Patreon

Teen Facing Two Years In Jail After Simulating Oral Sex With A Jesus StatueGirl, 16, Charged As Adult After Killing Man Selling PlayStation Over CraigslistDonald Hackman Jr Charged With Arson After Setting Girlfriend's Vagina On Fire"Fuck it, I quit": Alaskan TV Reporter Charlo Greene Quits Live On AirTeen Raped In School Bathroom After Teacher Uses Her As Bait In Sting OperationDesmond Brownlee Accused Of Choking Wife During Argument Over Fried ChickenJoseph Oberhansley Killed Ex-Girlfriend, Ate Parts Of Her Brain, Heart And LungsToddler Suffered Burns After His Mother's Boyfriend Put Him In Clothes Dryer Ruby Brown Arrested For Not Seeking Help For Boy Set On Fire By Another ChildDiamond Mason Stabbed Stepfather To Death During Argument Over Puppy

Charges Reinstated Against 3 Necrophiles

July 10, 2008 at 10:02 am by  

Nick Grunke, Alex Grunke and Dustin Radke on dreamindemon.com

Nick Grunke, Alex Grunke, Dustin Radke

Wisconsin - Two years ago, when the site was a bit different, we posted an article about the three young men who attempted to dig up a corpse so one of them could have sex with it. They were busted before being able to get the body out of the grave and arrested. Since this happened in Wisconsin, the appeals court upheld dismissal of charges against the three claiming there was no law against necrophilia. But things have changed as the state Supreme Court is now stating that Wisconsin law makes sex acts with the dead illegal.

State law bans sexual intercourse with anyone who does not give consent “whether the victim is dead or alive at the time………A reasonably well-informed person would understand the statute to prohibit sexual intercourse with a dead person”.

Third-degree sexual assault charges have now been re-instated against the three and they are now facing up to 10 years in prison. Read on for the gruesome details.

Laura Tennessen on dreamindemon.com

Back in 2006, Nicholas Grunke, 22, saw the obituary of 20-year-old Laura Tennessen . She had died a week prior in a motorcycle accident. Nicholas then enlisted the help of his twin brother, Alex and their friend 22-year-old Dustin Radke, to help in a plan that involved them digging up the corpse of Laura Tennessen so that Nicholas could have sex with her in a predetermined spot behind Grunke’s house.

So, on the night of 9/2/06, the three headed out to St. Charles Cemetery equipped with digging tools and a tarp. Along the way, they stopped at a Wal-Mart in Dodgeville where they bought condoms. At some point during their activities in the cemetery, a Village of Cassville Police Officer was dispatched to the area to investigate a report of an unoccupied, suspicious vehicle. When the officer arrived, he observed Alex Grunke walking toward the vehicle, dressed in black. He was also extremely nervous and sweating profusely. After some questioning, Alex he confessed that there were two people in the cemetery digging up a corpse. When officers investigated, they found Laura Tennessen’s grave had been tampered with, the top of the vault that held the coffin being visible. Nick and Dustin were nowhere to be found, but were arrested the following morning walking down the road 8 miles from the cemetery.

So, have fun in court Alex, Nick and Dustin. I hope this case drags on and on for you three creepy motherfuckers and I am more than happy to keep your three ugly faces right smack in the limelight. Just a shame that Laura’s family will have to deal with this on top of losing her. Fuck the three of you.

Edit:

Here is the original preliminary hearing for the three idiots. This was when the defense was stating that there was no law against having sexual intercourse with human remains. You also learn that Nicholas Grunke has had some issues, including threatening to blow up his school.

[youtube]91_YdX7jNRg[/youtube]

Tags:

Want to help keep Dreamin' Demon independent and uncensored? Here's how

Comments


The views expressed in the comments are those of the comment writers and don't represent the views or opinions of D'D or its staff. Feel free to flag comments that may violate conditions outlined in our Disclaimer.

  • Lizard

    I think Nick deserves a special set of criminal charges for his nasty ass hair. No wonder he can only get pussy from dead chicks. And my guess is he actually intervened to make it look that way.

  • Lizard

    I think Nick deserves a special set of criminal charges for his nasty ass hair. No wonder he can only get pussy from dead chicks. And my guess is he actually intervened to make it look that way.

  • MissRight

    good fucking God-weirdo mother fuckers

  • MissRight

    good fucking God-weirdo mother fuckers

  • thepooh5

    Not one but THREE – WTH?

  • thepooh5

    Not one but THREE – WTH?

  • funkmama

    I read this yesterday… this is so disgusting I can hardly think of anything smartass to say about it. My question is, how did all three guys think this was a good idea? Did not one of them think, “Wow, this is sick.” Because it is. Its just SICK.

    Excuse me while I vomit.

    :puke:

  • funkmama

    I read this yesterday… this is so disgusting I can hardly think of anything smartass to say about it. My question is, how did all three guys think this was a good idea? Did not one of them think, “Wow, this is sick.” Because it is. Its just SICK.

    Excuse me while I vomit.

    :puke:

  • Harley_Tech

    What is up with their parents? People…BIRTH CONTROL!

    R

  • Harley_Tech

    What is up with their parents? People…BIRTH CONTROL!

    R

  • WryBread

    Was some kind of teen-satanic-bs involved in this? Or was the guy just so hard up that he figured a dead woman MIGHT let him screw her? This would make a great start for a low-budget horror film — guy goes to screw dead woman and she finds it so offensive that she COMES TO LIFE. And what the hell were the condoms for — was he so ignorant that he was afraid he’d IMPREGNATE HER? I guess that would be Act II of the movie.

    Now that that moment is over for me, I’d like to say that there aren’t enough years in jail for these guys to pay for what they have done to this poor woman’s family. They should have let her rest in peace. Repulsive human beings, if one can call them that.

  • WryBread

    Was some kind of teen-satanic-bs involved in this? Or was the guy just so hard up that he figured a dead woman MIGHT let him screw her? This would make a great start for a low-budget horror film — guy goes to screw dead woman and she finds it so offensive that she COMES TO LIFE. And what the hell were the condoms for — was he so ignorant that he was afraid he’d IMPREGNATE HER? I guess that would be Act II of the movie.

    Now that that moment is over for me, I’d like to say that there aren’t enough years in jail for these guys to pay for what they have done to this poor woman’s family. They should have let her rest in peace. Repulsive human beings, if one can call them that.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    I have added the preliminary hearing video to the article. Some details in it not in the actual article.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    I have added the preliminary hearing video to the article. Some details in it not in the actual article.

  • WryBread

    ?

    I have added the preliminary hearing video to the article. Some details in it not in the actual article.

    This is an assault on a corpse! A home invasion of a coffin! God, what sick creeps. The video is just repulsive.

    Can you imagine being a lawyer and arguing that there is no more “she” or “her,” only “human remains,” and there is no law against having sex with human remains? The judge agrees, but notes there was damage to the cemetery, so the creeps can be charged on that count. So someone who screws your dead sister in the funeral home is a-okay because no property was damaged? What kind of world has this become?

  • WryBread

    ?

    I have added the preliminary hearing video to the article. Some details in it not in the actual article.

    This is an assault on a corpse! A home invasion of a coffin! God, what sick creeps. The video is just repulsive.

    Can you imagine being a lawyer and arguing that there is no more “she” or “her,” only “human remains,” and there is no law against having sex with human remains? The judge agrees, but notes there was damage to the cemetery, so the creeps can be charged on that count. So someone who screws your dead sister in the funeral home is a-okay because no property was damaged? What kind of world has this become?

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    Can you imagine being a lawyer and arguing that there is no more “she” or “her,” only “human remains,” and there is no law against having sex with human remains? The judge agrees, but notes there was damage to the cemetery, so the creeps can be charged on that count. So someone who screws your dead sister in the funeral home is a-okay because no property was damaged? What kind of world has this become?

    Well, the case is back in the news because the state Supreme Court is now saying that it is illegal to fuck around with a corpse. I think that only 20 states even have laws against necrophilia.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    Can you imagine being a lawyer and arguing that there is no more “she” or “her,” only “human remains,” and there is no law against having sex with human remains? The judge agrees, but notes there was damage to the cemetery, so the creeps can be charged on that count. So someone who screws your dead sister in the funeral home is a-okay because no property was damaged? What kind of world has this become?

    Well, the case is back in the news because the state Supreme Court is now saying that it is illegal to fuck around with a corpse. I think that only 20 states even have laws against necrophilia.

  • Athena

    Died in a motorcycle accident, and these dudes thought she was a contender? Hell, maybe she got lucky, but all the photos I’ve ever seen of motorcycle accident victims have been tore the fuck up.

    That being said, I don’t think necrophilia should be specifically criminalized. The deceased are inanimate objects.

  • Athena

    Died in a motorcycle accident, and these dudes thought she was a contender? Hell, maybe she got lucky, but all the photos I’ve ever seen of motorcycle accident victims have been tore the fuck up.

    That being said, I don’t think necrophilia should be specifically criminalized. The deceased are inanimate objects.

  • Baffled by idiots

    It always puzzles me how the defense attorney could keep a straight face while presenting an argument – “Your Honor, He refers to her as “She” but the truth is there is no “She” anymore.” I sometime wonder who is worst, The criminal or the defense attorney concocting the story and defense to get these fuckers off the hook.

  • Baffled by idiots

    It always puzzles me how the defense attorney could keep a straight face while presenting an argument – “Your Honor, He refers to her as “She” but the truth is there is no “She” anymore.” I sometime wonder who is worst, The criminal or the defense attorney concocting the story and defense to get these fuckers off the hook.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    That being said, I don’t think necrophilia should be specifically criminalized. The deceased are inanimate objects.

    I am inclined to agree with you, except for when it involves humans. The mental damage it can to friends and families of the deceased should be accounted for.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    That being said, I don’t think necrophilia should be specifically criminalized. The deceased are inanimate objects.

    I am inclined to agree with you, except for when it involves humans. The mental damage it can to friends and families of the deceased should be accounted for.

  • Miss. Hill

    Sick…sick disgusting. I am thrilled they are charging them what they did, attempted to do! It is beyond sick. Ugly fuckers too, it’s sad they probably can’t even pay for a piece of ass but that’s no excuse!

  • Miss. Hill

    Sick…sick disgusting. I am thrilled they are charging them what they did, attempted to do! It is beyond sick. Ugly fuckers too, it’s sad they probably can’t even pay for a piece of ass but that’s no excuse!

  • Athena

    The “emotional damage” argument is…not solid. I mean, do we typically protect “feelings” with legislation? Not really. I’d compromise by making it an offense that could be dealt with in civil court, where most emotional damage is dealt with. If it affects them, let them file suit for monetary recovery of damages. No jail time.

  • Athena

    The “emotional damage” argument is…not solid. I mean, do we typically protect “feelings” with legislation? Not really. I’d compromise by making it an offense that could be dealt with in civil court, where most emotional damage is dealt with. If it affects them, let them file suit for monetary recovery of damages. No jail time.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    The “emotional damage” argument is…not solid. I mean, do we typically protect “feelings” with legislation? Not really. I’d compromise by making it an offense that could be dealt with in civil court, where most emotional damage is dealt with. If it affects them, let them file suit for monetary recovery of damages. No jail time.

    I understand that you are of the mindset that a person should be able to dig up the corpse of a 9-year-old girl and then fuck it in front of the family and only be punished by a monetary fine of which the family may never collect.

    That is almost as sad and disgusting to me as what these three deviants attempted.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    The “emotional damage” argument is…not solid. I mean, do we typically protect “feelings” with legislation? Not really. I’d compromise by making it an offense that could be dealt with in civil court, where most emotional damage is dealt with. If it affects them, let them file suit for monetary recovery of damages. No jail time.

    I understand that you are of the mindset that a person should be able to dig up the corpse of a 9-year-old girl and then fuck it in front of the family and only be punished by a monetary fine of which the family may never collect.

    That is almost as sad and disgusting to me as what these three deviants attempted.

  • WryBread

    I am inclined to agree with you, except for when it involves humans. The mental damage it can to friends and families of the deceased should be accounted for.

    I don’t even want someone screwing my dead cat. So that leaves only wild dead animals — like that dude who found the deer by the road and went to town.

    The “emotional damage” argument is…not solid. I mean, do we typically protect “feelings” with legislation? Not really. I’d compromise by making it an offense that could be dealt with in civil court, where most emotional damage is dealt with. If it affects them, let them file suit for monetary recovery of damages. No jail time.

    Is a corpse considered property? Could damage or unauthorized use of property be appropriate here? I think stealing a corpse is a crime, so would be disturbing it or depositing semen in it be one? I’m curious about this aspect of the law.

  • WryBread

    I am inclined to agree with you, except for when it involves humans. The mental damage it can to friends and families of the deceased should be accounted for.

    I don’t even want someone screwing my dead cat. So that leaves only wild dead animals — like that dude who found the deer by the road and went to town.

    The “emotional damage” argument is…not solid. I mean, do we typically protect “feelings” with legislation? Not really. I’d compromise by making it an offense that could be dealt with in civil court, where most emotional damage is dealt with. If it affects them, let them file suit for monetary recovery of damages. No jail time.

    Is a corpse considered property? Could damage or unauthorized use of property be appropriate here? I think stealing a corpse is a crime, so would be disturbing it or depositing semen in it be one? I’m curious about this aspect of the law.

  • Gohn

    To top all of this off, when you click on the link of her name it states that her brother died only months after her in another vehicular accident. Her’s in August. His in December. Those poor parents. :(

  • Gohn

    To top all of this off, when you click on the link of her name it states that her brother died only months after her in another vehicular accident. Her’s in August. His in December. Those poor parents. :(

  • Athena

    I understand that you are of the mindset that a person should be able to dig up the corpse of a 9-year-old girl and then fuck it in front of the family and only be punished by a monetary fine of which the family may never collect.

