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.
Billy,
Sexual Paraphernalia, indeed. This is not the first time you have used these words. Whats up with you on this? Is everyone and everyone and everything in your book related to some sexual deviance?
The RCC by no means has a lock on this abuse. By no means, I think that they intentionally have acted in conspiratorial manners sets the tone for a lot of people to see how hollow it is. I too went to catholic school.
I think that you need to evaluate you responses to the folks on the Blawg. Why do you feel the need to be offensive? Attacking? Generally unhappy? Make your point and disagree don’t make it personal.
For all of you:
Sweet and Sour Calves’ Tongue: Lingua Agrodolce
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/mario-batali/sweet-and-sour-calves-tongue-lingua-agrodolce-recipe/index.html
bovine bordello
veal serve you
by the judges logic I could set-up a Calf-house and charge admission and call it “Juvee Jerey’s Whore House’ and it would be legal.
FFLeo-
Honestly, I intended nothing witty or cryptic.
“Dave,
Can a 14 year old human give consent to a 30 year old human? Seems like they’ve got a lot higher decision making abilities then dogs.”
Yes, here in Bulgaria the age of consent is 14, for heterosexual as well as for homosexual sex, irrespective of the age difference of the parties to the sexual act.
A 79-year old man may legally make sex with a 14 year+1 day boy.
Byron –
Yeah, plus I hear she was wearing ‘pumps’ …
Pardon me?,
Very good ‘cryptic’ wit there…
WHERE IS PETA?
COME ON COW BITE THAT SHIT OFF!
BETTER COWS THAN KIDS..
IM NEVER DRINKIN MILK AGAIN 🙁
I’ve seen it hundreds of times: a calf head-butts the cow’s bag when it’s getting an insufficient amount of milk.
Mojo:
black and white patches are a definite turn on.
The way that cow was dressed, she was asking for it …
Dave,
I think you meant that last to be directed at me.
I didn’t say “all societies” I said “We as a society.” Please respond to what I actually say, and I’ll try and do the same with you. I know it’s nit picky, but I find it helps conversations to actually listen rather then assume.
I think the main hang up in this conversation is the word “consent.” I’m using it in very specific way (I hope the lawyers here would correct me if I’m using it wrong), and you are using it that way sometimes, and at other times as a synonym for “permission.” My point with asking you about the 14 year old’s ability to give consent was an attempt to illustrate that the law says consent isn’t the same as permission.
Finally, you should realize that we can read what you originally wrote. Your first two comments in this conversation pretty clearly imply that you feel that the justification for bestiality laws is because people think it’s icky.
Since you seem as firm in your position as I am in mine, I’m done with this conversation. If I haven’t explained myself clearly by this point, I’m not going to do it.
To Dave:
Why are you addressing the comments you made at 1:44 pm to me?
My last questions to you were the following: “What kind of empirical evidence could be used to prove animal cruelty in a case such as this? If not a head-butt from one of the calves–then what?”
Your answers to these questions were:
“Empirical evidence could be anything. How do you know when a cat doesn’t like to be smoothed? How do you know when a dog with a broken leg is in pain? If the calf tries to get away, if it cries for help, or if it is otherwise clearly distressed, then I say that would constitute animal cruelty.
“But I’m not an animal psychologist. They would undoubtedly give you a better answer than I.”
My question to you: If you find that a cat crying for help, trying to get away, or appearing to be in distress may be signs that the cat is the victim of animal cruelty–then why not consider that the calf who head-butted Melia in the stomach and appeared unhappy may also have been a victim of animal cruelty?
Elaine,
First, not all societies have deemed bestiality wrong. As this judge shows, it is legal in some jurisdictions.
Second, I never said people question it because they see it as ‘icky’. I said that people commenting here seem to be taking their own personal opinions too seriously. Societies at large may have different reasons, such as animal cruelty, or a danger to humans (lest we forget ‘Mr. Hands’).
Third, animals are treated as more than property. We don’t penalise people for being cruel to their garden, do we? Indeed, we treat children as the effective pets (or property) of their guardians.
Fourth, besides the issue of cruelty, I believe the only other pertinent question IS that of consent: if neither party is harmed, and if we somehow knew that both parties had given consent, would you still object to bestiality? This is why I brought up the scenario of a dog mounting a human: the dog has quite clearly given consent (inasmuch as the dog clearly wants to have sex with the subject), as has the human.
Finally, while you would indeed be penalised for allowing your dog to drink anti-freeze, that doesn’t mean the dog has NO ability to give consent. The same is true if you allowed your child to drink anti-freeze: though it was their choice to drink, you would be punished. But they are still able to give consent with regards to other matters, so why not animals?
George, thankyou. I apologize as well if I have offended you. Loved your last post..