New Jersey police officer Robert Melia Jr. will not face criminal charges for allegedly having sex with five calves under a perfectly bizarre ruling by Judge James J. Morley. We previously discussed the case, here. Morley dismissed animal cruelty charges on the grounds that the cows may have enjoyed having sex with Melia.
Morley ruled that oral sex with cows cannot constitute animal cruelty since the cows aren’t talking and may not have been “tormented” or “puzzled” by the experience.
In a simply amazing exchange with prosecutors, Morley went into the uncertainties of man-cow relations: “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,'” You are allowed to drop your coffee in amazement at this point.
Morley went on to explain that children are comforted by pacifiers and perhaps cows are equally pacified by police officers in these cases: “They [children] enjoy the act of suckling,” the judge said. “Cows may be of a different disposition.” You are allowed to throw up in disgust at this point.
Morley ignored that one cow head-butted Melia in the stomach and appeared far from happy. The prosecutor objected that the cows were “very upset” by Melia’s action and stated “I think any reasonable juror could infer that a man’s penis in the mouth of a calf is torment. It’s a crime against nature.” The problem is that New Jersey does not currently have a ban on bestiality as opposed to animal cruelty.
Morley did note “I’m not saying it’s OK. 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.” That is reassuring. However, since the cows can never complain about sexual abuse, Morley’s view would effectively end cruelty prosecutions absent physical injury. While “no means no,” “moo” means nothing in Morley’s court. Any defendant could use the Morley defense of “the cows enjoyed it.”
Melia is currently on suspension from the force in Moorestown. His girlfriend, Heather Lewis, is also accused in a case alleging sexual assault on three young girls. Child pornography was also allegedly found in his home.
Lewis is also accused of sexually assaulting a juvenile male.
Not does it defame “Jersey” cows everywhere, but Morley’s ruling gives Moorestown the unique claim to fame as the new vacation spot of choice for the bestiality set (New slogan: “You Can’t Say Moorestown Without Moo.”). I simply cannot understand the judge’s reasoning. While Melia will likely be put away on the other charges, Morley has created some disturbing precedent in this ruling that needs to be appealed by the prosecutors.
A man in Mumbai was less lucky with his judge. He claimed that he could not be charged with having sex with a dog because the dog could not swear out a complaint, here. The court rejected the claim.
To Elaine:
I’m not equating gay marriage with bestiality, per se. I’m using it as a example that, just because you may find something icky, doesn’t mean it should be made illegal.
As you rightly pointed out, the issue is consent: two adult humans can give informed consent, and so it is not a problem if they have sex, regardless of gender. The problem with bestiality (if we at least try to be rational about it) is consent: can animals give consent?
If a dog mounts a woman, has the dog given consent?
I’m not saying bestiality is right, or that the calves gave consent. I’m just saying that, from a legal point of view, there is no crime if the judge finds that no cruelty was committed.
Elaine M.
I would assume, that if he is having sex with cows, he herd her say Ok.
This guy is disgusting. The judge is obviously trying to cut him some slack ’cause he’s a cop (as we know cops never do anything wrong). If he were Joe Farmhand he’d be serving time by now. Where’s PETA on this? These defenseless animal(like small children) have no voice of thier own and no way to complain.
To Dave:
How can a gay marriage be equated with a human having sex with cows? A gay marriage is a union of two consenting “human” adults of the same sex. Do you think Officer Melia can communicate with bovines? Do you suppose he got the cows’ verbal consent before he had sexual relations with them?
The ariculture futures market for veal tongue will tank/crash when wall-steeters hear this news.
And you thought pork bellies n’ chitlin’ futures trading was gross…
my jaw’s on the floor
was laughing ’til the last part
now i just feel sick…
Thank You? 🙂
Cheers All!
Buddha:
but was it funny?
That is just so wrong, B.
this gives new meaning to the term “hot beef injection”
Dave wrote:
I agree with the judge’s position (bear with me here).
_________________________________
Dave, best leave that *bear* with you alone; theys mean uns when you invite them on a bear skin rug…they et a guy not fur frum whar I wuz a’ pannin’ fur gold ’bout 3 moons ago.
“Morley ruled that oral sex with cows cannot constitute animal cruelty since the cows aren’t talking and may not have been “tormented” or “puzzled” by the experience.”
The visual is to much to calculate.:
Teat for Tat…
I agree with the judge’s position (bear with me here).
From a legal point of view, the man can only be charged with animal cruelty. If it can be shown that the animals weren’t treated cruelly (by whatever standard that jurisdiction uses), then no crime has been committed.
The ‘they may have enjoyed it’ is, I think, a misleading paraphrase of the defence’s argument, but it still works: if the calves enjoyed it (or otherwise weren’t perturbed by it), then no animal cruelty took place. If the calves WERE disturbed and traumatised by it, then cruelty DID take place.
Obviously, this argument isn’t a catch-all. BuddhaIsLaughing mentioned that drug users could never be prosecuted under the ‘they may have enjoyed it’ defence, but that’s stretching the argument beyond its legal (and semantic) bounds: the crime of drug abuse is based on entirely different grounds than animal cruelty. We don’t penalise heroine addicts because they’re harming the poppy seeds, do we?
I think people here are getting too caught up in their own, personal disgust of bestiality. Whatever your feelings about its morality or hygiene, bear in mind that the law is under no obligation to take your personal feelings into account.
To bring in gay marriage: should we ban it because you personally find it icky? Of course not.
New Jersey, Youngstown, OH, Sicily. Whats the difference when your name in an A, I E or O? Cows Head, Horse’s Head, your head (no pun intended)you might just end up dead.
Let criminal defendants go because the victims might have enjoyed it?
By that logic, not a single pot smoker should ever spend a day in jail.
Analogy. It’s the first form of cognition for (a) reason.
(Hey, Judge Half-thought. Did you ever consider that since animals are chattel that cruelty to animals is a charge that devolves to a property and misuse without ownership issue because animals proper never have standing? That indeed the owner of said cattle should be entitled to assert cruelty as a misuse of his rightful property on their behalf to his benefit as owner in due course? Whether that’s just a statutory violation or a matter for damages should be up to a jury. But saying the cattle may have “enjoyed” it? I’ll just say I hope they don’t let you try sexual assault cases.)
If your “girlfriend” looked like this, you may be turn “bovine” too
I’ve heard of stranger things, “Caligula married his horse”..
How now brown cow?
methinks the judge may be speaking from personal experience
This gives new meaning to mad cow dis ease.