    *sigh*

    You’re a BIG fan of reductio ad absurbum, aren’t you? Problem with your little scenario is that the behavior is already criminal in two other ways. Digging it up would be illegal (just like what these boys were originally charged with) and sex in public is illegal. In fact, the vast majority of ways one would obtain a corpse are already illegal. Specifically criminalizing necrophilia would just add another, unnecessary layer to behavior that will already be punished for the sake of “principle”. I hate that, no matter how noble the intent.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    The aspect of the law, in regardsw to the states that make it illegal, is a consent issue. Yeah, it is strange as the person is not living, but basically it is based on the fact that if you didn’t want three zit-faced emo fuckers sticking their dicks in you while lkiving, you wouldn’t want it done while you were dead.

    Personally? You can do whatever you want with my corpse. I mean, it will be a good-looking one. Besides, no matter what happens when I die…Heaven, Hell, Nothing…I wont give two shits about what you do with it.

    But I just cannot subscribe to a world like Athena’s, where dead children can be taken and gang banged by individuals whose only fear will be a possible civil suit. This isn’t a “victimless crime” as in today’s society, the thought of ones mother being pulled out of her coffin and getting banged in the ass doggie-style while draped over her tombstone…well, that can probably cause someone a bit of anguish.

    I am pretty sure there are already laws on the books in regards to fucking with corpses (mutilation or whatever) and I feel the act of necrophilia should be treated the same. The deviant nature of the act just has me liking the idea of it being a bit stiffer penalty than a civil suit or something akin to a traffic ticket.

    Unless it is a horny zombie or a consenting vampire, fucking corpses taken out of their graves should be illegal. Thank Hudge, Wisconsin agrees.

  • Athena

    I understand that you are of the mindset that a person should be able to dig up the corpse of a 9-year-old girl and then fuck it in front of the family and only be punished by a monetary fine of which the family may never collect.

    *sigh*

    You’re a BIG fan of reductio ad absurbum, aren’t you? Problem with your little scenario is that the behavior is already criminal in two other ways. Digging it up would be illegal (just like what these boys were originally charged with) and sex in public is illegal. In fact, the vast majority of ways one would obtain a corpse are already illegal. Specifically criminalizing necrophilia would just add another, unnecessary layer to behavior that will already be punished for the sake of “principle”. I hate that, no matter how noble the intent.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    The aspect of the law, in regardsw to the states that make it illegal, is a consent issue. Yeah, it is strange as the person is not living, but basically it is based on the fact that if you didn’t want three zit-faced emo fuckers sticking their dicks in you while lkiving, you wouldn’t want it done while you were dead.

    Personally? You can do whatever you want with my corpse. I mean, it will be a good-looking one. Besides, no matter what happens when I die…Heaven, Hell, Nothing…I wont give two shits about what you do with it.

    But I just cannot subscribe to a world like Athena’s, where dead children can be taken and gang banged by individuals whose only fear will be a possible civil suit. This isn’t a “victimless crime” as in today’s society, the thought of ones mother being pulled out of her coffin and getting banged in the ass doggie-style while draped over her tombstone…well, that can probably cause someone a bit of anguish.

    I am pretty sure there are already laws on the books in regards to fucking with corpses (mutilation or whatever) and I feel the act of necrophilia should be treated the same. The deviant nature of the act just has me liking the idea of it being a bit stiffer penalty than a civil suit or something akin to a traffic ticket.

    Unless it is a horny zombie or a consenting vampire, fucking corpses taken out of their graves should be illegal. Thank Hudge, Wisconsin agrees.

  • Gohn

    Okay, as far as myspace if anyone is interested… I have two possible sites I think might be Dustin’s.

    This first states that the user is from California, however, clicking on his top friends shows they live in Wisconsin. So, it may or may not be him.
    http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=89898972

    The second states that the man lives in Canada and is 33. The rest of the page is pretty blank. However, the pictures on this page do look pretty similar to his mug shot.
    http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=230826355

    I’ll let you guys decide. No luck on finding the others yet.

  • Gohn

    Okay, as far as myspace if anyone is interested… I have two possible sites I think might be Dustin’s.

    This first states that the user is from California, however, clicking on his top friends shows they live in Wisconsin. So, it may or may not be him.
    http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=89898972

    The second states that the man lives in Canada and is 33. The rest of the page is pretty blank. However, the pictures on this page do look pretty similar to his mug shot.
    http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=230826355

    I’ll let you guys decide. No luck on finding the others yet.

  • Athena

    Is a corpse considered property? Could damage or unauthorized use of property be appropriate here? I think stealing a corpse is a crime, so would be disturbing it or depositing semen in it be one? I’m curious about this aspect of the law.

    Exactly. Stealing a corpse is already a crime. Adding more legislation on top of the legislation that’s already there for the sake of peoples’ emotions is unnecessary, in my opinion.

    Depite what Morbid falsely argues, in “my” world, the world of the 30 or so states without necrophilia laws, people can’t just go around digging up corpses and screwing them indiscriminately. In many places, “my” world IS the status quo and, amazingly, it’s not a corpse free-for-all.

    Shitty stuff happens all the time. If you witness or hear about something traumatic happening to a family member, should there be a separate charge for the emotional damage it might have done you? Nope. Does a live rape victim’s family have criminal recourse because their daughter’s/sister’s rape has done them emotional damage? Nope. That’s just not how the law works.

  • Athena

    Is a corpse considered property? Could damage or unauthorized use of property be appropriate here? I think stealing a corpse is a crime, so would be disturbing it or depositing semen in it be one? I’m curious about this aspect of the law.

    Exactly. Stealing a corpse is already a crime. Adding more legislation on top of the legislation that’s already there for the sake of peoples’ emotions is unnecessary, in my opinion.

    Depite what Morbid falsely argues, in “my” world, the world of the 30 or so states without necrophilia laws, people can’t just go around digging up corpses and screwing them indiscriminately. In many places, “my” world IS the status quo and, amazingly, it’s not a corpse free-for-all.

    Shitty stuff happens all the time. If you witness or hear about something traumatic happening to a family member, should there be a separate charge for the emotional damage it might have done you? Nope. Does a live rape victim’s family have criminal recourse because their daughter’s/sister’s rape has done them emotional damage? Nope. That’s just not how the law works.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    Does a rape victim’s family have criminal recourse? Nope. That’s just not how the law works.

    Exactly, but with Wisconsin now adopting the law, the people in Wisconsin wont need a recourse. Neither will the people in the states that will eventually follow.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    Does a rape victim’s family have criminal recourse? Nope. That’s just not how the law works.

    Exactly, but with Wisconsin now adopting the law, the people in Wisconsin wont need a recourse. Neither will the people in the states that will eventually follow.

  • Athena

    So the families of dead victims get more protection/recourse than those of live ones. Yeah, that makes total sense.

    Criminalizing necrophilia based on a lack of consent is total bullshit, legally speaking. In fact, I’d be willing to bet it would be overturned on the federal level. But SCOTUS will never hear a necrophilia case.

    I hate when legal nonsense is established because the topic is too touchy and emotional for people to be willing to apply formulaic, rational thought to it.

  • Athena

    So the families of dead victims get more protection/recourse than those of live ones. Yeah, that makes total sense.

    Criminalizing necrophilia based on a lack of consent is total bullshit, legally speaking. In fact, I’d be willing to bet it would be overturned on the federal level. But SCOTUS will never hear a necrophilia case.

    I hate when legal nonsense is established because the topic is too touchy and emotional for people to be willing to apply formulaic, rational thought to it.

  • missanthropic

    Wow. These kids are…. really fucking creepy, and pathetic might I add. Just be thankful the kid felt the need to bust a nut in a corpse before these sick fucks decided to pull a Columbine or some other shit.

    and I agree…. a motorycle accident victim? How low could you go? Couldn’t find a young OD victim? Ugh, sick.

  • missanthropic

    Wow. These kids are…. really fucking creepy, and pathetic might I add. Just be thankful the kid felt the need to bust a nut in a corpse before these sick fucks decided to pull a Columbine or some other shit.

    and I agree…. a motorycle accident victim? How low could you go? Couldn’t find a young OD victim? Ugh, sick.

  • MissRight

    <actually Gohn-her bro died in 1996-but yes-how very sad for her parents

  • MissRight

    <actually Gohn-her bro died in 1996-but yes-how very sad for her parents

  • Gohn

    Oh, wow. I’m sleeped deprived, sorry. *slams head on desk*

  • Gohn

    Oh, wow. I’m sleeped deprived, sorry. *slams head on desk*

  • Not So Speechless

    This first states that the user is from California, however, clicking on his top friends shows they live in Wisconsin. So, it may or may not be him.
    http://profile.myspace.com/ind…..d=89898972

    Um…. He is a Marine- his comments and profile say so and I believe it.

    This first states that the user is from California, however, clicking on his top friends shows they live in Wisconsin. So, it may or may not be him.
    http://profile.myspace.com/ind…..d=89898972

  • Not So Speechless

    This first states that the user is from California, however, clicking on his top friends shows they live in Wisconsin. So, it may or may not be him.
    http://profile.myspace.com/ind…..d=89898972

    Um…. He is a Marine- his comments and profile say so and I believe it.

    This first states that the user is from California, however, clicking on his top friends shows they live in Wisconsin. So, it may or may not be him.
    http://profile.myspace.com/ind…..d=89898972

  • Gohn

    Oh. Whoops again, sorry. I’ll shut up for the day. I’m right at the end of finishing up a class and I have not been getting much sleep. What about the other one though? I thought it kind of looked like him.

  • Gohn

    Oh. Whoops again, sorry. I’ll shut up for the day. I’m right at the end of finishing up a class and I have not been getting much sleep. What about the other one though? I thought it kind of looked like him.

  • Gohn

    Oh. Whoops again, sorry. I’ll shut up for the day. I’m right at the end of finishing up a class and I have not been getting much sleep. What about the other one though? I thought it kind of looked like him.

  • tjangel

    Depite what Morbid falsely argues, in “my” world, the world of the 30 or so states without necrophilia laws, people can’t just go around digging up corpses and screwing them indiscriminately. In many places, “my” world IS the status quo and, amazingly, it’s not a corpse free-for-all.

    corpse free-for-all – LOL that is one odd mental image you left me with Athena :) The people here at work are giving me looks because i really did laugh out loud when i read your comment!

  • tjangel

    Depite what Morbid falsely argues, in “my” world, the world of the 30 or so states without necrophilia laws, people can’t just go around digging up corpses and screwing them indiscriminately. In many places, “my” world IS the status quo and, amazingly, it’s not a corpse free-for-all.

    corpse free-for-all – LOL that is one odd mental image you left me with Athena :) The people here at work are giving me looks because i really did laugh out loud when i read your comment!

  • tjangel

    Depite what Morbid falsely argues, in “my” world, the world of the 30 or so states without necrophilia laws, people can’t just go around digging up corpses and screwing them indiscriminately. In many places, “my” world IS the status quo and, amazingly, it’s not a corpse free-for-all.

    corpse free-for-all – LOL that is one odd mental image you left me with Athena :) The people here at work are giving me looks because i really did laugh out loud when i read your comment!

  • Athena

    Ha! For once, I can cause someone else’s coworkers to think they’re a little cooky! Normally, I’m the one getting looks. I hope none of them were scowls, TJ. ;)

  • Athena

    Ha! For once, I can cause someone else’s coworkers to think they’re a little cooky! Normally, I’m the one getting looks. I hope none of them were scowls, TJ. ;)

  • Athena

    Ha! For once, I can cause someone else’s coworkers to think they’re a little cooky! Normally, I’m the one getting looks. I hope none of them were scowls, TJ. ;)

  • MadMama

    <

    That being said, I don’t think necrophilia should be specifically criminalized. The deceased are inanimate objects.

    I have been a daily reader on this site for a few months now, and just recently joined in so I could comment. I have religiously read every comment in nearly every story, and I have at times found myself in awe of the some of the members including Athena. I am often quite impressed with her knowledge of the law and the fact that she doesn’t get emotionally involved with these sometimes horrific stories. But in reading this one, I’m just gonna have to call a spade a spade. This is just about the most ignorant shit that I’ve ever seen her write. My problem with it is not the legal aspect of whether it is or isn’t a crime to have sex with a corpse. Its if someone is insane enough to attempt to commit this kind of act, what the hell else would they do ? To suggest that it is unneccessary to charge them with necrophelia and only for digging up the body is cheating the public out of an acurate description of their crimes, or the crimes they were going to commit. Its like finding someone with bomb making paraphernalia that includes a blueprint of an intended building, and only charging them with the illegal items. And maybe its just me, but I would define an inanimate object as something that never walked, talked, and breathed…like a doornob.

  • MadMama

    <

    That being said, I don’t think necrophilia should be specifically criminalized. The deceased are inanimate objects.

    I have been a daily reader on this site for a few months now, and just recently joined in so I could comment. I have religiously read every comment in nearly every story, and I have at times found myself in awe of the some of the members including Athena. I am often quite impressed with her knowledge of the law and the fact that she doesn’t get emotionally involved with these sometimes horrific stories. But in reading this one, I’m just gonna have to call a spade a spade. This is just about the most ignorant shit that I’ve ever seen her write. My problem with it is not the legal aspect of whether it is or isn’t a crime to have sex with a corpse. Its if someone is insane enough to attempt to commit this kind of act, what the hell else would they do ? To suggest that it is unneccessary to charge them with necrophelia and only for digging up the body is cheating the public out of an acurate description of their crimes, or the crimes they were going to commit. Its like finding someone with bomb making paraphernalia that includes a blueprint of an intended building, and only charging them with the illegal items. And maybe its just me, but I would define an inanimate object as something that never walked, talked, and breathed…like a doornob.

  • MadMama

    <

    That being said, I don’t think necrophilia should be specifically criminalized. The deceased are inanimate objects.

    I have been a daily reader on this site for a few months now, and just recently joined in so I could comment. I have religiously read every comment in nearly every story, and I have at times found myself in awe of the some of the members including Athena. I am often quite impressed with her knowledge of the law and the fact that she doesn’t get emotionally involved with these sometimes horrific stories. But in reading this one, I’m just gonna have to call a spade a spade. This is just about the most ignorant shit that I’ve ever seen her write. My problem with it is not the legal aspect of whether it is or isn’t a crime to have sex with a corpse. Its if someone is insane enough to attempt to commit this kind of act, what the hell else would they do ? To suggest that it is unneccessary to charge them with necrophelia and only for digging up the body is cheating the public out of an acurate description of their crimes, or the crimes they were going to commit. Its like finding someone with bomb making paraphernalia that includes a blueprint of an intended building, and only charging them with the illegal items. And maybe its just me, but I would define an inanimate object as something that never walked, talked, and breathed…like a doornob.

