Lowering the Bar

Benny the Bull In Trouble Again

An Illinois dentist has sued the Chicago Bulls after allegedly being injured by the team's mascot, Benny the Bull, in what is a rare example of a lawsuit predicated on a negligent high-five.

Don Kalant alleges he was watching a game on February 12 when he raised his arm to get a high-five from Bull.  Kalant thus admits he initiated the contact, but alleges that the high-five he solicited was delivered negligently.  According to the lawsuit, rather than merely high-fiving, Bull grabbed Kalant's arm and fell forward, hyperextending Kalant's arm and rupturing his bicep.  Kalant's attorney declared that this was not an accident, but rather "part of the shtick."

"Benny's flying down the aisle, giving everybody high-fives," Kalant's attorney, Shawn Kasserman, said Monday in a telephone interview. "When he gets to Dr. Kalant, he either inadvertently trips or, as part of the shtick, trips. . . . He grabbed Kalant's arm and fell forward."

Kalant later had surgery and allegedly will miss as much as four months of work.  (He was, however, was able to make it through the rest of the Bulls game.)  He is suing the team on the theory that it is vicariously liable for its mascot's behavior.

Benny was last in trouble (to my knowledge) in July of 2006, when he was arrested after allegedly punching an off-duty police officer who was trying to get him to stop riding his tiny motorcycle through a festival crowd.

Link: Chicago Tribune

Debate Over Free-Speech Rights of Chicken Man Rages in Colorado Town

While Europe debates whether animals are entitled to constitutional rights like human beings, here in America we are debating the constitutional rights of human beings dressed like animals.  The latest dispute over advertising in the form of "mobile signs" or "mascots" is taking place in Woodland Park, Colorado, where the city council is threatening to outlaw Chicken Man.

Chicken Man is the mascot for Wild Wings 'n' Things, a restaurant chain based in Colorado Springs.  For years, free-range Chicken Men have roamed Colorado streets, alerting motorists and others to the availability of wings (and, apparently, things) as well as beer or another beverage of their choice.  And one also patrols beside U.S. Highway 24 in Woodland Park -- for now.

Saying that Chicken Man violates a local sign ordinance, the city council told restaurant owner Lisa Branden that she would have to bring him indoors.  (Allegedly, city manager David Buttery said that the laws are designed to maintain the town's "mountain grandeur" by prohibiting "signs" like Chicken Man, although he has since denied saying that.)  Branden has refused, saying it would harm her business which is located some distance from the highway.  The city has said it will not enforce the ban for now, while it works to revise the law.  Currently, the law says nothing about mascots but does say that "All signs not expressly permitted or exempted from this regulation are specifically prohibited."  That may very well be specifically unconstitutional.  In the meantime, Branden has equipped Chicken Man with an American flag instead of the sign he normally waves, but he is still out there.

Public opinion seems to be firmly in favor of Chicken Man.  He has appeared on the front page of the local newspaper twice and Branden has collected 1,100 signatures on a petition in support.  Nearby businesspeople clearly supported the Man.  "He's not a threat to anything," said the owner of PDQ Mail and More.  "He's not a danger to anybody.  Leave the Chicken Man alone."  Tom at Great Clips for Hair thought the council was being "ridiculous" and that Chicken Man suited the town.  "It's a funky town.  It's a funky chicken."

About 80 citizens showed up for a city planning commission meeting last week, at which the proposed new sign ordinance (featuring 18 pages of regulations) was to be discussed.  Many wore T-shirts saying "Don't Choke Our Chicken."  Chicken Man, who also attended, needed no T-shirt but brought his American flag along.  Apparently, the new proposal, among many other things, specifically defines costumed characters as "temporary signs" and says they would only be permitted for 90 days a year.

Lowering the Bar's section on "Mascot Law" contains other examples showing that this kind of debate is raging all across our country, with varying results.  In September, New Jersey's appellate division upheld a fine imposed for displaying an inflatable rat at a union rally.  In 2006, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a declaratory judgment in favor of "Blazing Bagels," saying the First Amendment protected its right to put an employee outside wearing a sign.  A similar dispute in McHenry, Illinois, which threatened the livelihoods of Mattress Man and Lady Liberty, was reported in the Chicago Tribune earlier that year.  And in July 2006, another Chicken Man (no relation), this one operating in Arkansas, reported that he had been repeatedly assaulted by local residents.  The attacks included thrown cans of Skoal, various frozen-drink assaults, and finally a salvo of bottle rockets that set fire to part of his suit.  (The rocketeer was later arrested.)

