiana. The legalization flurry on November 8, when eight states legalized marijuana in some form, passed over South Carolina. And as 2016 comes to a close, more than a quarter of Americans live in a state where pot is at least medically available.

South Carolina, if Rutherford’s bill can garner enough traction and support, could join the legion of states whose marijuana laws are rapidly changing. South Carolinians are ready for a change in the law: in a poll conducted in October, 78 percent said they support medical marijuana.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Carolina Lawmaker Introduces Medical Marijuana Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Dylann Roof, the white man who murdered nine black people at the historical Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina in June 2015, was convicted on 33 federal counts on Thursday. The charges include nine counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder, as well as obstructing the exercise of religion and hate crimes. The penalty portion of the trial is set for January 3. Federal prosecutors are seeking the death sentence.

The six-day trial included testimony from 30 witnesses, a recorded confession with the FBI, and excerpts from Roof’s journal. The New York Times reported that Roof, 22, was emotionless as the judge’s clerk announced the verdict. Roof will face the same federal jurors in a few weeks, when his future will be decided: death, or life without parole.

“It is my hope that the survivors, the families and the people of South Carolina can find some peace in the fact that justice has been served,” Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) said in a statement. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nathan Williams, during his closing arguments, said Roof is “a man of hatred, a man who’s proven to be a coward and a man of immense racial ignorance,” and that Roof killed the nine victims “because he believes that they are nothing more than animals.”

Roof’s defense attorney, David Bruck, sought to save his client from the death penalty, painting him as “illogical,” “delusional,” and “obsessive.” He implored the jury “to understand what was going on in [Roof’s] head,” telling them “there is something wrong with his perception.” Thursday was likely the last time Bruck will be able to make his argument against the death penalty, and he will find out in a few weeks whether he was successful or not. 

The state of South Carolina is charging Roof separately. That trial is scheduled for January 17. Polly Sheppard, a 72-year-old retired nurse, was one of the witnesses during the trial. Roof spared her life that bloody June evening. Roof heard her praying, Sheppard said, when he asked if she had been shot. She said no. “‘I’m not going to,'” Roof replied, Sheppard said. “‘I’m going to leave you here to tell the story.'”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jury Convicts Dylann Roof on 33 Federal Counts appeared first on Law Street.

A South Carolina judge declared a mistrial Monday after jurors said they couldn’t reach a unanimous decision in the case of a white former police officer charged with killing an unarmed black man, Walter Scott.

The 53-year-old father of four had been stopped by North Charleston police officer Michael Slager because of a broken taillight in April 2015. According to Slager, a scuffle erupted and Scott took his stun gun. Scott then attempted to flee, and Slager shot him multiple times in the back while he was running away. He died on scene.

Feidin Santana, an eyewitness to the shooting, captured a video of the encounter with a cellphone and the footage soon went viral.

That THIS could not be declared “murder” in America should tell you EVERYTHING about our justice system. #WalterScott.

Just horrendous. pic.twitter.com/2mPnMXh84b

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) December 5, 2016

Slager was charged with murder and released on a $500,000 bond in January 2016. He was later indicted on separate charges by a federal grand jury for deprivation of rights under the color of the law, use of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and obstruction of justice.

Slager’s attorney argued that his client didn’t know whether Scott was armed or not and that he had acted out of fear for his own life. He said:

The officer never had a chance to pat him down for weapons, nor did he know the whereabouts of the passenger in the vehicle Scott was operating without a registration or insurance. Scott ran from a very minor traffic stop, and Slager had no knowledge why.

However, the cellphone video showed that Slager dropped a black object on the ground before firing. After shooting Scott, Slager is then seen picking up the object and placing it next to the lifeless body.

On Friday, the jury in the case said it hadn’t been able to reach a verdict, but the judge ordered them to keep deliberating until Monday. One juror in the case said he couldn’t make the decision to convict Michael Slager. Reportedly, he was the only member of the jury “having issues” and he wrote in a letter to the court, “I cannot and will not change my mind.” By Monday, the judge declared a mistrial.

The news left many people feeling hopeless.

My God #WalterScott. Feeling numb all over. It’s the ton of bricks one feels on their heart & head knowing we have been here before!

— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) December 5, 2016

#MichaelSlager killed a man who was no threat and ran from him, planted a Taser, LIED on the stand and still wasn’t convicted #WalterScott

— Scooby (@TheRealistDom) December 5, 2016

there are no words. #WalterScott‘s life mattered. if seeing him shot in the back wasn’t enough for a conviction how can we ever get justice?

— Franchesca Ramsey (@chescaleigh) December 5, 2016

Outrage erupted in North Charleston after the killing of Walter Scott, but residents’ anger intensified even more due to the racial imbalance clearly evident in the police force. Even though only 37 percent of the population is white, 80 percent of police officers are white.

Slager has reportedly been emotional and regretful during the trial.

“Going back 18 months later and looking at everything, things could have been different” he said. “My family has been destroyed by this. The Scott family has been destroyed by this. It’s horrible.”

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 Mistrial Declared in Case Against Officer Who Killed Walter Scott appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning, Dylann Roof, who is accused of shooting nine people at a church in Charleston in 2015, will be representing himself in court. Federal judge Richard Gergel called his request “unwise” but said that he would reluctantly accept it, since he has a Constitutional right to represent himself. “I do find [the] defendant has the personal capacity to self-representation. I continue to believe it is strategically unwise, but it is a decision you have the right to make,” Gergel said.

Judge Gergel and Roof’s lawyers advised him against dismissing them, but to no use. Jury selection in the case was also delayed in the beginning of the month after Roof’s lawyers had questioned his ability to understand the case against him, but it resumed on Monday as well. His former defense team will still be present during the trial and can assist Roof, if he wants help. Reporters present in the courtroom described attorney David Bruck as “frustrated.”

David Bruck now whispering emphatically to Roof. Can’t hear him, but looks frustrated. Bruck turns away and shakes his head. Roof smirking.

— Mike Hayes (@michaelhayes) November 28, 2016

In total, 516 jurors were scheduled to appear in court to be personally questioned by the judge to see if they qualify. After 70 are picked from that group, the lawyers can choose to strike the ones they don’t want until they have 12 jurors and 6 substitutes.

Juror has been qualified. 5 of 70 #DylannRoof

— Sam Tyson (@SamInteractive) November 28, 2016

Roof is accused of killing nine parishioners at the historic black church Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in June 2015. He is facing 33 charges, including hate crime charges, murder, and obstruction of religion. He’ll represent himself, so he could end up questioning the victims’ family members if they are called to testify, creating a pretty unusual situation that spurred some reactions on social media.

#DylannRoof is setting himself up to be a martyr. For him to be able to question his victims families. Sickening!

— Makeda Nzingha Hill (@makedanzingha) November 28, 2016

Over the weekend, Judge Gergel held a hearing to determine whether Roof was mentally fit to be on trial, which included testimony from a psychologist. Because of that, the hearing was closed to both media and the public to prevent jurors from being affected by any statements or information. This caused some complaints from relatives of the victims, but according to the judge, this is one of the steps taken to make sure that the trial will be fair. According to attorney Chris Adams there are three reasons why defendants might want to defend themselves. He said:

They don’t have faith in their legal team, they want to die, and or they want to conceal their mental illness. In this case, Mr. Roof had a great defense team, so I don’t think there would be any sane reason to not trust them.

Adams believes that Roof wants to hide his mental issues and doesn’t wish to persue a non-death sentence. As his defense team includes Bruck, who is a renowned death penalty lawyer who has argued that the death penalty is excessive, and given that the team claimed that Roof might not be mentally fit for trial, it certainly seems like Roof has no interest in securing himself a lenient sentence.

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 Dylann Roof Will Represent Himself in Church Shooting Trial appeared first on Law Street.

As recently as October, she expressed her distaste for President-elect Donald Trump, saying she would vote for him, but is “not a fan.” But on Wednesday, Trump announced Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) will serve in his cabinet as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, succeeding President Obama’s appointee, Samantha Power. The daughter of immigrants from India’s Punjab region, Haley is the first Indian-American to serve in a presidential cabinet.

