A word from our sponsors...
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
A man was recently arrested in Florida for ethically and consensually having sex with a mini donkey:http://www.wtsp.com/news/watercooler/artic...iniature-donkeyhttp://www.ocala.com/article/20120918/ARTI...19696?p=1&tc=pgThe person (zoophile) arrested was Carlos Romero. Apparently a person named "James" was spying on him and invading his privacy; during one of James' spying sessions, he saw Carlos having sex with his miniature donkey. James then "snitched" (reported him to the police), and then the police got a search warrant for Carlos Romero's property and "seized" the donkey (took it away from him). Romero was then thrown in jail. Romero tried to explain to authorities why certain forms of zoosexual activity are ethical, but they wouldn't listen to him and called him a "monster".Romero has desperately tried to get his animal back, but the authorities say he's not "responsible" enough to get the donkey back, even though authorities said they could find no injury or harm inflicted on the donkey. Essentially, the donkey was unharmed, and they decided to jail Romero just because of "morality".For those who don't know, Florida politician Nan Rich spent 5 years trying to get bestiality banned in Florida. She finally "got her way" in 2011, when her discriminatory, intolerant, unjust anti-zoosexual legislation became law in Florida in 2011. Since then, nobody has tried to repeal it.I think this case is a prime example of "zoosexual discrimination" and how nobody comes to the defense of zoosexual people who have had their rights trampled on and have been arrested by intolerant politicians.In my opinion, James is the one who should've been arrested because he was the one who was spying on Carlos. Instead, because of the ****-up, discriminatory laws in Florida, Carlos (the zoophile) is the one who ended up getting arrested and thrown in jail.
I don't get why this could consider surprising considering all the anti zoo lawsBut read the news this happens alot
Does this really happen often? The only thing I hear happen often is when someone gets caught with child porn. I have heard cases of people who have got killed doing beastiality. There was the man that was doing anal with a horse and died, and a women that was allergic to peanut butter and dogs and was not aware of it. I find it interesting how people find beastiality disgusting, but yet they watch two girls one cup.
It is a bit like pit bull attacks. There are lots of dog bites daily but if it involves a pit it is supposed to be worthy of the evening news. Same with beastiality. There are lots of people that do things they get caught at but let it be loving an animal and it is going to be on the news and with the internet all news goes viral instantly.
It never surprises me when someone gets arrested for this, i mean, it is against the law. The only thing I wonder is if it is someone from BF who got arrested.
QUOTE (SixStringLover @ Sep 19 2012, 02:05 AM) It never surprises me when someone gets arrested for this, i mean, it is against the law. The only thing I wonder is if it is someone from BF who got arrested. It is not against the law in all places -- but unfortunately it's against the law in Florida, even though it shouldn't be.It's not against the law in the open ocean or in Antarctica.From the story I read: the man in Florida who was caught (at night) was caught for the following reason: he owned a section of farmland that was ALSO being rented by someone else. He had ~ 6 different barns. It was ~ 10PM and he had all his barn lights off except for one -- the one barn that had the lights ON was the one he was in (and in that barn he was having sex with a donkey). So when the renter ("James") came home, he found it strange that that barn's light was on, so he went to go check it out and that's when he saw Carlos having sex with the donkey (and then reported it to the cops).Obviously Carlos did not take enough precautions in order to maintain secrecy -- he should've had no "windows" to the outside world in his barn (so that "peeping toms" like James couldn't spy on him); he also should had a motion sensor device in front of his barn so that if a person walked by he'd instantly know there was someone near by and pull his pants up.It is unusual that Carlos was caught on his own property -- usually the people "busted" for zoosexual acts are those who are "fence-hopping" onto someone else's property (where they are usually spotted by someone or security cameras).
