Lawyer Argues Sex With Deer Not A Crime.

[Spacehead]

Humans are animals too, right? It's against the law to have sex with a dead person, right? Case closed!
Very oversimpified, but you get the idea.


edit- oops, maybe not... see Pastore's link above

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Savij
Other than the fact that the dude was outside, why should we care? Does it really affect anyone if I go home and have relatons with my ham sandwich?

Slippery slope.

Interviews with serial rapists, you find that all of them first started with pornagraphy and moved slowly to more kinky things and more porn. Eventually it escalates.

But I understand your point. The fact of the matter is that this guy did do this outside. But the behavior could escalate into even sicker and more harmful behavior. That is one of the reasons these laws are put into place. (of course one can argue that there are religious and personal ethics involved in this, but big picture it limits the "slide" to harmful behavior)

Not to mention the dude has a history of KILLING ANIMALS TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

So is that an worse then killing animals to eat? Either way the animal is still dead and it genitals are still abuse.

 

[Scarpozzi]

<homer>I got caught!!! DOE!!!</homer>

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Savij
Other than the fact that the dude was outside, why should we care? Does it really affect anyone if I go home and have relatons with my ham sandwich?

Slippery slope.

Interviews with serial rapists, you find that all of them first started with pornagraphy and moved slowly to more kinky things and more porn. Eventually it escalates.

But I understand your point. The fact of the matter is that this guy did do this outside. But the behavior could escalate into even sicker and more harmful behavior. That is one of the reasons these laws are put into place. (of course one can argue that there are religious and personal ethics involved in this, but big picture it limits the "slide" to harmful behavior)

Not to mention the dude has a history of KILLING ANIMALS TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

So is that an worse then killing animals to eat? Either way the animal is still dead and it genitals are still abuse.

The problem with that notion is that eating is a response of necessity for life, sex with a dead animal is not.

The pyramid of self-actualization has no where where sex with things that we kill as a base need, but food and shelter are actually first and foremost of base needs for living and eventual self-actualization.

 

[gwrober]

?I?m a little surprised this issue hasn?t been tackled before in another case,? Lucci said.

Um, ok....so it should have happened earlier??

He is accused of having sex with a dead deer he saw beside Stinson Avenue....

So it was roadkill?!?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Savij
Other than the fact that the dude was outside, why should we care? Does it really affect anyone if I go home and have relatons with my ham sandwich?

Slippery slope.

Interviews with serial rapists, you find that all of them first started with pornagraphy and moved slowly to more kinky things and more porn. Eventually it escalates.

But I understand your point. The fact of the matter is that this guy did do this outside. But the behavior could escalate into even sicker and more harmful behavior. That is one of the reasons these laws are put into place. (of course one can argue that there are religious and personal ethics involved in this, but big picture it limits the "slide" to harmful behavior)

Not to mention the dude has a history of KILLING ANIMALS TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

So is that an worse then killing animals to eat? Either way the animal is still dead and it genitals are still abuse.

The problem with that notion is that eating is a response of necessity for life, sex with a dead animal is not.

The pyramid of self-actualization has no where where sex with things that we kill as a base need, but food and shelter are actually first and foremost of base needs for living and eventual self-actualization.

Eating meat is not a necessity. Not that it matter anyways. Who are you to say people are only allowed to do what is necessary with there own goods why can't people have luxuries?

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: DaShen
The problem with that notion is that eating is a response of necessity for life, sex with a dead animal is not.

The pyramid of self-actualization has no where where sex with things that we kill as a base need, but food and shelter are actually first and foremost of base needs for living and eventual self-actualization.

Eating meat is not a necessity. Not that it matter anyways. Who are you to say people are only allowed to do what is necessary with there own goods why can't people have luxuries?

As humans, we are naturally and genetically omnivores. Humans, who eat well balanced meals consisting of some meat, live longer and healthier than other. Vegentarians have to takes supplemental foods loaded with B6 and B12 because for the most part meat is the easiest source for that food.

And now you are just playing Devil's Advocate, becase what you have just stated is laissez-faire, and in any society that truly has this type of "society", you have anarchy and chaos. Even in more liberal European and South American countries, there are still limits and rules, and added to that, socially there are reprocussions for such a hands off no laws society.

 

[dennilfloss]

Choad kill!:Q

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: DaShen
The problem with that notion is that eating is a response of necessity for life, sex with a dead animal is not.

The pyramid of self-actualization has no where where sex with things that we kill as a base need, but food and shelter are actually first and foremost of base needs for living and eventual self-actualization.

Eating meat is not a necessity. Not that it matter anyways. Who are you to say people are only allowed to do what is necessary with there own goods why can't people have luxuries?

As humans, we are naturally and genetically omnivores. Humans, who eat well balanced meals consisting of some meat, live longer and healthier than other. Vegentarians have to takes supplemental foods loaded with B6 and B12 because for the most part meat is the easiest source for that food.

