But guess what? Those cops were wrong this time. They was wrong! Permit me to elucidate.
It all started out innocently enough. They charged the deer-fucker with misdemeanor sexual gratification with an animal--pretty standard, right? But are you ready for the curveball? Ready? The deer was dead. It was roadkill.
Ooh, baby. This feels so wrong, but you're lookin so right!
And that's where the law takes its crazy turn. The charge was "sexual gratification with an animal." According to the news account, Webster's dictionary defines "animal" as "any of a kingdom of living beings." LIVING BEINGS, YOUR HONOR! LIVING BEINGS! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?!?! SHUT THE BOOK, CLOSE THE CASE, PRAISE THE LORD AND UNLOCK THE CUFFS!!! THE DEFENSE FUCKING RESTS, YOUR HONOR!!!! THIS BOY'S GONNA WALK!!!
I actually don't know what's more disturbing--that this loophole exists, or that the logic-driven part of my brain actually (gah) understands the loophole. I guess, since there was no harm done to any living thing, it's okay? Technically and jurisprudentially, it's okay to fuck roadkill?
You know what? I should probably just stop typing right now. If anyone needs me, I'll be shivering in the bottom of the shower. Awesome.
Hyperlink:
- Deer assault case presents unusual issues [Minneapolis Star-Tribune]
P.S. Shout-out to DB for passing this along.
2 comments:
I think what's most disturbing is the sick and twisted caption you came up with for that picture. Shame on you, Harris, shame on you!
Just as you can see the loophole I can see the resoning of this man. I myself am an avid closet aminal fucker. There are certain animals that dont like being fucked especially deers. Trust me I know they are kickers! So, I take it this guy was sick of the animal set he could fuck and was trying to expand his horizons. What other natural thought then to have urself a little roadside deer?
Post a Comment