  • Unamused Cat

    This first states that the user is from California, however, clicking on his top friends shows they live in Wisconsin. So, it may or may not be him.

    I talked to this guy. It isn’t him. Someone might want to take his MySpace info down. He has been getting a lot of questions about being involved.

  • Unamused Cat

    This first states that the user is from California, however, clicking on his top friends shows they live in Wisconsin. So, it may or may not be him.

    I talked to this guy. It isn’t him. Someone might want to take his MySpace info down. He has been getting a lot of questions about being involved.

  • Unamused Cat

    This first states that the user is from California, however, clicking on his top friends shows they live in Wisconsin. So, it may or may not be him.

    I talked to this guy. It isn’t him. Someone might want to take his MySpace info down. He has been getting a lot of questions about being involved.

  • majaka

    I have been a daily reader on this site for a few months now, and just recently joined in so I could comment. I have religiously read every comment in nearly every story, and I have at times found myself in awe of the some of the members including Athena. I am often quite impressed with her knowledge of the law and the fact that she doesn’t get emotionally involved with these sometimes horrific stories. But in reading this one, I’m just gonna have to call a spade a spade. This is just about the most ignorant shit that I’ve ever seen her write. My problem with it is not the legal aspect of whether it is or isn’t a crime to have sex with a corpse. Its if someone is insane enough to attempt to commit this kind of act, what the hell else would they do ? To suggest that it is unneccessary to charge them with necrophelia and only for digging up the body is cheating the public out of an acurate description of their crimes, or the crimes they were going to commit. Its like finding someone with bomb making paraphernalia that includes a blueprint of an intended building, and only charging them with the illegal items. And maybe its just me, but I would define an inanimate object as something that never walked, talked, and breathed…like a doornob.

    I agree with you…… it just made me wonder about their state of mind. they have to be pretty much screw up to even think about having sex with a corpse…… in the video they say he has always been like that having some strange thoughts so to me he is really having a mental problem and the other two are just moron for agreeing with him…..

  • majaka

    I have been a daily reader on this site for a few months now, and just recently joined in so I could comment. I have religiously read every comment in nearly every story, and I have at times found myself in awe of the some of the members including Athena. I am often quite impressed with her knowledge of the law and the fact that she doesn’t get emotionally involved with these sometimes horrific stories. But in reading this one, I’m just gonna have to call a spade a spade. This is just about the most ignorant shit that I’ve ever seen her write. My problem with it is not the legal aspect of whether it is or isn’t a crime to have sex with a corpse. Its if someone is insane enough to attempt to commit this kind of act, what the hell else would they do ? To suggest that it is unneccessary to charge them with necrophelia and only for digging up the body is cheating the public out of an acurate description of their crimes, or the crimes they were going to commit. Its like finding someone with bomb making paraphernalia that includes a blueprint of an intended building, and only charging them with the illegal items. And maybe its just me, but I would define an inanimate object as something that never walked, talked, and breathed…like a doornob.

    I agree with you…… it just made me wonder about their state of mind. they have to be pretty much screw up to even think about having sex with a corpse…… in the video they say he has always been like that having some strange thoughts so to me he is really having a mental problem and the other two are just moron for agreeing with him…..

  • majaka

    I have been a daily reader on this site for a few months now, and just recently joined in so I could comment. I have religiously read every comment in nearly every story, and I have at times found myself in awe of the some of the members including Athena. I am often quite impressed with her knowledge of the law and the fact that she doesn’t get emotionally involved with these sometimes horrific stories. But in reading this one, I’m just gonna have to call a spade a spade. This is just about the most ignorant shit that I’ve ever seen her write. My problem with it is not the legal aspect of whether it is or isn’t a crime to have sex with a corpse. Its if someone is insane enough to attempt to commit this kind of act, what the hell else would they do ? To suggest that it is unneccessary to charge them with necrophelia and only for digging up the body is cheating the public out of an acurate description of their crimes, or the crimes they were going to commit. Its like finding someone with bomb making paraphernalia that includes a blueprint of an intended building, and only charging them with the illegal items. And maybe its just me, but I would define an inanimate object as something that never walked, talked, and breathed…like a doornob.

    I agree with you…… it just made me wonder about their state of mind. they have to be pretty much screw up to even think about having sex with a corpse…… in the video they say he has always been like that having some strange thoughts so to me he is really having a mental problem and the other two are just moron for agreeing with him…..

  • Athena

    My problem with it is not the legal aspect of whether it is or isn’t a crime to have sex with a corpse. Its if someone is insane enough to attempt to commit this kind of act, what the hell else would they do? To suggest that it is unneccessary to charge them with necrophelia and only for digging up the body is cheating the public out of an acurate description of their crimes, or the crimes they were going to commit. Its like finding someone with bomb making paraphernalia that includes a blueprint of an intended building, and only charging them with the illegal items.

    At least you admit that you are unconcerned with the legality involved. When someone clearly intends to do something that they did not get the chance to do, they are typically charged with a “conspiracy to commit (enter crime here)”. There IS no “conspiracy to commit necrophilia”, apparently, in the state of Wisconsin. So, if a person conspires to commit murder, but that charge did not exist for whatever reason, you recommend we just go ahead and charge them with murder, even though they didn’t kill anyone? That’s exactly what you’re recommending, here.

    They WERE charged with the crimes they DID commit. They didn’t actually dig up a body, so they should not be charged as doing so.

    Furthermore, your “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy. There are people who do all sorts of unpopular or disgusting things and their behavior does not progress. To assume that young boys who would dig up a body would absolutely go on to do something worse is flawed logic. Do people who spank their kids ultimately graduate to beating them? Of course not. Can they? Sure. But we don’t assume a spanker will go on to worse just because they spank. This logic should apply to everything. We tread in dangerous territory when we try too hard to anticipate behavior, and start punishing people because of what they *might* eventually turn into.

    And maybe its just me, but I would define an inanimate object as something that never walked, talked, and breathed…like a doornob.

    With all due respect, it IS just you. Inanimate is defined as “not animate; lifeless.” Is a corpse not “lifeless”?

  • Athena

    My problem with it is not the legal aspect of whether it is or isn’t a crime to have sex with a corpse. Its if someone is insane enough to attempt to commit this kind of act, what the hell else would they do? To suggest that it is unneccessary to charge them with necrophelia and only for digging up the body is cheating the public out of an acurate description of their crimes, or the crimes they were going to commit. Its like finding someone with bomb making paraphernalia that includes a blueprint of an intended building, and only charging them with the illegal items.

    At least you admit that you are unconcerned with the legality involved. When someone clearly intends to do something that they did not get the chance to do, they are typically charged with a “conspiracy to commit (enter crime here)”. There IS no “conspiracy to commit necrophilia”, apparently, in the state of Wisconsin. So, if a person conspires to commit murder, but that charge did not exist for whatever reason, you recommend we just go ahead and charge them with murder, even though they didn’t kill anyone? That’s exactly what you’re recommending, here.

    They WERE charged with the crimes they DID commit. They didn’t actually dig up a body, so they should not be charged as doing so.

    Furthermore, your “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy. There are people who do all sorts of unpopular or disgusting things and their behavior does not progress. To assume that young boys who would dig up a body would absolutely go on to do something worse is flawed logic. Do people who spank their kids ultimately graduate to beating them? Of course not. Can they? Sure. But we don’t assume a spanker will go on to worse just because they spank. This logic should apply to everything. We tread in dangerous territory when we try too hard to anticipate behavior, and start punishing people because of what they *might* eventually turn into.

    And maybe its just me, but I would define an inanimate object as something that never walked, talked, and breathed…like a doornob.

    With all due respect, it IS just you. Inanimate is defined as “not animate; lifeless.” Is a corpse not “lifeless”?

  • Athena

    My problem with it is not the legal aspect of whether it is or isn’t a crime to have sex with a corpse. Its if someone is insane enough to attempt to commit this kind of act, what the hell else would they do? To suggest that it is unneccessary to charge them with necrophelia and only for digging up the body is cheating the public out of an acurate description of their crimes, or the crimes they were going to commit. Its like finding someone with bomb making paraphernalia that includes a blueprint of an intended building, and only charging them with the illegal items.

    At least you admit that you are unconcerned with the legality involved. When someone clearly intends to do something that they did not get the chance to do, they are typically charged with a “conspiracy to commit (enter crime here)”. There IS no “conspiracy to commit necrophilia”, apparently, in the state of Wisconsin. So, if a person conspires to commit murder, but that charge did not exist for whatever reason, you recommend we just go ahead and charge them with murder, even though they didn’t kill anyone? That’s exactly what you’re recommending, here.

    They WERE charged with the crimes they DID commit. They didn’t actually dig up a body, so they should not be charged as doing so.

    Furthermore, your “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy. There are people who do all sorts of unpopular or disgusting things and their behavior does not progress. To assume that young boys who would dig up a body would absolutely go on to do something worse is flawed logic. Do people who spank their kids ultimately graduate to beating them? Of course not. Can they? Sure. But we don’t assume a spanker will go on to worse just because they spank. This logic should apply to everything. We tread in dangerous territory when we try too hard to anticipate behavior, and start punishing people because of what they *might* eventually turn into.

    And maybe its just me, but I would define an inanimate object as something that never walked, talked, and breathed…like a doornob.

    With all due respect, it IS just you. Inanimate is defined as “not animate; lifeless.” Is a corpse not “lifeless”?

  • MadMama

    Furthermore, your “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy. There are people who do all sorts of unpopular or disgusting things and their behavior does not progress. To assume that young boys who would dig up a body would absolutely go on to do something worse is flawed logic. Do people who spank their kids ultimately graduate to beating them? Of course not. Can they? Sure. But we don’t assume a spanker will go on to worse just because they spank. This logic should apply to everything. We tread in dangerous territory when we try too hard to anticipate behavior, and start punishing people because of what they *might* eventually turn into.

    Ok think about the example you layed out there…people who spank children vs. people who attempt to rob graves with the intent to have sex with a corpse. So, you are taking something that is socially acceptable and comparing it to something that is for most of the world…taboo. Who would you rather have babysitting your kids…a spanker…or a wanna be dead body fucker ? Wouldn’t you want something as extreme in nature as that show up on a criminal background check ? I totally understand that you get off on knowing the law…and I’m gonna hand it to you..you know your shit. And I’m guessing by your remarks that The Godesss of Wisdom does not like to be challenged. I just happen to think, and I dare say that I’m not alone, that you are being way too flippant with your comments as far as this story is concerned.

    With all due respect, it IS just you. Inanimate is defined as “not animate; lifeless.” Is a corpse not “lifeless”?

    By all means I accept that inanimate means lifeless, but couldn’t a broader understanding of that mean something that never had life ? Or is that just the human coming out in me ?

  • MadMama

    Furthermore, your “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy. There are people who do all sorts of unpopular or disgusting things and their behavior does not progress. To assume that young boys who would dig up a body would absolutely go on to do something worse is flawed logic. Do people who spank their kids ultimately graduate to beating them? Of course not. Can they? Sure. But we don’t assume a spanker will go on to worse just because they spank. This logic should apply to everything. We tread in dangerous territory when we try too hard to anticipate behavior, and start punishing people because of what they *might* eventually turn into.

    Ok think about the example you layed out there…people who spank children vs. people who attempt to rob graves with the intent to have sex with a corpse. So, you are taking something that is socially acceptable and comparing it to something that is for most of the world…taboo. Who would you rather have babysitting your kids…a spanker…or a wanna be dead body fucker ? Wouldn’t you want something as extreme in nature as that show up on a criminal background check ? I totally understand that you get off on knowing the law…and I’m gonna hand it to you..you know your shit. And I’m guessing by your remarks that The Godesss of Wisdom does not like to be challenged. I just happen to think, and I dare say that I’m not alone, that you are being way too flippant with your comments as far as this story is concerned.

    With all due respect, it IS just you. Inanimate is defined as “not animate; lifeless.” Is a corpse not “lifeless”?

    By all means I accept that inanimate means lifeless, but couldn’t a broader understanding of that mean something that never had life ? Or is that just the human coming out in me ?

  • MadMama

    Furthermore, your “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy. There are people who do all sorts of unpopular or disgusting things and their behavior does not progress. To assume that young boys who would dig up a body would absolutely go on to do something worse is flawed logic. Do people who spank their kids ultimately graduate to beating them? Of course not. Can they? Sure. But we don’t assume a spanker will go on to worse just because they spank. This logic should apply to everything. We tread in dangerous territory when we try too hard to anticipate behavior, and start punishing people because of what they *might* eventually turn into.

    Ok think about the example you layed out there…people who spank children vs. people who attempt to rob graves with the intent to have sex with a corpse. So, you are taking something that is socially acceptable and comparing it to something that is for most of the world…taboo. Who would you rather have babysitting your kids…a spanker…or a wanna be dead body fucker ? Wouldn’t you want something as extreme in nature as that show up on a criminal background check ? I totally understand that you get off on knowing the law…and I’m gonna hand it to you..you know your shit. And I’m guessing by your remarks that The Godesss of Wisdom does not like to be challenged. I just happen to think, and I dare say that I’m not alone, that you are being way too flippant with your comments as far as this story is concerned.

    With all due respect, it IS just you. Inanimate is defined as “not animate; lifeless.” Is a corpse not “lifeless”?

    By all means I accept that inanimate means lifeless, but couldn’t a broader understanding of that mean something that never had life ? Or is that just the human coming out in me ?

  • tjangel

    Ha! For once, I can cause someone else’s coworkers to think they’re a little cooky! Normally, I’m the one getting looks. I hope none of them were scowls, TJ.

