Casper Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2011/06/16/story-shelby-man-charged-with-animal-abuse-sex.html?sid=102 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-bus Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Sheep? Ok, I get that. But dogs? That's just sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrbrent Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 He had a blow up sheep doll lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 A friend of mine is one of the local news reporters down there, and she got tasked with interviewing the guy and researching his fetish.She said it was pretty mortifying to sign up for some of the bestiality forums and things. She posted that she used the password: ThisIsForWork for all her accounts.Her latest followup article:http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20110617/NEWS01/106170314/Shelby-bestiality-case-prompts-legislative-action?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I see nothing wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat6183 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Hmm I have some friends that work in the Richland county jail.... wonder if they could pull some strings and let us have some time with that guy. Hope he gets what's coming to him in Jail, over and over again, until there is nothing left of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 So, Sam lives in Shelby county? I was pretty surprised to hear that its not illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 ***NOT CONDONING THIS BEHAVIOR***But, for discussion purposes and strictly from an OBJECTIVE point of view, if the animal isn't harmed (in this case there was 'bruising' which would heal) -- why should there need to be bestiality laws? To each their own, no? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Jrmi, is there something you want to tell the class? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carwhore Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 what what in the butt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 No. But, it was attempted to have this discussion on the radio yesterday afternoon.If you take out the sick subjective opinion on this type of behavior, what exactly are you harming? I'm not gay, but I wouldn't outlaw it. I'm not into erotic asphyxiation, but who am I to judge the people that are?Animals can't give 'consent' per se, but that a derived concept from human society. If a male animal wants to have their way with a female animal, it will. Unless the female physically fights it off. The major issue I see is harm to the animal. I'm assuming, based on physical size alone, that human reproductive organs probably aren't going to harm a horse, sheep, or large dog. Smaller animals, it would cause harm and the person should be charged under animal cruelty laws.I'm just trying to take the psychological/emotion bias out and look at it from an objective perspective. Not all states have bestiality laws, so do you think gov't should regulate morality or not? That's really what it boils down too.It's sick, gross, not my 'cup of tea', but those are generally just popular opinions -- and as long as there is no harm done, why is it our job to regulate this kind of deviant behavior? 'Public shaming' and being labeled as a 'sheepf*(ker' or whatever should be enough of a deterrent that we shouldn't have to legislate it... gov't should stay out of our bedrooms (and barns apparently). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flounder Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 A friend of mine is one of the local news reporters down there, and she got tasked with interviewing the guy and researching his fetish.She said it was pretty mortifying to sign up for some of the bestiality forums and things. She posted that she used the password: ThisIsForWork for all her accounts.Her latest followup article:http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20110617/NEWS01/106170314/Shelby-bestiality-case-prompts-legislative-action?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpageJami Kenton appears to be a hottie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I lived next door to her growing up. Very nice girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbarron77 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) No. But, it was attempted to have this discussion on the radio yesterday afternoon.If you take out the sick subjective opinion on this type of behavior, what exactly are you harming? I'm not gay, but I wouldn't outlaw it. I'm not into erotic asphyxiation, but who am I to judge the people that are?Animals can't give 'consent' per se, but that a derived concept from human society. If a male animal wants to have their way with a female animal, it will. Unless the female physically fights it off. The major issue I see is harm to the animal. I'm assuming, based on physical size alone, that human reproductive organs probably aren't going to harm a horse, sheep, or large dog. Smaller animals, it would cause harm and the person should be charged under animal cruelty laws.I'm just trying to take the psychological/emotion bias out and look at it from an objective perspective. Not all states have bestiality laws, so do you think gov't should regulate morality or not? That's really what it boils down too.It's sick, gross, not my 'cup of tea', but those are generally just popular opinions -- and as long as there is no harm done, why is it our job to regulate this kind of deviant behavior? 'Public shaming' and being labeled as a 'sheepf*(ker' or whatever should be enough of a deterrent that we shouldn't have to legislate it... gov't should stay out of our bedrooms (and barns apparently).Considering all the sheep jokes, I like the objective arguments you state.My concerns are simply that since we are not able to communicate with the animals in such a manner to see if they have objections to this treatment, then there should be an assumed no.Let's put it this way - if I want to have sex with someone, and they don't say no, because I am incapable of understanding them, does it make it okay? I.E. - Date rape drugs incapacitate the subject, placing them in a state where they cannot say no. Edited June 17, 2011 by redbarron77 *** I agree, the gov't should stay out of our bedrooms! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I am completely grossed out and somewhat outraged by this, but from a legal perspective, Justin playing devil's advocate is actually a strong stance.In Ohio, animals are property. If I can fuck a hole in my couch (my property), why can't I fuck my animal? As he points out, if the animal isn't being physically harmed, I think it would be exceedingly hard to argue that it's really "abuse" or "cruelty." For me it's along the same lines of computer animated child-porn. It's sick and disgusting; but it's also constitutionally protected. You can't make a sexual impulse criminal; only the act itself. I don't think animals have the mental capacity to be "harmed" by this sort of thing, so that limits the criminal act to physical abuse.I want to throw up in my mouth just from typing half of what I just wrote, but the logic seems sound... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 My concerns are simply that since we are not able to communicate with the animals in such a manner to see if they have objections to this treatment, then there should be an assumed no..My dog objects to being crated, taking a bath, and having his nails clipped. That doesn't make the behavior abusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbarron77 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 My dog objects to being crated, taking a bath, and having his nails clipped. That doesn't make the behavior abusive.Very good point.But the acts you described are directly for the benefit/safety/health of the animal.I'm talking about an act that is not necessary for the animal. Does it make it abuse? I can't say one way or the other, but regardless, the dude was making stories/pics, etc of the act.Not to make a rant or try to start an argument:I think when there are dogs that receive a messed up haircut and dyeing their coat to an unnatural color is wrong. Should there be a law against that as well? No. We have too damn many laws out there already.If the animal is restrained or receives injuries(bruising) from an act that is not for the well being of the animal or the people around the animal, then that act should not be allowed. More laws? I don't like that thought due to the slippery slope of letting the gov't regulating more of our lives.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think we're on the same page; we both want certain things to not happen, because they're amoral and disgusting ...but that doesn't mean we should have to outlaw them.I mentioned this story to my friend Candace, who happens to be a vegetarian. Her response was, "the way you feel about someone effing a dog; that's only mildly more disgusting to me than the idea of eating a cow."I respect her eleventy billion times more now for NOT being one of those vegetarians who rolls her eyes at me and makes comments when I eat meat. Hell, she's cooked steak for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbarron77 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I think we're on the same page; we both want certain things to not happen, because they're amoral and disgusting ...but that doesn't mean we should have to outlaw them.I mentioned this story to my friend Candace, who happens to be a vegetarian. Her response was, "the way you feel about someone effing a dog; that's only mildly more disgusting to me than the idea of eating a cow."I respect her eleventy billion times more now for NOT being one of those vegetarians who rolls her eyes at me and makes comments when I eat meat. Hell, she's cooked steak for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Justin / redkow - intersting discussion. Couple of points tho... In Ohio, animals are property. It is perfectly legal for me to cut a table in half with a circular saw, becuase it is my property. If a dog is my property too, then...???? I don't think animals have the mental capacity to be "harmed" by this sort of thing, so that limits the criminal act to physical abuse.Neither does a severley mentally handicapped person. It would be tough to argue that the lack of capacity for emotional harm makes it ok.I believe animals are incorrectly classed. They are not people, and they are not property. They should have their own legal classification that takes into account the fact that they can be owned by a person, bought sold/traded etc (unlike a person), but that they cannot be damaged intentionally (unlike a table or a television). Side issue: I would like to see the law changed to make it a felony to illegally kill or injure an animal that is known to be a pet (with exceptions for euthanizations, self defense, defense of one pet from another pet etc). So it'd still be ok to hunt deer, but if you shoot someone's dog then you're in a sh*tload of trouble. I would also like to see the law changed or clarified to allow the use of force to defend a pet from unlawfully being killed or injured by a person. How much force should be allowed? Dunno. But if pets are property thenyou can use no more force to save your dog from being unlawfully killed than saving your television from being destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I believe animals are incorrectly classed. They are not people, and they are not property. They should have their own legal classification that takes into account the fact that they can be owned by a person, bought sold/traded etc (unlike a person), but that they cannot be damaged intentionally (unlike a table or a television). I agree, but that's not the law.With regard to your last sentence, there are laws in place that dictate animals may not be "abused" or "neglected." The problem is that the law doesn't specify as to whether or not sexual contact with the animal is "abuse" when it doesn't cause physical injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I agree, but that's not the law.With regard to your last sentence, there are laws in place that dictate animals may not be "abused" or "neglected." The problem is that the law doesn't specify as to whether or not sexual contact with the animal is "abuse" when it doesn't cause physical injury.I agree with you. The law is what it is right now.Does pain count as abuse? How do we enforce that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolWhip Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 you guys creep me out. I am telling my dog to stay away from all of you. Especially Justin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbarron77 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 you guys creep me out. I am telling my dog to stay away from all of you. Especially Justin!do you have any sheep? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 you guys creep me out. I am telling my dog to stay away from all of you. Especially Justin!Thinking that something shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean i condone it. case in point would be abortion, protesting soldiers' funerals, and so on.I don't LIKE those things, but I don't think they should be illegal. honestly, I think Scruit is onto something with some kind of "domesticated animal" classification that falls between property and a person.the pit-fall I see is that it creates a very slippery slope for tort claims. Right now, if you hit my dog with your car, and my dog dies, you owe me the $150 I spent adopting my dog. If my dog was a purebred English Bulldog or something, I might get $2,000 or whatever the going rate is.But I won't see a dime for loss of consortium, pain and suffering, or anything comparable to a wrongful death tort claim that I could make if it was my child that had been killed by your car.If you're going to start classifying animals as "more than property," the potential damages awarded for their destruction has to match the elevated status. Slippery slope, indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.