If the new regulations are approved by the committee, a decision is expected from the city council by late February.  If they outlaw Chicken Man, they will be made fun of here shortly thereafter.

Link: Colorado Springs Gazette.com
Link: Colorado Springs Gazette.com (update about the meeting)
Link: The Mountain Jackpot (Woodland Park, CO, local paper)

Cartoon Characters Subpoenaed

Last Friday, a court in Naples, Italy, sent trial subpoenas to Mickey Mouse, Tweety, and Donald and Daisy Duck, in what appears to have been a clerical error.

The defendant awaiting trial there is charged with counterfeiting Disney and Warner Brothers products.  Apparently, court clerks included on the witness list not only the companies' legal representatives, but also their imaginary ones: "Topolino," "Paperino," "Paperina," and "Titti" (that's apparently Tweety in Italian).  A summons went out to each of those cartoon characters care of Disney Italia.

A Disney Italia representative said none of the characters would be appearing at trial.  "Unfortunately they cannot show up, as they are residents of Disneyland," said Fiorenza Sorotto, a vice-president of the company.  Hey, smart guy -- according to this website, the Disney characters can be easily located at Disneyland Paris, which should give a court in the European Union at least transient jurisdiction over these jokers.  If they don't want to get served, they shouldn't be walking down Main Street U.S.A. in broad daylight.

Also, I'm a little suspicious of "Goofy Father Christmas," but I guess he hasn't been indicted yet.

Sorotto continued, "It certainly pleased us that the characters were considered real, because that's what we try to do."  Really?  You try to convince Italians that a six-foot duck wearing a top hat is real?  Well, then, congratulations.

A Disney lawyer said that the summons would have to be reissued, delaying the trial.  She expressed confidence that none of the characters would be prosecuted for failure to appear.

Link: CBS News

New Jersey Supreme Court Will Hear Inflatable-Rat Case

The New Jersey Supreme Court will be addressing free-speech issues in a case involving a giant inflatable rat, after an appeals court affirmed a township's decision to fine a union representative $133 for displaying the rat at an event.

New Jersey v. DeAngelo arises from the use by members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of the inflatable rat during a 2005 protest outside a Gold's Gym in Lawrence Township, New Jersey.  (The opinion explains that the rat "is a well-known symbol of protesting unfair labor practices."  The examples depicted here were used by IBEW in other cities.)  Gold's Gym called police and objected to the rat.  The IBEW was ordered to remove it on the grounds that it violated a local sign ordinance banning (among other things) "balloon signs or other inflated signs (excepting grand opening signs) . . . ."  They did, but the rat was back 45 minutes later, presumably after a .75-hour conference with union attorneys.  Police then issued a summons to Wayne DeAngelo, the senior union official present, who was later found guilty and fined.

On appeal, DeAngelo argued (1) that a rat with nothing written on it cannot be a "sign," and (2) the ordinance is too vague to be enforceable anyway.  The majority, however, found that the rat could qualify as a "sign" on the grounds that it "carr[ied] a symbolic message of a labor protest," and that the First Amendment was not violated partly because the ordinance was "content-neutral" -- all balloon signs are prohibited unless there is a grand opening in progress.

The dissenting judge thought that more facts were needed as to whether the ordinance was really being  enforced neutrally, and would have remanded the case.  As he pointed out, had a new Disney store opened in the township, it could legally have displayed the same rat right next door, under the "grand opening" exception, as a symbol of its movie, "Ratatouille."

Well, maybe not the same rat, but an inflatable rat of some kind.

Because there was a dissenting opinion, the defendant has the automatic right to appeal to the state supreme court, and says he will do so.

Link: FindLaw.com
Link: BNA Daily Labor Report (Sept. 17, 2007)
Link: Unionize Your Electrified Workplace

Groping Costumed Characters Declared "Inappropriate"

San Antonio columnist Cay Crow recently printed an interesting letter commenting on a March column she did about what she called “frotteurizing,” which sounded to me like something French people might do to milk but which turns out (she says) to mean “nonconsensual groping.”

To begin with, I officially hate both these terms.  The first one is French.  They may have invented groping, but there's no reason we can't describe it now in English.  But Crow's English phrase, "nonconsensual groping," doesn't seem necessary.  If groping is “nonconsensual," it's “battery,” or just "groping."  And if it’s consensual, it's “foreplay."  Isn't it?

