Friday, October 12, 2012


Oh boy.  I don't really even have words for this one.  I will say, as someone who has taken part in a tradition of going to Vegas every MLK weekend since 2L year, I think an annual pilgrimage can do wonders in maintaining ties among friends.  Or you can get caught in the moment, do something stupid/monstrous (I haven't yet judged which side this falls on), and essentially ruin the rest of your professional life. 


Anonymous Anonymous said...

In addition to retaining criminal defense counsel, they will probably want to retain state bar defense counsel. It's not necessarily a disqualifying event for their professional careers, but it can certainly delay their admissions a cycle or two.

10/12/2012 5:52 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

So much for what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

10/12/2012 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happens in vegas stays in vegas.*

*Except for decapitation.

10/12/2012 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/12/2012 7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Police suspect fowl play.

No, but in all seriousness, this is horrible. Really, truly, awful.

10/12/2012 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In all seriousness, I wish I had 8:08's wit. Very, very well played.

10/12/2012 9:14 PM  
Anonymous SlamMasterA said...

I, too, think 8:08's comment was amazing. Unfortunately, it appears he was beaten to the pun. BOOM!!!

10/12/2012 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:08 here. So the Sun beat me to the punch - what can I say? Birds of a feather stick together.

10/13/2012 12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

aaaaand it's an international story.

10/13/2012 12:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re stupid/monstrous it falls on the side of stupid. With a solid landing.

10/13/2012 12:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dunno, many people said what Vick did was monstrous, but I do not think he ripped the heads off of dogs with his bare hands.

10/13/2012 1:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@12:22 It's monstrous. Just because they're Berkeley students doesn't downgrade such disgusting behavior to "stupid". They decapitated an innocent animal with their bare hands.

10/13/2012 9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And then giggled and played with the corpse.

10/13/2012 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mean, sometimes you get drunk and decapitate an exotic bird sitting in the middle of a casino. LET HE AMONGST US WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.

10/13/2012 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's some local coverage by a Las Vegas tv station. The authorities appear to be taking this quite seriously:

10/13/2012 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yikes. When (if) they come back to school, they're gonna be ostrich-ized.


10/13/2012 12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Armen: Why did you feel compelled to spread the bad fortune of these kids? Didnt you graduate forever ago? Let the current students deal with this in their own way.

10/13/2012 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:53 - spread the bad fortune?

They got shitballs drunk and killed a defenseless animal. They didn't have bad fortune, just bad judgment.

Second of all, Armen's posting this to N & B is the least of their worries. This is an international news story (

Thirdly, they asked for it when they disgraced the name of our school.

10/13/2012 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, ARMEN is the one spreading this

10/13/2012 3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what if its international news? That doesnt mean the Boalt community needs to have a town hall about it -- certainly not with clingy alums that dont know the students. So far none of the current students have been spreading it on Facebook. My point was only that its pathetic that alums were the first to bring this into the Boalt dialogue.

10/13/2012 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, 3:17, calm down. It sucks for them that it's all over the news, sure, but it's nothing to lose your head about...


10/13/2012 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, I don't think any alum is responsible for the presence of this event in the Boalt dialogue (whatever that is).

10/13/2012 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My point was only that its pathetic that alums were the first to bring this into the Boalt dialogue."

Why? When someone tarnishes our school's reputation (as these two have) alumni are just as affected as current students.

I get that these are probably your friends. But you're speaking nonsense.

10/13/2012 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@3:32 Please, youre not "just as affected." I wont even bother explaining why thats a stupid statement.

10/13/2012 4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prison time looks likely. I guess we won't be seeing them on campus for a while. Don't know if I could ever look them in the eye anymore anyway. Can anyone track down what kind of sentence they're looking at?

10/13/2012 4:33 PM  
Blogger McTwo said...

I would have posted it if Armen hadn't. Like it or not, this is a pretty newsworthy event for the Boalt community.

In terms of possible punishment, it has been difficult to track down specifics in terms of code section. It seems that for a felony of this type, however, 1 - 4 years with up to a $5,000 fine would be the range.

10/13/2012 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The additional conspiracy charge will add more time, assuming this isn't plea bargained down to something less. If I were the DA, I'd sure as hell argue they are flight risks and fight any bail. Looks like no Cafe Zeb for either for a while.

10/13/2012 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They've already been bailed out and are back in CA.

10/13/2012 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They are both douches. Not surprised.

10/13/2012 6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like this whole thing really ruffled 6:55's feathers.


10/13/2012 7:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:08 try this one on for size:

Police say neither the victim nor the suspect is considered a flight risk.

10/13/2012 8:43 PM  
Blogger Chris Brown said...

These guys better watch out. I heard a few angry birds say toucan play at that game!

10/13/2012 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ATL has it. Was only a matter of time, I suppose

10/14/2012 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These guys committed a totally disgusting, stupid and inexplicable act. They are 24 year old law students not 17 year old kids and what they did was not just dumb but actually cruel. So I understand that the Boalt community at large is going to be horrified and ashamed that its associated with our law school.

But, I do want to say that I know both these guys - one of them pretty well and I can say at least the one I know well struck me as a good person and a solid friend who I've enjoyed having as a classmate. I simply cannot reconcile that with what they did.

These guys will suffer enormous consequences for a drunken stupid act (as they should). I also hope they get help as this is clearly an act that shows not only a problem with alcohol but also something else amiss. But I hope we, as a community, can avoid adding to that by demonizing them. I can't imagine what they are going through right now and I am not going to abandon them no matter how shocked I am by what they did.

10/14/2012 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope Boalt handles this responsibly which in my opinion would be letting the legal process play itself out before handing down any permanent disciplinary measures and sending a clear simple message that the school is shocked but reserving judgement. And for god's sake, lets not have a town hall about this where everyone expresses their feelings.

10/14/2012 1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's have a town hall to decide whether to ever have a town hall again.

10/14/2012 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:08 is my hero.

Also, people seem to be getting really butthurt about the fact that they killed a bird. I obviously have no idea how they actually decapitated it, but, having seen a couple before, I would suspect they simply wrung its neck.