Though Haley, 44, and Trump often sparred during the primary season, the two will now be working together. In a statement on Wednesday morning, Trump said his new cabinet appointment has “a proven track record of bringing people together regardless of background or party affiliation to move critical policies forward for the betterment of her state and our country.” However, Haley has less of a track record in regard to foreign policy.

As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Haley will have a heavy influence in shaping and resolving international decrees and disputes. Though she has little foreign policy experience, Haley did travel abroad as governor several times to attract foreign businesses to her state.

Despite her lack of a deep resume in the foreign policy realm, and the vitriol she often expressed for Trump during the campaign, Haley cited a “sense of duty” in a statement on her new assignment. She added: “When the president believes you have a major contribution to make to the welfare of our nation, and to our nation’s standing in the world, that is a calling that is important to heed.”

Haley became the first female, and minority, governor of South Carolina when she was elected in 2010. She made national headlines in 2015, when she called on the statehouse to remove the Confederate flag from its premises after a white gunman killed nine people at a historic black church in Charleston and used the flag as a motif of his twisted ideology. The flag was removed.

Haley, whose birth name is Nimrata Randhawa (her parents sometimes called her “Nikki,” meaning “small one” in Hindi), and Trump consistently expressed mutual dislike during the primary campaign, in which Haley supported Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. During her Republican rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union address in January, Haley dismissed Trump’s fiery rhetoric.

“Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference,” she said. “That is just not true. Often, the best thing we can do is turn down the volume.” Trump responded by saying Haley is “very, very weak on illegal immigration.” All that is in the past now, apparently, and both Trump and Haley seem ready to move on from past barbs and into a new era of cooperation.

While awaiting the Senate’s confirmation of her appointment, Haley will continue serving out her second term as governor. Lt. Gov. Henry McMaster, an early Trump supporter, will take over as governor should Haley be confirmed.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who is Nikki Haley? appeared first on Law Street.

On October 8, Steve Crump, a veteran WBTV reporter, was in Charleston, South Carolina reporting on the cleanup efforts following Hurricane Matthew, when he was accosted by a racist. Crump told the Washington Post that the man said, “‘There’s a black guy here. No, wait a minute, he’s a slave. No wait a minute, he’s a ‘n-word.'” At that moment he had a choice–ignore the white man’s casual use of the “n-word,” or confront him. He chose the latter, and he caught it all on tape.

“Say that a little bit louder,” Crump said to the young man sitting outside the Saint John the Baptist Roman Catholic Cathedral filming the neighborhood with his iPad. “Come on, what did you just call me?”

“I called you ‘Sir,’” said the man later identified as 21-year-old Brian Eybers.

“No, you did not call me ‘Sir,’ ” Crump shot back. “You called me the n-word, right?”

To which an eerily calm Eybers replied, “I believe I did call you the n-word.”

Eybers then argued that “the Constitution of the United States” gives him the right to call Crump a n***a and a former slave. In fact, it even makes him “superior.”

“You do have a First Amendment right,” said Crump.

“Yeah I have a Second Amendment right, I got a Third amendment right. I got a Third, a Fourth, a Fifth, a Sixth, Seventh, Eight, Nine, and Ten, and that’s just the Bill of Rights,” quipped Eybers.

This is where Crump lays down some quality knowledge for this desperately naive young man.

“So what’s the Ninth and the Fourteenth?” replied Crump. “If you knew your Constitution about the Ninth and the Fourteenth, you wouldn’t have done what you just did.”

“Got ’em!”

In case you were wondering (cough) Eybers (cough), the Ninth Amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the Fourteenth Amendment–since I’m sure you didn’t know that one either– reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Perhaps if he had actually known the text of the Bill of Rights he was so quick to list off–as well as the Constitution–he would have had a second thought before using it as justification for his racist and offensive behavior.

But it’s ok, because there is such a thing as karma!

Police later arrived, arrested Eybers, and charged him with disorderly conduct and possession of drug paraphernalia, specifically a glass crack pipe.

However, Crump holds no ill will for the man. He told the Charlotte Observer that he’s forgiven the man and is praying for him.  He also hopes “he gets help by enrolling in an anger management program or drug counseling.”

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 Steve Crump is a Hero: Black Reporter Schools Racist on the Constitution appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday afternoon, certain states began to feel the impact of the storm that has already claimed 108 lives in Haiti. President Obama declared a state of emergency in Florida as Hurricane Matthew started approaching the coast. This measure allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to start working on coordinating disaster relief and releases federal funding for that purpose.

BREAKING: President Barack Obama declares state of emergency in Florida as potentially catastrophic Hurricane Matthew approaches.

— The Associated Press (@AP) October 6, 2016

As some people planned on keeping their businesses open or even having a “hurricane party,” Florida Governor Rick Scott ordered 1.5 million residents to seek safety. With the chilling words “You need to leave. Evacuate, evacuate, evacuate […] this storm will kill you,” he made sure people know this is no laughing matter.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott: “Do not surf. Do not go on the beach. This will kill you.” https://t.co/5kRoLafLlr pic.twitter.com/sc1fj1WGdL

— Yahoo News (@YahooNews) October 6, 2016

One man told NPR he was going to wait out the hurricane in his RV less than a mile from the beach. “The hype is going to be worse than the actual storm. I feel I can do quite well,” he said.

But that doesn’t sound like a very good idea. According to the National Hurricane Center the storm is increasing in strength as it moves toward the U.S. It is now a Category 4 storm. By Thursday morning, 3,000 people were already in shelters in Florida. Disney World will close by 5PM on Thursday and stay closed on Friday.

Wind speeds reached 140 mph as Hurricane #Matthew battered the Bahamas https://t.co/UMxnwOqZ1O pic.twitter.com/Qiu3Asx7xH

— CNN International (@cnni) October 6, 2016

At the same time in Georgia, Governor Nathan Deal ordered the first evacuation in 17 years, which will affect 500,000 people. The Georgia coast has not been hit with a major hurricane since 1898, which is why extra safety measures may be a good idea. The lanes of some interstates are being reversed so that traffic can only move west. South Carolina has also ordered around 1.1 million people to leave. As natural disasters can create panic and confusion, a fight about evacuation routes in South Carolina resulted in gunfire between police and a driver on Wednesday night, leaving the driver injured.

Haiti was dramatically hit by the hurricane, leaving 108 dead and 300,000 people in shelters across the country. This is the worst crisis for the country since it experienced a massive earthquake six years ago.

100+ have lost their lives. 15k ppl evacuated. Help us rebuild Haiti after #HurricaneMatthew. Donate now: https://t.co/VqEulpDwPM pic.twitter.com/Kc6ckNK0mq

— UN Development (@UNDP) October 6, 2016

No one knows how hard the hurricane is going to hit the U.S. coast or if it will even move in over land at all. But it could potentially get really bad. Researcher Brian McNoldy told the AP:

In some ways, the worst-case scenario would be if the storm’s eye stays just offshore, enabling it to feed over water and avoid weakening while its strongest hurricane winds keep smacking the beaches.

Hopefully people will listen to the evacuation orders and stay out of the way of the worst of the storm.

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 Florida Governor Orders Evacuation: “This Storm Will Kill You” appeared first on Law Street.

Are you ready for a seriously creepy story? Something that could be straight out of “American Horror Story” or “Supernatural”? Well hold on to your seats, because I have a good one for you. Authorities in Greenville County, South Carolina are dealing with reports that clowns have been terrorizing the public and trying to lure children to the nearby woods. I think we all have one message for the people of Greenville, South Carolina:

via GIPHY

To be fair, it’s actually really unclear what’s happening in Greenville. While there’s been a lot of panic over these clowns, there have been no pictures or verified sightings by police officers. But the sightings that have been reported by passersby are disturbing enough on their own.

On August 21, an anonymous individual reported seeing a “suspicious character … dressed in circus clown attire and white face paint, enticing kids to follow him/her into the woods.”

Oh don’t worry…it gets worse.

Another woman told the police that her sons had “seen clowns in the woods whispering and making strange noises.” When she went to investigate she saw flashing green lights and later the same family heard someone knocking and banging on their residence.

