Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 Obviously they haven't been to Miami. Sounds like Santeria to me.
Ain't freedom of religion grand.
"In 1993, the issue of animal sacrifice was taken to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. The court ruled that animal cruelty laws targeted specifically at Yoruba were unconstitutional. The Yoruba practice of animal sacrifice has seen no significant legal challenges since then."
Posted by Choluse Graling8806 2012-04-08 07:23||
#2 Y'all live in a dream world, If for one second thst the used Condoms were coincidental.
You know damn well what happened there.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2012-04-08 08:48||
#3 It's in Connecticut.
It's all the typical antistructuralist, marginal behavior typically found in the BosWash corridor, if you ask me. And naturally it's weakening the fabric of reality in the area.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-04-08 09:31||
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-04-08 09:32||
#5 at least it wasn't a chicken
Posted by Frank G 2012-04-08 10:31||
#6 But is she also not a rooster?
Donna is a girl's name, and a rooster is a boy. So she's safe. Unless her parent's had some strange ideas about gender or something. Hmm.
Run, Donna. Run ....
Posted by gorb 2012-04-08 11:48||
#7 I find it had to believe this story is real. The clues indicate perversion and if they were smart enough to hide the evidence out i the wild they'd be smart enough to bury it as well. Especially with DNA evidence likely in what might be an animal cruelty crime.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-04-08 11:52||
#8 #7 I find it had to believe this story is real. The clues indicate perversion and if they were smart enough to hide the evidence
Yes Richard, a feather or two...ok, kinky. But entire birds? Perversion!
Posted by Besoeker 2012-04-08 12:01||
#9 You raise poultry, two-time your SO, and he/she decides to set you up. Cute.
Posted by KBK 2012-04-08 13:28||
#10 Somebody too lazy to pluck & cook?
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2012-04-08 13:41||
#11 I suspect fowl play.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-04-08 14:19||
#12 Go to your room, BP.
Posted by Barbara 2012-04-08 15:11||
#13 By perversion I assumed they were following the Weimer Republic approved (rumor at least) beastiality combined with beheading the chicken. If that is not defined as perversion the word perversion has no meaning any longer.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-04-08 16:34||
#14 Y'all live in a dream world, If for one second that the used Condoms were coincidental. You know damn well what happened there.
No, I have absolutely no idea what happened there. Condoms are to prevent pregnancy and/or STDs, so the purpose they would have served here is . . . ? Please explain.
And please note, I am familiar with United States v. Sanchez 29 C.M.R. 32 (C.M.A. 1960) (conviction for indecent acts with a chicken), affirming the conviction without resolving the question: which came first, the chicken or Sanchez?
Posted by RandomJD 2012-04-08 19:14||
#15 well, if Sanchez was doing it right, the chicken...
Posted by Frank G 2012-04-08 19:28||
Posted by Frank G 2012-04-08 19:29||
#17 There are specific ordinances involving indecencies with chickens? Our lawmakers have too much time on their hands.
Posted by trailing wife 2012-04-08 19:36||
#18 The Chicken Protection League is a strong but largely under-the-radar group but with a strong litigious rep. Most of the Google hits are based on rumors and third-party anecdotes
Posted by Frank G 2012-04-08 19:47||
#19 TW: no no, Sanchez was charged under UCMJ Article 134, a general article covering conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or which discredits the Armed Forces, that is not specifically addressed by other articles (rape, murder, larceny, etc.). Among many other minor offenses, Art. 134 covers sexually indecent acts.
Courts have addressed whether a conviction for indecent acts requires victimizing a woman (no) or even another person (no - the victim may also be, e.g., a chicken or a corpse). So it's the perps' own creativity, assisted by their hapless lawyers and some undoubtedly amused judges, that have defined the scope of "indecent acts" with such specificity.
That said, it has long been a mystery to prosecutors how, precisely, one commits an indecent act with a chicken. Typically the (alcohol-fueled) debate centers on whether or not one would sustain beak and/or claw injuries; and where one would, ahem, stick it. I've yet to hear a plausible account - and perhaps it's better that way!
Posted by RandomJD 2012-04-08 22:57||
#20 RandomJD, I need to show this thread to Mr. Wife, who just inquired if I am about to choke to death in front of him. You military types lead much more interesting lives than I ever imagined.
Posted by trailing wife 2012-04-08 23:59||