Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The left's lunacy never ceases to amaze me. Its as though the progressives are in competition on who can become the most degenerate "legally" the fastest? Bizarro world!!!
The left's lunacy never ceases to amaze me. Its as though the progressives are in competition on who can become the most degenerate "legally" the fastest? Bizarro world!!!
The left's lunacy never ceases to amaze me. Its as though the progressives are in competition on who can become the most degenerate "legally" the fastest? Bizarro world!!!
Nothing left or progressive about the ruling. The crime did not fit the legal definition. They will simply re-write the current statute to also outlaw human penetration by a animal.
Of course the usual suspects will chime in, without a clue to what the ruling was about.
Of course, many states (as far as I can tell) in the US that have weak laws against sex with animals. From only a misdemeanor in a couple of states to some states saying it is OK as long as it is not in a public place.
Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Alabama, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, New Jersey, and Wyoming all have, weak laws.
I'll be honest, I wouldn't send someone to jail for putting peanut butter on their balls and having a dog lick it off. I don't agree with them saying 'if there's no penetration.' That's way too open ended. But if this sort of thing came up here, I'd say we have people who actually deserve to be in prison, let's not spend time on the sad person who puts peanut butter on is knob to prison. Definitely don't encourage that, and again, I can't stress enough how absurd a "no penetration" rule is. This means a man can suck off a dog, and that's definitely beasteality. While I think the peanut butter thing also is, I also don't think that this is harmful enough to the animal for me to really think it's worthy of a felony conviction.
Just my two cents worth.
Totally would have still charged the man in this particularly case, as it was forcing a dog on someone, which is not something I have ever said before and frankly never thought that I would.
No biggie, they were upholding a law, a poorly written law, but a law anyway. They were doing their job. They are not supposed to write laws, just enforce the written ones.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. He tried to appeal one charge out 17 and he won because of an outdated definition. He's serving 16 years for what he did. No doubt in PC...he'd be a dead man in general population.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
