Lawyer argues sex with dead deer not crime

  • Thread starter Thread starter b_justb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

b_justb

Guest
Prosecution of a Douglas County case involving alleged sexual contact with a dead deer may hinge on the legal definition of the word “animal.”

Bryan James Hathaway, 20, of Superior faces a misdemeanor charge of sexual gratification with an animal. He is accused of having sex with a dead deer he saw beside Stinson Avenue on Oct. 11.

A motion filed last week by his attorney, public defender Fredric Anderson, argued that because the deer was dead, it was not considered an animal and the charge should be dismissed.

story ]
 
:bigyikes:

Public defender though - that means he was appointed to defend the guy, right? If there’s some loophole he can find then he’s just doing his job in bringing it to peoples’ attention I guess.
 
IMO the guy should be in a mental hospital, not prison. I’ll wager that he is or was heavy into drugs.
 
b_justb said:
Bryan James Hathaway, 20, of Superior faces a misdemeanor charge of sexual gratification with an animal.
Click to expand...
Who wrote that law? Seems like someone had a lot of time on his hands to dream that one up. 😃
 
What’s the big deal? I’d say he is free to have sex with his deer wife.
 
Just to play devil’s advocate, if the purpose of the law was clearly to promote humane treatment of animals, and as much is suggested in the law’s preamble, then it may be inferred that the law does not extend to abusing the stuffed moose head on the wall, or using a lambskin condom, or various more imaginative uses of formerly living animals.

A lot depends on the exact wording of the law, and to some extent the context in which it was enacted.
 
Ick. That’s just nasty. How desperate do you have to be to have sex with roadkill. And how exactly did he get caught? Eeewwww.:eek:
 
Just to play devil’s advocate, if the purpose of the law was clearly to promote humane treatment of animals, and as much is suggested in the law’s preamble, then it may be inferred that the law does not extend to abusing the stuffed moose head on the wall, or using a lambskin condom, or various more imaginative uses of formerly living animals.
Click to expand...
I agree. Unless we are going to illegalize all sorts of masturbation (and I would support doing that…but I think it’s unlikely that it will happen) then dead animals are probably fair game. Are we going to illegalize it if people want to have sex with a stuffed animal? In animal costumes? With leather and lambskin?

It’s sick, sure, those things are all perverse fetishes. But we don’t “police the bedroom” anymore (I think we still should, but the courts have overruled that) and so to stay consistant…sex with a dead animal, which doesn’t hurt the animal or society (at least according to the courts which support “privacy rights”)…would theoretically be legal.
 
b_justb said:
Bryan James Hathaway, 20, of Superior faces a misdemeanor charge of sexual gratification with an animal. He is accused of having sex with a dead deer he saw beside Stinson Avenue on Oct. 11.
Click to expand...
:bigyikes:
A motion filed last week by his attorney, public defender Fredric Anderson, argued that because the deer was dead, it was not considered an animal and the charge should be dismissed.

story ]
Click to expand...
Now just** where** do I remember hearing a:cool: lawyer saying,:rolleyes: “It all depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”???:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Scripture make no distinction, living or dead. Logically, both are wrong.

Then again, we’re talking about man’s laws - right?:rolleyes:

Lev 18:23 Thou shalt not copulate with any beast: neither shalt thou be defiled with it. A woman shall not lie down to a beast, nor copulate with it: because it is a heinous crime.

Lev 20:15 He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die: the beast also ye shall kill.
Lev 20:16 The woman that shall lie under any beast, shall be killed together with the same. Their blood be upon them.
 
I assume he’s being charged under an old buggery law?

Still, how’d you like to have your lawyer say about you, “Your honor, my client may be a sick pervert wierdo but a crimanl he is not!”
 
chicago said:
I assume he’s being charged under an old buggery law?

Still, how’d you like to have your lawyer say about you, “Your honor, my client may be a sick pervert wierdo but a crimanl he is not!”
Click to expand...
People are encouraged to be proud of thier perversions now days. Look at NAMBLA.
 
batteddy said:
I agree. Unless we are going to illegalize all sorts of masturbation (and I would support doing that…but I think it’s unlikely that it will happen) then dead animals are probably fair game. Are we going to illegalize it if people want to have sex with a stuffed animal? In animal costumes? With leather and lambskin?

It’s sick, sure, those things are all perverse fetishes. But we don’t “police the bedroom” anymore (I think we still should, but the courts have overruled that) and so to stay consistant…sex with a dead animal, which doesn’t hurt the animal or society (at least according to the courts which support “privacy rights”)…would theoretically be legal.
Click to expand...
police the bedroom? thank god people like you don’t make it into office. we have had plenty of dictators doing just that (pol pot comes to mind)

but back to the topic… yeah its gross and disgusting and wrong in every sense, but instead of giving this guy the slammer someone give the poor guy a girlfriend!
 
chicago said:
I assume he’s being charged under an old buggery law?

Still, how’d you like to have your lawyer say about you, “Your honor, my client may be a sick pervert wierdo but a crimanl he is not!”
Click to expand...
Most jurisdictions do have specific laws relating to bestiality (sex with animals). I’m presuming this case is probably covered by them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top