    I think the looks had something to do with the fact that I laughed out loud and when they glanced over they could see I was reading about necrophiles – hah, i grin everytime i think about it.

  • tjangel

    Ha! For once, I can cause someone else’s coworkers to think they’re a little cooky! Normally, I’m the one getting looks. I hope none of them were scowls, TJ.

    I think the looks had something to do with the fact that I laughed out loud and when they glanced over they could see I was reading about necrophiles – hah, i grin everytime i think about it.

  • tjangel

    Ha! For once, I can cause someone else’s coworkers to think they’re a little cooky! Normally, I’m the one getting looks. I hope none of them were scowls, TJ.

    I think the looks had something to do with the fact that I laughed out loud and when they glanced over they could see I was reading about necrophiles – hah, i grin everytime i think about it.

  • Wonder

    Can you imagine being a lawyer and arguing that there is no more “she” or “her,” only “human remains,” and there is no law against having sex with human remains? The judge agrees, but notes there was damage to the cemetery, so the creeps can be charged on that count. So someone who screws your dead sister in the funeral home is a-okay because no property was damaged? What kind of world has this become?

    I too wanted to smack that bitch… I am sorry but if that had been her daughter or a family friend. how dare her…

    the neighboring state iowa has it and the judge dismisses the charges…. someone kudo’s for stepping up and petitioning to have the law changed.

    I have to say that these twins were bor4n with half a brain cell and I agree ….. thanks God they didn’t blow up a school first.

    athena do i understand you correctly you think its ok – your making my head spin… In my state there is a law for everything and if there wasn’t they make them up as they go…. what these boys did… what they intended to do … just cause they didn’t follow thru … because they got ran off … still makes me wrong wrong wrong and they need locked up… I can’t believe the twin and the friend got talked into being a part of this sicko act.

    Still PISSED off at this defense attorney on my far left… no way I could defend the dude … hang him and send the other two to a mental ward and dose them with some heavy meds.

    is that a wig in the mug ?

    Laura sure is pretty, I am sad that happened to her! Her parents probably find peace that the siblings have each other in heaven.

  • Wonder

    Can you imagine being a lawyer and arguing that there is no more “she” or “her,” only “human remains,” and there is no law against having sex with human remains? The judge agrees, but notes there was damage to the cemetery, so the creeps can be charged on that count. So someone who screws your dead sister in the funeral home is a-okay because no property was damaged? What kind of world has this become?

    I too wanted to smack that bitch… I am sorry but if that had been her daughter or a family friend. how dare her…

    the neighboring state iowa has it and the judge dismisses the charges…. someone kudo’s for stepping up and petitioning to have the law changed.

    I have to say that these twins were bor4n with half a brain cell and I agree ….. thanks God they didn’t blow up a school first.

    athena do i understand you correctly you think its ok – your making my head spin… In my state there is a law for everything and if there wasn’t they make them up as they go…. what these boys did… what they intended to do … just cause they didn’t follow thru … because they got ran off … still makes me wrong wrong wrong and they need locked up… I can’t believe the twin and the friend got talked into being a part of this sicko act.

    Still PISSED off at this defense attorney on my far left… no way I could defend the dude … hang him and send the other two to a mental ward and dose them with some heavy meds.

    is that a wig in the mug ?

    Laura sure is pretty, I am sad that happened to her! Her parents probably find peace that the siblings have each other in heaven.

  • Wonder

    Can you imagine being a lawyer and arguing that there is no more “she” or “her,” only “human remains,” and there is no law against having sex with human remains? The judge agrees, but notes there was damage to the cemetery, so the creeps can be charged on that count. So someone who screws your dead sister in the funeral home is a-okay because no property was damaged? What kind of world has this become?

    I too wanted to smack that bitch… I am sorry but if that had been her daughter or a family friend. how dare her…

    the neighboring state iowa has it and the judge dismisses the charges…. someone kudo’s for stepping up and petitioning to have the law changed.

    I have to say that these twins were bor4n with half a brain cell and I agree ….. thanks God they didn’t blow up a school first.

    athena do i understand you correctly you think its ok – your making my head spin… In my state there is a law for everything and if there wasn’t they make them up as they go…. what these boys did… what they intended to do … just cause they didn’t follow thru … because they got ran off … still makes me wrong wrong wrong and they need locked up… I can’t believe the twin and the friend got talked into being a part of this sicko act.

    Still PISSED off at this defense attorney on my far left… no way I could defend the dude … hang him and send the other two to a mental ward and dose them with some heavy meds.

    is that a wig in the mug ?

    Laura sure is pretty, I am sad that happened to her! Her parents probably find peace that the siblings have each other in heaven.

  • Wonder

    was thinking about the timeline
    Tom was 9 when Laura was born
    Laura was 10 when Tom died
    Tom died age 19 Laura at age 20
    both in auto accidents
    *sounds like shakespear
    Tom was looking out for Laura –
    ***luckily the patrol car came when they did.

  • Wonder

    was thinking about the timeline
    Tom was 9 when Laura was born
    Laura was 10 when Tom died
    Tom died age 19 Laura at age 20
    both in auto accidents
    *sounds like shakespear
    Tom was looking out for Laura –
    ***luckily the patrol car came when they did.

  • Wonder

    was thinking about the timeline
    Tom was 9 when Laura was born
    Laura was 10 when Tom died
    Tom died age 19 Laura at age 20
    both in auto accidents
    *sounds like shakespear
    Tom was looking out for Laura –
    ***luckily the patrol car came when they did.

  • Anonymous

    Who would you rather have babysitting your kids…a spanker…or a wanna be dead body fucker ?

    This question doesn’t make any sense to me. It sounds like a Zen koan or something.

  • Anonymous

    Who would you rather have babysitting your kids…a spanker…or a wanna be dead body fucker ?

    This question doesn’t make any sense to me. It sounds like a Zen koan or something.

  • sugarglider

    Who would you rather have babysitting your kids…a spanker…or a wanna be dead body fucker ?

    This question doesn’t make any sense to me. It sounds like a Zen koan or something.

  • Anonymous

    I’m guessing by your remarks that The Godesss of Wisdom does not like to be challenged. I just happen to think, and I dare say that I’m not alone, that you are being way too flippant with your comments as far as this story is concerned.

    Actually, it seems to me that Athena answered your queries very thoughtfully.

  • Anonymous

    I’m guessing by your remarks that The Godesss of Wisdom does not like to be challenged. I just happen to think, and I dare say that I’m not alone, that you are being way too flippant with your comments as far as this story is concerned.

    Actually, it seems to me that Athena answered your queries very thoughtfully.

  • sugarglider

    I’m guessing by your remarks that The Godesss of Wisdom does not like to be challenged. I just happen to think, and I dare say that I’m not alone, that you are being way too flippant with your comments as far as this story is concerned.

    Actually, it seems to me that Athena answered your queries very thoughtfully.

  • MadMama

    This question doesn’t make any sense to me. It sounds like a Zen koan or something.

    Why don’t you meditate on that for a few years…maybe it’ll come to you.

    Actually, it seems to me that Athena answered your queries very thoughtfully.

    Wow…I had no idea that my comments would bring out the minions. I’m sure she will be glad to know that you’ve got her back. My intent was not to get anyone’s feathers ruffled, I was simply stating my opionion…thats allowed…right?

  • MadMama

    This question doesn’t make any sense to me. It sounds like a Zen koan or something.

    Why don’t you meditate on that for a few years…maybe it’ll come to you.

    Actually, it seems to me that Athena answered your queries very thoughtfully.

    Wow…I had no idea that my comments would bring out the minions. I’m sure she will be glad to know that you’ve got her back. My intent was not to get anyone’s feathers ruffled, I was simply stating my opionion…thats allowed…right?

  • MadMama

    This question doesn’t make any sense to me. It sounds like a Zen koan or something.

    Why don’t you meditate on that for a few years…maybe it’ll come to you.

    Actually, it seems to me that Athena answered your queries very thoughtfully.

    Wow…I had no idea that my comments would bring out the minions. I’m sure she will be glad to know that you’ve got her back. My intent was not to get anyone’s feathers ruffled, I was simply stating my opionion…thats allowed…right?

  • Anonymous

    Dear Mad Mama, I’m sorry you don’t seem to be able to explain yourself. That’s sad. I’m also sorry, but I’m not going to puzzle them out for you.

    Wow…I had no idea that my comments would bring out the minions. I’m sure she will be glad to know that you’ve got her back. My intent was not to get anyone’s feathers ruffled, I was simply stating my opionion…thats allowed…right?

    Minion? You think I am Athena’s minion? Do you even know wha that word means? You’re the one who has an overweening AWE (in your own words) for Athena. Me? I’m pretty sure it’s a case of mutual respect. Now, you can sit there and pout (“poor little me, I didn’t mean to many any waves”), but since you’ve clearly meant to ruffle MY feathers, I’ll state my opinion (as you pointed out, it’s “allowed”): you’re making a fool out of yourself. I mean, way to take it from the frying pan to the fire. Happy now?

  • Anonymous

    Dear Mad Mama, I’m sorry you don’t seem to be able to explain yourself. That’s sad. I’m also sorry, but I’m not going to puzzle them out for you.

    Wow…I had no idea that my comments would bring out the minions. I’m sure she will be glad to know that you’ve got her back. My intent was not to get anyone’s feathers ruffled, I was simply stating my opionion…thats allowed…right?

    Minion? You think I am Athena’s minion? Do you even know wha that word means? You’re the one who has an overweening AWE (in your own words) for Athena. Me? I’m pretty sure it’s a case of mutual respect. Now, you can sit there and pout (“poor little me, I didn’t mean to many any waves”), but since you’ve clearly meant to ruffle MY feathers, I’ll state my opinion (as you pointed out, it’s “allowed”): you’re making a fool out of yourself. I mean, way to take it from the frying pan to the fire. Happy now?

  • sugarglider

    Dear Mad Mama, I’m sorry you don’t seem to be able to explain yourself. That’s sad. I’m also sorry, but I’m not going to puzzle them out for you.

    Wow…I had no idea that my comments would bring out the minions. I’m sure she will be glad to know that you’ve got her back. My intent was not to get anyone’s feathers ruffled, I was simply stating my opionion…thats allowed…right?

    Minion? You think I am Athena’s minion? Do you even know wha that word means? You’re the one who has an overweening AWE (in your own words) for Athena. Me? I’m pretty sure it’s a case of mutual respect. Now, you can sit there and pout (“poor little me, I didn’t mean to many any waves”), but since you’ve clearly meant to ruffle MY feathers, I’ll state my opinion (as you pointed out, it’s “allowed”): you’re making a fool out of yourself. I mean, way to take it from the frying pan to the fire. Happy now?

  • Anonymous

    The “emotional damage” argument is…not solid. I mean, do we typically protect “feelings” with legislation? Not really.

    Hmm, there may be precedent in WI.

  • Anonymous

    The “emotional damage” argument is…not solid. I mean, do we typically protect “feelings” with legislation? Not really.

    Hmm, there may be precedent in WI.

  • sugarglider

    The “emotional damage” argument is…not solid. I mean, do we typically protect “feelings” with legislation? Not really.

    Hmm, there may be precedent in WI.

  • Anonymous

    p.s. tp Madmama, I feel kinda bad that I won’t be around later to respond to any response you might make about my response to your kinda hysterical freakout over what Athena said about the fallacies of your arguments, so I’ll say it now:

    Athena and I don’t even agree on everything. But I think it’s safe to say that we both tend to prioritize critical thinking skills over emotionalism. So, come on in, the water’s fine ;)

    And the answer to your question is: I wouldn’t want either a necrophiliac or a spanker babysitting my children.

  • Anonymous

    p.s. tp Madmama, I feel kinda bad that I won’t be around later to respond to any response you might make about my response to your kinda hysterical freakout over what Athena said about the fallacies of your arguments, so I’ll say it now:

    Athena and I don’t even agree on everything. But I think it’s safe to say that we both tend to prioritize critical thinking skills over emotionalism. So, come on in, the water’s fine ;)

    And the answer to your question is: I wouldn’t want either a necrophiliac or a spanker babysitting my children.

  • sugarglider

    p.s. tp Madmama, I feel kinda bad that I won’t be around later to respond to any response you might make about my response to your kinda hysterical freakout over what Athena said about the fallacies of your arguments, so I’ll say it now:

    Athena and I don’t even agree on everything. But I think it’s safe to say that we both tend to prioritize critical thinking skills over emotionalism. So, come on in, the water’s fine ;)

    And the answer to your question is: I wouldn’t want either a necrophiliac or a spanker babysitting my children.

  • MadMama

    Sugarglider…didn’t someone point out in another thread that you need to calm down a bit ? You are getting way too upset over some words on your computer screen. I apologize for raising your blood pressure. And sweetie I don’t use words I don’t know the meanings of…maybe you should try that. You put alot of earnest into your posts in an effort to seem educated…its really not working on me…my guess is that you are well read, and you use alot of what you read other people saying in your posts here. I did you use the words ” in awe ” when mentioning Athena..because I think she’s smart, and is a very worthy oppenent of banter such as this…you darling are not. Now…its time for you to move on to another story. I’m sure this is not the last time I will hear from you, so until then…Have A Wonderful Day and cut back on the salt..its making you bitter.

  • MadMama

    Sugarglider…didn’t someone point out in another thread that you need to calm down a bit ? You are getting way too upset over some words on your computer screen. I apologize for raising your blood pressure. And sweetie I don’t use words I don’t know the meanings of…maybe you should try that. You put alot of earnest into your posts in an effort to seem educated…its really not working on me…my guess is that you are well read, and you use alot of what you read other people saying in your posts here. I did you use the words ” in awe ” when mentioning Athena..because I think she’s smart, and is a very worthy oppenent of banter such as this…you darling are not. Now…its time for you to move on to another story. I’m sure this is not the last time I will hear from you, so until then…Have A Wonderful Day and cut back on the salt..its making you bitter.

