man arrested for sex with a dog

[taintfutcha]

http://www.ksn.com/news/local/15807462.html


WICHITA, Kansas, Feb. 20, 2008 -- Wichita police
say they're working a case they don't often see:
a man accused of having sex with a dog. And it's
not the first time the man's been in this type of trouble.

Twenty-year-old Joshua Coman is now in jail accused
of having sex with a Rottweiler.

"We don't see any cases like this," said Lt. Sam Hanley
with the Wichita Police Department. "I'd never seen
any cases like this and I hope we don't see any more."

[impqueen]

i'm front-paging this. it has to be done. the guy's mugshot is priceless.

[Rotten Apple]

i'm front-paging this. it has to be done. the guy's mugshot is priceless.

Woo hoo! Another one for our bestiality category!

[Pirelli Jones]

a man accused of having sex with a dog.

That's illegal?

No but seriously, a Rottweiler? Was this a suicide attempt?

[LadyValkyrie37]

Evidently the dog was a willing participant or else it would have chewed him to peices.

[gprime]

That's illegal?

In the state of Kansas, it has been since 1993, under K.S.A. @2103506, and is classified as "Aggravated criminal sodomy", which is a security level two felony. But 21 states have no formal laws against it.

Frankly, I find this absurd. Punish him for theft or vandalism if the situation so warrants it. But don't prevent him from getting his rocks off with the dog. This situation isn't the best example, but I think that so as the animal is public property, owned by the fucker, or used with the owner's consent, then it is not the business of the law.

[TalkingJesus]

In the state of Kansas, it has been since 1993, under K.S.A. @2103506, and is classified as "Aggravated criminal sodomy", which is a security level two felony. But 21 states have no formal laws against it.

Frankly, I find this absurd. Punish him for theft or vandalism if the situation so warrants it. But don't prevent him from getting his rocks off with the dog. This situation isn't the best example, but I think that so as the animal is public property, owned by the fucker, or used with the owner's consent, then it is not the business of the law.

The reason this case doesn't work so well for your argument is that it wasn't his dog or his house. Which I gather you knew since you said this situation wasn't the best example.

Many Rotties are docile dogs, so just its lack of killing the guy doesn't imply consent on the part of the animal.

[dop]

I wish the dog was a Great Dane, since the guy is the living embodiment of Shaggy it would had been priceless.

[gprime]

Many Rotties are docile dogs, so just its lack of killing the guy doesn't imply consent on the part of the animal.

The question though is whether or not it is entitled to issue or deny consent. I have a fairly atypical view on animal rights, and therefore hold that consent is not an issue. That is, I believe than animals are peices of property that are entitled to no rights at all, and may be used by the owners however they see fit. So, had he owned the dog, consent would have been a non-issue. But as both you and I acknowledged earlier, this wasn't his dog to fuck.

[impqueen]

... this wasn't his dog to fuck.

Gprime, i just have this feeling i'm gonna use that line for all kinds of situations. Like "yeah, well, it wasn't his dog to fuck, was it?"

Awesome. Thanks, man. ;)

[Dakota Valkyrie]

*sigh* This snarkfest makes me miss the good old days of D'D.



Anyway... an update...

Supreme Court rules dog molester won’t have to register as a sex offender

The state Supreme Court has decided that a Sedgwick County man who molested a rottweiler won’t have to register as a sex offender.

The state’s highest court overturned both Sedgwick County District Court Judge Joseph Bribiesca and the Kansas Court of Appeals, who had ruled Joshua Coman would have to register as a sex offender after his second conviction for sodomy involving a dog.

In his appeal, Coman argued that Kansas’s registration law did not apply to him because he was convicted of a misdemeanor that wasn’t on the list of felony offenses for which registration is required.

He also challenged the constitutionality of the law itself, which equates bestiality and adult homosexual acts.

In Kansas law, sodomy is defined as oral or anal sex, or sex with animals. Criminal sodomy is defined as “[s]odomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex, or between a person and an animal.”

“The statutory provision under which Coman was convicted proscribes consensual homosexual conduct, as well as bestiality,” Justice Lee A. Johnson wrote in the Supreme Court opinion, which was released on Friday.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that laws banning homosexual acts between consenting adults are unconstitutional, but the justices declined to rule on Coman’s constitutional challenge.

They ruled he didn’t have legal status to challenge the law because he wasn’t convicted for homosexual acts, but for having sexual contact with an animal.

In 2008, a former roommate of Coman’s “discovered Coman in her garage with the dog in a compromising position,” the court record said. Police were called and Coman admitted to having penetrated the female rottweiler with his finger, the court record said.

At the time, he was on probation after being prosecuted on a similar incident in Reno County the year before.

Coman pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in jail.

But the question of whether he would have to register as a sex offender came down to interpretation of the way the law is worded. The statute lists several crimes where sex-offender registration is required, including felony sodomy. Misdemeanor sodomy is not on the list.
[...]http://blogs.kansas.com/gov/2012/04/02/supreme-court-rules-dog-molester-wont-have-to-register-as-a-sex-offender/