(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Farmhand arrested for having sex with a miniature donkey claims it's his constitutional right to get himself a little ass

13 Dec 2012 02:59 AM   |   4768 clicks   |   Daily Mail
Showing 1-50 of 88 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
fusillade762    [TotalFark]  
"Florida" tag beats "Follow Up" tag.

12 Dec 2012 08:26 PM
PhiloeBedoe    [TotalFark]  
i1079.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
"Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."

12 Dec 2012 08:30 PM
brap    [TotalFark]  
Poor Fricky.

12 Dec 2012 08:37 PM
I_Am_Weasel    [TotalFark]  
Why I'd not last long at writing headlines...

Yankee diddled Doodle dandy!

12 Dec 2012 08:40 PM
Ed Finnerty     
Guess he wasn't man enough for a full-size donkey.

12 Dec 2012 08:59 PM
Apos     
He's an asswipe-and damn proud of it.

12 Dec 2012 09:07 PM
brap    [TotalFark]  
Miniature donkey pick up lines...
 
"Can I give you a lift?."
 
"I'm hung, like a tiny donkey."
 
"I want you to bear my teeny centaurs."
 
"We're a match made in heaven.  You're name is Doodle, and I'm a dude who'll do ANYTHING!"

12 Dec 2012 09:08 PM
AbbeySomeone     
So, he's single?

12 Dec 2012 09:15 PM
FriarReb98    [TotalFark]  
Came for Clerks 2 references. Leaving disappointed this time.

\is the dude's name Kelly?

12 Dec 2012 09:19 PM
Snarfangel     
Well, if you cross a zebra with a donkey, you get a zonkey. The farmhand was probably just trying to create a honkey.

12 Dec 2012 10:14 PM
Electrify     
This is bad news... for Obama.

12 Dec 2012 10:16 PM
jaylectricity    [TotalFark]  
I defy any of you to resist this cute face!

i.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size

12 Dec 2012 10:30 PM
The Stealth Hippopotamus    [TotalFark]  
Why oh why did this thread have to happen while I was away from my office computer?!

I'd show you a few pictures of little asses!!

12 Dec 2012 10:32 PM
Snarfangel     
Here is a picture of the victim:
www.mrouse.comView Full Size

12 Dec 2012 10:37 PM
BravadoGT    [TotalFark]  
"Romero was taken into custody at the Ocala farm where he was employed after reportedly admitting to police that he becomes aroused when seeing animals in heat and mating."

In fact--he's thinking about it RIGHT NOW

i.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size

12 Dec 2012 10:46 PM
Lsherm    [TotalFark]  
The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.


If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.

12 Dec 2012 11:24 PM
MaudlinMutantMollusk    [TotalFark]  
He'll have plenty of time to mule it over

12 Dec 2012 11:25 PM
brap    [TotalFark]  

Snarfangel: Here is a picture of the victim:
[www.mrouse.com image 634x591]



Cock a Doodle DON'T.

12 Dec 2012 11:40 PM
BravadoGT    [TotalFark]  

Lsherm: The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.

If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.


He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

12 Dec 2012 11:43 PM
doglover    [TotalFark]  

PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 480x360] 
"Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."


+1

12 Dec 2012 11:57 PM
fusillade762    [TotalFark]  
So that's how they make Guy's Donkey Sauce...

13 Dec 2012 12:00 AM
Benevolent Misanthrope    [TotalFark]  
i1214.photobucket.comView Full Size

APPROVES.

13 Dec 2012 12:01 AM
Darth_Lukecash    [TotalFark]  

BravadoGT: Lsherm: The motion argues that the law encroaches on Romero's due process rights, according to the Ocala Star-Banner.
The paper reported that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, has been violated in Romero's case.

If this actually works, it's going to be a free-for-all in Florida. I'm pretty sure he's trying to claim a violation of the bolded part below without actually reading the rest of the amendment (underlined):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unless they're going to argue that the donkey falls within jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws and wasn't granted it with the bestiality laws, which just sounds insane.

Actually, the linked article in the Daily Fail explains the whole thing in great detail. I was off the mark completely.

He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.


You've realized you've just proved the anti gay marriage people right about the slippery slope.

13 Dec 2012 12:19 AM
BarkingUnicorn     

BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.


"Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.

13 Dec 2012 12:37 AM
Lsherm    [TotalFark]  

BarkingUnicorn: Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way.


I think you're conflating two different issues. Animal abuse and sexual gratification from violence towards animals aren't the same thing.

But it doesn't matter, because psychologists can't agree on abnormal behavior, anyway. This case won't go anywhere, but in 20 years someone is going to make progress.

13 Dec 2012 12:56 AM
Mark Ratner    [TotalFark]  
It wasn't HIS donkey, or else it would be okay. Or, if he did it in another area code, jackass.

13 Dec 2012 01:39 AM
fusillade762    [TotalFark]  

BarkingUnicorn: Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."


While animal cruelty is OK if the real reason for it is "mmmmm".

vegasbuzz.comView Full Size

13 Dec 2012 02:46 AM
L.D. Ablo    [TotalFark]  
p2.la-img.comView Full Size


/obligatory

13 Dec 2012 02:48 AM
Wayne 985     

PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 480x360] 
"Why, that's not just a farmhand, son..."


Tell me Hitler at least took that donkey to a Leafs game first.

(The sketches for that show must've started as a game of Mad Libs.)

13 Dec 2012 03:06 AM
david_gaithersburg     
I thought we were supposed to pretend that this is ok because he was born this way, and all of that crap.

