I think it was Karl Marx who said history repeats itself: first as tragedy, then as farce. Or maybe it was Pauly Shore, but the point is still valid. While details change, the basic fact of human stupidity does not. And since I have been reporting on that topic for a long time now, it shouldn’t be surprising that this is not the first time we’ve discussed a case in which some idiot stole a bird from the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas.
That first time was indeed tragic, although to be honest the headline I used back then may not have adequately conveyed a sense of tragedy. See “Berkeley Boys Busted for Bird Beheading” (Oct. 15, 2012) (discussing the alleged murder of one (1) helmeted guineafowl by two (2) UC Berkeley law students).
Oh, wait—now I see that was not the first case of this kind we’ve discussed. It wasn’t even the first bird-decapitation case. See “Lawyer Says Client Is Remorseful Over Duck Beheading” (Oct. 18, 2007).
Well, both of those were tragedies because the birds did not survive. Happily, the most recent victim, Peachy the Flamingo, did survive, though his treating veterinarian testified at trial that the incident left him (Peachy, not the veterinarian) with missing feathers, broken shafts, and blood loss, and that the injuries were consistent with trauma and not “spring molting,” as the defense seems to have argued. But Peachy has reportedly recovered and is doing well. That, plus the many details provided by KVVU-TV in Las Vegas (in extensive earlier coverage and on the trial itself) show that this one definitely falls into the “farce” category.
According to an earlier report, in March a man was seen entering the wildlife habitat at the Flamingo Hotel (whether it should have one of those is a question for another day), “grabbing several flamingos,” and then taking one out of the habitat. Surveillance video showed him carrying the bird into an elevator and then down the hallway toward his room. Police were called, and based on the video timestamps, the bird-stealer was in custody in about an hour.
His friends later testified that—and this will shock you—the group had been drinking. The friends said they had returned to the room and gone to sleep, only to awaken later to find a flamingo present. They don’t seem to have handled the bird personally, since they weren’t charged, but a picture one posted to Snapchat shows Idiot #1 holding the bird by the neck. They then took it out into the hallway and apparently just left it there. A facilities engineer at the hotel testified that he rescued Peachy after finding him “shaking and bleeding” in the hallway.
The bird-stealer was charged with two counts of animal cruelty, apparently one for grabbing birds in the habitat and the second for what happened upstairs. This meant he had to surrender his passport (you’d expect better of a Canadian), and could not go home while awaiting trial. He pleaded not guilty, and trial was set for October 13.
In addition to the usual questions, potential jurors were asked whether they had experience handling birds. Two raised their hands, but “both said they had never handled a flamingo.” After a follow-up question, “no one raised a hand when asked about flamingo-handling experience.”
The prosecution had no shortage of evidence. The multiple articles linked above provide a large selection of surveillance-cam images, none of which helped the defendant. The Snapchat image mentioned above is probably the worst, however. Of course, there was no dispute that the defendant was in unauthorized possession of the bird. In fact, one of the images shows him walking down the hall while holding it, and because for some reason he is shirtless, you can see that he has his own last name tattooed across his back. I guess that isn’t a crime, but if you’ve done that you should probably put on a shirt before committing one.
It sounds like there were two issues at trial: (1) whether the defendant had “tortured, cruelly beaten, or unjustifiably injured, maimed, [or] mutilated” Peachy, as Nevada’s animal-cruelty statute requires; and (2) if so, whether he did it “willfully and maliciously,” which would make it a felony. The testimony of the vet and engineer about Peachy’s injuries supported the State’s case, at least as to #1. At a minimum this was an “unjustifiable injury.” On the question of intent, the main event seems to have been the defendant’s testimony about his motivation. As you have guessed, that involved drunkenness. And not mild drunkenness, either: the defendant “testified he took Peachy as a drunken ‘silly pranky joke’ after drinking 30–40 beers, denying malicious intent….” Emphasis added, because if that were actually true, he would likely have been dead, not invading a wildlife habitat.
Let’s assume they started drinking about 8 p.m. Of course it could have been earlier, but this seems like a reasonable guess, and it ends up not making much difference. The incident took place at about 5 a.m. Further guessing that the defendant weighs about 200 pounds (unfortunately I’ve seen him shirtless), even drinking a mere 30 beers during that time would have resulted in a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.51%, which would put him in the “high possibility of death” category. At least on that page, there is no higher category (understandably). Forty beers during that time would have made his BAC around 0.68%, so it is highly unlikely that happened. See also “Police Believe Rhode Island Man May Have Set New Blood-Alcohol Record” (July 22, 2008) (quoting police as saying they believed his BAC of 0.491 was the highest ever recorded in that state “for someone who wasn’t dead”); but see id. (also mentioning a report that a Bulgarian man survived a BAC of 0.914).
This also conflicts with the defendant’s claim that he took the bird only because “he’s a farmer who saw Peachy in distress and wanted to care for it and fix its wing,” which he thought had been injured in some way. This seems like the sort of rational, noble, caring decision that stops being made at about 0.10%, frankly.
One facet of the closing arguments is pretty remarkable. Both sides used a picture of the defendant to support their position. Pointing to the photo, the prosecutor called it a “face of triumph,” or as the slide put it: “This is the face of the triumph of his evil intent.” Addressing the very same photo, the defense attorney said to the jury, “He’s a moron. But when you look at that photo, what do you see? Is that some evil, maniacal, diabolical sadist?” This is the photo they were commenting on:
You know, I’ve stared at that for a while and I think maybe they were both right. In any event, after staring at it for five hours, the jury found the defendant guilty. He will be sentenced on December 1.
