An LSU student was taken into custody on Tuesday after allegedly posting a threat to kill Governor Jeff Landry, an incident tied to the governor’s decision to bring a live tiger to the sidelines of a recent LSU football game.
Social Media Post Leads to Arrest
Jackson Pemberton, a 21-year-old Louisiana State University student, was arrested by state police after investigators found a threatening post on social media, saying, “I am going to kill you @JeffLandry.” According to an arrest warrant provided by the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, Pemberton reportedly expressed anger over Landry’s decision to showcase a live tiger, Omar Bradley, during LSU’s game against Alabama on November 9, 2024. Pemberton explained to authorities that he never intended to harm the governor, stating the post was merely “a joke.”
The arrest took place after authorities traced the post back to Pemberton’s social media profile, locating him at an off-campus apartment complex. Under Louisiana law, threatening a public official can lead to serious consequences, including fines of up to $500 and a maximum of six months in prison.
Live Tiger’s Return Sparks Controversy
Governor Landry, along with Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph Abraham, has been an outspoken advocate for reintroducing a live tiger at LSU football games. This tradition, which LSU retired in 2015, saw its end when Mike VI, the university’s previous mascot, became reluctant to enter his travel cage. LSU made the decision to discontinue the practice permanently in 2017, even as they introduced Mike VII as a replacement.
The return of a live tiger for the recent game reignited old debates, particularly within LSU’s veterinary community. Veterinary representatives, who care for Mike VII, stood firm against reintroducing a live tiger to the stadium, citing concerns for both animal welfare and safety. However, Landry pushed forward, collaborating with Florida-based exotic animal handler Mitchel Kalmanson, who brought Omar Bradley, a 1.5-year-old Bengal tiger, to Baton Rouge for the event.
Concerns From Animal Rights Advocates
Kalmanson’s involvement in the event has added another layer of controversy. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) criticized the choice of Kalmanson, who has faced allegations over the years regarding the mishandling of tigers and other big cats. PETA cited several federal infractions filed against Kalmanson for inadequate care and poor handling of animals under his care, adding fuel to the fire among animal welfare advocates who argue that transporting and displaying large wild animals in such settings can lead to stress and harm for the animals involved.
Divided Reactions on Campus and Online
Reactions to the event and Pemberton’s arrest have varied widely, with some LSU students and community members supporting Landry’s decision to bring back the live tiger, viewing it as a tribute to tradition. Others, however, believe this step represents an outdated spectacle, arguing that LSU should continue with Mike VII’s remote presence rather than bringing in another live tiger.
The debate has spilled over onto social media platforms, where some users expressed sympathy for Pemberton’s reaction—even if the specific words he used were extreme. Meanwhile, others pointed to the responsibility public figures like Pemberton hold in maintaining appropriate conduct online, especially when referencing public officials.
Legal and Ethical Ramifications
This case underscores the legal implications of online threats and the fine line between freedom of speech and statements considered legally actionable. In Louisiana, threatening a public official—whether in person or online—carries substantial legal weight, emphasizing the seriousness with which such comments are regarded by law enforcement.
The emotional charge around the reintroduction of a live tiger seems to have been a strong factor in this case. Pemberton’s explanation that the post was intended as a joke may resonate with some as an example of impulsive social media behavior. However, in a digital world where words can reach millions, the case serves as a reminder of the potential legal consequences attached to incendiary online remarks.
Comments