Maybe the it's the simple fact that a bird died that is cheese-ifying everyone's vaginas, but thousand and thousands of birds are hunted every year, and I don't know a single hunter that hasn't had to wring a duck or pheasant's neck when it is shot but not killed.

It's a fucking bird. They aren't endangered. Unless they tortured it, or something, I don't see how this is anything other than a poaching type crime, and maybe some iteration of vandalism or theft. I would be really surprised if it ends up actually being a felony (unless I've missed some important fact of the case, which I've been known to do...).

10/14/2012 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. I am embarrassed for you that are minimizing how awful this is. Normal people do not do this. Thankfully, with a felony, they will have a hard time with the Moral Character App. I hope they never become lawyers. Bad judgment is one thing. Killing a bird for fun and playing with the corpse is something else entirely.

10/14/2012 4:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:21, I'm going to stay out of the debate about whether this is truly horrifying or just horrifyingly stupid (I guess I lean somewhere in between) but it recently did become a felony under Nevada law.

"Sec. 4. NRS 574.100 is hereby amended to read as follows:

574.100 1. A person shall not:

(a) [Overdrive,] Torture or unjustifiably maim, mutilate or kill:

(1) An animal kept for companionship or pleasure, whether belonging to the person or to another.

5. A person who willfully and maliciously violates paragraph (a) of subsection 1:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b), is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

(b) If the act is committed in order to threaten, intimidate or terrorize another person, is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

6. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, a person who violates subsection 1, 2 or 3:

(a) For the first offense within the immediately preceding 7 years, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to:

(1) Imprisonment in the city or county jail or detention facility for not less than 2 days, but not more than 6 months; and

(2) Perform not less than 48 hours, but not more than 120 hours, of community service.

--> The person shall be further punished by a fine of not less than $200, but not more than $1,000. A term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this paragraph may be served intermittently at the discretion of the judge or justice of the peace, except that each period of confinement must be not less than 4 consecutive hours and must occur either at a time when the person is not required to be at the person's place of employment or on a weekend.

10/14/2012 4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting. I wonder how that statute works with hunting clubs where they stock fields with pheasant or chukar. It would seem to me that those birds are kept for "pleasure". What if you have a pet pig that is originally purchased for "pleasure" that you eventually decide to slaughter and eat?

I don't think any ambiguities apply to this situation, but, unless there are other portions of the statute with carve-outs, it looks like it is pretty poorly drafted.

10/14/2012 4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are other portions with carve outs. (see link)

10/14/2012 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Came for the sexism, stayed for the general ignorance.

They walked into an animal sanctuary (in the Flamingo) and ended up walking out playing with a dead bird that had no head. Most people will find this to be a reprehensible act. That's why it's international news. I'd bet there'd be less news if they'd been caught with hard drugs.

10/14/2012 5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:16 -

In a couple weeks, I will begin getting up at 4:00 am on Saturdays to sit in a flooded rice field, hide in the bushes, and (hopefully) shoot loads of ducks out of the air.

I will then rip out all of their feathers, cut their heads and wings off, and rip their guts out. I'll probably do that on about a dozen separate occasions over the next three months. Shockingly, I will not be the only person in the area, state, or nation to do that.

This is by no means to say that killing a bird in a hotel in Vegas is okay, or is at all even remotely related to hunting.

Rather, I don't think that most people consider (1) killing a bird, (2) playing with a dead bird, (3) playing with a dead bird with its head pulled off - that is, in fact, the best way to train a retriever, or (4) any combination thereof, the be "reprehensible".

People need to stop being outraged over everything. It's international news because it is odd and, when you imagine it, funny: two drunk, well educated people batting around a dead bird in a highly trafficked casino?

When everything is a big deal to you, people stop caring when you claim something is a big deal.

10/14/2012 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a big deal because people make it a big deal. Wow, Einstein, what an amazing point. Welcome to life.

You're free to find whatever you want to be normal or funny. To most of us, killing a bird that's meant to be kept by a refuge is reprehensible. To many people, killing things simply for enjoyment is reprehensible. Most Boalt students fall somewhere in that universe. We'd rather not be represented by two drunk assholes who are so fucking boring they have to kill a pet bird to have fun. They suck. Have fun coming up with more shitty metaphors for why we're all wrong.

10/14/2012 6:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a lose-lose-lose.

The bird died.

The kids will now have a criminal record. And worse - a google disaster on their hands.

Boalt get bad PR (not that I care).

Oh - and some tourists likely had their vacation wrecked too.

10/14/2012 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The people talking like this is the worst crime ever committed sound like sheltered elitists who are out of touch with what goes on in the world. Also, why are so many people playing armchair psychologists?

It was a bird. Have them do community service and speak at a few PETA events.

10/14/2012 8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love the pro-bird death trolling. Only on N&B

10/14/2012 9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Two reasons why this act pushes people's buttons:

First is intent. My uncle is a butcher, and I buy there are various scenarios in which decapitating a bird is no big deal. What's problematic is why they did it. From all indications, there is no reason. It's senseless.

Even hunters who kill solely for sport often portray it as some semi-romantic test of man vs. wild. Here, there's none of that. Here, it sounds a lot like killing for the sake of killing (or some peculiar sense of humor).

Second is context. It's a freaking bird sanctuary. Hunting in the wild? Whatever. Hunting in a zoo? Kinda screwy.

10/14/2012 11:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At a minimum boalt should do a psychoanalysis by the best professionals before letting these guys around students again. The act they commited is similar to how most serial killers start out.

I think most people like myself are comming to the defense here because these guys aready received the ultimate punishment: a permanent google record. This effectively expels them since no legal employer will hire them. They will probably never be able to date or get married based on what a simple search brings up. These guys are going to serve a lifetime reputational sentence for what they did. No point in being angry, their lives are already ruined.

10/15/2012 7:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bet some chicks are into this kind of shit.

10/15/2012 9:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Armchair psychologists is completely the right term to describe these insensitive idiots who are reading a three-paragraph news article and concluding they must be budding serial killers.

Get a grip. The facts that have been released to the media are extremeley vague and even conflicting. Different articles have the timeline backwards from other articles. The story itself is so ridiculous as to defy logic. The police say they weren't on drugs, but we're supposed to believe without seeing the video ourselves that they were casually walking around with a bloody headless bird carcass?

