Sunderland man, 40, captured seagull and masturbated over it as he watched porn in 'bizarre' offence
Re: Sunderland man, 40, captured seagull and masturbated over it as he watched porn in 'bizarre' offence
When he caught the seagull, things took a tern for the wors
Re: Sunderland man, 40, captured seagull and masturbated over it as he watched porn in 'bizarre' offence
I’m glad that’s all he did to the poor bird. Could have been worse.
Despite what angsta states, it’s clear from reading through his posts that angsta supports the free FreePalestine movement.
-
- Expatriate
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2022 6:55 pm
- Reputation: 203
Re: Sunderland man, 40, captured seagull and masturbated over it as he watched porn in 'bizarre' offence
At least the Khmer Times would have used pixelation to prevent public shaming
- Freightdog
- Expatriate
- Posts: 4399
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 8:41 am
- Reputation: 3480
- Location: Attached to a suitcase between realities
Re: Sunderland man, 40, captured seagull and masturbated over it as he watched porn in 'bizarre' offence
So creamed seagull is a thing? You learn something new everyday.
I’m sure the takeaway businesses in the vicinity of Gladstone street, Sunderland, are happy for the attention this may bring them.
I’m sure the takeaway businesses in the vicinity of Gladstone street, Sunderland, are happy for the attention this may bring them.
- Freightdog
- Expatriate
- Posts: 4399
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 8:41 am
- Reputation: 3480
- Location: Attached to a suitcase between realities
Re: Sunderland man, 40, captured seagull and masturbated over it as he watched porn in 'bizarre' offence
It didn’t work- you can still see his vaping gadget…Stravaiger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:11 pm At least the Khmer Times would have used pixelation to prevent public shaming
- hanno
- Expatriate
- Posts: 6812
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 12:37 pm
- Reputation: 3184
- Location: Phnom Penh
- Contact:
Re: Sunderland man, 40, captured seagull and masturbated over it as he watched porn in 'bizarre' offence
And they are not "Seagulls", there is no bird with that name.
- Jerry Atrick
- Expatriate
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 4:19 pm
- Reputation: 3065
Re: Sunderland man, 40, captured seagull and masturbated over it as he watched porn in 'bizarre' offence
I'm not for one minute defending this bizarre and twisted act - however, let's play devils advocate....
For a crime to have taken place - and I'm no expert in these matters - surely it would have to be shown that the seagull was in some way harmed or distressed. OK, he gave it a 'little kick' but that doesn't seem to be the central premise of the case. The central focus of the case, as far as I can see, was that he somehow used the seagull to satisfy a sexual urge by holding it between his legs as he masterbated. It doesn't say the seagull was in any way penetrated, nor was there any attempt to penetrate it. I wonder how one goes about proving that the seagull did actually suffer any distress?
The only other crime he may have committed would be one of public decency. However, it doesn't appear as if anyone witnessed his actions and reported him to police. He was caught because he was captured on CCTV. To my mind, there would an argument to be had that he took reasonable steps to assure that he was not in view, nor was likely to be in view, of any members of the public when committing the act. CCTV camera's, by their very nature, are often placed in inconspicuous places which make them difficult to spot. There may be a case if the CCTV operator was in any way distressed at viewing the images, but it could also be argued that there is a reasonably expectation that CCTV operators should be trained and prepared to witness all manner of actions and behaviour.
As I said, I'm just playing devils advocate, and would never honestly defend such sick actions, but considering the defendant also suffers mental health issues, I do wonder where this case stands from a legal standpoint.
For a crime to have taken place - and I'm no expert in these matters - surely it would have to be shown that the seagull was in some way harmed or distressed. OK, he gave it a 'little kick' but that doesn't seem to be the central premise of the case. The central focus of the case, as far as I can see, was that he somehow used the seagull to satisfy a sexual urge by holding it between his legs as he masterbated. It doesn't say the seagull was in any way penetrated, nor was there any attempt to penetrate it. I wonder how one goes about proving that the seagull did actually suffer any distress?
The only other crime he may have committed would be one of public decency. However, it doesn't appear as if anyone witnessed his actions and reported him to police. He was caught because he was captured on CCTV. To my mind, there would an argument to be had that he took reasonable steps to assure that he was not in view, nor was likely to be in view, of any members of the public when committing the act. CCTV camera's, by their very nature, are often placed in inconspicuous places which make them difficult to spot. There may be a case if the CCTV operator was in any way distressed at viewing the images, but it could also be argued that there is a reasonably expectation that CCTV operators should be trained and prepared to witness all manner of actions and behaviour.
As I said, I'm just playing devils advocate, and would never honestly defend such sick actions, but considering the defendant also suffers mental health issues, I do wonder where this case stands from a legal standpoint.
The difference between animals and humans is that animals would never allow the dumb ones to lead the pack.
- Jerry Atrick
- Expatriate
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 4:19 pm
- Reputation: 3065
Re: Sunderland man, 40, captured seagull and masturbated over it as he watched porn in 'bizarre' offence
xandreu wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:30 pm I'm not for one minute defending this bizarre and twisted act - however, let's play devils advocate....
For a crime to have taken place - and I'm no expert in these matters - surely it would have to be shown that the seagull was in some way harmed or distressed. OK, he gave it a 'little kick' but that doesn't seem to be the central premise of the case. The central focus of the case, as far as I can see, was that he somehow used the seagull to satisfy a sexual urge by holding it between his legs as he masterbated. It doesn't say the seagull was in any way penetrated, nor was there any attempt to penetrate it. I wonder how one goes about proving that the seagull did actually suffer any distress?
The only other crime he may have committed would be one of public decency. However, it doesn't appear as if anyone witnessed his actions and reported him to police. He was caught because he was captured on CCTV. To my mind, there would an argument to be had that he took reasonable steps to assure that he was not in view, nor was likely to be in view, of any members of the public when committing the act. CCTV camera's, by their very nature, are often placed in inconspicuous places which make them difficult to spot. There may be a case if the CCTV operator was in any way distressed at viewing the images, but it could also be argued that there is a reasonably expectation that CCTV operators should be trained and prepared to witness all manner of actions and behaviour.
As I said, I'm just playing devils advocate, and would never honestly defend such sick actions, but considering the defendant also suffers mental health issues, I do wonder where this case stands from a legal standpoint.
Bestiality is illegal
- Jerry Atrick
- Expatriate
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 4:19 pm
- Reputation: 3065
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 24 Replies
- 3604 Views
-
Last post by IraHayes
-
- 0 Replies
- 7971 Views
-
Last post by MrB
-
- 22 Replies
- 5982 Views
-
Last post by Sir Stephen
-
- 1 Replies
- 1435 Views
-
Last post by Gazzy
-
- 0 Replies
- 954 Views
-
Last post by CEOCambodiaNews
-
- 0 Replies
- 1112 Views
-
Last post by CEOCambodiaNews
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 546 guests