13 Dec 2012 03:11 AM
Bindyree     

I_Am_Weasel: Why I'd not last long at writing headlines...

Yankee diddled Doodle dandy!


Was going to attempt a paragraph contaning the phrase 'yank a Doodle donkey', but yours is better.

13 Dec 2012 03:13 AM
AndyChrist_AUS     

Snarfangel: Well, if you cross a zebra with a donkey, you get a zonkey. The farmhand was probably just trying to create a honkey.


Lol...

13 Dec 2012 03:15 AM
Satanus Maximus     
Poor Doodle took a guy's noodle up his kaboodle...

13 Dec 2012 03:17 AM
doglover    [TotalFark]  

Satanus Maximus: Poor Doodle took a guy's noodle up his kaboodle...


th00.deviantart.netView Full Size



Still a better love story than Twilight.

13 Dec 2012 03:22 AM
luktti     
And Abbey will be the rest of his life.

13 Dec 2012 03:32 AM
Gordon Bennett    [TotalFark]  

BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.


Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.

13 Dec 2012 03:34 AM
Coming on a Bicycle     

BarkingUnicorn: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

"Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.


Bestiality is not cruel to any animal sheep-size and up. Sorry, but as long as we're not talking chickens, the reason is 'eeewww' and 'eeewww' only.

13 Dec 2012 03:36 AM
Happy Hours     

BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.


No. One good reason for outlawing bestiality is because the animal cannot give consent and while a human penis in a donkey may not hurt the animal much do you simply write the law based on animal weight?

Well, you can fark your donkey or your cow, but we're going to have to weigh that sheep before we decide if what you did to it was legal or not.

How about this. No, you can't fark animals. It is disgusting and offensive, but more than that it is animal cruelty. Why don't you just go jack off in private?

13 Dec 2012 03:37 AM
Duck_of_Doom     
He wanted to wish the donkey Buon Natale in a very special way.

13 Dec 2012 03:39 AM
doglover    [TotalFark]  

Gordon Bennett: Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.


Duck rape is worst rape.

13 Dec 2012 03:39 AM
ndubyaj     
HOTY candidate?

13 Dec 2012 03:43 AM
Legios     

BarkingUnicorn: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

"Rational basis" is the lowest level of review. The government need only hypothesize a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. The rational basis doesn't even have to be the government's real reason for outlawing an activity.

Bestiality can be cruel to the animal. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing cruelty to animals. Therefor bestiality laws have a rational basis even if the real reason for them is "ewwww."

Equal protection is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A court considers whether the statute involves important governmental interests and whether the law is substantially related to the achievement of important government objectives.

Preventing animal cruelty is an important government interest, particularly when it involves sexual gratification because serial killers, arsonists, child and spouse abusers, etc., often start that way. Statutes forbidding bestiality are substantially related to this important government objective.


I'm pretty sure you're trolling...

13 Dec 2012 03:43 AM
Metalithic     
Ethically, it poses an interesting question. Bestiality or zoophilia can be viewed as unethical because non-human animals lack the capacity for informed consent. However, if animals are to be treated as incapable of consent in the same way minor humans are, normal livestock breeding and any human induced animal-animal breeding could also be seen as a form of rape because of lack of consent (as it is illegal and unethical to induce minors to engage in sex with eachother). I think the most logical view is to prosecute it as a form of animal abuse, although in some cases it might be difficult to prove criminal harm if the animal seemed unaffected.

13 Dec 2012 03:43 AM
Legios     

Gordon Bennett: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

Animals lack the intellectual capacity to give consent.


So do intoxicated women, but that still tends to be a legal argument (IIRC) on a state by state basis

13 Dec 2012 03:45 AM
homelessdude     
Daily Mail?

Save your time reading the article. Generate your own headine and make a story up in your head based on the output. The net result of ingesting something relevant will be about the same.

13 Dec 2012 04:07 AM
Insatiable Jesus     
I'm afraid to go back and look upthread, is there actually somebody in here saying that farking a donkey should be legal?

Just, no. A whole lot of reasons, just no. No.

13 Dec 2012 04:11 AM
Ringshadow     
He should have gone to Columbia.

13 Dec 2012 04:13 AM
Terrible Old Man     
Looks like the bronies are skipping the real doll version step.

13 Dec 2012 04:30 AM
SwiftFox     
Disgusting.

ah well. If anyone needs me I'll be in the lab

13 Dec 2012 04:32 AM
Coming on a Bicycle     

Happy Hours: BravadoGT: He does have a point, sort of. To survive a challenge under Equal Protection, the laws banning beastiality must pass the Supreme Court's "Rational Basis Test." I suppose they could argue that it's rational for society to outlaw it for health-related reasons (spreading diseases from animals to humans, e.g.) but really--the only reason it's outlawed is because people find it disgusting and offensive. It really should be something more than that before the government is allowed to put you in jail for it.

No. One good reason for outlawing bestiality is because the animal cannot give consent and while a human penis in a donkey may not hurt the animal much do you simply write the law based on animal weight?

Well, you can fark your donkey or your cow, but we're going to have to weigh that sheep before we decide if what you did to it was legal or not.

How about this. No, you can't fark animals. It is disgusting and offensive, but more than that it is animal cruelty. Why don't you just go jack off in private?


You write the law on slaughter of an animal based on its weight. I don't see what's so different.

13 Dec 2012 05:06 AM
Showing 1-50 of 88 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined