• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

Do we have any lawyers in the house?

S

Suffolkhorse

Tourist
I was wondering about the phrasing of CA penal code 597 PC, whereby the crime of animal abuse is defined. This section makes it a crime for a person maliciously to kill, harm, maim, or torture an animal. The charge can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony and carries a sentence of up to 3 years in jail or prison. It specifically reads "Any person who sexually assaults any animal protected by Section 597f for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person is guilty of a crime." I am a veterinarian, and I have caught at least 15 clients engaging in sexual activity with their animals (mostly cows, but also horses, dogs and sheep). These animals, without fail, are always the best cared for animals in my practice. Can somebody please explain to me the definition of the words "maliciously" and "assaults" to me from a legal standpoint, because from a medical standpoint, aside from an increased incidence of UTIs in bitches, I have seen 0 ill effect, and honestly quite the opposite, in my professional experience.

Thanks,

Doc
 
It’s a felony in most states. Zoo beast, call it what you will. You will still be charged if it’s been proven that you acted out the lifestyle. Some states are more extreme some less.
 
The word malicious means "characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm." However the legal definition is "we'll throw you in prison, you dirty animal fucker, and destroy your pet too!" Benevolent, malicious, it's all the same to the courts.
 
Octavian said:
The word malicious means "characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm." However the legal definition is "we'll throw you in prison, you dirty animal fucker, and destroy your pet too!" Benevolent, malicious, it's all the same to the courts.
Click to expand...
That's a serious question, so please, answer seriously too.
 
The defintion of assault can legally stretch to cover Statutory Rape, even if there is no "rape" involved, and the minor gave what he/she thought was legal consent. Malice can stretch similarly, because it speaks to intent and state of mind. Dont even think of challenging the law, unless you have DEEEP pockets and a refuge waiting.
 
ryirkil said:
That's a serious question, so please, answer seriously too.
Click to expand...
I was being dead serious. If penetration involving a human and a non human animal occurs it is going to be charged as a felony in the state of California, and Oregon, and Washington, and practically every other state. If you are a veterinarian and you report your suspicion, even if there are no signs of trauma, the client will face felony charges.
 
ryirkil said:
That's a serious question, so please, answer seriously too.
Click to expand...
He is serious. As someone who has sat on a jury I can tell you, the court will define the legal terminology of the charges to the jury, and if the act they're charging needs to be defined a specific way you can be sure that's how the judge will define the term.
 
The thing you most need to understand is that it isn't about law or logic unless you are willing to mount a Lawrence v Texas sized effort. Ninety nine percent of law enforcement and prosecutors could not possibly care less. They'll make every effort to look the other way until you start seeing children involved or a crush fetish.

*BUT*

There are some SJW PETA styled fanatics that are absolutely certain that the only good Zoo is a dead Zoo. These are the same people that are usually Vegan, burn SUVs, raid medical facilities, want all animals liberated to live a natural life. If you make any of the statements you made above to these people they will declare you a closet Zoo and harass you every day for the rest of your life.
There is a whole class of charities with paid administrators that are backing them because they need visually appealing victims to raise money over. Consider they number of ASPCA commercials you have watched featuring pitiful dogs that only need $19.95 per month to be saved. The ASPCA is a PAC and doesn't own a single shelter. PETA has one shelter and it has the highest kill rate in the country.

I appreciate your honesty and hope I haven't depressed you too much. My suggestion is to make some quiet background contacts and offer advice. I've done that and I saved a few and helped sink a few.
 
Suffolkhorse, for this, you would need to look at two things: the California legal code itself plus any caselaw that has been generated to clarify (or, in California, to manipulate) it. So, the code itself:

codes.findlaw.com

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 7 | FindLaw

California Penal Code PEN CA PENAL Section 7. Read the code on FindLaw
codes.findlaw.com codes.findlaw.com

(4) The words “malice” and “maliciously” import a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law.
Click to expand...

