Wash. man accused of sex with pit bull

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked

The bestiality law took effect in June. It was prompted by an incident in Enumclaw where a man died after having sex with a horse.

I wonder if he was the catcher or the pitcher?

Catcher.... I figure he got what he deserved, and the horse got bragging rights...

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Beastility has existed since the Roman and Greek times.
If you need a news article like this to show you things are going down the crapper then you are clueless and shouldnt care anyway.

Society has been going down the crapper ever since the baby-boomers started making decisions and the WWII vets were put in nursing homes.
It just so happens the baby-boomers are really good at covering their mistakes (probably from lots of experience) so a lot of innattentive folks have missed it.

Actually the tag line was more of a way to describe my cynical indignation with the whole thing rather than commentary on society as a whole... even though I still think its going down the crapper and has been for quite some time...

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Number1
Why is that a crime?

Who is the victim?

Repulsive, YES

Criminal, ?

I agree. Just because something's gross doesn't mean it should be illegal.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Number1
Why is that a crime?

Who is the victim?

Repulsive, YES

Criminal, ?

THE DOG

Have you ever watched Dirty Jobs? It's tough getting animals to do just about anything, but one thing that's easy is sexual stuff. They had one episode where a pig had to get its semen removed so they could breed more pigs. The pig fought against him as he lead it to the room, but as soon as soon as it saw the apparatus they use to do it, the pig happily dashed over and climbed up on it all by itself. Trust me, the animals aren't feeling abused.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mugs


You're wrong. It was enacted to protect animals. The law was enacted after that incident because there was no way to charge anyone for animal cruelty because the horse was not injured. Not to safe people from dying after being anally pentrated by a horse.

You can kill a dog, but if you do it inhumanely it is a crime.

The wife probably took pictures and called the police because she was horrified and disgusted by the way the guy was treating their pet! It's hardly comparable to smoking marijuana.

Wrong. This law isn't really made to protect animals. If a woman willingly lets a male dog do her doggy style, they'd still charge her with "cruelty to animals" even though no cruelty is taking place. In fact, the dog wants it.

The law was more realistically made to ban what people find disgusting.

 

[Ricemarine]

Hum, can someone tell what the new beastiality law was?...
it must be newly incorporated in the system because IIRC, before it was legal here in WA...

No, I don't have pets and no I don't do beastiality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

The least shocking facts here are that it occurred in Spanaway and involved a pit bull :laugh::laugh:

Laugh because it's funny. :laugh: Cry because it's true.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Wrong. This law isn't really made to protect animals. If a woman willingly lets a male dog do her doggy style, they'd still charge her with "cruelty to animals" even though no cruelty is taking place. In fact, the dog wants it.

The law was more realistically made to ban what people find disgusting.

I disagree. The law regards animals as lacking the ability to consent, similar to the way it regards children in sex cases.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: mugs


You're wrong. It was enacted to protect animals. The law was enacted after that incident because there was no way to charge anyone for animal cruelty because the horse was not injured. Not to safe people from dying after being anally pentrated by a horse.

You can kill a dog, but if you do it inhumanely it is a crime.

The wife probably took pictures and called the police because she was horrified and disgusted by the way the guy was treating their pet! It's hardly comparable to smoking marijuana.

Wrong. This law isn't really made to protect animals. If a woman willingly lets a male dog do her doggy style, they'd still charge her with "cruelty to animals" even though no cruelty is taking place. In fact, the dog wants it.

The law was more realistically made to ban what people find disgusting.

mr. hands unavailable for comment.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Oh like people haven't been fvcking animals since the dawn of time...

This is proof of nothing.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Wrong. This law isn't really made to protect animals. If a woman willingly lets a male dog do her doggy style, they'd still charge her with "cruelty to animals" even though no cruelty is taking place. In fact, the dog wants it.

The law was more realistically made to ban what people find disgusting.