  • MadMama

    Sugarglider…didn’t someone point out in another thread that you need to calm down a bit ? You are getting way too upset over some words on your computer screen. I apologize for raising your blood pressure. And sweetie I don’t use words I don’t know the meanings of…maybe you should try that. You put alot of earnest into your posts in an effort to seem educated…its really not working on me…my guess is that you are well read, and you use alot of what you read other people saying in your posts here. I did you use the words ” in awe ” when mentioning Athena..because I think she’s smart, and is a very worthy oppenent of banter such as this…you darling are not. Now…its time for you to move on to another story. I’m sure this is not the last time I will hear from you, so until then…Have A Wonderful Day and cut back on the salt..its making you bitter.

  • Athena

    I’m flattered that you’re impressed by my ability to remain unemotional about these topics, really. I think you ought to give it a shot, sometime. Instead of blowing smoke up my ass and suggesting that you respect me, why don’t you show me by explaining to me why someone should get charged with something they didn’t do?

    You didn’t care for my spanking analogy, I see. Let’s try another one. Hardcore S&M;, perhaps? Most people find that distasteful, and I doubt you’d want someone into severe bondage babysitting your kid, but should it be placed on a person’s record simply because it’s wildly unpopular?

    No, I do not “get off” on my legal knowledge. I have this knowledge because I used to intern for a defense attorney, and it serves a very practical role in the discussions I participate in. The “Goddess of Wisdom” doesn’t mind being challenged one bit, I’d just rather the exchange be worth my time.

    If your position is, “I don’t care about the legality, these sick fuckers deserve to pay,” there’s no discussion to be had, here. If you’d like to discuss things rationally, however, I’m always game.

    SG – Watch out, darlin’…You’re lumping yourself in with public enemy #1 with all this fancy talk about “critical thinking”. :P

  • Athena

    I’m flattered that you’re impressed by my ability to remain unemotional about these topics, really. I think you ought to give it a shot, sometime. Instead of blowing smoke up my ass and suggesting that you respect me, why don’t you show me by explaining to me why someone should get charged with something they didn’t do?

    You didn’t care for my spanking analogy, I see. Let’s try another one. Hardcore S&M;, perhaps? Most people find that distasteful, and I doubt you’d want someone into severe bondage babysitting your kid, but should it be placed on a person’s record simply because it’s wildly unpopular?

    No, I do not “get off” on my legal knowledge. I have this knowledge because I used to intern for a defense attorney, and it serves a very practical role in the discussions I participate in. The “Goddess of Wisdom” doesn’t mind being challenged one bit, I’d just rather the exchange be worth my time.

    If your position is, “I don’t care about the legality, these sick fuckers deserve to pay,” there’s no discussion to be had, here. If you’d like to discuss things rationally, however, I’m always game.

    SG – Watch out, darlin’…You’re lumping yourself in with public enemy #1 with all this fancy talk about “critical thinking”. :P

  • Athena

    I’m flattered that you’re impressed by my ability to remain unemotional about these topics, really. I think you ought to give it a shot, sometime. Instead of blowing smoke up my ass and suggesting that you respect me, why don’t you show me by explaining to me why someone should get charged with something they didn’t do?

    You didn’t care for my spanking analogy, I see. Let’s try another one. Hardcore S&M, perhaps? Most people find that distasteful, and I doubt you’d want someone into severe bondage babysitting your kid, but should it be placed on a person’s record simply because it’s wildly unpopular?

    No, I do not “get off” on my legal knowledge. I have this knowledge because I used to intern for a defense attorney, and it serves a very practical role in the discussions I participate in. The “Goddess of Wisdom” doesn’t mind being challenged one bit, I’d just rather the exchange be worth my time.

    If your position is, “I don’t care about the legality, these sick fuckers deserve to pay,” there’s no discussion to be had, here. If you’d like to discuss things rationally, however, I’m always game.

    SG – Watch out, darlin’…You’re lumping yourself in with public enemy #1 with all this fancy talk about “critical thinking”. :P

  • MadMama

    Well a big thank you for branding me public enemy #1 for stating that your views don’t always make sense. If its against the law in some states to fuck the dead, it would stand to reason that it should be against the law to attempt to. Lets for example use rape…which is against the law..correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t attempted rape against the law ? We have come way off course of the original comments that were made…in which you stated that because it wasn’t against the law to fuck a corpse, then one shouldn’t be charged with attempting to do it. Maybe there hasn’t been an incident to provoke such laws to be passed. My initial comment was made because I didn’t share your views. If I had known that in doing so I would become PE#1..I would have said nothing. I guess it will serve me better to just read and keep my opinions to myself. I won’t comment again, its just ignorant to continue attacking the unknown. As far as blowing smoke up your ass…I was just showing you respect…which is something I used to think you deserved. Your attack on me was clearly out of anger because I questioned your ‘ authority ‘…guess thats how people get gone around here…

  • MadMama

    Well a big thank you for branding me public enemy #1 for stating that your views don’t always make sense. If its against the law in some states to fuck the dead, it would stand to reason that it should be against the law to attempt to. Lets for example use rape…which is against the law..correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t attempted rape against the law ? We have come way off course of the original comments that were made…in which you stated that because it wasn’t against the law to fuck a corpse, then one shouldn’t be charged with attempting to do it. Maybe there hasn’t been an incident to provoke such laws to be passed. My initial comment was made because I didn’t share your views. If I had known that in doing so I would become PE#1..I would have said nothing. I guess it will serve me better to just read and keep my opinions to myself. I won’t comment again, its just ignorant to continue attacking the unknown. As far as blowing smoke up your ass…I was just showing you respect…which is something I used to think you deserved. Your attack on me was clearly out of anger because I questioned your ‘ authority ‘…guess thats how people get gone around here…

  • MadMama

    Well a big thank you for branding me public enemy #1 for stating that your views don’t always make sense. If its against the law in some states to fuck the dead, it would stand to reason that it should be against the law to attempt to. Lets for example use rape…which is against the law..correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t attempted rape against the law ? We have come way off course of the original comments that were made…in which you stated that because it wasn’t against the law to fuck a corpse, then one shouldn’t be charged with attempting to do it. Maybe there hasn’t been an incident to provoke such laws to be passed. My initial comment was made because I didn’t share your views. If I had known that in doing so I would become PE#1..I would have said nothing. I guess it will serve me better to just read and keep my opinions to myself. I won’t comment again, its just ignorant to continue attacking the unknown. As far as blowing smoke up your ass…I was just showing you respect…which is something I used to think you deserved. Your attack on me was clearly out of anger because I questioned your ‘ authority ‘…guess thats how people get gone around here…

  • carol13

    uummm…I thought Athena was calling herself public enemy #1??

  • carol13

    uummm…I thought Athena was calling herself public enemy #1??

  • carol13

    uummm…I thought Athena was calling herself public enemy #1??

  • Kathy

    Madmama-
    For the record, I absolutely agree with everything you said. It is impossible to take emotion out of legislation. We are not a nation of robots.

    There really isn’t an acceptable analogy for attempting to fuck a corpse. Whether we like it or not, that was someone’s loved one. If we can’t prosecute them, I think the family of the deceased should at least have the chance to beat the living daylights out of these deviant motherfuckers.

    Fuck it, I AM emotional (Athena is very familiar with that:p ) no apologies here. I vote, so I still count…and so do all my emotions.

    I am not the only one that agrees with you, there are many others on here that do.

  • Kathy

    Madmama-
    For the record, I absolutely agree with everything you said. It is impossible to take emotion out of legislation. We are not a nation of robots.

    There really isn’t an acceptable analogy for attempting to fuck a corpse. Whether we like it or not, that was someone’s loved one. If we can’t prosecute them, I think the family of the deceased should at least have the chance to beat the living daylights out of these deviant motherfuckers.

    Fuck it, I AM emotional (Athena is very familiar with that:p ) no apologies here. I vote, so I still count…and so do all my emotions.

    I am not the only one that agrees with you, there are many others on here that do.

  • Kathy

    Madmama-
    For the record, I absolutely agree with everything you said. It is impossible to take emotion out of legislation. We are not a nation of robots.

    There really isn’t an acceptable analogy for attempting to fuck a corpse. Whether we like it or not, that was someone’s loved one. If we can’t prosecute them, I think the family of the deceased should at least have the chance to beat the living daylights out of these deviant motherfuckers.

    Fuck it, I AM emotional (Athena is very familiar with that:p ) no apologies here. I vote, so I still count…and so do all my emotions.

    I am not the only one that agrees with you, there are many others on here that do.

  • Lynn

    I agree with her also but the condescending tone of the discussion keeps me from posting. I’m not up for an attack.
    **scrambles back to her corner**

  • Lynn

    I agree with her also but the condescending tone of the discussion keeps me from posting. I’m not up for an attack.
    **scrambles back to her corner**

  • Lynn

    I agree with her also but the condescending tone of the discussion keeps me from posting. I’m not up for an attack.
    **scrambles back to her corner**

  • Athena

    Well a big thank you for branding me public enemy #1 for stating that your views don’t always make sense.

    I was referring to myself as public enemy #1. My desire for logical, factual arguments makes me rather unpopular. SugarGlider seems like she’s developing a similar stigma, for a similar reason. I was making a joke. As far as my views making sense? If I’m thinking about things logically, legally, and you’re thinking about them emotionally, I don’t expect them to make sense to you. We disagree, and that’s absolutely okay. Not everyone can agree all the time. Chill out, ma…Take a couple deep breaths. It’s just the internetz.

    If its against the law in some states to fuck the dead, it would stand to reason that it should be against the law to attempt to. Lets for example use rape…which is against the law..correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t attempted rape against the law ? We have come way off course of the original comments that were made…in which you stated that because it wasn’t against the law to fuck a corpse, then one shouldn’t be charged with attempting to do it.

    No, no…You clearly misunderstood me. IF necrophilia is illegal, I would have no problem with a “conspiracy to commit necrophilia” or “attempted necrophilia” charge existing. Logically, it should exist, and that’s what these boys should get charged with. My problem is this: If that conspiracy charge does not exist for whatever reason, we shouldn’t go up a level and charge them with a crime they didn’t commit. That’s like charging someone guilty of attempted murder with murder.

    Maybe there hasn’t been an incident to provoke such laws to be passed.

    You’re right. But, if that’s the case, they should get to work on such a law, rather than charging these boys with a crime they didn’t commit. That’s my point.

    My initial comment was made because I didn’t share your views. If I had known that in doing so I would become PE#1..I would have said nothing. I guess it will serve me better to just read and keep my opinions to myself. I won’t comment again, its just ignorant to continue attacking the unknown.

    Again, the public enemy comment was in regard to myself. The only circumstance that should keep you from voicing your opinions is if you think they aren’t worth being heard. Certainly, a little rough handling from me shouldn’t prevent you. If you’re particularly sensitive, though, feel free to say so, and I’ll strap the kid gloves on. Just be sure not to start out as aggressively next time. If you’re aggressive, I’ll assume you can handle aggression. Fair?

    As far as blowing smoke up your ass…I was just showing you respect…which is something I used to think you deserved. Your attack on me was clearly out of anger because I questioned your ‘ authority ‘…guess thats how people get gone around here…

    Apparently, you could use a refresher. Look back through the posts and see who “attacked” first. Your intial post asserted that I was posting “ignorant shit”. Your next post asserted that I “get off” on having legal knowledge, and that I must not “like to be challenged”. I let you get off three clean shots before I became even the slightest bit uncivil. It’s pretty clear that you were on the attack, not me. If you disagree, please feel free to point out where I was attacking. I re-read those posts, and I just don’t see it.

  • Athena

    Well a big thank you for branding me public enemy #1 for stating that your views don’t always make sense.

    I was referring to myself as public enemy #1. My desire for logical, factual arguments makes me rather unpopular. SugarGlider seems like she’s developing a similar stigma, for a similar reason. I was making a joke. As far as my views making sense? If I’m thinking about things logically, legally, and you’re thinking about them emotionally, I don’t expect them to make sense to you. We disagree, and that’s absolutely okay. Not everyone can agree all the time. Chill out, ma…Take a couple deep breaths. It’s just the internetz.

    If its against the law in some states to fuck the dead, it would stand to reason that it should be against the law to attempt to. Lets for example use rape…which is against the law..correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t attempted rape against the law ? We have come way off course of the original comments that were made…in which you stated that because it wasn’t against the law to fuck a corpse, then one shouldn’t be charged with attempting to do it.

    No, no…You clearly misunderstood me. IF necrophilia is illegal, I would have no problem with a “conspiracy to commit necrophilia” or “attempted necrophilia” charge existing. Logically, it should exist, and that’s what these boys should get charged with. My problem is this: If that conspiracy charge does not exist for whatever reason, we shouldn’t go up a level and charge them with a crime they didn’t commit. That’s like charging someone guilty of attempted murder with murder.

    Maybe there hasn’t been an incident to provoke such laws to be passed.

    You’re right. But, if that’s the case, they should get to work on such a law, rather than charging these boys with a crime they didn’t commit. That’s my point.

    My initial comment was made because I didn’t share your views. If I had known that in doing so I would become PE#1..I would have said nothing. I guess it will serve me better to just read and keep my opinions to myself. I won’t comment again, its just ignorant to continue attacking the unknown.

    Again, the public enemy comment was in regard to myself. The only circumstance that should keep you from voicing your opinions is if you think they aren’t worth being heard. Certainly, a little rough handling from me shouldn’t prevent you. If you’re particularly sensitive, though, feel free to say so, and I’ll strap the kid gloves on. Just be sure not to start out as aggressively next time. If you’re aggressive, I’ll assume you can handle aggression. Fair?

    As far as blowing smoke up your ass…I was just showing you respect…which is something I used to think you deserved. Your attack on me was clearly out of anger because I questioned your ‘ authority ‘…guess thats how people get gone around here…

    Apparently, you could use a refresher. Look back through the posts and see who “attacked” first. Your intial post asserted that I was posting “ignorant shit”. Your next post asserted that I “get off” on having legal knowledge, and that I must not “like to be challenged”. I let you get off three clean shots before I became even the slightest bit uncivil. It’s pretty clear that you were on the attack, not me. If you disagree, please feel free to point out where I was attacking. I re-read those posts, and I just don’t see it.