It is not surprising that the media is extremely hostile towards the zoophile who was caught and zoophilia in general; what really angers me is all the bigoted comments at the bottom of the news article (comments like "he's such a sicko" and "that is disgusting" and "what a sick freak"); where are all the pro-zoosexuals? I know they're out there since there are so many of them on this forumIt angers me that the authorities in places like Florida can still get away with criminalizing someone who did nothing wrong. (In this case, a human having non-cruel sex with an animal). Those acts should be legal, not illegal.
Just to avoid confusion -- hopefully -- there was a separate thread created here regarding the Romero Case in Florida called "Arrested in FL".I'm not completely sure how the board's timestamps handle different time zones, here; so I can not say for certain which thread came first.At any rate, there is the link. Have fun!:^) :^)Cheers,Shiny
QUOTE (shinyferret @ Sep 20 2012, 03:28 AM) Just to avoid confusion -- hopefully -- there was a separate thread created here regarding the Romero Case in Florida called "Arrested in FL".I'm not completely sure how the board's timestamps handle different time zones, here; so I can not say for certain which thread came first.At any rate, there is the link. Have fun!:^) :^)Cheers,Shiny I noticed that ~ a day after posting
Not a farm owner, just a farm worker. Too poor to hire a lawyer but still denied a public defender.Only an admin can make a link.
QUOTE (agrarian @ Sep 22 2012, 01:43 AM) Not a farm owner, just a farm worker. Too poor to hire a lawyer but still denied a public defender.Only an admin can make a link. I wish more people would come to his defense
suuuuucks, but it happens
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I hate to say this..but the arrested fellow was arrested as much for being STUPID as for engaging in taboo behavior...Being Zoo is NOT for sissies, folks...you may have to take your own hit someday...Mr Romero is going to have to take his... I am not unsympathetic, but if the guy owned the farm, why didn't he know there was a delivery that hadn't made it in yet? And he didn't hear a horse truck pull in? The first rule of our little hobby is...'Protect yourself". You should NEVER be more than 30 seconds from respectability... drop that skirt...or shove it back in your pants and zip 'em.... even at home, in private,...thirty seconds of margin, or don't do it...Yeah..its unfair...yeah, it shouldn't be illegal...and yeah, this time it's Florida, land of Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, Donald, AND of the very last Lynching in the US, in the bad old days of the civil rights movement...and we here are surprised...? Disturbed and dismayed, yes, but surprised? If we here are surprised by this...we need to find a new hobby...something like crocheting or knitting...
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
He may end up taking a misdemeanor, but it isn't going to be easy for the county. The bold honesty has opened up public debate and a surprising bit of support of the vegan/animal rights community has emerged because the animal was not hurt or neglected, but loved and is happy and taken a lesser evils stance because its legal to kill. The issue is non-partisan because both liberals and conservatives have their arguments on both sides. The LGBT community is the most prejudiced, arguing that animals cannot consent under any terms, even though some members are public about the fact that consent can be legally obtained by dishonest means, for example a transsexual that seeks heterosexuals to "turn-out".Next up is the privacy issue of the case that the court really has to be careful with because the witness may self-incriminate under oath for voyeurism or stalking as defined in Fl law. and invalidate everything under the fruit of the poison tree. Then there is the motives of the witness, who waited a month before saying anything and the original report may show a possible extortion.And finally, the "oral loophole" case seems to be the only other charge brought up under the new law and the fact that charge was dropped even though at least one of the photos was admissible under strict reading of the law.