I'm not sure if there is a gray area there or not.  Which might explain why I don't get more second dates.

Anyway, the letter was written in response to Crow’s March column, which (I assume) was critical of those who grope sans consent.  The letter went like this:

Dear Cay:

I would just like to share my own groping story with you. It's not quite like the others, but it is equally disturbing.

I am a costumed character at a well-known theme park.  [This is the point at which I began to reach for the keyboard.]  Since it is a performance, I have to stay in character. That means when people ask me if I am a boy (and all of our characters are), I have to say yes (we are not allowed to speak).

Very rude people, always adults and older teenagers, say, "I bet you aren't!" and proceed to try to grope [to find out].  I have been told by some that it "comes with the territory" of my job, but when I informed my manager, he said that it was completely inappropriate and next time it happened, I have every right to inform security and have these people escorted off the premises.

Cay, this is not only men who do this! Women do it as well! And it upset me very much. I am sure that they would not like it if I were to go grabbing right back at them!

    -- Obviously Anonymous

Cay consoled Ms. Anonymous (who, based on the very limited evidence available, I suspect was portraying Yosemite Sam at Six Flags Fiesta Texas) and put the San Antonio area on notice that nonconsensual groping/frotteurism was not okay, even in connection with cartoon characters:

Dear OA:

I am so sorry that this happened to you but I am thrilled that your manager is having those animals removed from the park.  OK, San Antonio and surrounding areas, you have been warned!  I just can't believe that people could be so insensitive and crude. . . . What does this behavior, even toward a cartoon character, teach children?

Well, it might teach them where Daddy gets his bail bonds.  Let's try to think positive.  Anyway, up to this point, Cay was making a lot of sense, but then she went on to offer a somewhat surprising explanation for the nonconsensualized gropery:

I suspect that some of these folks groping cartoon characters are either "plushies," people with strong attachments to stuffed animals, or "furries," individuals who are drawn to furry cartoon characters. . . . Within this community, there is a specific term, a "furvert" for the individuals who groped you indicating, presumably, their sexual attraction to a mascot.

I’m not sure we really need to go there in order to explain what’s happening – rudeness and stupidity are probably enough – but at least mascots in San Antonio and surrounding areas (and now the rest of you) are on notice that the person frotteurizing them may be a "furvert."

This is probably one of the few things not covered by the USA PATRIOT Act, so the public will have to protect itself on this one.  Be warned.

Link: San Antonio Express-News (Crow's column)
Link: Grope a costumed character today at one of San Antonio’s well-known theme parks!

Penguin Sought in Connection With Child Taunting

The Kansas City Star reported yesterday that authorities in the suburb of Gardner, Kansas, were investigating reports that a man showed up at an elementary-school basketball game and disrupted it by insulting the children.  He also scuffled with coaches and parents.  A city administrator was quoted as saying the event involved someone being overly aggressive and loud, and that officials were conducting interviews to determine exactly what had happened.

Among their questions may be "why the man chose to dress in a penguin suit," which the Star said was not known at press time.

Based only on the color scheme, it may have something to do with the fact that the man was a former referee for the city's youth-basketball league, who was banned from working fifth- and sixth-grade games after complaints that he let the games get too rough.  Apparently, the penguin's insults were directed at the team who had complained about him.  He was not identified in the report, but witnesses have said that they recognized the former referee when he made the poor decision to remove the head of his penguin suit.  This may have increased the effectiveness of his taunting, but it disclosed his identity.  On the other hand, you have to admire a man who will do whatever it takes to make a sixth-grader cry.

As of yesterday, the city was investigating but had not suspended the man, asked him to turn in his penguin suit, or taken any other action.

Link: Kansas City Star

Nobody Tells This Wookiee What to Do

A Chewbacca impersonator was arrested in Los Angeles last Thursday after he head-butted a Hollywood tour guide outside Grauman's Chinese Theater.  Performers dressed as movie and cartoon characters gather there in order to seek tips by posing for photos with tourists.  Reportedly, the guide had asked Chewbacca to stop harassing two Japanese tourists, which only enraged the temperamental alien.  "Nobody tells this Wookiee what to do!" he yelled, impressively staying in character, and then slammed his furry skull into the guide's forehead.