  • Athena

    Well a big thank you for branding me public enemy #1 for stating that your views don’t always make sense.

    I was referring to myself as public enemy #1. My desire for logical, factual arguments makes me rather unpopular. SugarGlider seems like she’s developing a similar stigma, for a similar reason. I was making a joke. As far as my views making sense? If I’m thinking about things logically, legally, and you’re thinking about them emotionally, I don’t expect them to make sense to you. We disagree, and that’s absolutely okay. Not everyone can agree all the time. Chill out, ma…Take a couple deep breaths. It’s just the internetz.

    If its against the law in some states to fuck the dead, it would stand to reason that it should be against the law to attempt to. Lets for example use rape…which is against the law..correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t attempted rape against the law ? We have come way off course of the original comments that were made…in which you stated that because it wasn’t against the law to fuck a corpse, then one shouldn’t be charged with attempting to do it.

    No, no…You clearly misunderstood me. IF necrophilia is illegal, I would have no problem with a “conspiracy to commit necrophilia” or “attempted necrophilia” charge existing. Logically, it should exist, and that’s what these boys should get charged with. My problem is this: If that conspiracy charge does not exist for whatever reason, we shouldn’t go up a level and charge them with a crime they didn’t commit. That’s like charging someone guilty of attempted murder with murder.

    Maybe there hasn’t been an incident to provoke such laws to be passed.

    You’re right. But, if that’s the case, they should get to work on such a law, rather than charging these boys with a crime they didn’t commit. That’s my point.

    My initial comment was made because I didn’t share your views. If I had known that in doing so I would become PE#1..I would have said nothing. I guess it will serve me better to just read and keep my opinions to myself. I won’t comment again, its just ignorant to continue attacking the unknown.

    Again, the public enemy comment was in regard to myself. The only circumstance that should keep you from voicing your opinions is if you think they aren’t worth being heard. Certainly, a little rough handling from me shouldn’t prevent you. If you’re particularly sensitive, though, feel free to say so, and I’ll strap the kid gloves on. Just be sure not to start out as aggressively next time. If you’re aggressive, I’ll assume you can handle aggression. Fair?

    As far as blowing smoke up your ass…I was just showing you respect…which is something I used to think you deserved. Your attack on me was clearly out of anger because I questioned your ‘ authority ‘…guess thats how people get gone around here…

    Apparently, you could use a refresher. Look back through the posts and see who “attacked” first. Your intial post asserted that I was posting “ignorant shit”. Your next post asserted that I “get off” on having legal knowledge, and that I must not “like to be challenged”. I let you get off three clean shots before I became even the slightest bit uncivil. It’s pretty clear that you were on the attack, not me. If you disagree, please feel free to point out where I was attacking. I re-read those posts, and I just don’t see it.

  • Athena

    For the record, I absolutely agree with everything you said. It is impossible to take emotion out of legislation. We are not a nation of robots.

    That’s not true. We have rules and standards that determine course of action; precedent and guidelines. The average citizen has no say in most criminal legislation. Our government was specifically set up to limit or prevent entirely emotion from playing a role.

    Fuck it, I AM emotional (Athena is very familiar with that:p ) no apologies here. I vote, so I still count…and so do all my emotions.

    There’s nothing wrong with that, and I don’t mean to give anyone the impression that there is. In terms of legality, however, it behooves people to strap their unemotional cap on. I refuse to believe people can’t, I just think that they won’t. The theory behind legislation and criminal sentencing is very formulaic. It IS removed from emotion, which is why applying emotion to legal theory only serves to complicate conversation.

    Ultimately, it’s my fault. I make a comment like, “I don’t believe necrophilia should be specifically criminalized,” and I’m looking to engage in, what boils down to, a conversation about legal theory. I should go hang out on some legal message board for that sort of thing, but there’s more controversy here, and I just can’t seem to drag myself away from that. :P

  • Athena

    For the record, I absolutely agree with everything you said. It is impossible to take emotion out of legislation. We are not a nation of robots.

    That’s not true. We have rules and standards that determine course of action; precedent and guidelines. The average citizen has no say in most criminal legislation. Our government was specifically set up to limit or prevent entirely emotion from playing a role.

    Fuck it, I AM emotional (Athena is very familiar with that:p ) no apologies here. I vote, so I still count…and so do all my emotions.

    There’s nothing wrong with that, and I don’t mean to give anyone the impression that there is. In terms of legality, however, it behooves people to strap their unemotional cap on. I refuse to believe people can’t, I just think that they won’t. The theory behind legislation and criminal sentencing is very formulaic. It IS removed from emotion, which is why applying emotion to legal theory only serves to complicate conversation.

    Ultimately, it’s my fault. I make a comment like, “I don’t believe necrophilia should be specifically criminalized,” and I’m looking to engage in, what boils down to, a conversation about legal theory. I should go hang out on some legal message board for that sort of thing, but there’s more controversy here, and I just can’t seem to drag myself away from that. :P

  • Athena

    For the record, I absolutely agree with everything you said. It is impossible to take emotion out of legislation. We are not a nation of robots.

    That’s not true. We have rules and standards that determine course of action; precedent and guidelines. The average citizen has no say in most criminal legislation. Our government was specifically set up to limit or prevent entirely emotion from playing a role.

    Fuck it, I AM emotional (Athena is very familiar with that:p ) no apologies here. I vote, so I still count…and so do all my emotions.

    There’s nothing wrong with that, and I don’t mean to give anyone the impression that there is. In terms of legality, however, it behooves people to strap their unemotional cap on. I refuse to believe people can’t, I just think that they won’t. The theory behind legislation and criminal sentencing is very formulaic. It IS removed from emotion, which is why applying emotion to legal theory only serves to complicate conversation.

    Ultimately, it’s my fault. I make a comment like, “I don’t believe necrophilia should be specifically criminalized,” and I’m looking to engage in, what boils down to, a conversation about legal theory. I should go hang out on some legal message board for that sort of thing, but there’s more controversy here, and I just can’t seem to drag myself away from that. :P

  • thepooh5

    Post #49 by Kathy – says what I think.

    While I appreciate Athena’s passion for the law and her desire for it to be applied properly, there are some instances that the law has not addressed that need to be – like this very issue. There are other instances that have been addressed by our laws but a satifactory resolution has not been made. In fact, how many current laws on the books, do we, the general public, think need to be revisited and revised for their ineffectiveness? There is always room for improvement in the laws and the law makers.

    In Athena’s defense, I think her basic point was: If its not against the law, you can’t just pick one to suit you, just for the sake of putting the screws to them – no matter how deserving. And she has a valid point. We don’t want those “in power” to have any more ability to abuse the “power” they already have. That I have to support.

    Now how she remains, unemotional about all of this stuff – well, I’m not gonna touch that one…………………… ;) Just kiddin’

  • thepooh5

    Post #49 by Kathy – says what I think.

    While I appreciate Athena’s passion for the law and her desire for it to be applied properly, there are some instances that the law has not addressed that need to be – like this very issue. There are other instances that have been addressed by our laws but a satifactory resolution has not been made. In fact, how many current laws on the books, do we, the general public, think need to be revisited and revised for their ineffectiveness? There is always room for improvement in the laws and the law makers.

    In Athena’s defense, I think her basic point was: If its not against the law, you can’t just pick one to suit you, just for the sake of putting the screws to them – no matter how deserving. And she has a valid point. We don’t want those “in power” to have any more ability to abuse the “power” they already have. That I have to support.

    Now how she remains, unemotional about all of this stuff – well, I’m not gonna touch that one…………………… ;) Just kiddin’

  • thepooh5

    Post #49 by Kathy – says what I think.

    While I appreciate Athena’s passion for the law and her desire for it to be applied properly, there are some instances that the law has not addressed that need to be – like this very issue. There are other instances that have been addressed by our laws but a satifactory resolution has not been made. In fact, how many current laws on the books, do we, the general public, think need to be revisited and revised for their ineffectiveness? There is always room for improvement in the laws and the law makers.

    In Athena’s defense, I think her basic point was: If its not against the law, you can’t just pick one to suit you, just for the sake of putting the screws to them – no matter how deserving. And she has a valid point. We don’t want those “in power” to have any more ability to abuse the “power” they already have. That I have to support.

    Now how she remains, unemotional about all of this stuff – well, I’m not gonna touch that one…………………… ;) Just kiddin’

  • solange822001

    I can see Athena’s point, especially in regards to charging them with a crime that they didn’t get a chance to commit. However, I do think necrophilia should be made illegal, and so should attempted necrophilia. Unfortunately, it would be too late for these sickos, but it’s better than nothing.

    And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration. I also think that, to a certain extent, emotions do need to play some sort of part in our legal justice system. S&M/bondage, for example, who does that hurt? No one, since you have two willing participants. But what these guys were about to do would have caused great pain to a family that is already suffering. I think that should be taken into consideration, at least. And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you ;)

  • solange822001

    I can see Athena’s point, especially in regards to charging them with a crime that they didn’t get a chance to commit. However, I do think necrophilia should be made illegal, and so should attempted necrophilia. Unfortunately, it would be too late for these sickos, but it’s better than nothing.

    And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration. I also think that, to a certain extent, emotions do need to play some sort of part in our legal justice system. S&M/bondage, for example, who does that hurt? No one, since you have two willing participants. But what these guys were about to do would have caused great pain to a family that is already suffering. I think that should be taken into consideration, at least. And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you ;)

  • solange822001

    I can see Athena’s point, especially in regards to charging them with a crime that they didn’t get a chance to commit. However, I do think necrophilia should be made illegal, and so should attempted necrophilia. Unfortunately, it would be too late for these sickos, but it’s better than nothing.

    And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration. I also think that, to a certain extent, emotions do need to play some sort of part in our legal justice system. S&M/bondage, for example, who does that hurt? No one, since you have two willing participants. But what these guys were about to do would have caused great pain to a family that is already suffering. I think that should be taken into consideration, at least. And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you ;)

  • Athena

    In Athena’s defense, I think her basic point was: If its not against the law, you can’t just pick one to suit you, just for the sake of putting the screws to them – no matter how deserving. And she has a valid point. We don’t want those “in power” to have any more ability to abuse the “power” they already have. That I have to support.

    Thanks, Pooh. And here I was thinking I wasn’t being clear enough (I do tend to be a bit verbose). :)

    Now how she remains, unemotional about all of this stuff – well, I’m not gonna touch that one…………………… Just kiddin’

    Well, damnit, Pooh, it’s a double-edged sword. :P

    The audience may be interested to know that the things that cause you folks to want to ring my neck also frustrate the bejeesus out of my “real life” peeps, so, this isn’t a new thing for me. To be honest, I don’t really understand some people’s insistance on thinking emotionally any more than they understand my insistance on thinking unemotionally…But I don’t hold it against you, so try not to hold it against me, huh? :)

  • Athena

    In Athena’s defense, I think her basic point was: If its not against the law, you can’t just pick one to suit you, just for the sake of putting the screws to them – no matter how deserving. And she has a valid point. We don’t want those “in power” to have any more ability to abuse the “power” they already have. That I have to support.

    Thanks, Pooh. And here I was thinking I wasn’t being clear enough (I do tend to be a bit verbose). :)

    Now how she remains, unemotional about all of this stuff – well, I’m not gonna touch that one…………………… Just kiddin’

    Well, damnit, Pooh, it’s a double-edged sword. :P

    The audience may be interested to know that the things that cause you folks to want to ring my neck also frustrate the bejeesus out of my “real life” peeps, so, this isn’t a new thing for me. To be honest, I don’t really understand some people’s insistance on thinking emotionally any more than they understand my insistance on thinking unemotionally…But I don’t hold it against you, so try not to hold it against me, huh? :)

  • Athena

    In Athena’s defense, I think her basic point was: If its not against the law, you can’t just pick one to suit you, just for the sake of putting the screws to them – no matter how deserving. And she has a valid point. We don’t want those “in power” to have any more ability to abuse the “power” they already have. That I have to support.

    Thanks, Pooh. And here I was thinking I wasn’t being clear enough (I do tend to be a bit verbose). :)

    Now how she remains, unemotional about all of this stuff – well, I’m not gonna touch that one…………………… Just kiddin’

    Well, damnit, Pooh, it’s a double-edged sword. :P

    The audience may be interested to know that the things that cause you folks to want to ring my neck also frustrate the bejeesus out of my “real life” peeps, so, this isn’t a new thing for me. To be honest, I don’t really understand some people’s insistance on thinking emotionally any more than they understand my insistance on thinking unemotionally…But I don’t hold it against you, so try not to hold it against me, huh? :)

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    I can see Athena’s point, especially in regards to charging them with a crime that they didn’t get a chance to commit.

    That’s the point of this story. They did commit a crime, as necrophilia was already illegal in the state, even though it wasn’t named specifically. The law states that a person cannot put something, in a sexual manner, into the body of another person without that person giving consent. The law never specifically stated that the person had to be alive or not.

    The fact that this girl was alive or dead did not matter in regards to the laws already on Wisconsin’s books, the fact that she did not give consent is. See, loopholes work both ways.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    I can see Athena’s point, especially in regards to charging them with a crime that they didn’t get a chance to commit.

    That’s the point of this story. They did commit a crime, as necrophilia was already illegal in the state, even though it wasn’t named specifically. The law states that a person cannot put something, in a sexual manner, into the body of another person without that person giving consent. The law never specifically stated that the person had to be alive or not.

    The fact that this girl was alive or dead did not matter in regards to the laws already on Wisconsin’s books, the fact that she did not give consent is. See, loopholes work both ways.

  • Athena

    And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration.

    Well, that right there is the crux of the argument; the point that I recognize I have to be willing to agree to disagree. It’s not that I can’t sympathize…I mean, I can totally understand how necrophilia would fuck with the family of the deceased. But, from my (legal) perspective, we don’t have any criminal laws that protect the dead in any other circumstance, nor do we have any laws meant to protect or serve as vengence for the family of the victim (except in civil court). So, to me, this is establishing a whole new class of criminal charge (as there’s no legal precedent, that I can think of) because necrophilia is super fuckin’ icky.

