Lawyer Argues Sex With Deer Not A Crime.

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 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.

Really where is your study on the people who have sex with dead animals becoming rapist.

 

[Pastore]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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.

Really where is your study on the people who have sex with dead animals becoming rapist.

It's a slippery slope, dude! It's the same thing as when I tried pot, and the next day I was hooked on crack! It's the gateway drug of necrophiliacs!

 

[mercanucaribe]

Where does it say he has a history of killing animals to have sex with them?

This whole case is ridiculous. You can kill a deer, then slice it up, and you can even eat its genitals.... but the prosecutor is saying that if you find a dead deer, having sex with its corpse is doing a bad thing to the carcass??

Sex with living animals being illegal beimakes a little more sense, but not much. It's considered more cruel than killing the animal? What if the animal likes it? Killing a human is considered worse than raping one, yet for other animals it's the other way around, and hunting is state sanctioned. WTF

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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.

Really where is your study on the people who have sex with dead animals becoming rapist.

It's a slippery slope, dude! It's the same thing as when I tried pot, and the next day I was hooked on crack! It's the gateway drug of necrophiliacs!

I remember watching a documentary where they interviewed two serial rapists, and both pointed to pornogrpahy and then the slow progression from hurting animals, rape, serial rape, and murder. It was actually quite sick what they takled about. It happens. Plus, based on your generality to point out your views that "you are willing to bet" that most serial killers hunted in the past, I responded with a generality that shows a difference in correlation. So, you can not point out my lack of a conclusive study without me pointing out your own, and I don't want to get into a pissing match.

But again, if you don't want to discuss this. No worries off my back. I don't need to convince anyone about this. But this is my take on the matter.

**EDIT**
It is a slippery slope, but not everyone who smokes pot, gets into harder things, but I can at least difinitively say that smoking pot is harmful, same as smoking tobacco.

The same can be said about pornography. Not everyone will become serial killers or rapists (indirect correlation).

But I can also say that there is a more direct correlation between a serial rapist and a person who gets their jollies off of killing an animal to have sex with it. It is just logical.

 

[George P Burdell]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Score! FreedomsBeat212 is getting laid tonight!

ROFL

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Both the sick guy and his idiot lawyer should be sent to the menatl ward forever immediately.

Neither one of them should be anywhere near society.

Wow, I never thought I'd agree with Dave ever.

Anyway, it disgusts me not only this man's actions, but how people on here are actually taking sides with him or justifying him! Whatever happened to morality in this country?!?!?!?

*shudders*

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 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.

Really where is your study on the people who have sex with dead animals becoming rapist.

It's a slippery slope, dude! It's the same thing as when I tried pot, and the next day I was hooked on crack! It's the gateway drug of necrophiliacs!

I remember watching a documentary where they interviewed two serial rapists, and both pointed to pornogrpahy and then the slow progression from hurting animals, rape, serial rape, and murder. It was actually quite sick what they takled about. It happens. Plus, based on your generality to point out your views that "you are willing to bet" that most serial killers hunted in the past, I responded with a generality that shows a difference in correlation. So, you can not point out my lack of a conclusive study without me pointing out your own, and I don't want to get into a pissing match.

But again, if you don't want to discuss this. No worries off my back. I don't need to convince anyone about this. But this is my take on the matter.

**EDIT**
It is a slippery slope, but not everyone who smokes pot, gets into harder things, but I can at least difinitively say that smoking pot is harmful, same as smoking tobacco.

The same can be said about pornography. Not everyone will become serial killers or rapists (indirect correlation).

But I can also say that there is a more direct correlation between a serial rapist and a person who gets their jollies off of killing an animal to have sex with it. It is just logical.

Wow, my pointing out that most serial killers hunt was just point out hoiw retard your logic was. If most of group A does B and group A is bad therefore B is bad.

Two people isn't a study.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: DaShen
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.

I'm not going to argue that pornography can't be harmful. But I will say that there are different types of pornography, and it's not all created equal. The simple act of viewing other human beings having sex is not harmful in itself and I challenge you to show that it is.

I don't know why pornography is even in this conversation, . A huge majority of people have seen pornography, a statistically insignificant number of people have become either dead animal f@ckers or serial killers, there's obviously no causal relationship between the two.
................................

I agree that this guy will likely have sex with other dead animals, and likely kill other animals to have sex with them. I still see zero evidence as to why a dead animal fetish would escalate to humans or anything else. You act as if we have a massive amount of evidence linking serial murders to people that have sex with dead animals when we don't. Also, most people that have sex with dead animals are never caught/arrested, because they recognize that it's looked down on and hide it, so we really have no idea on what the similarities are between them.
.................................