What the hell good did your legal education do you if you're willing to immediately conclude without seeing any facts yourselves that not only are these two guys guilty, but that they intentionally tortured and killed an animal? You don't know that. The reason some of us are appalled at the publishing of this story by other Boalties is because is because there's nothing to be gained by ruining Eric and Justin's reputations right now. They haven't been convicted. No evidence has been released. Why are you discussing this as if the case is closed? It isn't. You're all acting like a bunch of elementary school lynch mobbers.

This event is going to likely destroy their lives. Whether or not they did it is, for the time being, besides the point. You guys are professionals and you ought to have the sense to exercise a modicum of respect for the justice system process when it concerns people in your own community.

10/15/2012 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best comment from a different site, "maybe they were doing research for John Yoo".

But seriously innocent until proven guilty.

10/15/2012 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those of you who call this act "stupid", have you already completely lost touch with your moral compass? Take a second to reflect. This is monstrous at least. Killing animals is one of the most significant signs that a child will turn out to be a serial killer or a violent criminal of some kind. These men are obviously sociopaths. Just look closely at their glossy shallow eyes. They may have seemed sweet and kind, as a fellow Boaltie I thought they seemed normal enough, but dangerous sociopaths walk among us and are prevalent in the legal profession, and I hope to god they are not allowed back into Boalt. Luckily I don't think there is any way they will pass the moral character requirement. I hope they are sentenced to five years and serve the majority of it. Beheading an animal, a noble old exotic bird, and then laughing about it? Do you have any idea how much it hurts to have your head ripped from your spinal cord? They are an absolute disgrace to our community. And shame on you if you have let yourself stray so far from the light that you think they are just stupid.

10/15/2012 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At 11:15AM, there is video evidence of them chasing the bird and then laughing while holding it's head and body separately. You are the one with no respect for the system if you think the police would forge information about that video and report it to hundreds of papers. There are cameras everywhere in Vegas hotels, lying would be stupid and exposed immediately. Get over your ego. And take a look at the statistics. 10% of our law school are sociopaths, and many of them are dangerous. Nobody is saying they will become serial killers, just that behavior like this is a proven factor increasing the probability that someone is dangerous and lacking empathy.

10/15/2012 11:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bounced back and forth between thinking 11:45 was being sarcastic or serious. I still can't tell.

But I think we can all agree on one thing: none of us know how it feels to have our heads ripped off our spinal cords.

10/15/2012 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:45am, you don't know what happened, and it appalls me that you are so quickly to decide that you do. You don't know whether or not this was an accident, whether it was reckless, or whether they meant to do what they are accused of. The distinction is important. Instead of basing your judgement of a written interpretation by a reporter of a police officer's oral interpretation of a video and an interview, how about you wait just a few months to hear what the court finds out? Is it that hard?

10/15/2012 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You don't know what the police told reporters. Articles are giving conflicting accounts. Some claim they laughing about killing the bird beforehand; others are saying they were only laughing about it afterward. Some are saying they were playing catch with the dead bird; others are saying they were playing catch with it while it was still alive.

The point is, the information given to media outlets so far is vague and open to multiple interpretations, and if you're willing to believe this was an intentional act rather than a stupid drunken mistake based off a third-hand recount of video evidence you have not seen, the one with the ego problem is you.

10/15/2012 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

these kids are clearly douches. neither of them accepted my friend requests on fb or linkedin this weekend :( hope they don't go to jail. then they'd be really plucked.

10/15/2012 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. None of us know exactly what happened. They are innocent until proven guilty, the news stories do contain contradictions, and if they did kill the bird none of us know if the details presented (which are obviously shocking) are accurate or really tell the story.

2. Just because you've seen a couple of movies doesn't mean you can diagnose a sociopath from a news article. Get a grip...even if the news stories are accurate: we don't know they tortured it, we don't know they killed it on purpose, we don't know both of them were equally involved. We don't know anything that could lead anyone to arrive at the conclusion that these guys are sociopaths. Thats up to the courts and trained professionals - not nosy classmates.

3. I am not against having a Nuts and Boalts thread about this - obviously we are going to talk about this A LOT in the days to come. But please do not add to media witch-hunt that is going on by sending tips to Above the Law the say things like, "I saw him act like a jerk at a party once - hes a dumb frat guy and must have done it." These guys have already been convicted in the media and piling on to classmates who are facing life-changing allegations is just insanely immature. Its amazing to me to see Boalties who barely know these guys want to be involved in the story so badly that they'll contribute to a character trial that lacks any rules of evidence by sending anonymous tips to the media. Even if you think you are clarifying something that is just wrong.

The allegations are shocking - I understand that - but please act with some maturity. The measure of our community is not the alleged drunken stupid (and potentially very sick) act by a couple of our classmates but how we all handle the aftermath. Please think about that before you post comments or email tips to news outlets.

10/15/2012 12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:45 talks about empathy and compassion yet does not use these qualities to measure the acts of a couple of their classmates who are alleged to have committed what up until a few months ago would be classified as a misdemeanor.

Also, 11:58, so the idea of killing birds is repulsive but prison rape is funny?

It's interesting to see the true colors of our "community" a place eager to tear down our fellow classmates.

Armchair psychologists, and third rate ones at that.

10/15/2012 12:05 PM  
Blogger Armen said...

A few stray observations:

1) The bird puns have been gold.

2) There is no easy way of blogging about incidents like this. Either I'm committing blogging malpractice or jumping to conclusions. I've tried to stay on a middle ground. I linked to a story, refrained from any substantive comments, and didn't use their names (or mug shots). But any suggestion that it's some how in appropriate to link to this story on a blog dedicated to "stories from the fruits and nuts of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law" is crazy talk. (Actually it's trolling, but that's a distinction without a difference).

3) I'm REALLY confused by the "hey let's see where the court process takes this" type comments. Why? Who cares? What does proving something beyond a reasonable doubt have to do with anything? At all? I don't get it and it's nonsensical to me.