    That just doesn’t jive with me.

    And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you.

    It sure wouldn’t! You wouldn’t get to play Catholic School teacher any more – always smacking my knuckles with a ruler! ;)

  • Athena

    And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration.

    Well, that right there is the crux of the argument; the point that I recognize I have to be willing to agree to disagree. It’s not that I can’t sympathize…I mean, I can totally understand how necrophilia would fuck with the family of the deceased. But, from my (legal) perspective, we don’t have any criminal laws that protect the dead in any other circumstance, nor do we have any laws meant to protect or serve as vengence for the family of the victim (except in civil court). So, to me, this is establishing a whole new class of criminal charge (as there’s no legal precedent, that I can think of) because necrophilia is super fuckin’ icky.

    That just doesn’t jive with me.

    And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you.

    It sure wouldn’t! You wouldn’t get to play Catholic School teacher any more – always smacking my knuckles with a ruler! ;)

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    I can see Athena’s point, especially in regards to charging them with a crime that they didn’t get a chance to commit.

    That’s the point of this story. They did commit a crime, as necrophilia was already illegal in the state, even though it wasn’t named specifically. The law states that a person cannot put something, in a sexual manner, into the body of another person without that person giving consent. The law never specifically stated that the person had to be alive or not.

    The fact that this girl was alive or dead did not matter in regards to the laws already on Wisconsin’s books, the fact that she did not give consent is. See, loopholes work both ways.

  • Athena

    And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration.

    Well, that right there is the crux of the argument; the point that I recognize I have to be willing to agree to disagree. It’s not that I can’t sympathize…I mean, I can totally understand how necrophilia would fuck with the family of the deceased. But, from my (legal) perspective, we don’t have any criminal laws that protect the dead in any other circumstance, nor do we have any laws meant to protect or serve as vengence for the family of the victim (except in civil court). So, to me, this is establishing a whole new class of criminal charge (as there’s no legal precedent, that I can think of) because necrophilia is super fuckin’ icky.

    That just doesn’t jive with me.

    And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you.

    It sure wouldn’t! You wouldn’t get to play Catholic School teacher any more – always smacking my knuckles with a ruler! ;)

  • thepooh5

    The audience may be interested to know that the things that cause you folks to want to ring my neck also frustrate the bejeesus out of my “real life” peeps, so, this isn’t a new thing for me. To be honest, I don’t really understand some people’s insistance on thinking emotionally any more than they understand my insistance on thinking unemotionally…But I don’t hold it against you, so try not to hold it against me, huh?

    Its a deal. And, like I’ve said before, I respect your opinion and knowledge, I just don’t always agree. It’s nothing about your person, its nothing more than you see things one way and I see them another. Our past experiences skew our perceptions and since our pasts were different, we have different perceptions. Its all good, on my part anyway.

    And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration. I also think that, to a certain extent, emotions do need to play some sort of part in our legal justice system. S&M/bondage, for example, who does that hurt? No one, since you have two willing participants. But what these guys were about to do would have caused great pain to a family that is already suffering. I think that should be taken into consideration, at least. And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you

    I have to go with solange on this one and the inanimate object thing. In my death, I want to be viewed as a person, who has passed. I don’t want to be a person one day and the next be viewed with as much empathy as say, a door knob. It get the literal definition. I do. But anything that WAS living has to rate higher than anything that NEVER had life in it. Just sayin’…………………………

  • thepooh5

    The audience may be interested to know that the things that cause you folks to want to ring my neck also frustrate the bejeesus out of my “real life” peeps, so, this isn’t a new thing for me. To be honest, I don’t really understand some people’s insistance on thinking emotionally any more than they understand my insistance on thinking unemotionally…But I don’t hold it against you, so try not to hold it against me, huh?

    Its a deal. And, like I’ve said before, I respect your opinion and knowledge, I just don’t always agree. It’s nothing about your person, its nothing more than you see things one way and I see them another. Our past experiences skew our perceptions and since our pasts were different, we have different perceptions. Its all good, on my part anyway.

    And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration. I also think that, to a certain extent, emotions do need to play some sort of part in our legal justice system. S&M/bondage, for example, who does that hurt? No one, since you have two willing participants. But what these guys were about to do would have caused great pain to a family that is already suffering. I think that should be taken into consideration, at least. And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you

    I have to go with solange on this one and the inanimate object thing. In my death, I want to be viewed as a person, who has passed. I don’t want to be a person one day and the next be viewed with as much empathy as say, a door knob. It get the literal definition. I do. But anything that WAS living has to rate higher than anything that NEVER had life in it. Just sayin’…………………………

  • thepooh5

    The audience may be interested to know that the things that cause you folks to want to ring my neck also frustrate the bejeesus out of my “real life” peeps, so, this isn’t a new thing for me. To be honest, I don’t really understand some people’s insistance on thinking emotionally any more than they understand my insistance on thinking unemotionally…But I don’t hold it against you, so try not to hold it against me, huh?

    Its a deal. And, like I’ve said before, I respect your opinion and knowledge, I just don’t always agree. It’s nothing about your person, its nothing more than you see things one way and I see them another. Our past experiences skew our perceptions and since our pasts were different, we have different perceptions. Its all good, on my part anyway.

    And I do have to say, a human body is not the same to me as some other inanimate object, like a door knob. It was, at one point, a human being, and I think that should be taken into consideration. I also think that, to a certain extent, emotions do need to play some sort of part in our legal justice system. S&M/bondage, for example, who does that hurt? No one, since you have two willing participants. But what these guys were about to do would have caused great pain to a family that is already suffering. I think that should be taken into consideration, at least. And Athena, you are most certainly not public enemy number 1 in my book, it wouldn’t be the same around here without you

    I have to go with solange on this one and the inanimate object thing. In my death, I want to be viewed as a person, who has passed. I don’t want to be a person one day and the next be viewed with as much empathy as say, a door knob. It get the literal definition. I do. But anything that WAS living has to rate higher than anything that NEVER had life in it. Just sayin’…………………………

  • thepooh5

    The fact that this girl was alive or dead did not matter in regards to the laws already on Wisconsin’s books, the fact that she did not give consent is. See, loopholes work both ways.

    Very, very good point Morbid.

  • thepooh5

    The fact that this girl was alive or dead did not matter in regards to the laws already on Wisconsin’s books, the fact that she did not give consent is. See, loopholes work both ways.

    Very, very good point Morbid.

  • thepooh5

    The fact that this girl was alive or dead did not matter in regards to the laws already on Wisconsin’s books, the fact that she did not give consent is. See, loopholes work both ways.

    Very, very good point Morbid.

  • Athena

    The law states that a person cannot put something, in a sexual manner, into the body of another person without that person giving consent.

    And that’s just the thing – I can’t think of a single precedent that establishes the deceased as a “person”, much like the unborn aren’t legally considered a “person”. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be able to keep bodies in museums without prior consent, or use corpses for medical purposes without prior consent under any circumstance. Classifying a corpse as a person has some pretty broad implications that it doesn’t seem as though they’ve considered.

    But that’s almost beside the point. The article only says, “When officers investigated, they found Laura Tennessen’s grave had been tampered with, the top of the vault that held the coffin being visible.” It doesn’t actually say if these boys successfully accessed the grave and had sex with it, so I assumed they hadn’t. If that’s true, and they didn’t actually access the corpse, they shouldn’t be charged with sexual assault.

  • Athena

    The law states that a person cannot put something, in a sexual manner, into the body of another person without that person giving consent.

    And that’s just the thing – I can’t think of a single precedent that establishes the deceased as a “person”, much like the unborn aren’t legally considered a “person”. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be able to keep bodies in museums without prior consent, or use corpses for medical purposes without prior consent under any circumstance. Classifying a corpse as a person has some pretty broad implications that it doesn’t seem as though they’ve considered.

    But that’s almost beside the point. The article only says, “When officers investigated, they found Laura Tennessen’s grave had been tampered with, the top of the vault that held the coffin being visible.” It doesn’t actually say if these boys successfully accessed the grave and had sex with it, so I assumed they hadn’t. If that’s true, and they didn’t actually access the corpse, they shouldn’t be charged with sexual assault.

  • Athena

    The law states that a person cannot put something, in a sexual manner, into the body of another person without that person giving consent.

    And that’s just the thing – I can’t think of a single precedent that establishes the deceased as a “person”, much like the unborn aren’t legally considered a “person”. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be able to keep bodies in museums without prior consent, or use corpses for medical purposes without prior consent under any circumstance. Classifying a corpse as a person has some pretty broad implications that it doesn’t seem as though they’ve considered.

    But that’s almost beside the point. The article only says, “When officers investigated, they found Laura Tennessen’s grave had been tampered with, the top of the vault that held the coffin being visible.” It doesn’t actually say if these boys successfully accessed the grave and had sex with it, so I assumed they hadn’t. If that’s true, and they didn’t actually access the corpse, they shouldn’t be charged with sexual assault.

  • Lynn

    Athena, Isn’t there a law on the books called “desecration(sp) of remains or something like that? Or something like”disturbing a grave”?

  • Lynn

    Athena, Isn’t there a law on the books called “desecration(sp) of remains or something like that? Or something like”disturbing a grave”?

  • Lynn

    Athena, Isn’t there a law on the books called “desecration(sp) of remains or something like that? Or something like”disturbing a grave”?

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    But that’s almost beside the point. The article only says, “When officers investigated, they found Laura Tennessen’s grave had been tampered with, the top of the vault that held the coffin being visible.” It doesn’t actually say if these boys successfully accessed the grave and had sex with it, so I assumed they hadn’t. If that’s true, and they didn’t actually access the corpse, they shouldn’t be charged with sexual assault.

    I am not a lawyer or judge, even though, like other people, I like to play one on this blog. So for anyone who wants to read how they came to this decision (over a law that already existed) read this:

    http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2008/07/14/Necrophilia-is-against-the-law-Statute-is-not-limited-to-rapemurder

    It goes into detail on why these three morons were charged correctly the first time, why it was appealed and why the State Supreme Court reversed it, re-instating the original charges.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    But that’s almost beside the point. The article only says, “When officers investigated, they found Laura Tennessen’s grave had been tampered with, the top of the vault that held the coffin being visible.” It doesn’t actually say if these boys successfully accessed the grave and had sex with it, so I assumed they hadn’t. If that’s true, and they didn’t actually access the corpse, they shouldn’t be charged with sexual assault.

    I am not a lawyer or judge, even though, like other people, I like to play one on this blog. So for anyone who wants to read how they came to this decision (over a law that already existed) read this:

    http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2008/07/14/Necrophilia-is-against-the-law-Statute-is-not-limited-to-rapemurder

    It goes into detail on why these three morons were charged correctly the first time, why it was appealed and why the State Supreme Court reversed it, re-instating the original charges.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    But that’s almost beside the point. The article only says, “When officers investigated, they found Laura Tennessen’s grave had been tampered with, the top of the vault that held the coffin being visible.” It doesn’t actually say if these boys successfully accessed the grave and had sex with it, so I assumed they hadn’t. If that’s true, and they didn’t actually access the corpse, they shouldn’t be charged with sexual assault.

    I am not a lawyer or judge, even though, like other people, I like to play one on this blog. So for anyone who wants to read how they came to this decision (over a law that already existed) read this:

    http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2008/07/14/Necrophilia-is-against-the-law-Statute-is-not-limited-to-rapemurder

    It goes into detail on why these three morons were charged correctly the first time, why it was appealed and why the State Supreme Court reversed it, re-instating the original charges.

  • Ruby

    Now how she remains, unemotional about all of this stuff – well, I’m not gonna touch that one…………………… Just kiddin’

    She’s a Vulcan, damn it!

  • Ruby

    Now how she remains, unemotional about all of this stuff – well, I’m not gonna touch that one…………………… Just kiddin’

    She’s a Vulcan, damn it!

  • thepooh5

    She’s a Vulcan, damn it!

    LOL – brb got to read the Morb’s link……….

  • thepooh5

    She’s a Vulcan, damn it!

    LOL – brb got to read the Morb’s link……….

  • thepooh5

    She’s a Vulcan, damn it!

    LOL – brb got to read the Morb’s link……….

  • solange822001

    Thanks for the link Morb, I am going to check that out. I was also under the impression that they did not actually get a chance to do the deed, if they did, then I think they should be charged accordingly. *off to see what the link says*

  • solange822001

    Thanks for the link Morb, I am going to check that out. I was also under the impression that they did not actually get a chance to do the deed, if they did, then I think they should be charged accordingly. *off to see what the link says*

  • solange822001

    Thanks for the link Morb, I am going to check that out. I was also under the impression that they did not actually get a chance to do the deed, if they did, then I think they should be charged accordingly. *off to see what the link says*

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    I am pretty sure attempted 3rd degree sexual assault is what they are being charged with. Actual sex without consent is, at the very least, 3rd degree sexual assault. They admitted to attempting to have sex without consent.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    I am pretty sure attempted 3rd degree sexual assault is what they are being charged with. Actual sex without consent is, at the very least, 3rd degree sexual assault. They admitted to attempting to have sex without consent.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    I am pretty sure attempted 3rd degree sexual assault is what they are being charged with. Actual sex without consent is, at the very least, 3rd degree sexual assault. They admitted to attempting to have sex without consent.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    I am pretty sure attempted 3rd degree sexual assault is what they are being charged with. Actual sex without consent is, at the very least, 3rd degree sexual assault. They admitted to attempting to have sex without consent.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com Morbid

    I am pretty sure attempted 3rd degree sexual assault is what they are being charged with. Actual sex without consent is, at the very least, 3rd degree sexual assault. They admitted to attempting to have sex without consent.

  • Athena

    Interesting. Thanks for the link, Morbid. The decision focuses around consent and, in that respect, they’re obviously correct, as the dead can’t consent. Of course, they didn’t discuss what kind of precedent defining a corpse as a “person” might set. In fact, they didn’t touch the definition of “person”.