Other reports include neighborhood children who said that clowns tried to lure them into the woods offering cash. The same kids also said that they thought the clowns were living in a house in the woods. All said and done there have been six separate reports of these creepy clowns.

Police have told area locals to be vigilant, and at a press conference earlier this week the police chief stated: “The clowning around needs to stop. It’s illegal, it’s dangerous, it’s inappropriate, it’s creating community concern.” I assume the pun was intended.

It’s still very unclear what exactly is happening in Greenville, South Carolina, but it’s not the first time that terrifying clowns have popped up in a random town. A few years ago, a town in California had a similar incident, but it turned out to essentially be an internet hoax. Only time will tell if the clowns in Greenville are the same kind of thing.

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 WTF is up With These Creepy Clowns in the South Carolina Woods? appeared first on Law Street.

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:

Roadside Killers Arrested In North Charleston

Like a plot from a thriller movie, two teens are being charged for murdering a man who helped them get their car out of a ditch. Major WTF. 17-year-old Deon Frasier and 19-year-old Michael Dupree-Taylor were arrested Monday night on murder charges as well as one count of possession of a weapon.

The victim had stopped to help the two boys pull their Dodge Durango out of a ditch in North Charleston, South Carolina. After the car was retrieved, the boys robbed and shot the man before driving off. Not cool, bro.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 17, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Dylann Roof is accused of killing nine people at a Charleston, South Carolina church last summer, and was charged with 33 federal offenses and received the death penalty. On Monday, Roof’s defense attorneys filed a legal challenge to the capital punishment, arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

#DylannRoof’s federal attorneys try to throw out death penalty as ‘unconstitutional’: https://t.co/zNPsJJp1Hy pic.twitter.com/rkFDTu95r7

— The Root (@TheRoot) August 2, 2016

In a 30-plus page motion, his defense team wrote, “this Court should rule that the federal death penalty constitutes a legally prohibited, arbitrary, cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by both the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.” The motion went on to say, “The facts of this case are indisputably grave. But if, as we contend here, the FDPA [Federal Death Penalty Act] is unconstitutional, no one can be lawfully sentenced to death or executed under it, no matter what his crimes.”

If federal prosecutors drop the pursuit of the death penalty, Roof’s lawyers say they will drop the challenge. Why the complication? The challenge comes from the prosecution’s unwillingness to accept Roof’s guilty pleas and multiple life sentences without parole.

Roof, a white male who is now 22-years-old, was indicted on 33 counts of federal hate crimes and firearm charges last summer. He is accused of killing nine black worshippers at a Bible study in the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

The Justice Department is strongly pursuing the death penalty because Roof targeted his victims on the basis of race and religion.

“The nature of the alleged crime and the resulting harm compelled this decision,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in May about the decision to pursue the death penalty. A month after the shooting in July 2015, she said, “To carry out these twin goals of fanning racial flames and exacting revenge, Roof further decided to seek out and murder African Americans because of their race.” She went on to say, “An essential element of his plan, however, was to find his victims inside of a church, specifically an African-American church, to ensure the greatest notoriety and attention to his actions.”

The judge who is presiding over the case, Richard Gergel, did not immediately rule out the filing to challenge the death penalty. However, Twitter users immediately reacted.

#DylannRoof should absolutely be given the death penalty when found guilty. If you MURDER people, you have sacrificed your own right to live

— Josh Nelson (@RoarFromIA) August 2, 2016

 

Foreign terrorists don’t get to challenge a death penalty, why should domestic terrorists? #DylannRoof #KillDylannRoof

— TW: White female. (@karmapolitical) August 2, 2016

#KorrynGaines & #DylannRoof news this AM. IF you’re going to kill the woman who might have shot someone, then kill the man who murdered 9.

— Austin Saunders (@Widlcat77) August 2, 2016

Yeah, #DylannRoof doesn’t deserve the death penalty. They should randomly go into his cell & violently murder him. That would be “fair”.

— Faustslaughter (@Faustslaughter) August 2, 2016

Roof’s federal trial is set for November 7 in U.S. District Court. A murder trial in South Carolina state court is scheduled for January.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dylann Roof’s Lawyers Seek Life Sentence Over Death Penalty appeared first on Law Street.

With the swish of her pen, Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) made South Carolina the 13th state to outlaw abortions once a fetus reaches 20 weeks. There are no exceptions in the case of rape or incest, but the bill does allow for post-20 week abortions if the mother’s life is in danger or if the fetus is “incompatible with sustaining life after birth.”

“It is the purpose of the State to assert a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain,” reads the text of the bill, which was named the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Reactions from the state’s General Assembly, which passed the bill on May 17, ranged from staunchly supportive to disappointed.

“I believe that an unborn child is human life and therefore I am compelled to be opposed to abortion except if the life of the mother is threatened,” said Senator Chip Campsen (R-Isle of Palms).

“Women’s reproductive rights should not be subject to politics,” said Senator Marlon Kimpson (D-Charleston).

As for the “substantial medical evidence” that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks, as cited in the bill’s language, studies over the last decade have supported both sides of the argument, and the topic is still highly controversial. For example, a 2005 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that a fetus does not experience pain until after the third trimester, or at 28 weeks into the pregnancy. The study was not without controversy, however, as two of its authors were found to have ties to pro-abortion groups. One was a lawyer for an abortion rights group, NARAL, for eight months in 1999, and another was a doctor who performs abortions and was the medical director of an abortion clinic.

In her testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in 2012–involving a bill that would ban abortions at 20 weeks within the jurisdiction of Washington D.C.–Colleen A. Malloy, an assistant neonatal professor at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, presented her finding that fetuses do indeed feel pain prior to 20 weeks, stating:

As early as 8 weeks post-fertilization, face skin receptors appear. At 14 weeks, sensory fibers grow into the spinal cord and connect with the thalamus. At 13-16 weeks, monoamine fibers reach the cerebral cortex, so that by 17-20 weeks the thalamo-cortical relays penetrate the cortex.

But a representative of Charleston Women’s Health Medical Center, one of three abortion clinics in South Carolina, told Law Street that the bill would not have any effect on its practice, as the clinic only provides abortions up to the 13th week of pregnancy.

Last week, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, South Carolina Section sent a letter to Haley, urging her to veto the bill, which they saw as a “large step backward for our state”, stating: “Only a woman and her trusted doctors—not elected officials—should make decisions about her health.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Carolina Governor Signs Bill Banning Abortions Past 20 Weeks appeared first on Law Street.

Remember Louis Shenker, the young man who made waves by sneaking into the Democratic debate? Well this past week I had the opportunity to chat with the surprise guest of the debate held two weekends ago on January 17. As a quick recap, in case you didn’t hear about this wonderful feat, a 17-year-old from Longmeadow, Massachusetts managed to sneak past several levels of security and make his way on stage at the debate, shook each of the candidates’ hands, and appeared on national television. The story originally surfaced on Twitter when people called out Shenker, said teen, for his loud silk jacket and seemingly out-of-place presence. Shenker then posted a blog describing the whole experience in nearly comedic detail–the whole thing seemed like an elaborate sitcom plot.

How I Snuck into the South Carolina Democratic Debate https://t.co/000EQUYXqH pic.twitter.com/CbRjmCkQMF

— Louis Shenker (@Louis_Shenker) January 21, 2016

In attempt to learn a little more about this daring experience and figure out just what it takes to make it onstage at a nationally viewed event, my fellow editorial intern, Sean Simon, and I talked with Louis over the phone this past Friday. It started off as your average interview conversation; Louis told us about how he is a junior in high school, how he works at a local Chinese restaurant, and how he plays guitar and didgeridoo (not to mention the fact that he has created two didgeridoos himself, one out of cardboard and one out of PVC pipe). I’d also like to take a hot sec to acknowledge the fact that this young man has actually opened up for Hoodie Allen on the didgeridoo, and, if that doesn’t scream accomplishment, I don’t know what does.

The Inspiration

Once we got into the swing of things, we asked Louis a little bit about what prompted this whole string of sneaking into debates, and this is what he had to say about the first debate he snuck into:

On Thursday, I saw on Snapchat that there was a GOP debate filter and I had no idea that that was even happening, and so I thought that that would be fun to try to see how debates ran and stuff like that. So, I thought it would be fun to try to sneak in, to try to get in there, see what it’s like, meet the candidates, see what all the hubbub was about.