QUOTE (agrarian @ Sep 24 2012, 12:45 PM) He may end up taking a misdemeanor, but it isn't going to be easy for the county. The bold honesty has opened up public debate and a surprising bit of support of the vegan/animal rights community has emerged because the animal was not hurt or neglected, but loved and is happy and taken a lesser evils stance because its legal to kill. The issue is non-partisan because both liberals and conservatives have their arguments on both sides. The LGBT community is the most prejudiced, arguing that animals cannot consent under any terms, even though some members are public about the fact that consent can be legally obtained by dishonest means, for example a transsexual that seeks heterosexuals to "turn-out".Next up is the privacy issue of the case that the court really has to be careful with because the witness may self-incriminate under oath for voyeurism or stalking as defined in Fl law. and invalidate everything under the fruit of the poison tree. Then there is the motives of the witness, who waited a month before saying anything and the original report may show a possible extortion.And finally, the "oral loophole" case seems to be the only other charge brought up under the new law and the fact that charge was dropped even though at least one of the photos was admissible under strict reading of the law. Thank you for this informative post. I for one (and I am sure others too) would be really grateful if you could keep us posted about what is going on with it. Thanks
QUOTE (dirtbiker2000 @ Sep 24 2012, 06:19 PM) Thank you for this informative post. I for one (and I am sure others too) would be really grateful if you could keep us posted about what is going on with it. Thanks YES!!!
Agrarian...Thanks...maybe there is a little hope for this guy.....if he does get through without a jail term, it'll be by the skin of his teeth, though...The privacy issue SHOULD be paramount here...if that was all that was involved, they'd have cause to arrest the delivery guy, even if only for a hand slap...As an older American, one thing that often colors my posts is the history of the last fifty years. We do NOT teach Civics, nor the US Constitution any more, nor the US Civil War...about which, historians have said, " If you understand the Civil War, you will understand America". As a consequence, when issues like this come to the attention of the elected 'forces of ignorance', there are no...NO... brakes on the rush to judgement...so we get prohibitive laws which violate the spirit if not the letter of our written Documents of Freedom.....what's supposed to happen then is for the senate or senior chamber to exert a calming effect and tone down the emotional reactions so that we don't get " private " laws in the guise of the "public good"... When that process fails, we have our Supreme Court...which should only be dispassionately considering the Constitutional aspects of such legislation, since they are intended, by a life appointment, to be beholden to no one...and if said legislation is deemed to be fair and properly constitutional...it stands...Our system has gone off its rails a bit, and it seems to be because more and more, no one knows any better...we are becoming Mr Eliot's " Hollow Men", and the whimpers are getting louder...
QUOTE (saddlebum66 @ Sep 24 2012, 09:56 PM) Agrarian...Thanks...maybe there is a little hope for this guy.....if he does get through without a jail term, it'll be by the skin of his teeth, though...The privacy issue SHOULD be paramount here...if that was all that was involved, they'd have cause to arrest the delivery guy, even if only for a hand slap... It annoys me the people in the media care more about joining the "angry mob" with their "pitchforks" (against bestiality) than they do about confronting the breach of privacy which occurred.
Well said, saddlebum. Your thoughts sum it up, pretty well.That said, folks, always, always, ALWAYS protect yourself! If it's not your animal (or you don't at least have permission from his or her owner), DON'T do it! PeriodIf you do have sex with an animal, make sure abide by the aforementioned "30 second" rule, as saddlebum detailed.No matter how unjust this may be, we must remember that our lifestyle is seen so far outside of "normal" behavior. Even outside of many of the "fringe" aspects of LGBT, sadly.I don't know if we'll ever be publicly accepted. Personally, I think people can relate, but not the general populace.So ... be careful, be smart!Don't fence-hop, and abide by the 30 SECOND RULE!
828.02 Definitions -- "or allowed to continue when there is reasonable remedy or relief" is going to bite the prosecutor in the... um, ok trying not to pun this.
never mind that one, the commas in the 1901 law are confusing and clarified(or mutilated) in the standard jury instruction 29.13(a)
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (Calis Vox @ Sep 27 2012, 12:55 AM) Well said, saddlebum. Your thoughts sum it up, pretty well.That said, folks, always, always, ALWAYS protect yourself! If it's not your animal (or you don't at least have permission from his or her owner), DON'T do it! PeriodIf you do have sex with an animal, make sure abide by the aforementioned "30 second" rule, as saddlebum detailed. Sometimes it can be only 20 seconds or 10 seconds; depends on the situation. In any case, being ready to revert to a "normal" appearance (in case anyone unexpectedly "walks in" on someone having sex with an animal) is only to protect oneself from undue persecution and is only done because the laws are not on the side of the zoosexuals. If the laws WERE on the side of the zoosexuals, it would only be a matter of embarrassment/shame if someone walked in on a person while he/she had sex with animal. The "law factor" is the biggest problem zoophiles face -- bad (anti-zoosexual) laws strip zoosexuals of their rights
QUOTE (Zqwm7 @ Oct 2 2012, 10:45 PM) The "law factor" is the biggest problem zoophiles face -- bad (anti-zoosexual) laws strip zoosexuals of their rights That's pretty accurate I have to say.