Superman reportedly was among the witnesses to the assault, but did nothing to stop it.  He did, however, call producers at the "Jimmy Kimmel Show," which unfortunately for Chewbacca is taped at a studio right across the street, which resulted in the actual arrest being caught on film:

Stormtroopers lead Chewbacca off to captivity.

The violent Wookiee was arrested and charged with misdemeanor battery, and later released on bail.  There has been at least one previous incident involving this performer, and several involving other costumed impersonators, including one that led to the arrest two years ago of Mr. Incredible and Elmo the Muppet.

Interviewed by the L.A. Times this week, Captain Jack Sparrow worried that this would lead to a crackdown by the city that would threaten his livelihood, and said that Chewbacca had a history of altercations of this kind.  Also nearby: Darth Vader, who agreed that Chewbacca had long since turned to the dark side.

A spokesman for Lucasfilm made clear that the performer in question, Frederick Young, had no affiliation with the company.  Still, she said, "we are disappointed that someone dressed as Chewbacca would behave in this way."

Link: Yahoo! News
Link: Los Angeles Times

Ninth Circuit Ruling Should Protect Advertising Mascots in Western U.S.

Here's a follow-up to the story from a couple of weeks ago about McHenry, Illinois, trying to ban costumed advertising mascots.  The Ninth Circuit actually ruled this week that a Washington city's similar attempt to ban "portable signs" violated the First Amendment.  Ballen v. City of Redmond, No. 04-35606 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2006).

The Redmond ordinance banned "all portable signs" with certain listed exceptions.  The plaintiff, owner of the "Blazing Bagels" bagel shop ("blazing"? they aren't supposed to be set on fire, are they?), refused to comply with the city's notice that he would have to cease and desist having an employee stand outside wearing a sign.  Instead, he sued under the federal civil rights statute seeking a declaratory judgment, and won.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the portable sign was "pure commercial speech" and that the city's portable-sign regulation was not narrowly tailored.

Take note, McHenry: the Ninth Circuit also affirmed the grant of fees and costs to Mr. Ballen, so the failed attempt to ban portable signs has cost the City of Redmond at least $165,508.

Link: Ballen opinion (PDF file posted on FindLaw.com)

The McHenry Code

The latest proof that our traditional civil liberties are under siege came in mid-August, when the city council of McHenry, Illinois, passed an ordinance that bans the use of outdoor costumed business mascots.  The councilmembers have apparently classified the mascots as "moving signs" that can be regulated in the same way as other business signs, and are regulating them right out of existence.

The new law will affect Mattress Man (Verlo Mattress Factory) and Lady Liberty (Liberty Tax Services), among others.  Mattress Man until recently danced and waved to motorists for a couple of hours each day, year-round, clad in his 4-by-3-foot baby blue costume "with comically large hands"; and Lady Liberty waved to potential tax-preparation customers between January and April, because who doesn't choose their tax preparer according to which one has the friendliest mascot?

Only 23 percent of Liberty Tax customers, according to the owner of that business, Angie ZXUH.  ZXUH claimed that a survey had shown that 77 percent of her new customers last year said they had chosen her business because of her Statue of Liberty mascot.  She said it was more effective than direct mail or regular advertising.  "It's really quite strange, if you think about it," said a woman who uses all capital letters in her last name.

But the wandering-mascot way of life may be coming to an end, based on the councilmembers' belief that the mascots are a distraction to drivers and caused a nuisance (because the drivers tended to honk at the mascots), as well as allegedly posing a safety risk to the people inside the costumes.  "On a 100-degree day, you have a guy in one of those mattress costumes," said Joseph Napolitano, the city's director of community development.  "I know I wouldn't want to do that."  But Mattress Man (who is actually only 17) said he actually liked the job and didn't think he was in any danger.  "If it gets too warm," he said, "we can just come inside."  Not in McHenry, you can't, mattress boy.

The minutes of the critical meeting of the McHenry City Council show that the Council approved the revised zoning ordinance after a debate that showed a reckless disregard for the mascot livelihoods that were about to be destroyed, or indeed the United States Constitution itself:

Alderman Schaefer noted he had concerns regarding the live moving signs such as student car washes, Liberty tax service, etc. He opined this should be addressed in the "moving sign" definition. Director Napolitano responded these signs would be included in the "moving sign" category. . . .  Alderman Glab inquired if first amendment rights would be violated as a result of adopting the new Sign Code, particularly regarding the moving signs. Attorney McArdle responded this issue would be addressed if it occurs.