The reality is, there are lines that are often hard to define (but I will try). On the one hand, no one (at least not here) is calling for immediate expulsion by the school or automatic blacklist by the Bar. Certainly, I don't want mob lynching at Cafe Zeb. Sure, any formal disciplinary process should wait until the investigation pans out. That's a good line to have and maintain.

On the other hand, those who think ALL judgment should be reserved until some formal conviction have to come to grips with the fact that most of you are about to enter into at will employment relationships, as officers of the court, in a profession where your reputation is the single greatest commodity you have. This isn't Law & Order. It's not fiction. Throughout your professional career, your actions will have consequences long before judgment by a jury of your peers. That's the bottom line. There's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that these two characters have absolute lack of judgment and reflect poorly on the school, the profession, and really any semblance of human decency. I don't need a criminal jury verdict to reach that opinion.

10/15/2012 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's a difference between reserving ALL judgment and categorizing Eric and Justin as monsters, psychos and killers-in-training.

That their actions reflect poorly on their judgment is obvious and uncontested.

10/15/2012 12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@12:28 I think people were contesting what their actions actually were, so in that sense how their actions reflect on them is also contested.

10/15/2012 1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>so in that sense how their actions reflect on them is also contested.

As it should be. We don't know how this happened yet.

10/15/2012 1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rule #35 of the Internet:

If no porn is found of it, it will be made.

10/15/2012 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is rule 34.

10/15/2012 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey 2:22, #34 is: There is porn of it, no exceptions.

10/15/2012 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at all of you wannabe lawyers getting all huffy with each other.

Nothing but a bunch of silver spoon trusties. I hope your "brothers" rot for this despicable act.

Losers (lawyers).

10/15/2012 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troll on, 2:47.

10/15/2012 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for 2:47, not only did he/she butcher the spelling of "trustees," but he/she seems to have a basic problem with trust structure: the trustee is the person who implements the terms of the trust; the beneficiary is the person who receives the funds. We are silver spoon beneficiaries, not trustees.

If you would like further clarification, let me know. Once you pay my retainer, I'll be happy to explain the issue further.

10/15/2012 2:52 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Guy walks into a lawyer's office and asks, "I have three legal questions. How much do you charge for your legal advice?"

The lawyer replies, "I would be happy to help, and I will charge you $500 to answer three questions."

"Five hundred dollars!" Exclaims Guy. "Isn't that a lot of money to answer just a few questions?"

The lawyer replies: "It depends. Now, what was your third question?"

10/15/2012 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think it's ridiculous for current students to argue that, if N&B wants to continue to represent the fruits and nuts of Boalth Hall, then current students should be bloggers. Law students love write-ons, why not hold one?

It's not that alums don't have something valuable to contribute - they do - but sometimes current students have an understanding (or greater knowledge) than alums do.

10/15/2012 3:15 PM  
Blogger Armen said...

3:15--this blog has always been open to anyone affiliated with Boalt. No competition needed.

Although, now that I think about it, an ultra-competitive CLR write-on exercise would, must stop.

10/15/2012 3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@2:52 - I hope you're just being sarcastic? Trusties is not a typo of trustee - it's short for trust fund babies.

10/15/2012 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

+1 to Armen at 12:13, esp. #3.

To stay silent on this situation would be a shame. I don't think it's something to be proud of that FB has been silent on this (not that it's an embarrassment either). It's important for communities to come together to reinforce norms at times like these. Things like, for instance, Eric and Justin are innocent until proven guilty. However, the kind of behavior that is described is unacceptable and abhorrent. And people that make excuses for joy-killing of any living being are gross. Also, 10% of us at Boalt are psychopaths? Where the fuck did that statistic come from, 10/15 @11:51am?

10/15/2012 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Personally what I have a problem with is the unsubstantiated claim that this was a joy killing at all. People aren't making excuses for it - they are pointing out that we don't have access to evidence showing it was an intentional act.

10/15/2012 3:44 PM  
Blogger Armen said...

I guess Lloyd Christmas was talking about Boalt in 2012: "We got no jobs. Our pets' HEADS ARE FALLING OFF!!!"

10/15/2012 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3L here: so can i send a resume to wilmerhale palo alto or what?

10/15/2012 3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:35 here:
"Personally what I have a problem with is the unsubstantiated claim that this was a joy killing at all."

I didn't say *this* was a joy killing. It sounds like it was, but I will concede we don't "know." What I said was there are definitely people on here that are making out a case that *if* it was a joy killing, it maybe is not so bad. Or that joy killing in general maybe isn't so bad But that is not ok. Because killing something for fun (and here's one more disclaimer for people with their panties in a bunch: "whether that's what happened in this case or not") is never ok.

10/15/2012 3:59 PM  
Blogger Jackie O said...

3:49 for comment of the year.

10/15/2012 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DE's official statement:

10/15/2012 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's nice to see all the law school sociopaths show some sympathy toward others for once. It's unusual for them to support the rights of criminal defendants (or at least their reputations). I sure hope they continue that support once their buddies get a good plea bargain.

It seems to me the quality of students at Boalt has deteriorated. A bird is a bird is a bird. I think we all learned that is not true in Contracts.

I feel sorry for the future clients of many commenters if the commenters truly see no difference between hunting for sport and decapitating an exotic bird in an animal sanctuary. Unless you're one of the men or you're representing them (or arguing that hunters and butchers should also be criminalized), there really is no excuse for the inability to distinguish the contexts of the two situations.

10/15/2012 5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@5:22 - trolls troll. Don't write us off just yet.

Judge us not by the content of our blog comments, but on... um pretty much anything but that.

10/15/2012 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Law school sociopaths? Just because not everyone agrees with you?

Arguing that our classmates should not be classified as monsters does not mean I support animal torture.

Get a grip.

10/15/2012 7:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously, the transfers are to blame for all of this.

10/15/2012 7:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Depraved serial killers such as Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer started torturing and killing animals before moving on to murdering human beings. It is my understanding that in addition to the hotel's security cameras, there were several eye witnesses that saw these two monsters walking out of the wildlife habitat with the bird's severed body and head. I am ashamed that Boalt admitted these two sick douches. I hope the prosecutor cuts no deals and punishes these two to the fullest extent of the law.