I will never understand what is wrong about it. I'm a female with a male dog and he loves sex. I do not force him to do anything against his will or hurt him in any way. How is it abuse when the animal is willing? When the animal loves it and provokes if? I could understand if the animal did not won't it then yes that would be abuse and rape. Just stupid laws is all it is.
Update on the ocala star-banner.
QUOTE (agrarian @ Oct 9 2012, 05:44 PM) Update on the ocala star-banner. Thanks for the heads up. Here's the link to the story. http://www.ocala.com/article/20121009/ARTI...121009675?tc=crRomero himself has even commented on the article. Respect to him for rejecting the plea deal that so many would have accepted in the hope of getting through this more quickly. I don't pretend to understand the US legal system but I have to assume that refusing him a public defender is in some ways a deliberate act to try and stop this being fought. Good luck. (Here's the article in case it gets moved)QUOTE (Ocala Star-Banner)A farmhand accused of a sex act with a miniature donkey named Doodle refused a plea deal from the state Tuesday and said he plans to take his case to trial.Carlos R. Romero, 31, was charged with cruelty to animals, a first-degree misdemeanor, after sheriff's deputies say he was found in August in a sexually compromising position with 21-month-old Doodle.In court Tuesday, the state offered a plea deal that included one year of probation and a $200 fine if Romero pleaded guilty to the charge. He would also have to undergo a psychosexual evaluation, HIV and STD testing, and not own any animals, among other conditions of the deal.“My major problem with what the prosecution is offering is the no contact with animals,” Romero said to County Judge Steven Rogers.Rogers said that Romero didn't qualify for a public defender in the case and would have to get a private attorney to represent him. Romero said he can't afford one.Outside the courtroom after the hearing, Romero said that the conditions of the deal were “too harsh” and that no contact with animals would leave him destitute. Romero is a farmhand who said he makes about $300 a week.“Preventing me from going on a farm would destroy me,” Romero said.He said it would leave him homeless and without any money.“This case is kind of ridiculous,” Romero said.As for Doodle, Romero said he wants to retake custody of his animal and that there was no evidence of pain and suffering done to the miniature donkey.“I just wish this case was over today so I could have her back,” Romero said.Romero's next court date is scheduled for Oct. 24 at 9 a.m. If Romero's case does go to trial, it will be scheduled for the week of Nov. 5.
How on earth did a psychosexual evaluation come in to play with this prosecutor as part of a plea deal? It is something that comes after conviction and before sentencing for rape cases. That could have been a life sentence in that case as an open-ended plea and subject him to a full frontal lobotomy at the whim of the state. This is gross malice for a animal cruelty misdemeanor that can't even be used for the sex-offender registry. No word from the ACLU, lawyers guild or any civil rights organizations? The poor guy doesn't even have a public defender.
QUOTE (agrarian @ Oct 10 2012, 08:50 PM) How on earth did a psychosexual evaluation come in to play with this prosecutor as part of a plea deal? It is something that comes after conviction and before sentencing for rape cases. That could have been a life sentence in that case as an open-ended plea and subject him to a full frontal lobotomy at the whim of the state. This is gross malice for a animal cruelty misdemeanor that can't even be used for the sex-offender registry. No word from the ACLU, lawyers guild or any civil rights organizations? The poor guy doesn't even have a public defender. As the DSM now even states that a paraphilia of any kind, including zoophilia, is only a psychological problem if it is causing some kind of mental problems for the person who has it a psyche evaluation would also be totally irrelevant other than as an excuse for the prosecutors to treat the guy worse.