Looks like Snapchat can be informative and educational–take that, mom! So, after asking around about some details and for some opinions, Shenker decided to seize the opportunity and head to the GOP debate, even after being told not to go by both his siblings and his dad. The GOP debate was apparently the perfect practice for sneaking into the Democratic debate a few days later; Shenker gave some insight into what he learned the first time and how that helped him out:

I learned a little bit more about how they ran, what the situation was and stuff like that, so by the time the Democratic debate rolled around on Sunday, I had a pretty good understanding of the workings behind the scenes and stuff like that. What would be good to say, what would be good to do, how to act, how to dress and that kind of thing. And so I tried my luck and, yeah, I was pretty lucky.

When it finally came time to talk about the debate that was on all of our minds–the one where Shenker ended up onstage shaking Hillary Clinton’s hand–we started off by asking him if he had any clue at all that he was going to end up on national television that day. His response? He hadn’t even thought he was going to get into the debate because of how small the venue was in comparison to the GOP debate a few nights before. He said that once he got in, he figured he had to see how far he could take it and try to “roll with it” a little bit. Shenker claims that by the time he was in the front row “there was really only one thing left to do, and that was to be on stage.”

Nerves and Stage Fright?

Of course, we asked the million dollar question of the interview: when were you most concerned about being caught? Interestingly enough, Shenker claims he was never even really worried about it, though there was a point when he was trying to get on stage where he had a little bit of stage fright himself:

I guess I was the most nervous when I was trying to walk backstage onto the platform for the debate because thats where I thought there’d be the most security. Either that, or just getting into the debate itself. Once I was in the debate I was pretty much in good standing.

Shaking Hands and Taking Names

Nerves or not, Shenker made it all the way to shake hands with the candidates, but those three weren’t the first potentially presidential hands he had shaken. Believe it or not, Shenker told us that he has traded handshakes with all of the presidential candidates except Ben Carson and Donald Trump. We asked him to rate his top three and (in this specific order) they included Bernie Sanders, whose handshake was firm; Jeb Bush, whose hands were pretty soft; and Martin O’Malley, who had a nice strong grip. Shenker also volunteered details about his handshake with Hillary Clinton (which, might I add, was caught on national television), saying it was pretty cold, which he attributed to potentially poor circulation. After some quick research thanks to a tip from Sean, I found that, yes, Clinton does suffer from both hypothyroidism and seasonal allergies.

Spoiler Alert: This kid’s jacket won the democratic debate. pic.twitter.com/PwKa0AVA6h — Blue (@8lve) January 18, 2016

On the other end of the spectrum, with the worst handshakes, Shenker listed John Kasich and Ted Cruz, claiming that they just weren’t that special or memorable. To the candidates’ credit, Shenker noted that all of their handshakes were really pretty above average, probably thanks to the years and years of practice they have all had as politicians.

Confidence is Key

What does Shenker have to say about the candidates’ presence in person? Well confidence is key; he said they all just exude confidence and personality, especially his pick for the Democratic nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders. He said to keep in mind that these candidates are real people, not idolatrous figures or greater powers, and said that that realization was one of the biggest changes to his viewpoint after meeting them: they’re real. On why he likes Sanders specifically, Shenker said,

Ever since I came across Sanders about three years ago, even before this whole election cycle started, I thought that he was a good guy. A lot of people were like ‘oh that’s just cause he’s Jewish’ but you know that’s not really the only reason that I support him. I think that a lot of his view points that he’s expressing with the struggle of money and politics as a huge issue, I think it is a tremendous issue that is really corrupting the system. He is very genuine. He seems like he cares more about people… There’s also something about liking an underdog…Having someone who sees the importance of education and infrastructure and all the social changes that resonate pretty strongly with me and my generation, I feel like he’s the candidate who gets the most.

Pretty perceptive of him–looks like it’s not just the millennial women jumping on the Sanders train!

Louis’s Advice

Last, but certainly not least, we asked Shenker to tell us when he knew he had made it and if he had any last words of wisdom for us–he hit us with some seriously existential thoughts:

I wouldn’t say [I feel] famous. I always like having cool stories and I thought this would be a cool opportunity for a story. But, once I knew I was on TV for a moment, I mean, my friends were all texting me, calling me, and stuff like that, was kind of when I realized, oh, maybe there’s something a little more to this… In ten days no one will care, no one will remember, but for now it’s fun.

And his final thoughts on the whole shebang were pretty inspirational:

People need to understand that you can’t let opportunities pass you by, or at least that’s the way I view things. Whenever there’s an opportunity, whether it’s something at school, or a dance or a concert or something, just go to it. Have fun… Too many people sit inside their house watching TV or staying on their phones and they don’t get out and actually do things… I think something important to learn is that, when you’re stagnant, you’re really just not actually living life to the best potential, and I think it’s wrong to let opportunities pass you by.

Overall, it’s pretty clear that Louis Shenker had his own one-of-a-kind experience. So, with that in mind, and opportunities ahead, go out and sneak into your own Democratic debate–or whatever your version of that may be. You never know what may be waiting for you.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Louis Shenker: How Did a 17-Year-Old Sneak into the Democratic Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

Amidst commentary on how Hillary Clinton has ramped up, pointed attacks on Bernie Sanders, and Sanders’ constant mention of how well he is polling, you may have missed one of the most interesting points of the Democratic debate this past weekend: a 17-year-old boy in a handmade silk jacket who–although he didn’t seem out of place–certainly wasn’t where he was supposed to be.

Louis Shenker, a 17-year-old from Longmeadow, Massachusetts was seen on national television as he walked on stage to shake hands with the presidential hopefuls, but that definitely wasn’t the most exciting part of Shenker’s night. In a blog post written by the teen himself this Thursday, Shenker talks all about the pains he went through to get on stage that night, which include some pretty impressive feats. From claiming to be Martin O’Malley’s son to worming his way into the debate hall, this kid may have just pulled off one of the most impressive break-ins of the century.

So, how did he do it? According to Shenker, the recipe for success–when it comes to making your way on stage with some of the country’s most important people–is apparently comprised of a couple of white lies, a slightly above average knowledge of attendees of the Democratic debate, and a hell of a lot of confidence. Or at least, that’s what he claims in his blog post. Apparently Shenker had also snuck into the Republican debate less than a week before, though, he made less of a splash there and mostly hung in the shadows.

The teenage hero–and supposedly qualified didgeridoo player–started his evening by walking up to the gates of the Gaillard Center and claiming he was told he would receive a ticket to the event at the gate. He mentioned he was a representative of several Jewish organizations and was quickly swept up in the crowd, given a staffer pass, and whisked away to help direct people arriving at the event’s entrances. He then weaseled his way inside the media room by announcing he was writing an article for the World Jewish Congress. Finally, Shenker made his way to the main room of the debate by telling security he was a seat filler–could this guy get any more ballsy? In a last ditch attempt to secure the world’s most impressive fake-out, Shenker made it on stage after the debate, writing in his blog that his motivation was as follows:

At this point I said to myself fuck it I was going to get on stage with the candidates. So I followed the families of the candidates through the side exit to backstage and past many secret service agents none of which stopped me. Then I was onstage.

The cameras went live, and there he was, on almost every TV in the nation, immediately gaining attention for his stylish fashion sense and youthful looks. Shenker said his phone was immediately blowing up with snapchats, texts, and tweets from his friends back home who were shocked when they saw his face, front and center, shaking Hillary Clinton’s hand. Some people questioned Shenker’s presence on stage (and his choice of jacket) at the end of the debate, taking to the internet to voice their opinions and surprise:

Did anyone else see this child at the #DemDebate ?? Like a Thanksgiving themed jacket?? pic.twitter.com/e9MsQR6Mzu

— David Lew (@davidlew) January 18, 2016

 

Gonna need to know more about this jacket. #DemDebate#TheRealIssuespic.twitter.com/wjPMxUDSnb

— Kyle (@semiserious) January 18, 2016

Honestly, this had to have been a pretty cool night and an experience we can all probably be jealous of. Shenker met countless celebrities, was featured on national television in a suave, retro jacket, and pulled off a pretty magnificent stunt. His blog has gone viral and he has gained almost instant fame–Killer Mike even gave him a shoutout on Twitter.