10/15/2012 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ted Bundy also breathed air. In fact, all serial killers did (and do!).

All serial killers also probably told someone a fallacy at one point in their lives.

Lawl don't drop the soap, 7:43, you air-breathing fallacy-making serial killer.

10/15/2012 7:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reports now say a THIRD UNKNOWN MAN captured on surveillance video was chasing the bird along with Eric and Justin.

Also, inb4 "I f***ing killed wildlife" t-shirts are seen on campus.

10/15/2012 8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reports now say a THIRD UNKNOWN MAN captured on surveillance video was chasing the bird along with Eric and Justin.

Also, inb4 "I f***ing killed wildlife" t-shirts are seen on campus.

10/15/2012 8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, we have no reason to think these people are monsters. But we do know that they are extraordinarily irresponsible, they cannot hold their liquor, and they've brought embarrassment on Boalt Hall. There is a huge space between "monster" and "good guy" and maybe these two fall squarely on "jerk" or "loser." Probably more than one of these.

It is likely that they had something to do with the death of the bird, and no reports yet have said that they were scrambling to save the creature or apologize to management at the Flamingo. What we have here is two complete boneheads who can't be trusted to act like normal adults. I don't care if they go to jail. I just don't want to ever have to work with them, or go out with them after work. I'm sure many people feel the same way. As they are now, and until they grow up a little, they shouldn't be welcome in the profession. We don't want to have to babysit fully grown men with advanced degrees.

Sure, this was a mistake. But most of us don't make such violent and stupid mistakes. Certainly, Boalt Hall is not the place for people who do (I am not advocating their expulsion. I regret that there is no better way to judge a person's character during the admissions process.). These guys were at the top of their game, doing well in a top program, looking forward to lucrative careers, and they threw it all away for a little bit of debauchery. I am aghast at their stupidity, above all.

10/15/2012 8:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this really all that different from Ozzy biting the head off a dove when he was drunk?

Ergo, nunc pro tunc, these guys are actually pretty cool.

You're welcome, Boalt. Glad I could reunite the community.

10/15/2012 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel bad for these guys. As someone who's done a lot of drinking (and other stuff) and has done a lot of stupid things while drunk (or more), I could see a particularly crazy night getting out of hand to the point where it seems like a good idea to go on a safari in the Flamingo habitat. (They're lucky they weren't staying at the Mirage or MGM Grand.) If I were them, I'd check into rehab and start begging the prosecutor for the non-willful, non-malicious misdemeanor version of the crime.

10/15/2012 9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know what kind of morons Boalt accepts these days but these clowns could have at least devoured the bird and claimed someone spiked them with ecstasy and they believed they were eating fried chicken. From early accounts, they did not appear intoxicated or high. Apparently, they committed this inhumane act while they were sober and in command of their faculties. I am glad the state of Nevada made this type of behavior a felony this year.

10/15/2012 9:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't wait for these losers to end up in prison in Nevada. Dean Edley's ineffectual PC comments will not save them then.

10/15/2012 10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seriously, all eyes are on UC Berkeley now. Thus far,the official responses, or lack thereof, are pathetic. I'm wishing I could change my alma matter at this point. At least I will stop giving money until I see the admin actually do something worthy of my donations.

10/15/2012 10:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where is the Dean's outrage over this incident? The Dean displayed such passion and advocacy when he was strong-arming the Board of Trustees into increasing pay and benefits for the law professors because those are matters close to the heart (or pocket). Yet on an international incident such as this, the Dean releases a canned message about how unfortunate this incident is. A defenseless animal is dead Dean. There is video proof of what happened and your display of leadership is to say let's see what happens with the Nevada legal system first. At my preparatory academy, anyone who had committed such a gruesome act would have been expelled.

10/15/2012 10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys are ridiculous if you're demanding an administration condemn people without being able to conduct its own or even observe the police's investigation, let alone take penal action against the students when there has yet to be any kind of criminal conviction.

10/15/2012 10:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:28 and previous commenters you are right - Dean Edley should read sketchy news reports that say students are accused of a crime committed off campus and instantly expel them without trial or any due process. That'd really be a great message for a law school to send.

Btw, the phrase "international incident" is hilarious- you make it sound like these guys instigated a nuclear conflict...The press coverage is only so widespread because the story is so salacious. People do far worse and receive far less attention. Just because the media is in a frenzy doesn't mean the administration should respond irresponsibly.

These guys may be expelled...they might even go to jail but I'm thankful the administration issued a clear, brief and appropriate statement and did no more until they have their day in court.

Congrats on being part of an anonymous internet lynch mob - you make Boalt really proud. :::SARCASM:::

10/15/2012 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This isn't your "preparatory academy"

10/15/2012 10:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:06 I wish you could change your alma mater too if your allegiance is so weak that the alleged awful drunken behavior of 2 students and our Dean's respect for due process of law can make you feel that way. There is no law school whose graduates and students don't do dumb even horrific things. Our students and alumni do incredible things to be proud of all the time and the administration is handling this properly - this is embarrassing but Boalt is a great law school and this will not effect that at all- have some perspective.

10/15/2012 10:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:59PM, you are wrong. The Sandusky scandal destroyed Penn State's reputation. This incident, although not as scandalous as Sandusky's, will create backlash against the school. Something like this may even cause the school to drop in the USNWR rankings.

10/15/2012 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:05 feel free to transfer.

10/15/2012 11:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm really saddened by people sending stuff to Above the Law about Eric and Justin......Those giving out tips really have nothing to gain from it and they do not know Eric and Tex....

I personally know them and I can say that they are two of kindest and most "chill" dudes I know...Never looked for trouble and always wanted people to have a good time...

We do not know what happened...and until then, they are innocent... Boalt is by far the ultimate community...and I will back one of my classmates...The reason why I came to this school was "the people"...I could have went to "higher ranked" places but there is no experience like a Boalt experience...

Criticize me or not, Boalt is a FAMILY and Dean Edley is right for not jumping to conclusions.

I just find the numerous stories conflicting and confusing...Shame on David Lat and Above the Law for getting their information from GAWKER of all places.... use something more reputable.