This contains two separate clauses, either of which may be applied. The first relates to "another person"; animals generally are not "persons" (but even if California law defines them as such, either clause can be applied) so we look to the second clause: "an intent to do a wrongful act," and further, "established either by proof or presumption of law" which probably relates to either of the clauses not just the second.

So, under California statute, "malice" merely requires "an intent to do a wrongful act" plus proof or presumption. There may be caselaw narrowing, expanding, or changing this, but I will leave that to a California attorney to comment upon.

Intent, or mens rea, is another kettle of fish, but I would be hard-pressed to come up with a workaround for "I didn't intend to screw that dog" -- other than perhaps involuntary intoxication or bondage-games-turned-into-rape, where your client had been drugged by someone and directed to do so, or had been strapped down and spread open, and was not in control of himself/herself.

Disclaimer: this is not legal advice. For legal advice upon which you can rely, please consult an attorney licensed in California. No attorney-client relationship has been formed through these off-the-cuff remarks on a forum post.
 
Last edited:
Porky said:
Suffolkhorse, for this, you would need to look at two things: the California legal code itself plus any caselaw that has been generated to clarify (or, in California, to manipulate) it. So, the code itself:

codes.findlaw.com

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 7 | FindLaw

California Penal Code PEN CA PENAL Section 7. Read the code on FindLaw
codes.findlaw.com codes.findlaw.com



This contains two separate clauses, either of which may be applied. The first relates to "another person"; animals generally are not "persons" (but even if California law defines them as such, either clause can be applied) so we look to the second clause: "an intent to do a wrongful act," and further, "established either by proof or presumption of law" which probably relates to either of the clauses not just the second.

So, under California statute, "malice" merely requires "an intent to do a wrongful act" plus proof or presumption. There may be caselaw narrowing, expanding, or changing this, but I will leave that to a California attorney to comment upon.

Intent, or mens rea, is another kettle of fish, but I would be hard-pressed to come up with a workaround for "I didn't intend to screw that dog" -- other than perhaps involuntary intoxication or bondage-games-turned-into-rape, where your client had been drugged by someone and directed to do so, or had been strapped down and spread open, and was not in control of himself/herself.

Disclaimer: this is not legal advice. For legal advice upon which you can rely, please consult an attorney licensed in California. No attorney-client relationship has been formed through these off-the-cuff remarks on a forum post.
Click to expand...

Now, that's what I meant by a serious answer. So they don't even need to prove it, great...
 
ryirkil said:
So they don't even need to prove it, great...
Click to expand...
Of course they do. That's what "established by proof" means. They aren't going to convict you of shagging a sheep just because someone overheard you say "she's one hot, sexy, horny sheep!" or for that matter because a veterinarian observed animal behavior indicating a possibility of past sexual interaction between the two of you. They would if the vet swabbed some semen out of the sheep's vagina and they DNA-matched it to you.
 
Porky said:
They aren't going to convict you of shagging a sheep just because someone overheard you say "she's one hot, sexy, horny sheep!" or for that matter because a veterinarian observed animal behavior indicating a possibility of past sexual interaction between the two of you.
Click to expand...

I meant the malicious part, since there is "or presumption of law.". Practically this word doesn't matter.
 
ryirkil said:
That's a serious question, so please, answer seriously too.
Click to expand...
It means "willing to hurt" or rape in other words. Assault/malicious comes to mind here where you dont care about the animal your with.

The pure opposite is when the animal actually seeks this attention to the other instead of fearing said person. As a bonus they get also the utmost care.

They get treated to the best of the persons ability is what a zoo does and respects his/her decisions.
 
Reconscope said:
It means "willing to hurt" or rape in other words. Assault/malicious comes to mind here where you dont care about the animal your with.

The pure opposite is when the animal actually seeks this attention to the other instead of fearing said person. As a bonus they get also the utmost care.

