Monday, April 03, 2006

I Can Honestly Say I Never Thought I Would See These Words in a Sentence in My Life (Emphasis Mine).

"The suspects were arrested Thursday without incident. Each man faces 18 charges — five counts of felonious castration without malice, five counts of felonious conspiracy to commit castration without malice and eight counts of misdemeanor performing medical acts without a license."
(link)

23 comments:

hannah said...

That sounds a lot fiercer than saying "They were mean and chopped off some weiners."

bigfootcookie said...

GULP!

Mr. Toast said...

Incredible, not to mention painful to even think about. How do you find this stuff, anyway? I'm beginning to worry about you... ;^)

AlRo said...

One must always strive to be better -- wanting to be a doctor is one thing... playing doctor by chopping off nuts -- now that's just stupid!

kristin said...

were the men trying out for the vienna boys choir. I mean WHY, for Gods sake and all that is holy, WHY?

Chixulub said...

Oh, I felt that one in the guts.

My natural anarchism says that anything is okay between consenting adults, but neuticals???

I think the state's interest in protecting the public health needs to be carefully weighed and balanced with the right of these guys to fulfill such monumentally disgusting desires.

mysterygirl! said...

Now, why would you have your testicles removed by someone who was not a doctor (note that I did not ask why someone would want their testicles removed, period)? I don't understand. That's a serious operation-- and one that you don't messed up.

jemison said...

Alright, just because it hasn't been said, but there is no such thing as "castration without malice" from a male point of view.

yournamehere said...

Oh well, if it was without malice, that's okay, then.

Megan said...

Darn, the person above me said what I was thinking. Good job "your name here!"

Anonymous Midwest Girl said...

The other thing that gets me is in order for this to be on the law books as something a person can be charged with, there has to be precedence, right? Someone has to have done this before in order for it to be illegal.

Anonymous said...

What?
Can you believe there is a castration "withot malice" charge?
I mean, some lawmakers somewhere sometime said, "We better distinguish 'cause you know, of all the consensual castrations going on."

That is some wierd stuff.

*

jemison said...

"Someone has to have done this before in order for it to be illegal."

Not necessarily. The state can pass a law saying that castration is illegal (good idea--it's technically a battery if done without consent to a person) without someone having done it previously.

Just curious though--is this a problem in Missouri?

browser58 said...

Yes, this is one the calls for a delicate balance between too much information and not enough. Still I would love to sit in the courtroom during the trial(s). Do you suppose we can look forward to this in a future episode of Law and Order?

Jenni said...

Seriously, what is wrong with people? Did they wake up one day and think, "Gee, it would be great to castrate someone...OR FIVE SOMEONES!
Shit.

Chris said...

That has got to be some kind of weird-ass cult thing. And that's something I've always wondered about, too. You've got to be some kind of brainwashing genius to convince a bunch of guys that castration is a good idea.

Ebal said...

Hide the tools and the Scissors. This world is getting worse every day.

Roonie said...

The lawyer in me finds those statements really quite normal. I can't see anything strange about it, really!

Roonie said...

And no, AMG, no precedent needed. It could be a first impression case. Could be a totally new classification for this circumstance. But in case there are any cases of this sort following, there will now be a legal precedent on the books!

Roonie said...

I know what sounds weird now - the "without malice" part. I'm going to stop being all legal in a second. I always thought the definition of "malice" was weird when I was in law school, because it doesn't mean the same thing as how we'd regularly use that word, like "evil," that's not how it's defined at law. At common law, "malice" only means there was an intent to kill or harm, used to distinguish unlawful killings from actual murder. So basically, it was done without the intent to do it.

The mystery deepens...

CheyenneWay said...

Terror Alert Orange! These mofo's are without malice and I aint waiting for them to Modus Ponens (M.P.) there way out of this!

/Symbolic Logic Nerd
//HI AMG!
///Your topic has been the talk of the party for 30 minutes now :P

LocuTus of Borg said...

I DO NOT even want to know what that was about!

DIAMONDKT said...

Oww. I suddenly have a sharp pain in my groin after reading that.