Further charges laid in Krypto1701 animal abuse case
Two more counts of animal cruelty have been added to the charges already faced by Peter Bower, known in the furry fandom as Krypto1701.
In May, Bower was charged with two counts of animal cruelty after authorities discovered that he had had sexual relations with his three-year-old shepherd-mix dog, Aurora. New evidence suggests sexual activity with a previous pet, a German shepherd named Maggie.
While examining items confiscated from Bower's apartment, Richland County (Ohio) Dog Warden Dave Jordan discovered "diary letters" to the 11-year-old pet. One dated April 4, 2010 detailed a physical encounter with the animal. Maggie and another (male) dog were euthanised five days later. Maggie was reportedly suffering from pyrometra, an infection of the uterus, which Jordan said "could have been caused by the use of lubricants".
Police are still investigating Bower's online activities, and a pre-trial hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. on Monday in Shelby Municipal Court.
Although thirty states in the U.S. have laws prohibiting bestiality, Ohio is not one of them. The Bower case has prompted Ohio state representatives to draft legislation that would explicitly outlaw such acts.
About the author
Higgs Raccoon — read stories — contact (login required)a (No longer a Flayrah contributor)
Comments
This isn't about bestiality. Those dogs were injured. That's abuse. The end.
They are quickly pleased,
An otter finds joy in all.
Take lessons from them.
-Scrimno
*sigh*
I suppose it's already been brought up in court that he's a furry?
I have an idea.
Let's disown him.
Okay. How do we disown him? What official sanctioning body is there for furry? Who do we contact to eject him from our club? What club do we have?
Sarcasm off.. look, any one can be a furry if they want to. The day where we could have been exclusive and ban people who commit certain sexual behaviors we disagree with are long, long gone. We're a big tent. There's no kicking anyone out of this one.
I realize this; it was a joke.
Long gone? I don't think that day ever existed. The term "furry" is the name of an interest, and a person can have that interest regardless of their presence or absence from the community. Maybe they could have come up with a more convoluted definition, or made a term just for people belonging to one specific group, but that would not likely have survived the growth and need for a generic term for the interest.
If two different crazy serial murders showed up in the news in a short period that were both big on model railroads, other model railroaders might be unhappy about news dropping references to the shared hobby. But they can't say the murders were too antisocial or creepy to be allowed in club meetings and therefore are not model railroaders, but instead just some guys that build model railroads (assuming they were always creepy, and not someone who kept their problems hidden from social life). It would look especially awkward if they model railroaders tried to change the definition of model railroading to exclude the murder's hobby, whether as, "Someone who makes model trains without killing someone" or some more convoluted arbitrary exclusion of the exact kinds of trains those two people happened to build. That kind of redefining or in-fighting would only attract ridicule instead of doing anything positive for their image...
I vote we kick GLion out of furry.
I vote we all sit back, have some pie, and watch some Lion King.
I don't like pie!
I'M VOTING FOR YOU, TOO!
HOW CAN YOU NOT LIKE PIE OMFG GTFO MY FANDOM
No no, everyone past this is entitled to their Murry Purry McFlurry comments but I agree.
This guy ain't a furry. He's a Zoophile. There is a key difference between a furry who likes animals and a dude or dudette who bones animals.
Well, my comment can only be wishful thinking--Furry seems to thrive on its tolerance. But it would be a lot easier to cleanse our fandom if we booted those using it as a sheild. (Not that these choices should be delegated to me--I've nearing only three years as an official furry and edit Encyclopedia Dramatica.)
That's the problem. The fandom needs to be less tolerant.
People keep saying furs need to be less tolerant of the problem. But every time I've seen it come up, there are a huge number denouncing and decrying it, a few supporting it, and virtually no one along the lines of, "I'm not for it, but think those who are should be left alone." If people's reactions quickly divide based on their direct opinion, that isn't tolerance, that is just issue partisanship. In fact, it frequently looks like it goes well into the intolerance considering a lot of people can't seem to discuss the issue without going beyond ad hominnem and strawman arguments.
