Escaped zebra captured in Rutherford County after more than a week on the loose
An elusive zebra who's evaded capture in Middle Tennessee for more than a week has finally been captured.
The fugitive zebra — who had been nicknamed 'Ed' by the social media users tracking his escapades — has been on the loose since May 31. Eight days later, the zebra was finally captured in a field in Christiana, south of Murfreesboro in Rutherford County.
Earlier in the weekend, law enforcement officials were tracking the zebra with a drone. Those efforts paid off on June 8 — News Channel 5 reports that the zebra was hit with a tranquilizer dart, then strapped in and airlifted via helicopter to be returned to captivity and seen by a veterinarian.
It's been a busy week since the zebra escaped from the home of a Rutherford County couple the night of May 31. Ed's runaway journey has taken him everywhere from neighborhood streets to a parkway near Interstate 24, about 35 miles south of downtown Nashville.
That spawned plenty of memes, jokes and amusement overall as Tennesseans pored over videos of the zebra plodding through suburban cul-de-sacs and galloping along country highways. Now, there's one more rare sight to add to the list — of the zebra soaring through the air, tethered to the helicopter, with just its head poking out of the bag used to execute the airlift.
Austin Hornbostel is the Metro reporter for The Tennessean. Have a question about local government you want an answer to? Reach him at ahornbostel@tennessean.com.
Get Davidson County news delivered to your inbox every Wednesday.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Escaped zebra captured in Rutherford County after more than a week on the loose
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Debunking alleged photo of Trump on Epstein's jet with underage girls
Claim: A photo shared online authentically depicts U.S. President Donald Trump on an airplane with underage girls. Rating: An image purporting to be an authentic photo of U.S. President Donald Trump aboard an airplane accompanied by five young women circulated online extensively in June 2025. The alleged photograph was shared widely across social media platforms like Threads (archived), Facebook (archived) and BlueSky (archived), but was particularly widespread on X (archived, archived, archived). Some users sharing the photo pondered if the airplane featured in the image belonged to accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who is now deceased. Many others spreading the photo online alleged the young women present were underage. (Facebook user Danilo Padilla Ramirez) The image shared online purporting to show Donald Trump alongside underage girls, allegedly on Epstein's private jet, is fake. While there are authentic images of Trump alongside Epstein, plenty of false images have spread widely on the internet, including other fake photos of Trump with underage girls. The specific image in question has been shared online since at least 2023. It appeared in posts on meme websites Imgur and 9GAG in April 2023 before spreading to social media. In January 2024, Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo even apologized for sharing fake images of Trump with underage girls, including the one in question. The actor wrote, "Sorry Folks. Apparently these images are AI fakes. The fact Trump was on Epstein's plane and what Epstein was up to is not." Indeed, the photograph was generated with artificial intelligence (AI). The AI-detection tool Hive Moderation reported a 99.8% chance the image was made using AI and was thoroughly debunked when it originally circulated. While the image was debunked during its original circulation, Trump's public feud with Elon Musk, who posted on social media that Trump appeared in Epstein's files in June 2025, brought the image back to prominence and is likely to blame for the proliferation of new claims. Snopes previously debunked fake images of Trump and Epstein with a minor as well as Trump and Epstein together on a private jet, though there have been authentic images of the pair together. Dapcevich, Madison. "Photos of Trump Alongside Diddy, Epstein Are Real." Snopes, 6 Dec. 2024, Esposito, Joey. "Musk Accused Trump of Being in Epstein's Files. Here Are 19 Rumors We've Looked into about the Disgraced Financier." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Fact Check: Trump, Epstein Photos With "Underage" Women NOT Authentic -- They're AI Generated | Lead Stories. 9 May 2023, Liles, Jordan. "Yes, Musk Alleged Trump Appears in the Epstein Files." Snopes, 5 June 2025, "Mark Ruffalo Apologizes after Reposting False Images of Trump on Epstein's Plane." NBC News, Accessed 12 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Pic Supposedly Showing Trump, Epstein and a Minor Girl Is Fake." Snopes, 24 Aug. 2024,
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Motorcyclist critically injured after collision with MNPD officer on Lebanon Pike
A motorcyclist has been hospitalized following a collision with a MNPD vehicle. According to a police report, Mt. Juliet resident Evan Davis was traveling on Lebanon Pike near Tyler Drive, around 12 a.m. on June 21, when Officer Conner Roell collided with him after making a U-turn. Roell was travelling to a Walmart parking lot with emergency equipment where a vehicle was reportedly attempting to hit pedestrians. He expressed that he saw what he believed was the suspect traveling west on Lebanon Pike and initiated a U-turn when he collided with Davis on the driver's side of the police SUV. Davis is currently hospitalized with critical injuries at Skyline Medical Center. The collision remains under investigation. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Motorcyclist hospitalized after crash with MNPD officer