The moral of the story? Take some risks, I guess. Don’t be afraid to shoot for the stars because, sometimes, you may literally be able to reach them. As cheesy as it sounds, we can all probably take a page out of Shenker’s book and follow his words of advice:

 If there is one thing this experience has taught me it is if you act like you are supposed to be somewhere people will believe you.

As the new year keeps rolling in, I know I’ll be keeping this advice in the back of my mind. And, hey, maybe if the presidential candidates start acting a little bit more like they belong in the White House, they too can achieve their dreams.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post What We Can Learn from the Boy who Snuck into the Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

A South Carolina sheriff’s deputy is under investigation after a video went viral Monday showing him violently bodyslam a female Spring Valley High School student after she refused to leave a classroom.

Senior Deputy Ben Fields reportedly ordered the girl out of her seat saying, “either you’re coming with me, or I’ll make you.” Then in the shaky 15-second video, he appears to place her in a headlock, flip her out of her desk, and then drag her several feet across the classroom floor.

Watch Videos of the Assault Below

The full video of the Spring Valley High School Police Officer brutally assaulting a peaceful student. pic.twitter.com/oHIS8GrtSS

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) October 26, 2015

RETWEET if you agree This Racist Cop should be fired & arrested for this brutality. #AssaultAtSpringValleyHigh pic.twitter.com/AhzQ6WXM2l

— سید فیاض علی #TeamIK (@IamTeamIK) October 27, 2015

In an interview with USA Today, Tony Robinson Jr., a student at Spring Valley High School who captured video of the incident, said the girl involved “really hadn’t done anything wrong.” According to him, the teacher had accused the girl of having her phone out during class. When the teacher asked for the phone, the girl said “no,” resulting in an administrator being called to the room. The administrator then pleaded with the girl get out of her seat, but she refused. That’s when Fields entered the classroom and things got physical. Robinson said,

I’ve never seen anything so nasty looking, so sick to the point that you know, other students are turning away, don’t know what to do, and are just scared for their lives. That’s supposed to be somebody that’s going to protect us. Not somebody that we need to be scared of, or afraid.

Watch Robinson’s Interview Below

The unidentified female student was charged with disturbing school before being released into the custody of her parents. Fellow student Niya Kenny, 18, was also charged after she stood up for the girl.

Several outlets initially reported that the female student did not suffer any physical injuries from the arrest, however, her lawyer Todd Rutherford told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Wednesday that she actually suffered several. Rutherford said,

She now has a cast on her arm, she has neck and back injuries. She has a Band-Aid on her forehead where she suffered rug burn on her forehead.

According to USA Today, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott Fields has enlisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice to conduct a thorough investigation of Monday’s incident. The Columbia FBI Field Office’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina will be tasked with deciding whether or not the African-American student’s civil rights were violated. In the mean time, Fields has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the investigation’s results.

But from the looks of it, Fields has a history of civil rights complaints from civilians. In a pending civil rights lawsuit stemming from a February 2013 incident, former Spring Valley student, Ashton Reese, stated Officer Fields “unfairly and recklessly targets African-American students with allegations of gang membership and criminal gang activity.” And in 2007, a couple accused Fields of excessive force and battery along with two other officers, after they responded to a noise complaint at their residence. However, in 2010 a jury ruled in favor of the deputies, and the couple lost a subsequent appeal.

Outraged supporters of the female student have flocked to social media with the help of the trending hashtag, #AssaultAtSpringValleyHigh to express their disgust over the violent assault.

Y’all See The Difference ?? Cuz I Do #AssaultAtSpringValleyHigh #Retweet pic.twitter.com/14d3jnmvFd — IX-XXX-MCMXC (@_SheLovesQuan) October 27, 2015

How long will it take for Officer Fields to say that he “feared for his life,” which caused him to assault her? #AssaultAtSpringValleyHigh — deray mckesson (@deray) October 26, 2015

i can’t unsee what i just saw. #AssaultAtSpringValleyHigh

— octavia spencer (@octaviaspencer) October 26, 2015

The ACLU, Reverend Jesse Jackson, and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also voiced their outrage.

“There is no justification whatsoever for treating a child like this” ACLU of SC abt vid of student flipped, dragged https://t.co/DV6YZj9zDG — ACLU National (@ACLU) October 27, 2015

The police officer should be fired and the police department should be sued. #AssaultAtSpringValleyHigh pic.twitter.com/yOsptB2jlx

— Rev Jesse Jackson Sr (@RevJJackson) October 27, 2015

There is no excuse for violence inside a school. The #AssaultAtSpringValleyHigh is unacceptable—schools should be safe places. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 27, 2015

It will be interesting to see if other celebrities and politicians choose to comment publicly on the arrest, but many people are already agreeing with Rev. Jackson, and think the officer should be sued. Hopefully the FBI and DOJ will be able to provide more information in the following weeks.

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 Cop Bodyslams South Carolina Student For Refusing to Leave Classroom appeared first on Law Street.

GOP presidential candidates are nervously returning money and double checking their finances this week. An investigation recently revealed that the leader of the white supremacist group that is said to have radicalized Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old white man who murdered nine black people during a bible study in Charleston last week, has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns.

Sixty-two-year-old Earl P. Holt III is president of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), a self-declared “conservative activist group” that opposes “race mixing” as a religious affront and that “vilifies blacks as an inferior race.” Holt has donated $65,000 to campaign funds in recent years, including 2016 GOP presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum. According to Federal Election Commission filings, Holt has provided $8,500 to Senator Cruz since 2012. Another $1,750 was given to Senator Paul’s action committee, and $1,500 was donated to Senator Santorum, who attended Sunday’s memorial service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. A spokesman for Cruz’s campaign was quick to say that the money donated by Holt would be immediately refunded. Also in hot water to return money funded by this extremist organization is Paul, who said today that he would also be foregoing the money donated by Holt. Santorum  finally denounced the funding on Monday afternoon, saying he would be donating the money to the victims’ families.

GOP candidates got cash from white nationalist cited by Charleston shooting suspect http://t.co/sLN6nNSdYV pic.twitter.com/d1Gqsdz9D4

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) June 22, 2015

Over the past four years, a user named Earl P. Holt III has posted racist comments on The Blaze, a conservative news outlet. On a February 2014 article, the user–who is suspected to be the same Earl P. Holt III who is funding Republican campaigns–wrote that black activists would “kill you, rape your entire family, and burn your house to the ground.” Roof echoed these chillingly racist remarks as he complained to his victims in Charleston last week, saying: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” A close associate and former director of the CofCC, Jared Taylor, was asked by Holt to handle all media inquiries relating to the Charleston massacre. When asked about the online user going by Holt’s full name, Taylor stated: “If there’s a statement that is ‘Earl P. Holt III’, he probably made it.”

On Saturday, Internet sleuths discovered that Dylann Roof had a website complete with a racist manifesto, which states that he learned about black on white crime from the CofCC website. Roof says it was the Trayvon Martin killing and his opinion that George Zimmerman did no wrong in shooting the unarmed black teen that began his obsession with “black on white violence.”

In an online statement, Holt said he was not surprised that Roof had learned about “black-on-white violent crime” from the CofCC. He stated that the Council is one of the few brave activist groups that are not afraid to “accurately and honestly” disclose “the seemingly endless incidents involving black-on-white murder.” Holt said the Council of Conservative Citizens should not be held responsible for Roof’s actions just because he gained “accurate” information from the website.