"I'm not for it, but think those who are should be left alone."
By the way, in a non-partisan world that's what "Tolerate" means. The lines between tolerance and support are now obscured purposefully by those who oppose. And the line between tolerance and opposition are blurred purposefully by those who support.
This goes all the way back to my thoughts in 2007 (http://sonious.livejournal.com/41603.html)
It's always funny to read these stories, particularly where (following the new law link) someone says it's potentially seriously damaging, something for which there is no evidence and makes little sense, and where they describe the dog as having no medical or psychological problems.
Further more they pretty much accuse Bower of causing the Pyrometra, a condition that they don't seem to have even confirmed was present in the other dog. Whether it might have been caused by lube or not I don't know but the way the articles are phrased make that seem like the logical conclusion however it neglects to mention that the dog was 11-years-old and that Pyrometra is more common in older dogs. The American College of Veterinary Surgeons say that in Sweden 25% of intact female dogs present with Pyrometra before age 10.
http://www.acvs.org/AnimalOwners/HealthConditions/SmallAnimalTopics/PyometrainDo...
As with every such case that is shown the media reports are biased and none of the commentary is being based on evidence of harm. The case rests on fear-mongering and feelings of disgust, not on any sort of evidence that the behaviour has or will cause problems.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Um, bestiality is potentially damaging--a human penis is not the right size or shape for any animal but a human's vagina. Fitting an oval into a square hole can break the toy--and it goes the other way around, too. (Ever seen Mr. Hands?)
It's potentially damaging but so are all sorts of things. The potential alone isn't enough. A staircase is potentially damaging, a pool is potentially fatal (particularly for kids). The sort of damage because of size is something you avoid with common sense. Don't put a human dick in a cat's vagina. Someone argued somewhere, might have been on here, about the size problem and it turned out a German Shepherd penis is bigger than a human's. There's less chance for harm there. And the shapes are not nearly different enough to cause a problem. Flesh moves, just take a look at the variety of dildos available and see if they match the human penis shape.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
True enough, though I'm sure walking down a flight of stairs has much less chance for catastrophe.
Does it? Is there a reason to assume that?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
No. I just can't view walking down stairs as a particularly dangerous thing to do--it's there, certainly, but I can't imagine walking down stairs thinking, "Now I've gotta be very careful with this, I could hurt myself or others with one misstep..."
You're unlikely to hurt others with stairs but...
"The National Safety Council reports 12,000 stair deaths per year .... This makes accidents from stairs second only to automobile accidents as the major cause of unintended injuries in the United States. The actual number is probably much larger"
http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/papers/stair_ramp_safety.html
"Stair accidents serious enough to disable the victim after the day of the fall amount to between 1.80 million and 2.66 million per year." With more, admittedly old, stats both before and after that section.
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=n8V546i9zGAC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=people+injured...
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Touche! I suppose I've overestimated my (and the rest of klutzy humanity's) ability to walk down steps witthout injuring one's self. (By the wat, you could hurt someone else by falling onto them on your rapid descent, knocking them down also.)
Still, though, my beleif stands firm that it's far less dangerous than porking your pooch. (I don't see it wrong for that reason, however, but for ethical reasons.)
To be fair on the statistics though, I think every human being uses stairs at some point in their life so the put number of incidents really does not attest the probability of harm as equivalent to an activity few people regularly engage in just because the numbers are not as huge.
Walking has a probability of a person being struck by lighting, and smoking has a probability of causing lung cancer. However, we know that one is far more likely then the other.
If there are 12,000 stair deaths a year, that contributes to the fact that millions of people use stairs each day. Not that stairs are just as risky as smoking cigarettes. In fact one used properly is bad for your health, while the other is good if used properly.
In order to prove that the inherent risk factors of bestiality are even comparable with stairs, you'd need to know the quantity of people, versus the number of incidents to obtain a ratio.