They get treated to the best of the persons ability is what a zoo does and respects his/her decisions.
Click to expand...

That's not how law works.
 
ryirkil said:
That's not how law works.
Click to expand...
You need to understand that "law" doesn't mean the same thing for everyone. There was once a sincere young man who was interested in this subject. Notice that I said "interested" not "active". His married sister found a post online where he stated that he would rather have sex with his dog than any of the women in his life. She showed it to his mother. His mother asked a local policeman if she had anything to worry about meaning did she need to get help for him. The cop said, "I know who to ask."

The cop contacted the local SPCA. They got a warrant to seize his dog and computer. He tried to resist the seizure of his dog so they arrested him. Long story short, friends got him a lawyer. The lawyer went in front of a judge and was assured that if the evidence bore out his story that he never actually had sex with the dog, she and his property would be returned and he would be released without charges.

He was eventually released without charges but they kept stalling when he asked for the dog. The lawyer finally got the SPCA in front of a judge where they said, "Oops, we euthanized the dog." His computer was returned but he had to change continents to escape the surveillance and harassment from the local SPCA. They made sure no one was allowed to forget what an evil sex offender he was.

The point is that if you attract the attention of these extreme SJW they will use the law at a "the ends justify any means" level. They pushed a law through in Texas that exempts pets and livestock from Fourth Amendment protections. An expert (who took a two week course) can order your animals seized and you have a one week window with one judge to fight it and there is no appeal. A shelter in the next county over made them eat it two years ago but the SPCA dropped the case rather than get into an appeals process that would get the law overturned. As long as they do that, no one has standing to overturn the law.

I'm seventy years old and these are facts of life for some of us. Go into history and look up "Zoobuster", "Mr Hands", "Randy Pepe". Hell, look at https://www.zoovilleforum.net/threads/beastiality-makes-the-news.33301/unread . We're a source of income to some people, they can't let us be.
 
Suffolkhorse said:
I was wondering about the phrasing of CA penal code 597 PC, whereby the crime of animal abuse is defined. This section makes it a crime for a person maliciously to kill, harm, maim, or torture an animal. The charge can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony and carries a sentence of up to 3 years in jail or prison. It specifically reads "Any person who sexually assaults any animal protected by Section 597f for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person is guilty of a crime." I am a veterinarian, and I have caught at least 15 clients engaging in sexual activity with their animals (mostly cows, but also horses, dogs and sheep). These animals, without fail, are always the best cared for animals in my practice. Can somebody please explain to me the definition of the words "maliciously" and "assaults" to me from a legal standpoint, because from a medical standpoint, aside from an increased incidence of UTIs in bitches, I have seen 0 ill effect, and honestly quite the opposite, in my professional experience.

Thanks,

Doc
Click to expand...
It looks as though that law was written with a lot of wiggle-room for any DA to twist and misuse any way they want.
I also need to ask, and I'm not challenging you; I just need more info: How did you go about catching "at least 15 clients engaging in sexual activity with their animals?" Did you witness it, or does some other kind of evidence exist?
 
ryirkil said:
That's not how law works.
Click to expand...
Hey im not the one ruining zoo lives because the "law" aka a manmade construct says so. *backs away now* if you wanna be the cause and live with the needless deaths due to some social justicing. This is why zoos are afraid of going to the vet. When someone tries to find a law to screw something thats none of their business

All i wish is peace on my fellow people if anyone disrupts that is a threat.
 
caikgoch said:
His married sister found a post online where he stated that he would rather have sex with his dog than any of the women in his life. She showed it to his mother. His mother asked a local policeman if she had anything to worry about meaning did she need to get help for him. The cop said, "I know who to ask."

The cop contacted the local SPCA. They got a warrant to seize his dog and computer. He tried to resist the seizure of his dog so they arrested him.
Click to expand...