I give up, jobless now, homeless in a few days, I cant find any help anywhere. At least I'll have a place to live for up to a year. I'll still go in front of a jury to try to hang on what what little I had and let the law deal with the person that victimized me. Maby I can use the Conan O'Brein skit as a resume for the next jackass movie, but as of now the past decade of my life has come to an end and I'll have to rebuild yet again.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (agrarian @ Oct 10 2012, 08:01 PM) I give up, jobless now, homeless in a few days, I cant find any help anywhere. At least I'll have a place to live for up to a year. I'll still go in front of a jury to try to hang on what what little I had and let the law deal with the person that victimized me. Maby I can use the Conan O'Brein skit as a resume for the next jackass movie, but as of now the past decade of my life has come to an end and I'll have to rebuild yet again. Hmmm.
Came across this while searching for 'banned' It's really sad to hear this.Though it would actually work if they could bring the animal and the offender together and see whether she is traumatised by his appearance or she feels safe and happy, to show that she consented. It would shut up alot of nay-sayers.State offering a plea deal involving a psychological evaluation, HIV and STD test? No contact to humans and animals for 1 year and a $200 fine? What? I think they need to rethink their laws, and the US legal system should be rational and logical.The law is stupid, ridiculous and quite frankly it's backwards thinking that perfectly reflects the law-maker's personality.I wish the guy the best. I'm happy that they are debating this, and all the best that he could walk free.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
so did the catcher stay and jack off while watching and then call the cops???
QUOTE (pigfarmer953 @ Oct 17 2012, 09:13 PM) so did the catcher stay and jack off while watching and then call the cops??? The person who "snitched" on him was the owner of the farm. The person he saw (Carlos Romero), i.e. the man who had sex with a donkey, was only renting the farm. The person who snitched (the owner) discovered Romero when he visited the farm at night and saw that all the lights were off except for one -- the barn that Romero was having zoosexual acts in. Romero disregarded the "30 second" rule, meaning that at any moment a person could spy on him and see him having sex with an animal.The person who snitched on Romero didn't say anything for a month and then told the cops about a month later. In my opinion, HE (the snitcher) should've been arrested for spying, but instead the innocent one (Romero, the man who had sex with a donkey) was unjustly arrested.By the way, here is another article -- it may be similar or identical to the Oct 9 one:http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ani...ants-jury-trialI'm tired of seeing people's comments on news articles saying things like "he's such a sicko" and "he's a threat to children" and "he's a sick animal abuser". It's clear that he wasn't abusing the donkey, but people seem to think that the act of having sex with an animal is itself an act of "abuse" (this is a fallacy).
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I'm curious as to the evidence they had to indict him Usually if one person tells the police he saw something happening there needs to be some kind of corroboration with one or two other witnesses. Otherwise it's a "he said he said" situation. Unless they had some type of evidence (swollen vulva, vid/pic evidence, marks, etc) wouldn't they need more proof before charging the man?Oh wait- I just saw the part about the man admitting to it. Not the best idea. Should've lawyered up and stayed silent. Still, it's a shame he was arrested. But he should've played it smarter and been more discreet.
Is it just me, but does it seem strange that he can be dragged into court without legal representation, whatever happened to the right of a fair trial. Next if he (Carlos) was renting the property why was the landlord trespassing on the rented property, also why the one month wait before going to the law.
QUOTE (st benard @ Oct 18 2012, 07:24 AM) Is it just me, but does it seem strange that he can be dragged into court without legal representation, whatever happened to the right of a fair trial. Next if he (Carlos) was renting the property why was the landlord trespassing on the rented property, also why the one month wait before going to the law. :thinking: Because justice is a farce, it is a smoke and mirrors show now days, if you aint in the "chosen" group they rail road ya to the place they see fit!Because to many cry babies begged the government to save them from the big bad mystical wolf they where all too happy to surrender their rights!Any who surrender liberty for safety will gain neither and lose both! and here, we see it in fruition!Immediately I locked onto the trespass and pepping as well both or non should be on trial atm!