I agree with everything you said here. It's just I don't have any stats to compare it too, which is one of the points I've been making the whole time. If I remember the question was asked in Miletski's book but the sample was biased and too small to really be useful when comparing to the quality of data on stairs. I did think about making the stairs information per 1000 people but decided it was too much work. The Google book link does have a section where they give the average number of steps between each fall/injury/death event.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Okay, Rakuen. You win.
I'm going to buy a dog. I'm going to go take a stick. A big stick. I'm going take this stick and I'm going to ram it up this dog's vagina. I'm just going to shove it all in there. All of it. Just shove it in there. But it's okay; dog's vaginas are made to shove stuff in. There like car's trunks, you know? It's just disgusting. Nothing wrong with that.
And then I'm going to call it my bitch, because that's how I roll, and it is, in fact, my bitch.
Seriously, Rakuen, where you bitten by a "feeling" as a child? Where does all this negative emotion for emotion come from?
This guy was getting paid to walk dogs, and at least one of his clients has come forward that this guy possibly fucked her dog too. Can you imagine how that poor woman must feel? I know, I know, feelings are shit and I'm a fucking Neanderthal for, you know, having a conscience, but I'm sorry, I just have problems with people fucking dogs they're supposed to be taking care of. It's a personal failing of mine. I'm sorry. Can you ever forgive me?
At the very least, that's just bad business ethics. Can you at least grant that?
Please stick to just the furry definition arguments. Here you consistently miss the point. It's painful to watch.
Your example is something completely different to what is being talked about and misrepresents what I actually said.
I don't have a problem with emotion per se, only how emotion gets in the way of reasoning. It prevents people from addressing the actual issues. That's all stuff that people know. Emotions are also useless as a guide to what is true or permissible. They have no place in this or any sort of factual discussion.
I can grant you that claiming to do one thing and then doing something else in secret is bad ethically but that's not what this is about. The issue is purely on whether bestiality itself is a problem, not whether the situation that lead to it was problematic.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Are you friends with this guy, or something?
Because this guy is the first dogfucker you've defended. I mean, if you've always felt this way, why are you just now defending him. I mean, this is a guy that other dogfuckers look at and say, "Whoah. You fucked that dog nasty."
This wasn't a consentual relationship, even if you accept bizarro-world dogfucker logic of "sex with my dog really is a consentual relationship built on love." He fucked a dog, put it down when it was no longer fuckable (whether it was a disease he gave it or old age, it comes out the same here), found himself a new fucktoy and had it boned within a frigging week, while apparently fucking anything else he could get his dick into on the side.
I mean, really?
I'm not defending him. I'm arguing that bestiality is acceptable, not that the actions in this specific case are.
I'm not quite sure where you came with this put it down just because he couldn't do it any more thing. If it was sick or suffering due to old age then many people would put their dog down. As I pointed out it's quite likely it got sick for reasons completely unrelated to the sex. If he'd had the dog for years and had been having sex with it for years then it's unlikely that he suddenly changed lubricant to a kind that would cause a disease.
As it is perhaps he didn't act ethically but that doesn't mean that he should be punished for it. By arguing that you are changing from arguing about the bestiality aspect to enforcing a code of morality. What he did, if we accept "bizarro-world dogfucker logic" for your example, would be no worse than a one-night stand where one of the partners expected more. Such an act doesn't make sex itself bad even if someone acts unethically. Even though he doesn't seem to be a candidate for citizen of the year his actions, aside from the bestiality, are actions which would be fully condoned in other circumstances. It is only the idea that bestiality should be a crime that I am arguing against.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
"I'm not defending him. I'm arguing that bestiality is acceptable, not that the actions in this specific case are."
So now that we've all agreed that this debate is off topic from the original article, can we all get back to agreeing on how much of a scum bag the dog abuser is.
Well, I give you the benefit of the doubt, say, well, maybe this is some "innocent until proven guilty" thing, maybe that's what your arguing, but no.
You're a dogfucker apologist. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt yet again, even though you don't deserve it, and guess you aren't a dogfucker yourself. Yet.
But, let's face it, you are staring down the barrel of a dog anus, and one of these days your dick will probably be in something it shouldn't be. We can only hope it is a dog, because this puts earlier debates about cub porn in a frankly terrifying light.
