Author
|
Topic: Very important research regarding duck fucking
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
|
posted 16 March 2005 07:06 AM
Taken from the book, Disorder in the Court... actual transcript of in-court testimony from the US: quote: Q: On the morning of July 25th, did you walk from the farmhouse down the footpath to the cow shed? A: I did. Q: As a result, you passed within a few yards of the duck pond? A: I did. Q: And did you observe anything? A: I did. [Witness remains silent.] Q: Well, could you tell the Court what you saw? A: I saw George. Q: You saw George -------, the defendant in this case? A: Yes. Q: Can you tell the Court what George ------- was doing? A: Yes. [Witness remains silent.] Q: Well, would you kindly do so? A: He had his thing stuck into one of the ducks. Q: His "thing"? A: You know... his thing. His di— I mean, his penis. Q: You passed by the duck pond, the light was good, you were sober, you have good eyesight, and you saw this clearly? A: Yes. Q: Did you say anything to him? A: Of course I did! Q: What did you say to him? A: Morning, George.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062
|
posted 16 March 2005 09:19 AM
Is it really necrophilia if you didn't know?*I think that the ducks, and the squirrel, were just really focused on mating at the time. Their partners' dead status wasn't part of the turn-on. *Please help, my present circle of friends is ostracizing me until this question is settled.
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 16 March 2005 11:45 AM
On requisite knowledge of vital signs: a related actual criminal law case that was taught in law school, (at least back in the 80's) I can't now recall the name now, let alone a link.Scenario : At a wild party, the accused was found having carnal knowledge with an aparently unconscious female. Police were called, and discovered that the "victim" had in fact been dead for a few hours from a drug overdose. Accused was charged with commiting an indecency to a dead body. At trial, the defence was that he didn't have the requisite "intent" (mens rea) to commit the charged offence, as he had been too wasted to realize the woman was dead. Verdict: Guilty. If he didn't know she was dead, he must have thought she was alive. Obviously she could not have in any way indicated "consent". Sexual intercourse without consent is sexual assault, a crime for which self induced intoxication does not constitute a defence. Therefore, since he had the intent to commit the more serious offence of sexual assault (back then, rape, I think), that intent could be transferred to the less serious offence of indignity to a dead body. No ducks involved, so I apologize for the thread drift.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076
|
posted 16 March 2005 02:02 PM
Thread drift:I went on a team building / work excursion in Arizona a few years back with a bucnh of Americans. One of the organized activities was a dove hunt. For the life of me I couldn't understand why a) killing stuff was though of as morale booster and b) why they would expect me to take part. However I tagged along (since my job at the time depended on attending) just to watch. I was disgusted. It was a mockery of the idea of hunting for food or in a responsible manner. They never even retrieved the ones they shot!! I think over the course of the 4hrs about 500 doves were killed by 6 guys. Now getting back to duck fucking....
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|