QUOTE (st benard @ Oct 18 2012, 01:24 AM) Is it just me, but does it seem strange that he can be dragged into court without legal representation, whatever happened to the right of a fair trial. Next if he (Carlos) was renting the property why was the landlord trespassing on the rented property, also why the one month wait before going to the law. The landlord still owns the property. That's not trespassing. In all honesty if I saw a light on in one barn that late at night it might arouse my curiosity too. More of a "are you still up?" rather than a "gasp! Trespassers!". Carlos probably figured the landlord wouldn't be around that late, but it's a possibility that, if ignored, can lead to situations like this.I haven't read the article, but it sounds as though Carlos either admitted to it or plead guilty. Usually you don't need legal representation unless you are pleading innocent. Like I said, didn't rad the article, correct me if I'm wrong. It's not like I'd be shocked to learn someone's rights are being trampled on.As for the wait, maybe the landlord was planning to blackmail him and Carlos wasn't having that. Who knows.
No he plead not guilty as they where charging him under animal cruelty, which is clearly furthest from the case at hand, but why would the law bother with little details like truth and accuracy!when they want to screw you they find very creative and underhanded ways!I seen it happen to two friends now and their story was identical to the witness AND victims, but the cops wanted them so tada magic! they the ones got shafted, so I have zero trust or faith or respect for the joke we all call law!
Pled not guilty and rejected the plea deal, and still living at the farm. He might end up pro se and directly cross examine the witness under oath explaining the details like how long the defendant lived there, the time of night and why it would be unusual to have the light on knowing those two facts. Then the detail on why the defendant did not see a vehicle approaching or any other movement until the act was seen giving testimony to any window covering. Then there is the motives of the long delay and whether or not any disputes occurred between the defendant and witness beforehand. In Florida there is no immunity for a witness in a misdemeanor trial, so the witness will have to plead the 5th or implicate himself for criminal violations, to which there are three possibilities. Voyeurism, allowing sexual conduct under the same law and extortion. Then bring the basis of Lawrence v. Texas, due process and the right to privacy.
QUOTE (agrarian @ Oct 18 2012, 07:03 PM) Pled not guilty and rejected the plea deal, and still living at the farm. He might end up pro se and directly cross examine the witness under oath explaining the details like how long the defendant lived there, the time of night and why it would be unusual to have the light on knowing those two facts. Then the detail on why the defendant did not see a vehicle approaching or any other movement until the act was seen giving testimony to any window covering. Then there is the motives of the long delay and whether or not any disputes occurred between the defendant and witness beforehand. In Florida there is no immunity for a witness in a misdemeanor trial, so the witness will have to plead the 5th or implicate himself for criminal violations, to which there are three possibilities. Voyeurism, allowing sexual conduct under the same law and extortion. Then bring the basis of Lawrence v. Texas, due process and the right to privacy. I wish the guy the best of luck.
Any one willing to help him out? We should have a zoo march withscarfs
"We've found the one honest man in America" -- Lewis Black, The Daily Show 10/16/12
QUOTE (agrarian @ Oct 24 2012, 11:12 PM) "We've found the one honest man in America" -- Lewis Black, The Daily Show 10/16/12 Someone posted that clip on another site. Sad that it is so true.