Santorum has declared the statements made and sentiments held by Holt to be “unacceptable.” But isn’t it unacceptable to have your campaign financed by individuals and groups that represent the beating heart of racism? It’s easy to wonder if Cruz, Paul, and Santorum knew that their campaigns were receiving donations from a man who runs a white supremacist organization. Moreover, if the media had not exposed Holt’s status as a white supremacist, would the candidates have donated and refunded the money? Hopefully this exposure will shed light on the often amoral campaign financing process and lead to more scrutiny about where our presidential candidates are getting their money.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Candidates in Hot Water After Receiving Donations From White Supremacist Leader appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 5:09pm

Hundreds of people gathered at the South Carolina capitol Saturday evening to advocate for the removal of the Confederate flag from near the state capitol building. The “Take the Flag Down” event was held in response to the recent massacre of nine people at Mother Emanuel AME Church, an African American church in the heart of Charleston. Several pictures released after the shooting portray the suspect, Dylann Roof, displaying a Confederate flag. The police believe the shooting to be a hate crime, and protestors are now crying out for the removal of the flag.

South Carolina State Representative Doug Brannon, a Republican, referred to the flag as a symbol of both hate and “a symbol of pride in one’s hatred” when speaking with the Associated Press. He stated:

I just didn’t have the balls for five years to do it. But when my friend was assassinated for being nothing more than a black man, I decided it was time for that thing to be off the Statehouse grounds.

At Saturday’s rally many hoped for unity, as the event included a variety of speeches and many chanted the slogan “take it down.” “The country is calling for togetherness instead of division, so if the country truly wants togetherness then this is a way to bring it down,” said Angie White, one of the participants, stating:

My heart has been pierced by the tragedy that happened in Charleston, South Carolina, overwhelmed with grief and the hate that has permeated our country. I want to see anything that can make things better, including taking the flag down from the State House grounds. Anything that can make us a better nation, a better people, a people that the forefathers intended us to be, I want it to be done and I choose to be a part of that change.

The Confederate battle flag has long proved to be one of the most divisive issues in state politics, as it has consistently served as a symbol of intolerance and white supremacy. President of the South Carolina NAACP, Dr. Lonnie Randolph stated:

We all know what it stands for: colored bathrooms, separate and unequal, hostile treatment of people, lynching, murdering of people, raping women and children. That’s what it stands for.

Past protests, boycotts, rallies, and movements have all failed to remove the flag from the building’s grounds. While many are not opposed to the idea of removing the flag, many believe that this weekend was not the best time, as the family and friends of the Emmanuel AME Church victims are still grieving.

In light of the recent rally, South Carolina Governor Nikki Hayley is expected to address the public this Monday afternoon. It is said that she’ll call for the removal of the flag, although it will be up to the state legislature to make the final call.

State Representative Doug Brannon is planning to introduce a bill in December to move the flag to the Military Museum. Brannon acknowledges that this will likely cost him re-election, but plans to introduce the bill as early as he can, which won’t be until December.

While many argue this weekend’s rally didn’t leave family and friends proper time to grieve for the loved ones they lost in the massacre, this weekend’s rally does show the continued need to fight for an end to racism in the United States.

Update: 5:09pm: In a 4PM press conference, South Carolina Governor Nikki Hayley spoke about the controversial issue of removing the Confederate flag from the state’s capital.

She stated:

Fifteen years ago after much contentious debate, South Carolina came together in a bipartisan way to move the flag from atop the capitol dome. Today, we are here in a moment of unity in our state, without ill will, to say it’s time to move the flag from the capital grounds.

The murderer now locked up in Charleston said he hoped his actions would to start a race war. We have an opportunity to show not only was he wrong, but that just the opposite is happening.

The General Assembly wraps up their year this week, and, as governor, I have the authority to call them back into session under extraordinary circumstances. I have indicated to the House and the Senate that, if they do not take measures to ensure this debate takes place this summer, I will use that authority for the purpose of the legislature removing the flag from the Statehouse grounds. That will take place in the coming weeks, after the regular session and the veto session have been completed

I also ask that the focus still remains on the 9 victims of this horrible tragedy. […] We all deserve time to grieve, and to remember, and to heal. We will take it, and I ask that you respect it.

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 Take Down the Flag: Protestors Rally Against Confederate Flag in South Carolina appeared first on Law Street.

America has a race problem. America has a gun problem. America has a violence problem. America has a problem with racially motivated gun violence.

A massacre occurred Wednesday at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina when nine black people were fatally shot during their weekly bible study. Twenty-one-year-old Dylann Roof confessed to shooting and killing these nine people. The massacre is being reviewed as a hate crime and was almost certainly racially motivated.

Dylann Roof has been charged with 9 counts of murder and one weapon possession charge in the #CharlestonShooting: http://t.co/l3EcsDWT1I

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) June 19, 2015

Several interviews with former friends of Roof have raised a concern that I simply can’t disregard. One of Roof’s friends said in an interview in response to the massacre on Wednesday:

It was a race thing because he had told me that black people was taking over the country…that he wanted it to be segregation[…]white with the white, black with the black[…]I mean he was drunk one night and he was just talking about him wanting to hurt a whole bunch of people. And whenever he was saying he was wanting to do something crazy, I just blew it off and didn’t really pay attention to him because he was intoxicated.

The fact that one of Roof’s friends didn’t think anything of his seemingly constant racial slurs, threats of violence against black people, or the plans he revealed to him about the massacre is horribly disconcerting. What Roof did is obviously not this friend’s fault. But the reality is that in 2015, a young man can get drunk and spout off plans to murder people because of their race and his friends can brush it off. They’re desensitized to racist banter, to threats of violence, to prejudice, and to xenophobia. The American society that Dylann Roof lives in brushed off and “didn’t really pay attention” to his grossly discriminatory views because, unfortunately, they aren’t uncommon.

From politicians to a young man from South Carolina, animosity toward minorities in America is a systemic, institutionalized, and far-too-accepted issue that is somehow only discussed in depth when we encounter a tragedy. I couldn’t help but notice the us-versus-them narrative present in both Roof’s remarks to the people in the church at the time of the shooting and in Donald Trump’s presidential announcement from earlier this week. It has been reported that Roof said to the victims, “I have to do it… You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” Just a few days ago, Trump made similarly racist remarks against Mexicans as he announced his candidacy:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you… They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

Both Roof and Trump use “you” collectively, grouping an entire race in Roof’s case and an entire country in Trump’s, in an attempt to justify their disgusting prejudices. Both men use rape as a tool–a justification for their hatred–even though these beliefs are completely unfounded. Roof alleged that black people are taking over the country, and Trump declared that Mexico is “killing us economically.”

Summary of #DonaldTrump's speech: "I'm white & rich and I only like other white rich people… & all Mexicans are drug dealers & thugs, bye"

— Neighborhood Queer (@MartyredWisdom) June 16, 2015

While I seriously doubt that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign speech was anywhere on Dylann Roof’s radar, the point I’m trying to make is that the roots of racism run deep in this country’s core and we overlook them far too often. Whether this problem arises out of ignorance or out of naivety I’m not quite certain, but either way, it needs to stop.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America Has a Huge Racism Problem appeared first on Law Street.

Church members of the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina gathered together on Wednesday evening for their weekly prayer meeting. No one would have ever predicted the horrific events that took place later that night when a visitor came into the church and changed many people’s lives forever.

The evening seemed to be going as normal, like every other week. About an hour into the meeting, a man who was sitting in the church the whole time and mingling with others suddenly pulled out a weapon and began to fire, leaving nine people dead. The Pastor of the church and South Carolina state senator Clementa Pinckney, 41, was killed during the shooting. Pinckney was also one of the black community’s spokesmen after the slaying of an unarmed man, Walter Scott, by a North Charleston police officer earlier this year.

The suspect has been identified as Dylann Storm Roof, a 21-year-old white male. He was seen on the church’s surveillance camera and then found on facebook. His Facebook page also carries a photo of him wearing a jacket with patches of the racist-era flags of South Africa and Rhodesia.

Have you seen Dylann Roof? @FBI confirms 21-year-old as #CharlestonShooting suspect. http://t.co/3ijYaNanPM #chsnews pic.twitter.com/6blL5HGMLX

— The Post and Courier (@postandcourier) June 18, 2015

After the shooting Roof escaped onto the streets of the city’s historic downtown, an area normally overflowing with tourists. According to CBS News police have just brought the suspect into custody this afternoon after finding him in Shelby, North Carolina.