O_O

Man, this is super scary stuff. To get a warrant over such a comment...

caikgoch said:
I'm seventy years old and these are facts of life for some of us. Go into history and look up "Zoobuster", "Mr Hands", "Randy Pepe". Hell, look at https://www.zoovilleforum.net/threads/beastiality-makes-the-news.33301/unread . We're a source of income to some people, they can't let us be.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm very well aware. Legislation is one thing, enforcement is another. If they try something like that with me, we will eat lead together.
 
ryirkil said:
Legislation is one thing, enforcement is another. If they try something like that with me, we will eat lead together.
Click to expand...
They go hand in hand. In the mr Hands incident the human was harmed. Being drunk and ambitious is a bad combination around horses. The horse was examined and found to be in excellent health with no injuries of any kind so no one could be charged with animal cruelty. The response of the horse rescue community was "Oh my God!!! We must get the law changed so we can prosecute these evil people even if no crime was committed." And that was exactly what they did.
 
ryirkil said:
I meant the malicious part, since there is "or presumption of law.". Practically this word doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Feel free to believe whatever you want. In the case of bestiality, "presumption" doesn't really apply to any element that I can think of offhand; the act itself appears to be sufficient under California law, and the act has to be established by evidence.

A "presumption" is more for things like the classic "these drugs aren't mine, these aren't my pants, I just borrowed them from some guy." Sure thing, you were wearing the pants and in possession of the drugs, so they're yours unless you can rebut the presumption by producing the guy you borrowed the pants from and getting him to acknowledge ownership of the drugs; good luck with that.
 
Kristy said:
It looks as though that law was written with a lot of wiggle-room for any DA to twist and misuse any way they want.
I also need to ask, and I'm not challenging you; I just need more info: How did you go about catching "at least 15 clients engaging in sexual activity with their animals?" Did you witness it, or does some other kind of evidence exist?
Click to expand...
I am a veterinarian, and I literally have walked into barns with farmers on buckets behind their cows or mares, or kneeling behind a ewe, and I walked into a lady's house because the door was open and she was tied with her dog.
 
Octavian said:
The word malicious means "characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm." However the legal definition is "we'll throw you in prison, you dirty animal fucker, and destroy your pet too!" Benevolent, malicious, it's all the same to the courts.
Click to expand...
Yes, this has been my experience.
 
caikgoch said:
They go hand in hand. In the mr Hands incident the human was harmed. Being drunk and ambitious is a bad combination around horses. The horse was examined and found to be in excellent health with no injuries of any kind so no one could be charged with animal cruelty. The response of the horse rescue community was "Oh my God!!! We must get the law changed so we can prosecute these evil people even if no crime was committed." And that was exactly what they did.
Click to expand...
I have been with so many stallions and never seriously hurt, because I have functional cognition and an intact self-preservation tool. Having "horse sense," which I was born with, only goes so far.
 
Kristy said:
It looks as though that law was written with a lot of wiggle-room for any DA to twist and misuse any way they want.
I also need to ask, and I'm not challenging you; I just need more info: How did you go about catching "at least 15 clients engaging in sexual activity with their animals?" Did you witness it, or does some other kind of evidence exist?
Click to expand...
My apologies for taking so long to reply to this inquiry in more detail, Kristy. To answer your question, I actually CAUGHT these 15 clients IN THE ACT! Typically this happened when one party made the veterinary appointment and forgot to tell the other party that was caught in the act. In one case, a farmer told me to go to the house (a fair distance away) and get a check from his wife for my services, without giving her a heads up. When I got to the house, the windows were open and I could hear sounds of "ecstasy" coming from within. In hindsight, I realize that at that point I should have just walked away, but instead I walked to a different window where I witnessed the wife tied butt-to-butt with their shepherd. There were countless other occasions that were merely "suspicious." Every one of the 15 were absolutely mortified that I would be turning them in to authorities, reveal their secrets to a spouse or to the community. When I assured them that my sole purpose was to ensure that the animals were healthy and happy (and these peoples' animals always were), they relaxed a bit and became some of my best clients. - Things they don't show on Dr. Pol - ?
 