QUOTE (agrarian @ Oct 24 2012, 03:12 PM) "We've found the one honest man in America" -- Lewis Black, The Daily Show 10/16/12 Intriguing.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (agrarian @ Oct 24 2012, 11:12 PM) "We've found the one honest man in America" -- Lewis Black, The Daily Show 10/16/12 Here is the link to a 6-minute video containing that statement:http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-octo...farm-animal-sexPeople really need to work together in order to repeal Florida's bigoted and unconstitutional anti-zoosexuality law in Florida and in other states. Zoosexuals should not just stand around while their rights get trampled on. (And Carlos Romero is one of the few people out there who is publicly fighting against the anti-zoosexual bigots and bullies). We need more people like Carlos to fight these bigots.As I said in another post, true zoosexuals will try to NOT inflict and pain and/or suffering on their animal lovers. On the other hand, people every day coldly and cruelly kill animals in slaughterhouses and via hunting labelled with the euphemism "sportsmanship/game". And yet, in terms of current law, zoosexuals are the ones being criminalized while the real people doing harm (like slaughtering/hunting) are legally allowed to do those cruel activities. That's not the way it should be -- it should be reversed (zoo acts should be allowed, while activities such as hunting which ARE cruel to animals should be banned). In addition, people (i.e. the ignorant, misinformed majority) are always complaining that zoosexual acts lack "consent", and yet they never question whether an animal "consented" to be their meal, or to be hunted, or to be experimented on, or to be their pet.
Horrible incidents like this is what scare me to death. I just saw on the news earlier this year for a woman accused of "crimes against nature", as they put it on the news. How is it "against nature", considering lots of animals breed with other species? We're only animals ourselves, after all.
If USA zoophiles from a group (like a LGTB group) to fight for their rights, things like this would not happen, if they do, you can sue the state and take the case to the constitutional court and have such laws removed (because they are clearly unconstitutional)But if people do nothing but watch, then nothing will happen, zoophiles will continue to be jailed.Look at Germany, they make sex with animals illegal recently. But the zoophiles are organized and they are fighting back, and there is a good change the constitutional court will deem this new moral law illegal.The reason the Florida law passed is because nobody oppose to it, nobody when outside with papers and stick opposing to such bigoted law. And nobody has challenged the constitutionality of this law.
QUOTE (Dog lover @ Dec 23 2012, 02:42 AM) If USA zoophiles from a group (like a LGTB group) to fight for their rights, things like this would not happen, if they do, you can sue the state and take the case to the constitutional court and have such laws removed (because they are clearly unconstitutional)But if people do nothing but watch, then nothing will happen, zoophiles will continue to be jailed.Look at Germany, they make sex with animals illegal recently. But the zoophiles are organized and they are fighting back, and there is a good change the constitutional court will deem this new moral law illegal.The reason the Florida law passed is because nobody oppose to it, nobody when outside with papers and stick opposing to such bigoted law. And nobody has challenged the constitutionality of this law. Carlos Romero is currently challenging the constitutionality of the anti-zoosexual law in Florida. Let's hope he wins. If Carlos is successful, having non-cruel sex with an animal will once again be legal in Florida (as it should be). It is speciesist for a government to enforce a law which limits sex to only one species.
Look, i'm sorry to sound negative here, but i've been around long enough to know that when it comes to having sex with animals the general populous is not going to care whether the arguments given are right or wrong, good or bad. The average joe schmo looks at anything beyond the norm thats sexual as being evil or potentialy harmfull. US has traditionaly always been extremely closed and prudish when it comes to any topic that involves S-E-X in it, especially if it does not involve man and woman doing it missionary position in the privacy of thier own home. The average person is NOT going to be interested in listening any logical reasoning for arguing for logical reasoning for sex with animals, zoophilia or bestiality, no matter how convincing the argument is. Since the average individual is scared of anything that they do not understand thier mind is simply going to turn off to listening to any pro- arguments. Even if poor Carlos makes it to trail, any argument he or anybody defending him makes is going to be ignored by any jury. This is because when the jury goes into deliberation any one of the jurors who feels Carlos's innocence will remain quiet becuase he /she will feel intimidated by the majority who will remain close minded on the subject, and they will! I'm sorry, the 0.1% of zoophiles out there are vastly outnumbered by the family oriented, closed minded, bible thumping, redneck, conservative soccer moms that make up this country. My advice to Carlos is just keep quiet, keep his nose clean for year (or forever long) then move and get another donkey. Thats the best odds for him he will ever see. I know, because i've been there done that!