10/15/2012 11:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you for real? The Sandusky scandal actually involved school officials not just failing to condemn someone's actions, and not only did it involve school officials being aware of highly illegal, harmful conduct, but it involved school officials knowingly refusing to stop and even helping to cover up child abuse.

You are crazy if you think that situation has anything to do with this one. If this event brings the school's reputation down, it's because people aren't intelligent enough to separate the actions of two students from the accepted (and all completely ethical and legal) practices of the school and its administration.

10/15/2012 11:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You amaze me 11:05.

There is no just similarity between the Sandusky scandal and this...just NONE.

Sandusky scandal: years of sexual abuse by a prominent school official covered up by the entire administration

This: Dean of a law school appropriately expressing outrage at the alleged off-campus drunken killing of a bird by two students but reserving judgement while they have their day in court.

Did you take the LSAT by any chance? I remember this section where you analogize things...if you think these two things are similar you are lacking a pretty basic logical reasoning skill.

Every law school, business school, law firm, Fortune 500 company, government institution has had to deal with embarrassing behavior by an affiliated person being associated with them. What you do is handle it fairly and appropriately.

By the way, I would rather go to a school that conducts itself rationally and fairly when faced with a crisis then a school a spot or two higher in the USNWR rankings...

...But the idea that this will effect our USNWR ranking is just laughable.

10/15/2012 11:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:13 "could have went" to a higher ranked school.

Sometimes the stupidity of my classmates is embarrassing.

10/16/2012 1:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@3:35-I have a masters in abnormal psychology. The data is not perfect, but the accepted estimates on sociopathy in the U.S. are 1% of all females and 3-5% of males. However a disproportionate number of sociopaths become lawyers, doctors, businessmen, and other professions which are highly respected and powerful in the U.S. Again, these numbers cannot be measured precisely, but a reasonable estimate is 3 times the representation in these professions compared to the average populous. So 3% of female lawyers, and 5-15% of males. So yeah, 10% of all Boalties is not a bad guess. Use your library account to read some American Psychological Association articles on the topic if you want the actual studies.

10/16/2012 1:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above comment, meant to say 9-15% of male lawyers

10/16/2012 1:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@9:37 (10/15):

You have clearly never done ecstasy.

10/16/2012 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This thread is more embarrassing for Boalt than the news accounts.

10/16/2012 8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anyone that thinks this is going to affect Boalt's reputation, get a grip. Remember when the drunk dude from Harvard set the 9/11 Memorial on fire? Let me repeat -- he tried to burn down the 9/11 Memorial in New York.

10/16/2012 8:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or how about when a Boalt student (and regular Nuts & Boalts poster) threatened to mass-murder all Hastings students on auto-admit? It was right after the Virginia Tech killings, and he posted that he was thinking of doing a copy-cat massacre at Hastings. The FBI was called and Hastings was evacuated. I think that was at least as embarrassing as this incident.

Apparently, 10% of us our sociopaths, so I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that these incidents have been so infrequent.

10/16/2012 9:34 AM  
Blogger Armen said...

(and regular Nuts & Boalts poster)

I'm sorry what?

10/16/2012 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


10/16/2012 9:40 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Armen's comment confirms 9:34's point.

10/16/2012 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patrick, I think Armen was questioning whether Trustafarian was a "regular Nuts & Boalts poster" -- I do not think he was. Maybe a regular anonymous commenter, perhaps, but not a registered poster like you guys.

10/16/2012 9:49 AM  
Blogger Armen said...

What 9:49 said. I remember that thread (more accurately, witchhunt) and it is easily my greatest regret on this blog. I mean by a long shot. And best I can remember, we never really knew Trustafarian's identity. So naturally I'm curious on what basis 9:34 is able to make a factual statement like the one I quoted.

10/16/2012 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:34 here. I was under the (apparently incorrect) impression that trustafarian posted several times on Nuts & Boalts. This was based on my recollection; I have no independent factual basis for what I wrote. I apologize if I'm mistaken.

10/16/2012 9:58 AM  
Blogger Armen said...

Maybe you are, maybe you're not. I don't know. I never knew who Trustafarian was. Nor do I care to know.

The lesson burned in my mind is that the process of trying to find out who this person was caused a lot of undeserved anguish for a lot people. That incident is probably at least 95% of the reason why I only linked to the AP article in this post and have refrained from using the students' names. It's one thing for me to think they're fucking idiots, it's another to create a permanent internet record of it. Apologies if I'm straying into rumination mode...back to cynical mode.

So uh reputational harm to we had a rapist as a dean before DE. So, yeah, I wouldn't sweat the rankings. I'm sure DE has some master plan of adding a hundred volumes to the library to game our rankings or something.

10/16/2012 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was a lot of fun for the rest of us, though, Armen. My only regret is not wearing gloves -- I got a pretty bad blister from carrying on with that pitchfork and torch for so long.

10/16/2012 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I'm heron you correctly, y'owl seem to think Eric and Justin need psychological tweetmeant. I'm sure this sad occurrence is going to bird-en their job search, even if they have talont.

10/16/2012 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 10/15 9:37pm: You cannot possibly believe that these guys were totally sober, and just happened to be awake early in the morning in Las Vegas, at which time they made a completely sober and rational decision to foray into the wildlife habitat. Have you ever been to Vegas? I guarantee you these guys were not "sober and in command of their faculties." -9:31.

10/16/2012 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:25 FTW.

10/16/2012 10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

also, this goes back a ways in the thread, but I've been a little late to the party...if you're still reading, can the person who posted on 10/13 at 4:10pm go ahead and supply that obvious explanation they are holding in their vest pocket as to why current students are way more impacted by this than alumni? seriously, i'm curious. i hope the explanation is something more substantive than "some of us are friends with them" (which is hardly a trivial matter, but doesn't actually explain why this story impacts the average current student any more than the average alum). (caveat: i don't think it really matters who is "more impacted" since i doubt most of us will be impacted in any significant way, i just couldn't stand the "your point is so stupid i won't explain why" idiocy.)

and generally, what the hell is with all this whining about wanting a Boalt-centered blog to shy away from any negative Boalt press? especially in this case where the story is already out there in all its glory for the rest of the world to have its way with and it might actually be nice to have more of a boalt-focused forum to air out what people think about this.