Last edited:
Suffolkhorse said:
I was wondering about the phrasing of CA penal code 597 PC, whereby the crime of animal abuse is defined. This section makes it a crime for a person maliciously to kill, harm, maim, or torture an animal. The charge can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony and carries a sentence of up to 3 years in jail or prison. It specifically reads "Any person who sexually assaults any animal protected by Section 597f for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person is guilty of a crime." I am a veterinarian, and I have caught at least 15 clients engaging in sexual activity with their animals (mostly cows, but also horses, dogs and sheep). These animals, without fail, are always the best cared for animals in my practice. Can somebody please explain to me the definition of the words "maliciously" and "assaults" to me from a legal standpoint, because from a medical standpoint, aside from an increased incidence of UTIs in bitches, I have seen 0 ill effect, and honestly quite the opposite, in my professional experience.

Thanks,
Click to expand...

I just saw this and have to say it appears to be a misunderstanding of the Law as. CA penal code section 597 PC doesnt cover sexual acts with animals. That is covered under section 286.5 which states "every person who has sexual contact with an animal is guilty of a misdemeanor" a subsection of 286.5 is 286.5 (c) (2) which states that Sexual contact” means any act, committed for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, abuse, or financial gain, between a person and an animal involving contact between the sex organs or anus of one and the mouth, sex organs, or anus of the other, or, without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body of a person or any object into the vaginal or anal opening of an animal, or the insertion of any part of the body of an animal into the vaginal or anal opening of a person"

With all that said for anyone (COP or private person) to make an arrest for a misdemeanor other than Domestic violence the violation has to be committed in their presence. Not much wiggle room here if you perform any type of sexual act with an animal "IN THE PRESENCE" of a cop or citizen that want to place you under a citizens/private persons arrest.
 
Seeing this post, I'm thinking I'm going to make the mistake again and reply to a very old thread like I did in a group recently, lol. Anyway.
Intriguedbyu said:
I am not active , never been but intrigued. I did some research I think the only state that might be not totally illegal maybe West Virginia.



Previous§61-8-18. Repealed. Acts, 1964 Reg. Sess., Ch. 12.

§61-8-19. Cruelty to animals; penalties; exclusions.

Next§61-8-19a. Animal fighting ventures prohibited.
Click to expand...
This one is almost like reading the PACT act which had a case involving someone with CP and had videos giving oral to his dog. The courts seemed to not be too sure on the PACT act law stating if bestiality would be related... My take on that is it mentions nothing relating to bestiality, only "crushing" or otherwise known as zoosadists acts.
WV's law here seems to be relating to animal fighting, abandoning, neglecting such as not providing food, water, shelter, etc. However, "(A) Mistreat an animal in cruel manner;" They will surely over look all the other sections and go by this part if they wanted to convict someone on bestiality.
WV was trying to pass a law twice over the past years, although I haven't seen anything where they were able to pass it.
 
Its illegal....
dogluver101 said:
Seeing this post, I'm thinking I'm going to make the mistake again and reply to a very old thread like I did in a group recently, lol. Anyway.

This one is almost like reading the PACT act which had a case involving someone with CP and had videos giving oral to his dog. The courts seemed to not be too sure on the PACT act law stating if bestiality would be related... My take on that is it mentions nothing relating to bestiality, only "crushing" or otherwise known as zoosadists acts.
WV's law here seems to be relating to animal fighting, abandoning, neglecting such as not providing food, water, shelter, etc. However, "(A) Mistreat an animal in cruel manner;" They will surely over look all the other sections and go by this part if they wanted to convict someone on bestiality.
WV was trying to pass a law twice over the past years, although I haven't seen anything where they were able to pass it.
Click to expand...
theyve put people in the jug for it in the last six years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top