And now you are just playing Devil's Advocate, becase what you have just stated is laissez-faire, and in any society that truly has this type of "society", you have anarchy and chaos. Even in more liberal European and South American countries, there are still limits and rules, and added to that, socially there are reprocussions for such a hands off no laws society.

Other then it is disgusting there is no reason for it to be illegal to have sex with a dead animal, or any other non-living object.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Other then it is disgusting there is no reason for it to be illegal to have sex with a dead animal, or any other non-living object.

Social ethics would say otherwise.

**EDIT**
The reason being that it leads to harmful effects.
Just like running with scissors, like a whole assortment of behaviors.

Shoot if obesity becomes an epidemic, there will probably be laws passed about regulating food (food tax), just like how we regulate cigarettes.

That is why social ethics are so complex because they are variable based on the needs of the society.

 

[Xyo II]

Damn, I was eating.............

This is just horribly disgusting. Seriously.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: smack Down
Other then it is disgusting there is no reason for it to be illegal to have sex with a dead animal, or any other non-living object.

Social ethics would say otherwise.

Ethics are not laws.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: smack Down
Other then it is disgusting there is no reason for it to be illegal to have sex with a dead animal, or any other non-living object.

Social ethics would say otherwise.

Ethics are not laws.

Sorry, but social ethics are the same as laws.

Ethics or personal morality is a different animal altogether. Of course they effect each other, but they are different.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Savij
Other than the fact that the dude was outside, why should we care? Does it really affect anyone if I go home and have relatons with my ham sandwich?

Slippery slope.

Interviews with serial rapists, you find that all of them first started with pornagraphy and moved slowly to more kinky things and more porn. Eventually it escalates.

But I understand your point. The fact of the matter is that this guy did do this outside. But the behavior could escalate into even sicker and more harmful behavior. That is one of the reasons these laws are put into place. (of course one can argue that there are religious and personal ethics involved in this, but big picture it limits the "slide" to harmful behavior)

Not to mention the dude has a history of KILLING ANIMALS TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM.

So is that an worse then killing animals to eat? Either way the animal is still dead and it genitals are still abuse.

The problem with that notion is that eating is a response of necessity for life, sex with a dead animal is not.

The pyramid of self-actualization has no where where sex with things that we kill as a base need, but food and shelter are actually first and foremost of base needs for living and eventual self-actualization.

So you're saying that killing animals to stuff or mount them should be illegal? People will come up with all kinds of hogwash to justify making something "disgusting" or "revolting" illegal. It makes no sense that sex with a dead deer by the side of the road should be any more illegal than sex with a frozen turkey, or sex using a lambskin condom. "It's gross" is not reason to jail somebody. In a theocracy like Iran, yes, but this is the USA, a constitutional democracy.

Then again, this country does deny the right to marriage to a lot of people for no reason other than "it's gross".

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Savij
Other than the fact that the dude was outside, why should we care? Does it really affect anyone if I go home and have relatons with my ham sandwich?

Slippery slope.

Interviews with serial rapists, you find that all of them first started with pornagraphy and moved slowly to more kinky things and more porn. Eventually it escalates.

But I understand your point. The fact of the matter is that this guy did do this outside. But the behavior could escalate into even sicker and more harmful behavior. That is one of the reasons these laws are put into place. (of course one can argue that there are religious and personal ethics involved in this, but big picture it limits the "slide" to harmful behavior)

So you would like to prosecute people that look at pornography for serial killing? If not, why does it matter what people did beforehand?

If the behavior has a very high percentage of harmful behavior, then it is acceptable to make a rule or law against it.

In a 1995 study, One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 years old was under correctional supervision or control. Is that percentage high enough for you to make being a young black male illegal? Why not?

Agreed. It is obvious that this individual is at a point where his behavior is harmful to society. He is already killing to gratify his twisted fantasies. If he was not caught, this behavior could have escalated into humans.

What makes you think that he's practicing on animals before he gets to humans, as opposed to being disgusted by humans and only turned on by animals?

 

[j00fek]

looks like ATOT can have some sex now

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: DaShen
The problem with that notion is that eating is a response of necessity for life, sex with a dead animal is not.

The pyramid of self-actualization has no where where sex with things that we kill as a base need, but food and shelter are actually first and foremost of base needs for living and eventual self-actualization.

So you're saying that killing animals to stuff or mount them should be illegal? People will come up with all kinds of hogwash to justify making something "disgusting" or "revolting" illegal. It makes no sense that sex with a dead deer by the side of the road should be any more illegal than sex with a frozen turkey, or sex using a lambskin condom. "It's gross" is not reason to jail somebody. In a theocracy like Iran, yes, but this is the USA, a constitutional democracy.

Good point. But one has a high propensity for more aggravated bahavior (serial rape), while the other is a sport where the people don't have a high chance of become serial killers.

But I do agree with you that there is a fine line on this and going too far, but since this man has a history of killing and molesting dead animals, it is clear to say that his behavior would eventually escalate.

 

[dennilfloss]

Was this the guy's doorbell?