McHenry City Council Meeting Minutes, p. 8 (Aug. 7, 2006) (failing even to capitalize "First Amendment").  Only Alderman Murgatroyd voted "nay," and I'm just happy to know that somewhere out there in this vast country of ours there is an Alderman Murgatroyd who gives a damn about free speech, in addition to providing the name "Alderman Murgatroyd" to some aspiring rock band.

Anyway, now that the "issue" has occurred, having been raised by the Chicago Tribune (among others) last week, there is still no indication that the issue will be addressed.  The agenda for Monday's meeting does not mention the issue at all, although there is a note that a "sign variance" has been requested by Don's Burgers and Dogs, out on West Route 120.  That simple notation may presage a titanic battle over the future of a family supported only by a man dressed as a giant hot dog, which will evolve into a national drama that will ultimately play itself out in the United States Supreme Court over our rights as Americans to engage in expressive conduct.  Or it may be something totally unrelated.  Hard to say.

Professor Rodney Blackman, who teaches First Amendment law at DePaul University, was quoted by the Tribune as saying he thought there was a serious First Amendment issue connected with banning the mascots entirely.  While some regulation is appropriate, he said, especially for commercial speech, here a government was arguably imposing a complete ban on expressive conduct.  I would urge you all, if possible, to attend the McHenry City Council meeting (Monday at 7:30 PM) and express your outrage.  Also stop by Don's Burgers and Dogs and find out what the deal is there.

I did take the liberty of exploring the McHenry Municipal Code for about .1 hour and have noted a few other areas that may pose concerns, constitutional or otherwise.  In Section 5-4, I note that the permit fee for carnivals is $100/day but circuses get away for $25.  Why the bias against carnival workers, McHenry?  Maybe I'll show up in town dressed as the Equal Protection Clause.  Section 6 says you can't own a lion, tiger, ape, or monkey (and I don't trust any town without monkeys), and that the animals you can own may not "caterwaul" for more than 15 minutes at a time.  Section 9-1 and 9-3 require "good moral character" as one of the conditions for having a license to operate a jukebox or pinball machine, and Section 10-33 prohibits makes it illegal to discharge a torpedo within city limits without a license.  ("Torpedo" may refer to a kind of explosive used in the railroad business, but let's pretend it doesn't.)  Finally, I refer you to Municipal Code Section 30-1, p. 951, for the very elaborate and specific definition of "buttocks" that you've been searching for all these years.

You know what?  I'm not going to refer you, I'm going to reprint it in full, because what else is this "Internet" thing for, anyway?

Buttocks: The area at the rear of the human body (sometimes referred to as the gluteus maximus) which lies between two imaginary straight lines running parallel to the ground when a Person is standing, the first or top such line being one-half inch below the top of the vertical cleavage of the nates (i.e., the prominence formed by the muscles running from the back of the hip to the back of the leg) and the second or bottom such line being one-half inch above the lowest point of the curvature of the fleshly protuberance (sometimes referred to as the gluteal fold), and between two imaginary straight lines, one on each side of the body (the "outside lines"), which outside lines are perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and which perpendicular outside lines pass through the outermost point(s) at which each nate meets the outer side of each leg. Notwithstanding the above, buttocks shall not include the leg, the hamstring muscle below the gluteal fold, the tensor fasciae latae muscle or any of the above-described portion of the human body that is between either (i) the left outside perpendicular line and the left outside perpendicular line or (ii) the right inside perpendicular line and the right outside perpendicular line. For the purpose of the previous sentence the left inside perpendicular line shall be an imaginary straight line on the left side of the anus (i) that is perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above and (ii) that is one third of the distance from the anus to the right outside line.

So that's settled.

Link: Chicago Tribune
Link: The City of McHenry (codes and meeting minutes available here)

UPDATE: Arkansas-Chicken-Man Assaulter Captured

Just as the weekly update went to press, I learned that police in Searcy, Arkansas, had captured the man responsible for the July 19 bottle-rocket attacks on Steven Turnage.  Turnage said that one rocket struck him in the eye and another burned part of his chicken suit.

Prior reports suggested that police had no leads, but Turnage was in fact able to give police some details.  Because of his chicken mask, he was not able to get a clear view of the suspect, but he was able to describe the vehicle that was used as the launching pad for the assault.  Police said that information led to the arrest of 20-year-old Joseph R. Craig, who was charged with assault in the second degree and discharging fireworks inside city limits.