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
New Jersey Anti-SLAPP Law Applies In Part In Federal Court In Paucek
The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are split on the application of Anti-SLAPP laws in the federal ... More courts. Chip Paucek had been the CEO of a company (U2, Inc.) which had failed under some negative circumstances. Paucek is now the CEO of a new company (Pro-Athlete Community, Inc. a/k/a "PAC") which provides educational and other support to professional athletes who have ceased playing. Paucek came to the attention of Dahn Shaulis, who is a blogger covering the education industry through his publication Higher Education Inquirer ("HEI"). After following Paucek's failure with U2, Shaulis then began to investigate and cover Paucek's new venture, PAC. Long story short, Shaulis made some unflattering comments about Paucek on social media. Paucek had his attorney send Shaulis a cease-and-desist letter which also called for Shaulis to retract the offending comments. Shaulis agreed to do so, but only on terms that were unacceptable to Paucek. The day after receiving Paucek's cease-and-desist letter, Shaulis then posted on social media that he had received the letter but that he stood by the statements therein based on a variety of information. Paucek then sued Shaulis in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Paucek alleged that Shaulis' social media posts were defamatory and that Shaulis had intentionally interfered with Paucek's prospective business relations. Shaulis responded by filing a motion to first determine if the New Jersey Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") applied in federal court and which of several states' Anti-SLAPP laws should be applied to this controversy. The idea here was that the court would decide these threshold issues before Shaulis filed his UPEPA motion to dismiss (which had not yet been filed as of the time of this opinion). Shaulis also answered Paucek's complaint with a counterclaim under the UPEPA. All of this led to the opinion in Paucek v. Shaulis, 2025 WL 1298457 (D.N.J., May 6, 2025), that you can and should read for yourself here, and which we will next review. The first question addressed by the court was whether the New Jersey UPEPA would be recognized in federal court. The issue here is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) already provide a means for the early dismissal of a case, which is by way of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. If a defendant attaches evidence to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, then that motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. As I have often written, a special motion to dismiss or strike under the UPEPA is essentially an early summary judgment motion and akin to a "motion to dismiss on steroids". In fact, the UPEPA deliberately uses the summary judgment standard to test whether the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because that standard is well-understood by the courts and has already withstood constitutional challenges based on the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. So, the question becomes: if the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is already employed by the federal courts, then why substitute it with the UPEPA? The answer is twofold. First, in diversity of citizenship cases (as here), the federal courts will apply their own procedural rules but they are also required to apply the substantive rules of the state from where the action arises. This is known as the Erie doctrine, after a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court opinion of that name. But there is an important limitation, being that if the state substantive law "is in direct collision" with the federal procedure on some issue, then the federal procedure will govern that issue. Second, there are some differences between a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a UPEPA special motion, mostly being the UPEPA special motion triggers a stay of discovery and the UPEPA automatically awards attorney fees to a defendant who successfully asserts a UPEPA special motion. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does neither of these things. This is not the first time that a federal court has addressed whether the state law UPEPA should apply in the federal courts. In fact, throughout the nation, the state law UPEPA has been asserted in many federal court cases. The problem is that the federal courts have not all agree on the outcome, but rather there has been a split of opinion by the various federal circuits. The Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that Anti-SLAPP laws do not apply in federal court, while the 1st and 9th Circuits have held that they do. For its part, the Second Circuit has opinions going both ways, but with the latest opinions stating that Anti-SLAPP law do not apply in federal court. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court is eventually going to have to step in and resolve this split of decisions among the Circuits, but we're not there yet. The District of New Jersey, where this case was heard, sits in the 3rd Circuit which hasn't ruled yet on the issue. The court here declined to look at the issue as merely being one of whether an Anti-SLAPP law should apply in federal court or not. Rather, the court thought that the correct analysis was whether a particular Anti-SLAPP law (here, New Jersey's UPEPA) through its text and structure was in conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This would be the analysis to be followed by the court. To this end, it was obvious to the court that some provisions of the UPEPA do indeed conflict with the FRPC. One example is that of the UPEPA mandating that a defendant who successfully brings a UPEPA special motion will be awarded attorney's fees. By contrast, the FRPC instead requires that before such attorney fees can be awarded, a successful party would have to prevail on either summary judgment or at trial. This means the defendant must prove that the plaintiff has no case, which is different than the UPEPA which requires the plaintiff to establish that he can make at least a prima facie case to avoid dismissal. Other conflicts of the UPEPA with the FRPC include an immediate appeal of right to the defendant if the UPEPA special motion is unsuccessful, and also the automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of a UPEPA special motion. So, there were conflicts between the UPEPA and the FRPC where their provisions collided. But that did not mean to the court that the entire UPEPA would be disallowed in federal court, but rather only that the conflicting provisions of the UPEPA would be surgically excised and in those places the federal rules would be substituted in their stead. This is known as "severability" and it is essentially the same process as where the illegal provisions of a contract are cut out but the surviving operating provisions will be enforced. This is the approach that has been followed by the Second and Ninth Circuits, which allows a court to enforce the state Anti-SLAPP procedures where they do not conflict with the federal rules, but replace those procedures with the corresponding federal rule where they do conflict. Now the court returned to the Erie doctrine which, it will be recalled, requires a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction to apply state substantive law but federal procedural law. Thus, it would only be the procedural parts of a state's Anti-SLAPP laws, including the UPEPA, that would be replaced by the federal rules. The substantive parts of the state's Anti-SLAPP laws would survive and be utilized under the Erie doctrine. This brought the court to one of the questions before it: Was the UPEPA's mandatory award of fees to a defendant who successfully asserted a UPEPA special motion to be considered substantive or procedural in nature? Under the Erie doctrine, a fee-shifting provision is typically considered to be substantive in nature because it is tied to the outcome of the litigation (a procedural rule is not). But there are times when a fee-shifting provision would be procedural, such as when such fees are awarded because of a party's bad faith conduct ― but that is not tied to the outcome of the litigation. Because the UPEPA's mandatory fee award is tied to the outcome, since it can only be awarded if the defendant prevails on the UPEPA special motion, the court held that the UPEPA fee-shifting provision is substantive and not procedural. But the UPEPA in fact has two fee-shifting provisions. As mentioned, the first provision awards attorney fees to a defendant who wins on the UPEPA special motion. This is different than the second provision, by which a court has the discretion to award attorney fees to the plaintiff and against the defendant if the defendant filed the UPEPA special motion in bad faith or for purposes of delay. This latter provision is not tied to the outcome of the case, since the case continues if the defendant loses the UPEPA special motion, and thus is procedural in nature. The upshot to this is that if the defendant wins the UPEPA special motion, then the mandatory fee award in favor of the defendant is substantive and determined by state law. However, if the defendant loses the special motion then the issue of whether fees can be awarded against the defendant would be procedural in nature and determined if at all by the FRCP. The court also noted another factor in determining the UPEPA's mandatory fee award to be substantive: One of the purposes of that mandatory fee award is to deter the filing of abusive litigation. Disposing of a minor issue, the court also held that UPEPA relief is only obtainable through the filing of a UPEPA special motion and not by way of a counterclaim. The balance of the opinion deals with a conflict of law issue; namely, which state's Anti-SLAPP law would apply. The court ultimately concludes that the New Jersey UPEPA applies, and although the court's discussion of the issue is quite interesting, it is beyond the scope of this article. ANALYSIS Anti-SLAPP laws such as the UPEPA are indeed a mix of substantive and procedural law ― they are not purely one or the other. It therefore makes sense for the federal courts in applying the Erie doctrine to apply the substantive portions but reject the procedural ones. This may be the best that we get until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the split between circuits (and that could go either way) or Congress adopts a federal Anti-SLAPP law (which is regularly introduced, but never seems to go anywhere). But in the words of the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want. You get what you need."