10/16/2012 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trustafarian.... that was debacle. Almost as bad as this call we're on.

10/16/2012 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Basically, Boalt wants its own Fox News. Reporting the stories that we want to hear and ignoring the truth.

10/16/2012 12:03 PM  
Blogger McTwo said...



10/16/2012 12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I finally understand why the CA Bar passage rate is so low! Looking forward to seeing your mascots in their fine prison suits practicing pro-bono law in NV State Prison!

10/16/2012 1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, I really don't understand the hand-wringing and speculation in this thread about their mental states, tendencies and the (selfish) concern for the school's reputation. I think a far more pressing issue is whether a third Boaltie was involved, yet not stepping forward (and whether others are shrouding his involvement).

10/16/2012 6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This argument sort of reminds me of the Reddit-outing controversy right now. People here are arguing that we don't yet know whether these guys did exactly what their accused of. In the Reddit controversy, they are arguing that those guys aren't really doing anything technically illegal. In both cases, defenders are acting as though The Law is the only tool we have to keep society functioning smoothly, to say what's wrong or right, etc. and we better let The Law do the job that only it can.

I know this is hard to say to a bunch of (almost) lawyers, but the law is just one tool, and shouldn't be exclusive. Like, just because peeing your pants in class isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't unacceptable, and society rightly disincentivizes this behavior without the threat of jail time. So whether or not the law can or should punish the perverts and assholes on Reddit that glorify sexualizing tweens and violence against women, and whether or not these two do or do not get punished by the law, society still has a role to play in discouraging all of those behaviors. Anyone who demonizes people who criticize these actions are, IMO, cowards hiding behind The Law to protect indefensible behavior.

10/16/2012 9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The difference is that there are questions of fact here. There isn't controversy in those Reddit cases as to whether the people accused intentionally uploaded those photos. Over and over again, people in this thread have taken for granted that both students set out to kill and decapitate the bird. No one in this thread was there, no one in this thread is privy to the investigation, and no one in this thread has made a good argument as to their intent. I'm perfectly comfortable condemning anyone that clearly *meant* to kill an animal without reason, but that isn't clear here. That's why people are telling you to wait for the justice system to run its course - we just don't yet know what happened, period.

10/16/2012 10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are there really questions of fact here? The only people questioning the facts are people here supposing that the reports of the media and police can't be trusted and there *might* be more to the story. But no one actually involved has come forward with any controverting information. I wouldn't advocate them being convicted in a court of law based on what is in the media thus far, but it's not like there are two opposing stories about what went on here and we should all be careful who we believe. Have I missed something or is it just a desire to hear some theoretical "other side of the story"? Because there is no evidence there even is another side to this story. Just a bunch of people who are very understandably hoping there is because they hate to see their friends framed in this light.

10/16/2012 11:17 PM  
OpenID Jay said...

39 OslategEntering the enclosed bird area to chase the bird around would be "stupid." Killing and decapitating the bird was an intentional act of depraved cruelty.

Hope the Vegas prosecutor hangs this around their necks permanently.

10/16/2012 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abovethelaw has started focusing on the race of the perpetrator. I want to make a point about this. I am not sure why race is even involved with this story or why how they identify matters.

Second because of 209 there is no affirmative action in Berkeley so while the guys might have written about their life experience on their application, it is not as if they got in BECAUSE of their race and race alone. And I really want someone to acknowledge that and keep race out of it.

10/16/2012 11:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure 11:17 heres a kind of important unresolved question - did they all intend to kill the bird or did they all chase it and then one of them kill it and throw it at the other one(s)? Hard to say from the police report.

Chasing the bird as the next poster said would be stupid. But the police report doesn't even make clear that both of them threw the head (as earlier news reports described) or laughed much less who killed it (which happened off camera). All that is clear is that they all chased it, then came out of the woods together and one of them was seen throwing the head at another and saying "I f*cking killed wildlife". Do we know that the other guy knew he was going to kill it in advance or condoned it after he did? If not, obviously there is still some culpability but that is a very different situation.

Point is - we learned a lot of new facts since the story first appeared. Clearly something awful happened which deserves judgment but I don't think its fair to say we KNOW what happened and what role everyone played in it.

10/17/2012 12:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:40- "Second because of 209 there is no affirmative action in Berkeley so while the guys might have written about their life experience on their application, it is not as if they got in BECAUSE of their race and race alone."

Lulz... absolute lulz if you think Boalt adheres to 209.

10/17/2012 1:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 12:37 - The Nevada 'Felony-Murder Rule' subjects one to murder charges if he or an
accomplice kills someone, even accidentally, while committing certain felonies.

10/17/2012 4:50 AM  
Anonymous Ex-Oligarch said...

Running amok in a hotel is deplorable behavior. That said, although guinea fowl are indigenous to Africa and may appear "exotic," they are common domesticated birds in the US, and can be purchase from many poultry breeders and Internet vendors like efowl for less than $5. Whatever views you may hold on the sanctity of avian life, the fact is that guineas are not rare, endangered, creatures that belong "in a sanctuary," nor are they "wildlife" in the generally understood sense of the word. What are they teaching you at law school, if not to look beyond your assumptions and prejudices to the facts, and to pay close attention to the words you use?

-Boalt '92

10/17/2012 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boalt 92 - Are the pets, then? They're being kept by a private owner in a protected space. At the very least it's property destruction.

And, shocker, people actually think it's wrong to kill a pet/animal owned by someone else. And they're adults. And they're law students. And they thought it was funny. I don't think it's "prejudice" that's informing the reactions of many of their classmates and many of the alum, it's the fact that they did something ridiculously stupid to someone's animal and made international news in the process.

10/17/2012 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:08, in all seriousness, the idiom is "birds of a feather flock together" not "stick together"...cmon, bro.

10/17/2012 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:50 AM...felony murder rule applies to killing a glorified turkey?

10/17/2012 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not sure why people are emphasizing the bird's un-endangered/not-very-special status to Mr. Felony Murder guy. You can't murder anything that isn't a human being.