Turnage praised police.  "They did a good job," he said.  "I'd like for this guy to have to wear the chicken suit for a day out in this heat to see what it's like."  I hope to be following this up later with a story that I can categorize under "Creative Sentencing."

Link: AP via My Way News

Arkansas Chicken Man Plagued by Attacks

Police in Searcy, Arkansas, have no leads in repeated attacks against Steven Turnage, who wears a chicken suit on local city streets to promote a fast-food restaurant.  During his two weeks on the job, Turnage says he has endured not only the ordeal of wearing a chicken suit in 105-degree heat, but also assaults by local residents.  He did not report the initial attacks, which involved the throwing of Skoal cans and various frozen drinks.  But Turnage called police after a salvo of bottle rockets were fired at him, one setting fire to part of the suit and another hitting him in the eye.  (It was unclear from the report whether the chicken eye or the underlying human eye had been struck or the percentage of the chicken suit that was destroyed in the blaze.)

"People don't take this costume seriously," said Turnage, who apparently wants to be taken seriously while dressed as a six-foot chicken standing around in 105-degree heat in small-town Arkansas, hoping to encourage passersby to eat what he is dressed as.  "It's getting to the point where this is really a dangerous situation," he complained.  "They need to understand that there's a human underneath that suit."  Well, this is Arkansas we're talking about, but still I think they do understand that there's a human in the suit, Steve.  That's why you're having this problem.  If they really thought you were a six-foot chicken they'd have eaten you by now, although they may still be out hunting for a six-foot skillet.

Either because the attacks are sudden hit-and-run affairs or because nobody gives a crap, police have yet to make any arrests or issue any citations in the matter.  "Obviously it is against city ordinance to shoot fireworks inside the city limits," said a police spokeswoman, implicitly approving the Skoal and frozen-drink attacks.  Police did not appear to have any leads or to be trying to get any.

"It's challenging," Turnage said of his chicken-consumer-attraction job.  "You've got to be very dedicated and have a high tolerance for heat.  You almost have to have a calling from the Lord to do this type of work."

Have faith, Steven.  Like you, Job was also troubled by "[t]he fire of God [] fallen from heaven," that "burned up the sheep and the servants" (Job 1:16), and did he not also complain that "archers compass me round about" (Job 16:13), and of his "disfigured garment" (Job 30:18), and did he not also complain of his persecution for a bunch more verses, like unto a whiny baby, until the Lord showed up?  (Job 38:1, et seq.)  And was that not extremely awkward for a while there?  Yet when Job said the right thing, the Lord blessed him, and he wound up with about 20,000 sheep and camels, and a thousand she-asses, at least according to this translation, and long were the days of his happiness.  (Job 42:1-17.)  So hang in there.

Link: AP via SFGate.com

Chicago Bulls Mascot Arrested for Assaulting Officer

Chicago Bulls mascot "Benny the Bull" was arrested at the Taste of Chicago festival on Sunday night after he attacked a police officer who was trying to get Benny to stop riding his mini-motorcycle.

I do love a good mascot-attack story.

According to a police spokesman, Benny (portrayed by Barry Anderson) was riding the mini-motorcycle in his bull costume on the festival grounds Sunday night.  Allegedly, no one had given permission for Benny to be in that area and I guess even mini-motorcycles are not permitted on the grounds of Taste of Chicago.  A security guard told the six-foot Bull to cut it out, and pursued him when he refused.  When the guard caught up to him, Benny slugged him in the face, knocking his glasses off.  The guard turned out to be an off-duty Cook County police officer.

Anderson admitted he had struck the officer but said he was "in character" at the time.  (Oh, that's different.)  He was arrested, charged with misdemeanor battery and "driving within the parkway," and his costume was confiscated and returned to the United Center.

This is not the first time a Bulls mascot has been in trouble.  "Da Bull," described as "Benny's muscular, acrobatic cohort," was arrested in 2004 for selling marijuana at Cabrini-Green.  It was not clear whether he was in character at the time.

Link: Chicago Sun-Times

Ronald MacDonald Charged With Stealing From Wendy's

Having almost certainly been hired by Wendy's (and named by his parents) solely for the humor value, Ronald MacDonald was arrested early Monday for stealing money out of the safe at the Wendy's restaurant where he worked.  Unfortunately, he was not actually dressed as Ronald MacDonald the clown, but "Ronald MacDonald stealing from Wendy's" is still worth a mention.

FindLaw.com