If the Devil were ugly, recipe he’d have no appeal.
As Forrest Gump once said, store the Lair is like a box of chocolates: You never know what you might get. Today seems to be sort of a sex day here at the Lair, purely by happenstance. After the latest birth control methods, celebrity incest and jerk-off trucking, we get this bit of Solomonic jurisprudence:
If animals could talk, a few cows in Burlington County might ask state legislators to hurry up and outlaw bestiality.
During a bizarre hearing there yesterday, a Superior Court judge dismissed animal-cruelty charges against a Moorestown police officer accused of sticking his penis into the mouths of five calves in rural Southampton in 2006, claiming a grand jury couldn’t infer whether the cows had been “tormented” or “puzzled” by the situation or even irritated that they’d been duped out of a meal.
“If the cow had the cognitive ability to form thought and speak, would it say, ‘Where’s the milk? I’m not getting any milk,’ ” Judge James J. Morley asked.
Children, Morley said, seemed “comforted” when given pacifiers, but there’s no way to know what bovine minds thought of Robert Melia Jr. substituting his member for a cow’s teat.
“They [children] enjoy the act of suckling,” the judge said. “Cows may be of a different disposition.”
Burlington County Assistant County Prosecutor Kevin Morgan was certainly irritated by the ruling, claiming the grand jury didn’t see the videos of the alleged incident, including one in which one hungry calf allegedly head-butts Melia in the stomach.
“I think any reasonable juror could infer that a man’s penis in the mouth of a calf is torment,” Morgan argued. “It’s a crime against nature.”
Although a bill was introduced in 2005 to ban bestiality, New Jersey still has no explicit ban on the sexual penetration of animals, which is why the Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office charged Melia with animal cruelty.
Morley said it was questionable whether Melia’s alleged crimes against cows, although “disgusting,” fit the definitions in the animal-cruelty statute.
“I’m not saying it’s OK,” Morley said. “This is a legal question for me. It’s not a questions of morals. It’s not a question of hygiene. It’s not a question of how people should conduct themselves.”
Well, perhaps we can certain that if there were a law prohibiting non-consensual sex with under-age cows, this wouldn’t be such an issue. But isn’t it disgraceful that this judge just assumes that the calves couldn’t actually tell the difference and might have been happy enough to be oral violated by this ostensible officer of the law? After all, when a calf says “moo,” she means “noo.”
Oh, wait a minute…