I'm not really writing about the black/criminal thing because I agree with your points. You're intelligent enough to recognize that being a young black man doesn't mean you'll be a criminal, even though 33% of them were in the system at one time. I don't understand why you don't recognize that viewing pornography won't make you a serial killer, and having sex with animals won't make you a human rapist even thought the percentages are much lower in those two casess.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Wow, my pointing out that most serial killers hunt was just point out hoiw retard your logic was. If most of group A does B and group A is bad therefore B is bad.

Two people isn't a study.

I understand that, but what you pointed out only seems valid to point out absurdity because it is absurd in itself. There is no direct correlation. It make more sense that there is a direct correlation between someone who kills for sex and a serial rapist though doesn't it?

Anyways, I don't want to get into a pissing match which it seems to be digressing in to, so I will stop posting about this, but you really do need to check yourself and how you conduct yourself in a conversation. Being snide or making baseless remarks not based on the topic at hand can actually hurt your case more than it helps. Of course sometimes it can help, but I have tried to respond with logic, if you find that they are retarded then point it out through logic.

I have pointed out that your point doesn't make sense because there is no direct correlation, while I could point out that there is with someone who reacts violently to gratify their sexual appetites to a high possiblity of being or becomeing a serial rapist.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: smack Down
Wow, my pointing out that most serial killers hunt was just point out hoiw retard your logic was. If most of group A does B and group A is bad therefore B is bad.

Two people isn't a study.

I understand that, but what you pointed out only seems valid to point out absurdity because it is absurd in itself. There is no direct correlation. It make more sense that there is a direct correlation between someone who kills for sex and a serial rapist though doesn't it?

Anyways, I don't want to get into a pissing match which it seems to be digressing in to, so I will stop posting about this, but you really do need to check yourself and how you conduct yourself in a conversation. Being snide or making baseless remarks not based on the topic at hand can actually hurt your case more than it helps. Of course sometimes it can help, but I have tried to respond with logic, if you find that they are retarded then point it out through logic.

I have pointed out that your point doesn't make sense because there is no direct correlation, while I could point out that there is with someone who reacts violently to gratify their sexual appetites to a high possiblity of being or becomeing a serial rapist.

I don't think you ubder stand correlation. Correlation is meaningless that is the point.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
I'm not going to argue that pornography can't be harmful. But I will say that there are different types of pornography, and it's not all created equal. The simple act of viewing other human beings having sex is not harmful in itself and I challenge you to show that it is.

I don't know why pornography is even in this conversation, . A huge majority of people have seen pornography, a statistically insignificant number of people have become either dead animal f@ckers or serial killers, there's obviously no causal relationship between the two.
................................

I agree that this guy will likely have sex with other dead animals, and likely kill other animals to have sex with them. I still see zero evidence as to why a dead animal fetish would escalate to humans or anything else. You act as if we have a massive amount of evidence linking serial murders to people that have sex with dead animals when we don't. Also, most people that have sex with dead animals are never caught/arrested, because they recognize that it's looked down on and hide it, so we really have no idea on what the similarities are between them.
.................................

I'm not really writing about the black/criminal thing because I agree with your points. You're intelligent enough to recognize that being a young black man doesn't mean you'll be a criminal, even though 33% of them were in the system at one time. I don't understand why you don't recognize that viewing pornography won't make you a serial killer, and having sex with animals won't make you a human rapist even thought the percentages are much lower in those two casess.

I can agree with that then. Good points. But you can at least concede people who get their jollies off killing animals for sex probably are twisted enough to become serial rapists and so on if given the chance.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: smack Down
I don't think you ubder stand correlation. Correlation is meaningless that is the point.

I said I wasn't going to post, but I want to address this.

Correlation is key to figure out cause and effect.

If a person runs with scissors and there is a high correlation between running with scissors and hurting someone, than this direct correlation needs to be address and guidelines or rules ar emade to stop the behavior. I fail to see how you have logically pointed out how direct correlations in behavior are meaningless to rules. I am not being snide, I am just pointing out that you are making a statement that correlation is meaningless to behavior and the point of the conversation, when I can easily point out how Pavlov's dogs and behavior analysis would disagree.

If you have a behavior, say drinking and driving, which has a direct correlation to accidents and fatal accidents, then social ethics will set up laws and guidelines to stop this behavior. **EDIT** Sure not everyone who drinks and drives get in fatal accidents, but there is a high enough percentage and a direct correlation which points out that one behavior usually leads to another.