There were 13 people inside the church when the shooting happened–the shooter, the nine people who were killed, and three survivors, according to South Carolina state senator Larry Grooms as told to CNN. Two of the survivors were not harmed. A five-year-old girl reportedly survived the attack by following her grandmother’s instructions to play dead.

Charleston NAACP President Dot Scott told CNN that a woman who survived says Roof told her he was letting her live so that she could tell people what happened. Scott said she heard this from the victims’ family members.

I did not hear this verbatim from the almost victim, I heard it from at least half a dozen other folks that were there and family of the victims. There seems to be no question that this is what the shooter said.

After the shooting 50 or more church and community members gathered together at the Embassy Suites hotel near the church to pray. Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen vowed that they were committed to finding the gunman. He also said,

This is a tragedy that no community should have to experience. It is senseless and unfathomable in today’s society that someone would walk into a church during a prayer meeting and take their lives.

“The only reason someone would walk into a church and shoot people that were praying is hate,” Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said. Events such as these terrify and anger people around the world. Community organizer Christopher Cason told the Associated Press that he felt certain the shootings were racially motivated. “I am very tired of people telling me that I don’t have the right to be angry,” Cason said. “I am very angry right now.”

Cason feels just as many other people do. The hashtags #CharlestonShooting and #PrayersForCharleston have begun trending on Twitter, as tweeters express how they feel about this awful incident.

No words. On our knees with you. #PrayersForCharleston

— Jennie Allen (@JennieAllen) June 18, 2015

Make no mistake, this was terrorism, this was mass murder, this was driven by racial hatred. This is American history. #CharlestonShooting

— . (@Bhattousai) June 18, 2015

if it was black, he’d be a thug if it was a muslim, he’d be terrorist but bc he’s a white gunmen, he’s excused w illness #CharlestonShooting

— semi hiatus julianne (@djagonalley) June 18, 2015

It is evident that everyone is disgusted by this tragedy. I am truly saddened that we are living in a time where there are constantly killings or disturbing incidents happening due to someone’s race. Church is a safe haven for many, and now countless people will worry about their safety every time they step into one. President Obama delivered a statement today about the Charleston shooting on CNN stating, “It is in our power to do something about it.” I hope that people will take what he said and truly realize that we have the power to change our community and change our country.

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 Developing: Shooter Arrested in Charleston Church Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

We know their names by heart because they’ve become the public faces of a national epidemic. Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice–five names that represent the unjust murder of unarmed black males. But there are many more names on that list, including 53-year-old father of four Walter L. Scott. Scott was shot and killed Saturday by an white South Carolinian police officer while attempting to run away. A graphic of the video of the shooting has surfaced, leading to public outrage and resulting in the officer who shot him being charged with murder.

Be advised that the video below contains both graphic images and language.

According to the New York Times, the officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, attempted to justify the shooting, saying he feared for his life because Scott had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after Slager had stopped him in a Mercedes-Benz for a broken taillight. In the video, however, Scott is seen running away when Slager fires seemingly eight times at his back before finally collapsing.

At a news conference Tuesday, authorities announced that after viewing the video footage, they had decided to charge the officer with murder. North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said during the news conference.

When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. And if you make a bad decision, don’t care if you’re behind the shield or just a citizen on the street, you have to live by that decision.

Police reports indicate that Officer Slager reported on his radio, “shots fired and the subject is down; He took my Taser” moments after the shooting. But the taser defense story could potentially be a sham. During the initial scuffle at the beginning of the video something looks to have been either tossed or knocked to the ground behind the two men. After the shooting, the officer then runs back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and picks something up off the ground and then appears to drop an object near Scott’s body moments later. Unfortunately it’s tough to determine the full story because the images are shaky and unclear. Many are now speculating that this object was the officer’s taser, which he was potentially planting in order to corroborate his story, but that has yet to be proven by investigators.

The bystander who filmed the video has not yet been identified, but is being hailed as a hero by Scott’s family for providing the footage to them, which they then turned over to the New York Times. In the video below, Walter Scott’s brother and family attorney Chris Stewart react to the shooting, with Stewart making the bold statement “running from an officer doesn’t result in the death penalty.”

Stewart has a vital point that running away should not be a death sentence, but Supreme Court case law may beg to differ. In Tennessee v. Garner the court declared that officers may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if there’s probable cause that the suspect “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” Officer Slager may try to use this precedent in his criminal defense or in the civil suit against him that Scott’s family has declared that they intend to file.

This avoidable incident has only helped fuel public distrust for law enforcement as well as raise questions that there may be serious discriminatory problems ingrained in our police forces, as proved evident in Ferguson. One thing however is certain–Walter Scott’s story, while unfortunately not unique, does matter.

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 South Carolina Cop Charged With the Murder of Walter Scott appeared first on Law Street.

Crime and weird news ruled the news last week. A new interactive map from writer Law Street’s crime editor Kevin Rizzo made waves across the internet as it allows you to visualize where crime in the United States is getting better or worse. Definitely check that out! The number two story, from Anneliese Mahoney, brings yoga pants back into the news as Montana lawmakers continue their quest to outlaw the comfortable clothing in public spaces. And finally the third most popular post came from writer Marisa Mostek with her weekly look at the dumbest laws across the country, this time focusing in on the Virginias and the Carolinas. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Interactive Crime Map: Is Your City Getting Safer or More Dangerous?

As reported in Law Street’s comprehensive annual crime rankings, Crime in America 2015, violent crime across the United States continued its downward trend according to the latest figures reported by the FBI. Curious to know how your hometown stacks up against the rest of the country? Check out the interactive map below for yourself to see if your city is getting safer or more dangerous according to the latest data. Read full article here.

#2 Just Relax: Montana Lawmaker Attempts to Ban Yoga Pants

A proposed bill that would ban yoga pants in Montana has been tabled, eliciting joy from practitioners, women who like to be comfy, and rational human beings everywhere. If you’ve never worn yoga pants before (or their closely related cousin the leggings) they’re basically like wearing a hug on your legs. But not everyone is that happy with yoga pants, because they tend to conform to our bodies, apparently rendering them a scourge to society that needs to be outlawed. Read full article here.

#3 Dumbest Laws in the United States: The Virginias and the Carolinas

This week, the dumb laws blog will focus on two sets of neighboring states: Virginia and West Virginia and North and South Carolina. What do railroad companies and Sundays have in common? South Carolina has dumb laws pertaining to both seemingly unrelated things, as it turns out. On Sundays in South Carolina, you won’t be able to go dancing, as dance halls may not operate on that day of the week. Also on Sundays in South Carolina, you cannot do any work. It is the day of rest after all. If you wish to spend your day off playing an instrument, make sure you buy one before Sunday, as they are banned from being sold then. It makes sense, if you think about it–since work on Sunday is prohibited, who would be working at the musical instrument store? 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.

This week, the dumb laws blog will focus on two sets of neighboring states: Virginia and West Virginia and North and South Carolina.

What do railroad companies and Sundays have in common? South Carolina has dumb laws pertaining to both seemingly unrelated things, as it turns out. On Sundays in South Carolina, you won’t be able to go dancing, as dance halls may not operate on that day of the week. Also on Sundays in South Carolina, you cannot do any work. It is the day of rest after all. If you wish to spend your day off playing an instrument, make sure you buy one before Sunday, as they are banned from being sold then. It makes sense, if you think about it–since work on Sunday is prohibited, who would be working at the musical instrument store?

There is a surprisingly large number of laws dedicated to the regulation of railroads in the Palmetto state. In some cases there, railroad companies may be held liable for scaring horses, so hopefully conductors steer clear of skittish steeds. That may be a difficult feat, however, considering that by law, railroads must exist in towns of more than 500 people. Men also must be 100 percent sure about marriage before popping the question, because if an unmarried man promises to wed an unmarried woman, they legally must follow through.

South Carolina’s neighbor to the north has some pretty dumb laws as well. If you can somehow get around federal and state laws prohibiting you from possessing illegal substances, you must pay taxes on them in North Carolina. Yes, I’m sure that everyone with drugs in that state will make that fact known and pay taxes on them. Logical, North Carolina, so logical. Speaking of taxes, a three dollar tax must be paid on all white goods sold. Perhaps that includes sugar, white shirts, milk, you name it. If I ever buy something in North Carolina I’ll definitely stick to colored things.