You're right, though. I don't understand.
God, I miss Portal of Evil. I could just defend furry without actually having to deal with you people.
They were right about everything.
I can't deal with this.
I'm going to pray for you.
That's all I can do.
Wait I thought 32 states had laws against it.
Laws are tools for law enforcement to help people. People like Krypto1701 are in a low point in their life, mentally ill.
There should be bestiality laws, so law enforcement can help more people who are ill. It's unfortunate there are people who have a desire to have sex with real animals, opposed to just masturbating at furry porn.
I believe there are a certain percentage of people who would rather take the easy way out and have sex with an animal willing for reasons of simplicity compared to partaking in actual dating and coitus. Such people are often the types of individuals who don't know how to properly groom, get horribly fat where nobody wants them, and are often the social outcasts. We need to focus on helping every individual, not just throwing them to the dogs. Such individuals can be retrained to be a useful part of society instead of just being a leech to one.
Hopefuly Krypto gets some much needed help and a psych evaluation.
More likely he'll be thrown in a building with rapists, theives and murders all seeing low self esteem meat to take advantage of and even further damage his psych. Because as it stands the current prison system is not used to make criminals better people, it's to try and scare better people to not want to go there.
Almost everything in your post is wrong. Law enforcement is not designed to help people. That's a major criticism of it from various people. It's been criticised for not worrying about the causes of behaviour and doing anything to prevent recurrences of criminality. It's been criticised for a system that breaks families apart and perpetuates the cycle of crime. And it's been criticised for often wasting time on people that should not be treated as criminals in the first place, in that category particularly are drug users.
People engaging in bestiality and zoophilia are also not mentally ill or necessarily in a low point of their life. Such a view might have once made sense but no longer and just shows that you are not familiar with what you are talking about. Although some authors writing on bestiality have considered it a mental disease, some have not and others have considered zoophilia a mental disease and the act of bestiality not to be one. In any case the best guide would be the American Psychiatric Association's guide which hasn't considered zoophilia to be a mental disorder since 1987.
Your last paragraph is again just regurgitating outdated stereotypes. Hani Miletski's book, which contained the results of her survey of zoophiles, found that male zoophiles had an average 7,2 close friends and female zoophiles 4,18. At the time of the study nearly half the men were single but 32% were currently married and 12% were divorced. There's nothing to suggest that zoophiles are social outcasts or unable to successfully interact with people. They also aren't leeches and again in Miletski's survey 48% of men had a college degree or higher, with a further 38% having attended at least some college.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Throughout all my interactions with police, they've the best interest in the general public. If you're not a jackass during a traffic stop, they're more likely to let you go with a warning(if that). The police are there to keep people safe, we have traffic and safety laws for a reason.
Regarding criminal laws like bestiality, they are there to enforce the laws passed by the general assembly of the state where such laws reside. The general assembly, the house and senate of the state, decided in the best interest of the public banning certain activities.
I believe sex with animals to be wrong for the following reasons, they can't/won't tell you if it hurts. As someone with a extreme sex drive, I can tell you I've had sex until my phallus was raw, as in getting a "vagina burn." Dog will not say, "hey, I'm hurting down there." They'll lick their wounds and ignore the pain, only to be abused later again. Of course the dog will ignore the pain to have more sex, and I can't imagine how a dog would feel should they get a skin burn.
Regarding sex with females, I can also tell you from experience there can be bruising and tearing of the vaginal walls. I've a rather above normal phallus regarding size, and do cause after discomfort simply by the wear and tear of having sex.
This is why sex with animals is wrong, they can't tell you. Do you think people in to bestiality are sitting there extending a dog's penis looking with a microscope for any abrasions? I don't think so. Do you think they're going to sit there use a camera made for the vagina to look inside for bruising or micro-tears? I don't think so.
These are common issues with /just/ heterosexual sex.