QUOTE (hozzman @ Dec 22 2012, 10:42 PM) Look, i'm sorry to sound negative here, but i've been around long enough to know that when it comes to having sex with animals the general populous is not going to care whether the arguments given are right or wrong, good or bad. The average joe schmo looks at anything beyond the norm thats sexual as being evil or potentialy harmfull. US has traditionaly always been extremely closed and prudish when it comes to any topic that involves S-E-X in it, especially if it does not involve man and woman doing it missionary position in the privacy of thier own home. The average person is NOT going to be interested in listening any logical reasoning for arguing for logical reasoning for sex with animals, zoophilia or bestiality, no matter how convincing the argument is. Since the average individual is scared of anything that they do not understand thier mind is simply going to turn off to listening to any pro- arguments. Even if poor Carlos makes it to trail, any argument he or anybody defending him makes is going to be ignored by any jury. This is because when the jury goes into deliberation any one of the jurors who feels Carlos's innocence will remain quiet becuase he /she will feel intimidated by the majority who will remain close minded on the subject, and they will! I'm sorry, the 0.1% of zoophiles out there are vastly outnumbered by the family oriented, closed minded, bible thumping, redneck, conservative soccer moms that make up this country. My advice to Carlos is just keep quiet, keep his nose clean for year (or forever long) then move and get another donkey. Thats the best odds for him he will ever see. I know, because i've been there done that! I'm with you on that. And to some it may sound negative. But, if zoos are finally accepted chances are I wouldn't try to take credit- or be "out".
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (agrarian @ Oct 18 2012, 11:03 AM) Pled not guilty and rejected the plea deal, and still living at the farm. He might end up pro se and directly cross examine the witness under oath explaining the details like how long the defendant lived there, the time of night and why it would be unusual to have the light on knowing those two facts. Then the detail on why the defendant did not see a vehicle approaching or any other movement until the act was seen giving testimony to any window covering. Then there is the motives of the long delay and whether or not any disputes occurred between the defendant and witness beforehand. In Florida there is no immunity for a witness in a misdemeanor trial, so the witness will have to plead the 5th or implicate himself for criminal violations, to which there are three possibilities. Voyeurism, allowing sexual conduct under the same law and extortion. Then bring the basis of Lawrence v. Texas, due process and the right to privacy. Extortion's a felony, isn't it?
QUOTE (agrarian @ Oct 10 2012, 12:50 PM) How on earth did a psychosexual evaluation come in to play with this prosecutor as part of a plea deal? It is something that comes after conviction and before sentencing for rape cases. That could have been a life sentence in that case as an open-ended plea and subject him to a full frontal lobotomy at the whim of the state. This is gross malice for a animal cruelty misdemeanor that can't even be used for the sex-offender registry. No word from the ACLU, lawyers guild or any civil rights organizations? The poor guy doesn't even have a public defender. Three words:National Lawyers Guild.
QUOTE (agrarian @ Sep 27 2012, 08:14 PM) never mind that one, the commas in the 1901 law are confusing and clarified(or mutilated) in the standard jury instruction 29.13(a) Just wait 'til they start puttin' smileys into the law books!
While the Florida Supreme Court did rule in Sheldon Montgomery v. Florida, No. SC02-1943 (2005) that a plea of nolo contendere may be treated as a prior conviction for the purposes of future sentencing, I can't help wondering what else (if anything) might be preventing Mr. Romero from filing criminal extortion charges against the fellow who allegedly waited somewhere in the neighbourhood of a month before reporting Mr. Romero's alleged sexual activities to authorities.
Well, let's hope Carlos can give us an update soon. I am sure that he has information that isn't in the newspapers.Big "10" for you Carlos for having the cajones to stand up to them.
Last modified on May 19th, 2013 | Zoodestiny.com | © 2003-2005 - All Rights Reserved