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Where does it say he has a history of killing animals to have sex with them?

This whole case is ridiculous. You can kill a deer, then slice it up, and you can even eat its genitals.... but the prosecutor is saying that if you find a dead deer, having sex with its corpse is doing a bad thing to the carcass??

Sex with living animals being illegal beimakes a little more sense, but not much. It's considered more cruel than killing the animal? What if the animal likes it? Killing a human is considered worse than raping one, yet for other animals it's the other way around, and hunting is state sanctioned. WTF

it comes down to intent. was the intended to protect animals? or was it to regulate human behavior?
I would hope it was for the first.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: smack Down
I don't think you ubder stand correlation. Correlation is meaningless that is the point.

I said I wasn't going to post, but I want to address this.

Correlation is key to figure out cause and effect.

If a person runs with scissors and there is a high correlation between running with scissors and hurting someone, than this direct correlation needs to be address and guidelines or rules ar emade to stop the behavior. I fail to see how you have logically pointed out how direct correlations in behavior are meaningless to rules. I am not being snide, I am just pointing out that you are making a statement that correlation is meaningless to behavior and the point of the conversation, when I can easily point out how Pavlov's dogs and behavior analysis would disagree.

If you have a behavior, say drinking and driving, which has a direct correlation to accidents and fatal accidents, then social ethics will set up laws and guidelines to stop this behavior. **EDIT** Sure not everyone who drinks and drives get in fatal accidents, but there is a high enough percentage and a direct correlation which points out that one behavior usually leads to another.

Now I'm sure you don't understand correlation.

Drunk driving isn't illegal because drunks just happen to get in more accedents.

It is a illegal because drunks are bad drivers.

Correlation does not prove causation.

 

[preslove]

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.

What if he has a hunting permit and kills a deer in season, THEN has sext with it????

lol I don't know why I find this so amusing, but I do.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: yowolabi
I'm not going to argue that pornography can't be harmful. But I will say that there are different types of pornography, and it's not all created equal. The simple act of viewing other human beings having sex is not harmful in itself and I challenge you to show that it is.

I don't know why pornography is even in this conversation, . A huge majority of people have seen pornography, a statistically insignificant number of people have become either dead animal f@ckers or serial killers, there's obviously no causal relationship between the two.
................................

I agree that this guy will likely have sex with other dead animals, and likely kill other animals to have sex with them. I still see zero evidence as to why a dead animal fetish would escalate to humans or anything else. You act as if we have a massive amount of evidence linking serial murders to people that have sex with dead animals when we don't. Also, most people that have sex with dead animals are never caught/arrested, because they recognize that it's looked down on and hide it, so we really have no idea on what the similarities are between them.
.................................

I'm not really writing about the black/criminal thing because I agree with your points. You're intelligent enough to recognize that being a young black man doesn't mean you'll be a criminal, even though 33% of them were in the system at one time. I don't understand why you don't recognize that viewing pornography won't make you a serial killer, and having sex with animals won't make you a human rapist even thought the percentages are much lower in those two casess.

I can agree with that then. Good points. But you can at least concede people who get their jollies off killing animals for sex probably are twisted enough to become serial rapists and so on if given the chance.

I can concede that it shows a high level of selfishness and a disturbing regard for life. I certainly would keep my eye on him around people that I cared about. I do still think that it's just as likely he has no regard for animal life, but would never think of touching a human being. Some people just are incapable of seeing animals as anything but objects.

 

[Nyati13]

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?

He was outdoors, near a road, with his pants down? I would guess that's how he got caught..... with his pants down.
The DA was a total doof to make the charge "sex with an animal", it would be a lot simpler just to charge him with "public indecency" since he had his pecker out of his pants, while he was outdoors.

 

[Fritzo]

People heard him yelling "Oh deer oh deer oh deer", but they thought he was upset about something.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: smack Down
I don't think you ubder stand correlation. Correlation is meaningless that is the point.

I said I wasn't going to post, but I want to address this.

Correlation is key to figure out cause and effect.

If a person runs with scissors and there is a high correlation between running with scissors and hurting someone, than this direct correlation needs to be address and guidelines or rules ar emade to stop the behavior. I fail to see how you have logically pointed out how direct correlations in behavior are meaningless to rules. I am not being snide, I am just pointing out that you are making a statement that correlation is meaningless to behavior and the point of the conversation, when I can easily point out how Pavlov's dogs and behavior analysis would disagree.

If you have a behavior, say drinking and driving, which has a direct correlation to accidents and fatal accidents, then social ethics will set up laws and guidelines to stop this behavior. **EDIT** Sure not everyone who drinks and drives get in fatal accidents, but there is a high enough percentage and a direct correlation which points out that one behavior usually leads to another.

Now I'm sure you don't understand correlation.

Drunk driving isn't illegal because drunks just happen to get in more accedents.

It is a illegal because drunks are bad drivers.

Correlation does not prove causation.

That is just semantics. Direct correlation points to causation.

Indirect correlation can be two effects of the same cause, but direct correlation means causation.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
I can concede that it shows a high level of selfishness and a disturbing regard for life. I certainly would keep my eye on him around people that I cared about. I do still think that it's just as likely he has no regard for animal life, but would never think of touching a human being. Some people just are incapable of seeing animals as anything but objects.

Most serial killers have a history for disregard for life in general, as in killing animals when they are young. But I can see your point.

The fact of the matter is, this guy could have a high regard for human life, but no regard for animals, although I find that this rarely happens. Most people who have a high regard for human life, are affectionate with animals as well. But yes, it can be possible that this person regards human life as sacrosanct and other animal life as not, but it just isn't as likely IMO.

 

[SoftwareEng]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: pnad
Imagine driving along and seeing this. I'd crash while laughing.

DEER.... DEERFSCKER DO YOU REQUIRE ASSISTANCE?

stop chugging maple syrup

 

[Rastus]

That reminds me, I got a sixer of Moosehead in the fridge.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

In a very, very semantical way, I think the lawyer's case has legal merit. I would think that there were other laws pertaining to indecent exposure or public commission of a sex act that the prosecutors could pursue vehemently, and I doubt very much that the ANY judge would be even slightly inclined toward leniency in sentencing the defendant in that situation.

I'm curious about the degree to which the key term "animal" can be interpreted, and what precedent exists that might justify being a bit fast-and-loose with the definitions in order to accord with the spirit in which the law was written. Then again, I've always understood the reasoning behind anti-bestiality laws to hinge on the fact that animals are incapable of consenting to sex acts with humans. Legally, they are assumed to lack the capacity for the rational thought required to give consent. That premise simply doesn't acknowledge animal carcasses.

If there were maggots or other scavenger organisms present in the deer carcass, perhaps they could successfully convict him of engaging in a sex act with THOSE animals. I certainly agree that what the man did is absolutely revolting, but I'm not so quick to advocate legal punishments on that basis. Some one else above mentioned a turkey or a chicken carcass -- something common to almost every home at one time or another. While it certainly doesn't interest me, if someone else felt inclined to use a grocery chicken like it was a fleshlight, I wouldn't feel the urge to have him arrested and sent to prison.

 

[Rastus]

Originally posted by: Garth
In a very, very semantical way, I think the lawyer's case has legal merit. I would think that there were other laws pertaining to indecent exposure or public commission of a sex act that the prosecutors could pursue vehemently, and I doubt very much that the ANY judge would be even slightly inclined toward leniency in sentencing the defendant in that situation.

I'm curious about the degree to which the key term "animal" can be interpreted, and what precedent exists that might justify being a bit fast-and-loose with the definitions in order to accord with the spirit in which the law was written. Then again, I've always understood the reasoning behind anti-bestiality laws to hinge on the fact that animals are incapable of consenting to sex acts with humans. Legally, they are assumed to lack the capacity for the rational thought required to give consent. That premise simply doesn't acknowledge animal carcasses.

If there were maggots or other scavenger organisms present in the deer carcass, perhaps they could successfully convict him of engaging in a sex act with THOSE animals. I certainly agree that what the man did is absolutely revolting, but I'm not so quick to advocate legal punishments on that basis. Some one else above mentioned a turkey or a chicken carcass -- something common to almost every home at one time or another. While it certainly doesn't interest me, if someone else felt inclined to use a grocery chicken like it was a fleshlight, I wouldn't feel the urge to have him arrested and sent to prison.

Grampa's stuffin' the turkey this year.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Both the sick guy and his idiot lawyer should be sent to the mental ward forever immediately.

Neither one of them should be anywhere near society.

Wow, I never thought I'd agree with Dave ever.

Anyway, it disgusts me not only this man's actions, but how people on here are actually taking sides with him or justifying him!

Whatever happened to morality in this country?!?!?!?

*shudders*

People say P&N is a scary place but that's just politics, I'd be a lot more scared of the things people condone here in OT.