Bingo in the Tar Heel state must have gotten a bit out of hand in the past, as now there is a law dictating that the game may not last over five hours unless it is held at a fair. Furthermore, serving alcohol at bingo games is strictly prohibited. Residents also take meetings very, very seriously. Even if one is held on Halloween, organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume.

Virginia cops must have a difficult time deciphering if someone is speeding or not, as radar detectors are illegal there. And even those in a consensual relationship, no matter how long they’ve been in it, cannot have sex by Virginia law, which limits sexual relations to married couples. Even married couples, however, are prevented from having oral or anal sex.

Hunting laws in Virginia are strict when it comes to every animal, stating that none except raccoons may be hunted on Sunday. Hunters have to cancel their raccoon hunting trip if they occur late at night, as hunting the furry bandits is only legal until 2:00 a.m. It’s good that Virginia law takes serious measures to prevent kids potentially drowning in private pools, but this state takes it to the extreme. In the city of Frederick, any pool owner risks a $2,500 fine for not closing the gate to the pool when they finish swimming in it.

I’m not entirely sure why someone would WANT to own a skunk as a pet, but doing so is illegal in Prince William County, Virginia, just in case. Another strange law there is one banning swearing about someone else in his or her presence. Hey, maybe that area of Virginia just wants people to be nice to each other.

West Virginia had many stupid laws prior to 2010, when a good portion of them were repealed. These repealed laws include ones fining people who wear hats inside theaters and individuals who commit adultery. Also repealed was a law stating that any “unmarried couple who live together and ‘lewdly associate’ with one another may face up to a year in prison.”

As far as current stupid laws go, West Virginia still has plenty. For example, just like Virginia, West Virginia has a law pertaining to swearing. There, if you swear in public, you will be fined one dollar. Also, if you are feeling hungry and see some roadkill that looks tasty, go ahead and take it home for dinner. Doing so is completely legal in West Virginia.

Phew, so many stupid laws, so little time. On to the next part of the United States!

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 Dumbest Laws in the United States: The Virginias and the Carolinas appeared first on Law Street.

Charleston Law School has had a tough few years. It was established in 2003–right when that big law school boom was starting– and its first class graduated in 2007. The school began as a way to fill a gap in legal education that existed in Charleston; despite the fact that it’s the second largest city in South Carolina, there was not a law school there when Charleston Law began operating.

In 2013, the school began dealing with a company called InfiLaw, which eventually purchased the school pending approval by the American Bar Association (ABA) and South Carolina’s commission on higher education.

InfiLaw is part of Sterling Enterprises, a private equity company from Chicago, and it operates for-profit law schools. Currently there are three in InfiLaw’s collection–Florida Coastal School of Law, Arizona Summit Law School, and the Charlotte School of Law. Charleston Law would be the fourth. The company’s reputation within the law school field isn’t particularly stellar. There are concerns that InfiLaw is a scam, and predatory–after all, it takes students who can’t get into other law schools, puts them into massive debt, and then those students have a very difficult time finding jobs that can pay off said debt. In an in-depth piece on for-profit law schools that focused heavily on InfiLaw, the Atlantic attempted to pinpoint the company’s motivation:

A Florida Coastal faculty member who is familiar with the business strategies of private-equity firms told me that, in his view, the entire InfiLaw venture was quite possibly based on a very-short-term investment perspective: the idea was to make as much money as the company could as fast as possible, and then dump the whole operation onto someone else when managing it became less profitable.

Regardless of whether or not those are actually InfiLaw’s practices, actually taking over Charleston Law could lead to serious changes at the school.

That’s where this all gets very, very messy. Those two entities that have to approve the sale–the ABA, and the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (CHE)–have a few different moving parts. It’s a confusing mess, but essentially what’s happened is that one committee of the ABA, the accreditation committee, has approved the sale; however, another part that needs to give its approval, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, has deferred making a decision. They’re waiting on the CHE, who have their own set of problems with which to contend.

Now CHE is caught in the middle. One of Charleston Law’s founders, a man named Ed Westbrook, doesn’t want the school sold to InfiLaw. He’s in the minority, as the other two founders want to see it go to InfiLaw. Westbrook claims that he can successfully operate it as a non-profit, without taking any money from the state. He’s made vague statements about using his own money to do so. Now, both Westbrook and his lawyers, and InfiLaw and its lawyers are reaching out to the CHE with conflicting proposals and information. Westbrook’s optimism is admirable, I guess, but Charleston Law as it stands seems a bit like a sinking ship. For example, the school’s new President, Maryann Jones stepped down in November. She lasted in the job for a grand total of eight days. Her reasoning was described in an email she sent when she resigned:

The level of vitriol, with all sides making me a lightning rod for an unfortunate situation that was not of my making, makes this truly a situation that I am unwilling at this stage of my life to undertake.

Back to the CHE approval though, which appears to be the lynchpin to this deal. Want to be even more confused? There are 15 seats on the CHE. Four are vacant, and eight are being held by people whose terms have technically expired. Governor Nicki Haley is trying to fill those seats–but that would be in January at the earliest.

So, will InfiLaw succeed in its takeover of the Charleston School of Law? I have absolutely no clue. This tangled web of players, committees, and arguments is a mess–perhaps symbolic of the messy relationship between the ABA, for-profit law schools, and students. Whatever happens, it’s now in the CHE’s hands…and I for one do not envy them.

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 InfiLaw’s Attempt to Purchase Charleston Law is a Giant Mess appeared first on Law Street.

This may be the one of the only stories you see about Amazon today that does not involve a mention of drones. But as sexy as that drone story might be, what else is happening with the retail giant has the potential for a much more immediate and far-reaching impact.

For years, Amazon has gotten away with not charging state sales tax. They have a few different tactics to avoid these taxes. The most popular is a constitutional argument. The constitution prevents states from interfering in interstate commerce. Multiple Supreme Court cases, included National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota have affirmed this, stating that unless a company has a physical nexus in a state, they do not have to collect sales taxes. Of course, the Constitution, as well as both Bellas Hess (1967) and Quill (1992) were written before something like Amazon could be imagined. During the time of Hess and Quill, mail-order companies existed, but the potential of Internet shopping had not yet been realized.

Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO has said that Amazon would be perfectly happy to collect sales taxes, but has claimed that local sales taxes are outdated and complicated. In 2008, he complained, “that local tax collection was so ‘horrendously complicated,’ that it imposed ‘an undue burden’ on his company.”

Amazon also plays dirty to avoid collecting sales taxes, essentially holding states hostage. For example, Amazon will announce that they are building a distribution center or warehouse in a particular state. But, in South Carolina, unless the state agreed to pass some sort of special agreement or law to exempt Amazon from collecting sales tax, they would cancel plans to build that warehouse. This led to a Catch-22 situation for South Carolina—either they could exempt Amazon and lose revenue, or they could lose much-needed jobs.

Texas had a similar story. When Texas attempted to make Amazon collect sales tax, they fired workers and shutdown their warehouse that employed 119 people. Often states or local municipalities create a deal rather than enter into an expensive fight with Amazon. For example, the three small municipalities in Texas that will be future Amazon warehouse sites have agreed to rebate significant portions of sale taxes collected—up to 85%–back to Amazon.

It is estimated that states lost more than $23 billion last year because of Amazon (as well as other online retailers). Well, this trick is becoming less popular—Amazon does collect sales taxes in 16 states now.

This large debate has turned into a series of lawsuits. Most recently, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that while Amazon had no nexus in that state, Amazon’s affiliations with third-party retailers that are based in New York and receive commissions meet the nexus benchmark and necessitate that Amazon should be collecting sales tax. Today, the case took another twist when the Supreme Court decided not to get involved in the states’ efforts.

Amazon, drones or no drones, has certainly revolutionized the world of not just online shopping, but shopping in general. By not charging sales tax, Amazon is able to undercut the prices of their competitors with physical stores who do have to adhere to state laws. It is clear that Amazon has been cheating states out of millions of dollars. It’s about time they pay.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Wvfunnyman via Wikipedia]

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 Amazon Plays Dirty, States Fight Back appeared first on Law Street.