 

[TravisT]

whats it coming to when you can't have gratifying intercourse with a rotting carcass?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: DaShen
The problem with that notion is that eating is a response of necessity for life, sex with a dead animal is not.

The pyramid of self-actualization has no where where sex with things that we kill as a base need, but food and shelter are actually first and foremost of base needs for living and eventual self-actualization.

So you're saying that killing animals to stuff or mount them should be illegal? People will come up with all kinds of hogwash to justify making something "disgusting" or "revolting" illegal. It makes no sense that sex with a dead deer by the side of the road should be any more illegal than sex with a frozen turkey, or sex using a lambskin condom. "It's gross" is not reason to jail somebody. In a theocracy like Iran, yes, but this is the USA, a constitutional democracy.

Good point. But one has a high propensity for more aggravated bahavior (serial rape), while the other is a sport where the people don't have a high chance of become serial killers.

But I do agree with you that there is a fine line on this and going too far, but since this man has a history of killing and molesting dead animals, it is clear to say that his behavior would eventually escalate.

I willing to bet a large portion of serial killers hunted at one point or another.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: TravisT
whats it coming to when you can't have gratifying intercourse with a rotting carcass?

He woke up with a bad case of morning gory.

 

[Zaitsevs]

to be on a more peaceful level, it's not something I would do. but to each his own and if he's minding his own business and doing his own thing, I don't see why people have to call him crazy or sick. the animal was dead, and he wasn't hurting it in anyway.

I wonder how he was caught?

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
So you would like to prosecute people that look at pornography for serial killing? If not, why does it matter what people did beforehand?

If the behavior has a very high percentage of harmful behavior, then it is acceptable to make a rule or law against it.

In a 1995 study, One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 years old was under correctional supervision or control. Is that percentage high enough for you to make being a young black male illegal? Why not?

Agreed. It is obvious that this individual is at a point where his behavior is harmful to society. He is already killing to gratify his twisted fantasies. If he was not caught, this behavior could have escalated into humans.

What makes you think that he's practicing on animals before he gets to humans, as opposed to being disgusted by humans and only turned on by animals?

Good points but skewed. The amount of people who go from pornagraphy to something extreme is low, but I will point out that pornagraphy in general is harmful to relationships (it debases humans <and even more specifically women> ). It makes them objects and playthings to be beaten, trashed, used... not at all helpful in society (but a reality that would be difficult if not possible to legislate without impeding a person's personal freedom.

I am not saying that pornagraphy should be illegal, but more that it is harmful -- this is a matter of opinion, but I think it holds up. **EDIT** Much like greasey fast food is harmful, or cigarettes. Sure you can't make these things illegal, but you can legislate them and regulate them, like they do already. /**EDIT**

*****
Your second point is also skewed because society needs to be changed. The fact that 1/3 of African-American males from 20-29 are incarcerated is the effect, not the cause. In no way does your fact point out a behavior that causes this, so it is obviously an effect of society that needs to be changed. (Most people would point this to single parent families) But the cocial concern cannot be a law but rather a way to make it more difficult for fathers to renig on their responsiblities as parents (alimony...). Laws are put in place for that, but maybe in the future more laws will be passed to make it easier to be a father, than a deadbeat.

*****
As for the last statement. Yes, it is true that we do not have all the facts about this person, so I generalized it, but it is obvious that this man's behavior (he killed a horse and possibly the deer to have sex with it), that if not caught, it probably would have escalated.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: DaShen
The problem with that notion is that eating is a response of necessity for life, sex with a dead animal is not.

The pyramid of self-actualization has no where where sex with things that we kill as a base need, but food and shelter are actually first and foremost of base needs for living and eventual self-actualization.

So you're saying that killing animals to stuff or mount them should be illegal? People will come up with all kinds of hogwash to justify making something "disgusting" or "revolting" illegal. It makes no sense that sex with a dead deer by the side of the road should be any more illegal than sex with a frozen turkey, or sex using a lambskin condom. "It's gross" is not reason to jail somebody. In a theocracy like Iran, yes, but this is the USA, a constitutional democracy.

Good point. But one has a high propensity for more aggravated bahavior (serial rape), while the other is a sport where the people don't have a high chance of become serial killers.

But I do agree with you that there is a fine line on this and going too far, but since this man has a history of killing and molesting dead animals, it is clear to say that his behavior would eventually escalate.

I willing to bet a large portion of serial killers hunted at one point or another.

I would be willing to bet that only a small proportion of hunters become serial killers though,

While on the other hand, a very large majority of men who kill animals to have sex with them become serial rapists.

You see the difference. **EDIT** In one you have a direct correlation, while on the other the link is weak if not at all based on an actual behavioral relationship.

 

[Xyo II]

Originally posted by: Zaitsevs
to be on a more peaceful level, it's not something I would do. but to each his own and if he's minding his own business and doing his own thing, I don't see why people have to call him crazy or sick. the animal was dead, and he wasn't hurting it in anyway.

I wonder how he was caught?

So having sex with a dead animal doesn't strike you as crazy and sick?