Homosexual sex, anal sex can cause hemorrhoids. Do you think people in to bestiality are looking inside an animal's anus making sure there are no hemorrhoids? Obviously if there is bleeding each time, there is a problem, and those people are less likely to take their dog to a vet due to the possibility of being shamed or turned in to the police. There's also the issue of colon tearing, and the colon is even more fragile in non-human animals.
I didn't say the police are not trying to do what's best (or at least what they think is best) but that laws are not made just to help people. They are made to reflect the views of the people who are in power and are not looked at often enough or kept current. That's why you get those lists of ridiculous laws. Laws about sex were a particular weak point of the US. For example oral, anal and homosexual sex were illegal in a number of states until 2003. Those are laws that are made because of people's personal feelings, not because they are in any way in the public's best interests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
Animals can and will tell you when something hurts. They will yelp, or meow or jump back or any number of actions, just like humans. If you stub your toe you don't make a decision to cry out and tell everyone, that's just a reflex. If you accidentally step on a cat's tail it will react. You say a dog will ignore the pain but what are you basing that on? In any case having sex till you're raw is not normal, you say yourself that you are an exception in that case. In addition all of that is a risk for both human on human and dog on dog sex. It makes no sense to ban human on dog sex because of the risk of harming the participant but allowing the same risk just because they are the same species.
If people are less likely to take their dog to the vet if it's illegal then might it not be in the dog's best interest to legalise it. Then you remove a significant aspect of what might prevent the dog getting the necessary treatment. If someone is going to have sex with a dog they will do it regardless of whether it's legal or not. Between 4-10% of US males do have sex with an animal at some point in their life. And legalising it isn't going to make it attractive to those who are already opposed to it.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Rakuen, you are this close to a one star shutout while Insane motherfucking Kangaroo is not very subtly making this about how big his dick is and how much pussy he gets and still getting the higher voted post.
Take the hint. Please.
Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you. I'm going to support Rakuen's freedom of speech.
Seriously, telling a guy to shut the fuck up when he's being an idiot is not an attack against free speech.
It's telling a guy to shut the fuck up because he's being an idiot.
He's not being an idiot just because you disagree
Out of curiosity, especially since it happened where I was looking at stairs as well, why does a post which is primarily posting facts get voted down? Is it you don't like how the facts are presented? Or you just don't like the facts?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Dude...just...just give it a rest already! Even people who normally approve of bestiality are saying that this guy was a sick, fucked up bastard (Which he is). I cannot believe that you are even semi-defending this guy. This is one of the worst bestiality cases I've ever seen in my life-and yet here you are trying to defend his actions. This guy wrote love letters to his dog . He fucked his dog, got it infected, had it put down, and then commissioned porn of his dead dog . This guy posted about what he did on a bestiality forum, and they cussed and kicked his ass out . I want you to think about that for a second-an entire forum of people who are into bestiality had enough sense to know how fucked up this guy was, and yet, you can't seem to figure that out. This guy was not only an animal abuser, but a psychopath who used dogs solely for sex, had them killed when he could no longer use them as sex toys, and then went and got another dog to do the exact same thing to it. There is no defending what this sick fuck did-period.
I've said before I'm not trying to defend him. I'm trying to promote a way of looking at the world that is based on evidence. All I know about this specific case is what I've read in the news reports linked here, which haven't said everything that you have.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Another furry dogfucker? I'm sensing a pattern here...
I have see the post of Kripto (the porn ones) no abuse there, I know that GSD are more than able to fit a human. What I'm worried is that the evidence they have against him may be bias. If you tell a vet, "hey heck this female dog, she was having sex with a human" odds are that 90% of the time the vet will say "yes she was raped" even if there is no evidence of it. If the vet was asked to check the girl without telling him what to look and he found damage in her genitals, then I agree that guy needs some time in jail. So far the only evidence they have is the word of one vet that the girl had abrasions or something, just hope the vet isn't lying. I think he should hire a good lawyer and have her dog check by another vet without him knowing what he should look, hell have 20 vets do that without telling them what to look, or at least tell them to look if any abnormality in their genitalia or inter genitalia.
Post new comment