    Legally, the term “person” is about as ambiguous as you get. A corporation is defined as a “person”, for example. I’m used to statutes that specifically define the general nouns used, but can’t find one for the sexual assault statute. If there is no definition, I suppose they can do what they want with the term. That offends my sensibilities, though.

  • Athena

    Interesting. Thanks for the link, Morbid. The decision focuses around consent and, in that respect, they’re obviously correct, as the dead can’t consent. Of course, they didn’t discuss what kind of precedent defining a corpse as a “person” might set. In fact, they didn’t touch the definition of “person”.

    Legally, the term “person” is about as ambiguous as you get. A corporation is defined as a “person”, for example. I’m used to statutes that specifically define the general nouns used, but can’t find one for the sexual assault statute. If there is no definition, I suppose they can do what they want with the term. That offends my sensibilities, though.

  • Athena

    Interesting. Thanks for the link, Morbid. The decision focuses around consent and, in that respect, they’re obviously correct, as the dead can’t consent. Of course, they didn’t discuss what kind of precedent defining a corpse as a “person” might set. In fact, they didn’t touch the definition of “person”.

    Legally, the term “person” is about as ambiguous as you get. A corporation is defined as a “person”, for example. I’m used to statutes that specifically define the general nouns used, but can’t find one for the sexual assault statute. If there is no definition, I suppose they can do what they want with the term. That offends my sensibilities, though.

  • Athena

    Interesting. Thanks for the link, Morbid. The decision focuses around consent and, in that respect, they’re obviously correct, as the dead can’t consent. Of course, they didn’t discuss what kind of precedent defining a corpse as a “person” might set. In fact, they didn’t touch the definition of “person”.

    Legally, the term “person” is about as ambiguous as you get. A corporation is defined as a “person”, for example. I’m used to statutes that specifically define the general nouns used, but can’t find one for the sexual assault statute. If there is no definition, I suppose they can do what they want with the term. That offends my sensibilities, though.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dneil73 Dneilz

    How sad… her parents must have went through hell. First they lose their son when he is 19 and then her at 22. Then those idiots try to dig her up to violate her…. assholes!

  • http://www.myspace.com/dneil73 Dneilz

    How sad… her parents must have went through hell. First they lose their son when he is 19 and then her at 22. Then those idiots try to dig her up to violate her…. assholes!

  • http://www.myspace.com/dneil73 Dneilz

    How sad… her parents must have went through hell. First they lose their son when he is 19 and then her at 22. Then those idiots try to dig her up to violate her…. assholes!

  • http://www.myspace.com/dneil73 Dneilz

    How sad… her parents must have went through hell. First they lose their son when he is 19 and then her at 22. Then those idiots try to dig her up to violate her…. assholes!

  • http://www.myspace.com/dneil73 Dneilz

    How sad… her parents must have went through hell. First they lose their son when he is 19 and then her at 22. Then those idiots try to dig her up to violate her…. assholes!

  • Zibarro aka Kryssa

    So the families of dead victims get more protection/recourse than those of live ones. Yeah, that makes total sense.

    It actually does. A live person can fight for their own justice. A dead person has only family/friends to fight for them.

    If the law didn’t think the dead deserved respect, there wouldn’t be ANY laws against desecration, necrophilia or any other offense committed against them.

    If someone kills a person and then has sexual intercourse with them… what are they charged with (other than murder)? If necrophilia isn’t illegal.. mitigating/aggravating circumstance go out the window. If you charge them with rape/sexual assault – you’re setting a precedent that it is illegal to have sex with a dead person in the same manner it would be illegal to have sex with a live person. If you say that it doesn’t matter because they already face the murder charge – I can’t agree. It’s the mitigating/aggravating circumstances that can make the difference between life and death in sentencing (as another story here is attempting to prove now)

    Necrophilia is sexual assault. The intent is the same on the part of the perpetrator whether the victim is alive or dead. Non-consensual sex.

    In this case, the intent to commit sexual assault was there – the “balls” to go after a live victim were not.

    I hope that isn’t confusing and please Athena… go easy on me. lol. I try hard not to spar with you – especially on legal issues!

  • Zibarro aka Kryssa

    So the families of dead victims get more protection/recourse than those of live ones. Yeah, that makes total sense.

    It actually does. A live person can fight for their own justice. A dead person has only family/friends to fight for them.

    If the law didn’t think the dead deserved respect, there wouldn’t be ANY laws against desecration, necrophilia or any other offense committed against them.

    If someone kills a person and then has sexual intercourse with them… what are they charged with (other than murder)? If necrophilia isn’t illegal.. mitigating/aggravating circumstance go out the window. If you charge them with rape/sexual assault – you’re setting a precedent that it is illegal to have sex with a dead person in the same manner it would be illegal to have sex with a live person. If you say that it doesn’t matter because they already face the murder charge – I can’t agree. It’s the mitigating/aggravating circumstances that can make the difference between life and death in sentencing (as another story here is attempting to prove now)

    Necrophilia is sexual assault. The intent is the same on the part of the perpetrator whether the victim is alive or dead. Non-consensual sex.

    In this case, the intent to commit sexual assault was there – the “balls” to go after a live victim were not.

    I hope that isn’t confusing and please Athena… go easy on me. lol. I try hard not to spar with you – especially on legal issues!

  • Zibarro aka Kryssa

    So the families of dead victims get more protection/recourse than those of live ones. Yeah, that makes total sense.

    It actually does. A live person can fight for their own justice. A dead person has only family/friends to fight for them.

    If the law didn’t think the dead deserved respect, there wouldn’t be ANY laws against desecration, necrophilia or any other offense committed against them.

    If someone kills a person and then has sexual intercourse with them… what are they charged with (other than murder)? If necrophilia isn’t illegal.. mitigating/aggravating circumstance go out the window. If you charge them with rape/sexual assault – you’re setting a precedent that it is illegal to have sex with a dead person in the same manner it would be illegal to have sex with a live person. If you say that it doesn’t matter because they already face the murder charge – I can’t agree. It’s the mitigating/aggravating circumstances that can make the difference between life and death in sentencing (as another story here is attempting to prove now)

    Necrophilia is sexual assault. The intent is the same on the part of the perpetrator whether the victim is alive or dead. Non-consensual sex.

    In this case, the intent to commit sexual assault was there – the “balls” to go after a live victim were not.

    I hope that isn’t confusing and please Athena… go easy on me. lol. I try hard not to spar with you – especially on legal issues!

  • Zibarro aka Kryssa

    So the families of dead victims get more protection/recourse than those of live ones. Yeah, that makes total sense.

    It actually does. A live person can fight for their own justice. A dead person has only family/friends to fight for them.

    If the law didn’t think the dead deserved respect, there wouldn’t be ANY laws against desecration, necrophilia or any other offense committed against them.

    If someone kills a person and then has sexual intercourse with them… what are they charged with (other than murder)? If necrophilia isn’t illegal.. mitigating/aggravating circumstance go out the window. If you charge them with rape/sexual assault – you’re setting a precedent that it is illegal to have sex with a dead person in the same manner it would be illegal to have sex with a live person. If you say that it doesn’t matter because they already face the murder charge – I can’t agree. It’s the mitigating/aggravating circumstances that can make the difference between life and death in sentencing (as another story here is attempting to prove now)

    Necrophilia is sexual assault. The intent is the same on the part of the perpetrator whether the victim is alive or dead. Non-consensual sex.

    In this case, the intent to commit sexual assault was there – the “balls” to go after a live victim were not.

    I hope that isn’t confusing and please Athena… go easy on me. lol. I try hard not to spar with you – especially on legal issues!

  • Zibarro

    So the families of dead victims get more protection/recourse than those of live ones. Yeah, that makes total sense.

    It actually does. A live person can fight for their own justice. A dead person has only family/friends to fight for them.

    If the law didn’t think the dead deserved respect, there wouldn’t be ANY laws against desecration, necrophilia or any other offense committed against them.

    If someone kills a person and then has sexual intercourse with them… what are they charged with (other than murder)? If necrophilia isn’t illegal.. mitigating/aggravating circumstance go out the window. If you charge them with rape/sexual assault – you’re setting a precedent that it is illegal to have sex with a dead person in the same manner it would be illegal to have sex with a live person. If you say that it doesn’t matter because they already face the murder charge – I can’t agree. It’s the mitigating/aggravating circumstances that can make the difference between life and death in sentencing (as another story here is attempting to prove now)

    Necrophilia is sexual assault. The intent is the same on the part of the perpetrator whether the victim is alive or dead. Non-consensual sex.

    In this case, the intent to commit sexual assault was there – the “balls” to go after a live victim were not.

    I hope that isn’t confusing and please Athena… go easy on me. lol. I try hard not to spar with you – especially on legal issues!

  • Moonlight

    Necrophilia is sexual assault. The intent is the same on the part of the perpetrator whether the victim is alive or dead. Non-consensual sex.

    A dead person has no ability to consent, so you can’t really call it non-consensual, and in fact the “victim” hardly fits the definition of the word victim: “a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.”

    You can’t harm a non living person. I’m certainly not saying it’s OK to do such things, but “rape” is defined as against someone’s will, which in this case is not possible. They have no will.

    Also this is not the case where he didn’t have the “balls” to go after a living person. That’s an awful lot of work to go through for some tail. This guy is obviously into gothic type stuff. That ugly died black hair is part of that whole goth/emo look. Goths are often obsessed with the dead and the macabre. People with sexual fetishes are very specific. He was interested in this activity because she was dead.

    So people like this don’t move on to other crimes, just as child molesters are not interested in adults.

    So I’m not saying this is OK, but I think it gets into a legal gray area that we have to watch out for. LIke when someone is charged with attempted rape when the “victim” doesn’t even exist, as in the case of police sting operations looking for online sexual predators. Yes, these people are dangerous and creepy, but you can’t charge someone with a crime against a person who doesn’t exist! You have to come up with a different charge, or make up new laws.

    This reason this concerns me is that left unchecked people will be charged with all kinds of crimes that aren’t even possible! Police love to try and charge people with stuff, even if the person is innocent as a way to clean up their blotter. I think to charge someone with an attempted crime you really have to show that an attempt was made, or was even possible.

    Unfortunately, our society has become very dysfunctional, especially where sex and relationships are concerned. The obsession with, and availability of porn has turned sex into something that doesn’t always require a second “person” as women are now nothing but objects.

    This guy has a serious problem and needs help. Locking him up on a trumped up charge wont help anyone in the long run.

  • Moonlight

    Necrophilia is sexual assault. The intent is the same on the part of the perpetrator whether the victim is alive or dead. Non-consensual sex.

    A dead person has no ability to consent, so you can’t really call it non-consensual, and in fact the “victim” hardly fits the definition of the word victim: “a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.”

    You can’t harm a non living person. I’m certainly not saying it’s OK to do such things, but “rape” is defined as against someone’s will, which in this case is not possible. They have no will.

    Also this is not the case where he didn’t have the “balls” to go after a living person. That’s an awful lot of work to go through for some tail. This guy is obviously into gothic type stuff. That ugly died black hair is part of that whole goth/emo look. Goths are often obsessed with the dead and the macabre. People with sexual fetishes are very specific. He was interested in this activity because she was dead.

    So people like this don’t move on to other crimes, just as child molesters are not interested in adults.

    So I’m not saying this is OK, but I think it gets into a legal gray area that we have to watch out for. LIke when someone is charged with attempted rape when the “victim” doesn’t even exist, as in the case of police sting operations looking for online sexual predators. Yes, these people are dangerous and creepy, but you can’t charge someone with a crime against a person who doesn’t exist! You have to come up with a different charge, or make up new laws.

    This reason this concerns me is that left unchecked people will be charged with all kinds of crimes that aren’t even possible! Police love to try and charge people with stuff, even if the person is innocent as a way to clean up their blotter. I think to charge someone with an attempted crime you really have to show that an attempt was made, or was even possible.

    Unfortunately, our society has become very dysfunctional, especially where sex and relationships are concerned. The obsession with, and availability of porn has turned sex into something that doesn’t always require a second “person” as women are now nothing but objects.

    This guy has a serious problem and needs help. Locking him up on a trumped up charge wont help anyone in the long run.

  • Moonlight

    Necrophilia is sexual assault. The intent is the same on the part of the perpetrator whether the victim is alive or dead. Non-consensual sex.

    A dead person has no ability to consent, so you can’t really call it non-consensual, and in fact the “victim” hardly fits the definition of the word victim: “a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.”

    You can’t harm a non living person. I’m certainly not saying it’s OK to do such things, but “rape” is defined as against someone’s will, which in this case is not possible. They have no will.

    Also this is not the case where he didn’t have the “balls” to go after a living person. That’s an awful lot of work to go through for some tail. This guy is obviously into gothic type stuff. That ugly died black hair is part of that whole goth/emo look. Goths are often obsessed with the dead and the macabre. People with sexual fetishes are very specific. He was interested in this activity because she was dead.

    So people like this don’t move on to other crimes, just as child molesters are not interested in adults.

    So I’m not saying this is OK, but I think it gets into a legal gray area that we have to watch out for. LIke when someone is charged with attempted rape when the “victim” doesn’t even exist, as in the case of police sting operations looking for online sexual predators. Yes, these people are dangerous and creepy, but you can’t charge someone with a crime against a person who doesn’t exist! You have to come up with a different charge, or make up new laws.

    This reason this concerns me is that left unchecked people will be charged with all kinds of crimes that aren’t even possible! Police love to try and charge people with stuff, even if the person is innocent as a way to clean up their blotter. I think to charge someone with an attempted crime you really have to show that an attempt was made, or was even possible.

    Unfortunately, our society has become very dysfunctional, especially where sex and relationships are concerned. The obsession with, and availability of porn has turned sex into something that doesn’t always require a second “person” as women are now nothing but objects.

    This guy has a serious problem and needs help. Locking him up on a trumped up charge wont help anyone in the long run.

  • Pingback: Man Convicted Of Trying To Have Sex With Corpse, Charged With Having Sex With Minor | CrimeCrawlers!

  • Anonymous

    Had to laugh @ the condoms!, sick b’stards