I disagree. The law regards animals as lacking the ability to consent, similar to the way it regards children in sex cases.

So if no animal can consent, are two dugs humping in the street breaking the law?

 

[mugs]

91TTZ, is it common in nature for animals to have sex with a vastly different species? I'm not talking about a two different breeds of dog or a horse and a donkey or something like that... Do you see a lot of pigs screwing chickens or maybe some weird sh!t like an ostrich and a giraffe?

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Number1
Why is that a crime?

Who is the victim?

Repulsive, YES

Criminal, ?

THE DOG

Considering you can kill a dog, I'm not sure how having sex with it is any worse. I don't think it counts as cruelty because if the dog didn't like it, she/he would have bitten the man.. it IS a pit bull.
Why would the wife take pics and call the police though? Imagine if you had a woman like that, who goes informer and turns you in for smoking marijuana.

It's clearly wrong because it's repulsive, and it's degrading to society. Why is prostitution banned? Who's the victim?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mugs
91TTZ, is it common in nature for animals to have sex with a vastly different species? I'm not talking about a two different breeds of dog or a horse and a donkey or something like that... Do you see a lot of pigs screwing chickens or maybe some weird sh!t like an ostrich and a giraffe?

LOL

No, it's not common, but just because it's weird, disgusting, and uncommon doesn't mean it should be banned. I mean, someone covering themselves in feces is odd and disgusting, but should it really be the government's job to declare it illegal?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

It's clearly wrong because it's repulsive, and it's degrading to society. Why is prostitution banned? Who's the victim?

That's Christian thinking for you. Or any other religious zealotry.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: mugs
91TTZ, is it common in nature for animals to have sex with a vastly different species? I'm not talking about a two different breeds of dog or a horse and a donkey or something like that... Do you see a lot of pigs screwing chickens or maybe some weird sh!t like an ostrich and a giraffe?

LOL

No, it's not common, but just because it's weird, disgusting, and uncommon doesn't mean it should be banned. I mean, someone covering themselves in feces is odd and disgusting, but should it really be the government's job to declare it illegal?

Well my point is, I'm not sure how willing the animal participants are... If it's a male animal and a female human, I guess you have a point. But if it's a male human then the animal doens't really have much choice in the matter.

 

[Rogodin2]

What's fvucked up is that the media jumped on this story like a 26 year old jumps on a dog.

Rogo

 

[thescreensavers]

how did it fit??

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

So if no animal can consent, are two dugs humping in the street breaking the law?

Why would they be?

 

[sonambulo]

this is not society going down the drain

stuff like this has gone on for a long time in a lot of places but now its just easier to hear about it because communication is so easy. nonetheless it is still fringe behavior and not indicative of sexual appetites at large

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

So if no animal can consent, are two dugs humping in the street breaking the law?

Why would they be?

because the one on the receiving end did not consent it is rape?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

So if no animal can consent, are two dugs humping in the street breaking the law?

Why would they be?

because the one on the receiving end did not consent it is rape?

Why is the "receiver" a deciding factor?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

So if no animal can consent, are two dugs humping in the street breaking the law?

Why would they be?

because the one on the receiving end did not consent it is rape?

Why is the "receiver" a deciding factor?

good point. point still stands though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

So if no animal can consent, are two dugs humping in the street breaking the law?

Why would they be?

because the one on the receiving end did not consent it is rape?

Why is the "receiver" a deciding factor?

good point. point still stands though.

No, in reality the point is that animals lack the mens rea to be found guilty of crimes.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

So if no animal can consent, are two dugs humping in the street breaking the law?

Why would they be?

because the one on the receiving end did not consent it is rape?

Why is the "receiver" a deciding factor?

good point. point still stands though.

No, in reality the point is that animals lack the mens rea to be found guilty of crimes.

heh you don't get what 911tz was saying do you? LOL

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't think you get what I'm saying, but you are invited to explain the point you think I have missed.