10/17/2012 1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boalt 92,
Apparently they are teaching the same stuff at Boalt that they did when you were there. The court doesn't care how you or the general public define wildlife. The court only cares about the legal definition, and this bird fits within that definition.

10/17/2012 1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:40, you're right and I am chagrined. Heads should roll for that one ...


10/17/2012 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:49am - Glorified turkeys are people too!

10/17/2012 4:12 PM  
Blogger Armen said...

Not unless they're incorporated.

10/17/2012 4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These two psychos ARE being kicked out of law school, right? They care nothing about the law, they think torturing animals is funny...these are dangerous qualities, drunk or sober.

I'll be very surprised if UC Berkeley allows them to remain on campus. Boalt has the safety of the entire community to consider.

10/17/2012 6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has no one yet considered the possibility that they were simply hungry? It was like 9am and they were on a booze bender. As far as I know McDonalds doesn't have non-breakfast food available at that hour, which means their choices are pretty much limited to disgusting egg mcmuffins or a juicy delicious African guineafowl. People have to eat, you know. And in R v. Dudley & Stephens they only prosecuted the defendants for cannibalism; it was totally acceptable for them to kill that turtle.

10/18/2012 11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two words: baths salts.

10/18/2012 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bath salts would make sense. The reason they can't identify the third person is because they no longer have a face.

10/18/2012 12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zombie apocalypse? You may all join me in my fallout shelter. The new world will be glorious: hundreds of lawyers and no clients. I can't wait.

10/18/2012 1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The dude who ate that homeless man's face was proven to not be on bath salts and, instead, was high on pot. Seriously. Google it.

10/18/2012 2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if it turns out that someone spiked these guys' drinks with GHB or something? Would they still be liable? Legally? Morally?

I would say no.

10/18/2012 2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if it was determined that they were actually guinea fowl masquerading in human bodies? Would it be murder? Maybe under Guinea Fowl law.

10/18/2012 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Italian-American Bird said...

That's racist, 3:06.

10/18/2012 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if the bird they killed was actually possessed by a human? What if they didn't know?

Is choking the chicken an inherantly dangerous crime that could lead to felony murder?

10/18/2012 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know if it is an inherently dangerous crime, but I remember a great jurist, Elle Woods, once making a very persuasive argument that choking a chicken could result in a conviction for reckless abandonment.

10/18/2012 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Evidently Dean Edley doesn't think that these students' behavior "adversely affects...the mission of the university." I think that is debatable.

10/18/2012 7:36 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

The mission statement of the University of California, Berkeley, is to teach, to do research, and to render public service. (See here.)

I don't see much connection between a University delivering teaching, a University doing research, or a University rendering public service on the one hand, and two of its students' flamboyant poaching activities in some other state on the other.

It is bad for the reputation of the school and it is embarrassing, but I think the mission of the University is intact.

10/18/2012 8:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anything that damages the credibility and reputation of the university affects its ability to accomplish its mission.

10/19/2012 12:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like flamboyant poaching as a phrase, but it also sounds like a hate crime.

10/19/2012 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Thomas said...

A bunch of Boalt law students over the past couple of years were involved in re-writing the Student Code of Conduct over the past couple of years. (I wasn't involved in the re-drafting as much, but I was involved in a lot of student conduct stuff.) One of the things that was changed was that it became harder to bring administrative discipline against students for off-campus activity. That arose, in part, because the University was going after kids for getting in trouble at off-campus protests (and, to a certain extent, for getting in trouble at off-campus parties).

The thinking was pretty simple: if you do something criminal off-campus, let the criminal justice system take its course. I'm sure some folks will disagree with that; it still makes a lot of sense to me.

But for all those saying, "These guys should be kicked out right away," surely you don't mean they should be kicked out in a way that's contrary to the code of conduct / California law, right? Doesn't seem right to respond to (alleged) lawlessness with (officially-sanctioned) lawlessness?

10/19/2012 3:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The dean is supposed to be a leader, but I cannot see leadership with a man who concedes to the press that his hands are tied! He cannot do anything to the students even if they are convicted. Sounds like he should not be in a leadership position if he has no control over something like this. He is choosing to be a technocratic follower instead of leading, making executive decisions, and influencing a culture of decency among the students. He lost a lot of my respect this week.

10/20/2012 12:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, basically, the Dean should ignore or unilaterally rewrite due process for student conduct determinations?

And let's be honest, the bar, at least in CA, is going to have a hard time passing these students in 2014 based on this conduct. The school, especially because it is public, owes due process to all of its students, including ones accused of killing a bird. If they're still allowed to be in school, let them. They're throwing money at a degree they might not be able to directly use when they graduate and their presence isn't "indecent" if it follows Boalt's due process rules.

10/21/2012 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can you fault the dean? He is saying that the school cannot take action based on alleged conduct. Conduct that is merely alleged should not be punished.

10/21/2012 6:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one is saying that actions should be taken based on allegations. I think the criticism is that Dean Edley's email said he can't expel the students even if they are convicted. Although, if these students are convicted they will likely be in jail anyway, so expulsion will be a moot point.

10/22/2012 2:28 PM  
Blogger Faheem Zia said...

For All Latest Hot Current Affairs

6/12/2014 12:15 AM  
Blogger classiblogi said...

Classiblogi (
is the name of data product which can easily Earn you good income!
This product is a combination of 3 different data:
1) Free websites 1st Blogi Data.
2) Without Registration Free Classified websites 2nd Classi Data.
3) Register Free Classified websites 3rd Classi Data.
Why this data is unique from other data offered in net market
Because this data is without Repetition, all website are active and consist of authentic domains.
Which make you real income in minimum time.
1st Blogi Data cost each is 0.060 $ website quantity is 2500 = 150 $ (US)
2nd Classi Data cost each is 0.075 $ website quantity is 2000 = 150 $ (US)
3rd Classi Data cost each is 0.10 $ website quantity is 1500 = 150 $ (US)
The complete Classiblogi product cost is = 450 $ (US)
You can purchase Any one of the Data or can purchase complete product.
You can Avail Discount (100 $ US) on purchase of complete product called classiblogi in just= 350 $ (US)
Contact Email id :

11/01/2014 7:54 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home