Animal-cruelty charges dropped against Burlington County cop

[roo_ster]

Folks, be forewarned.  The following is a mite disturbing.  Not just for the crimes committed by Bestial Bobbie, but the commentary by the absolute freak show of a judge.  And that the reporter gave a more sympathetic treatment and more emphasis on mistreated calves over raped children.

Cop, judge, reporter...the whole article is just so wrong in every way conceivable.

To quote Dave Barry, "I am not making this up."










http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20090924_Animal-cruelty_charges_dropped_against_Burlington_County_cop.html

Animal-cruelty charges dropped against Burlington County cop

By JASON NARK
Philadelphia Daily News

narkj@phillynews.com 856-779-3231

If animals could talk, a few cows in Burlington County might ask state legislators to hurry up and outlaw bestiality.

During a bizarre hearing there yesterday, a Superior Court judge dismissed animal-cruelty charges against a Moorestown police officer accused of sticking his penis into the mouths of five calves in rural Southampton in 2006, claiming a grand jury couldn't infer whether the cows had been "tormented" or "puzzled" by the situation or even irritated that they'd been duped out of a meal.

"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,' " Judge James J. Morley asked.

Children, Morley said, seemed "comforted" when given pacifiers, but there's no way to know what bovine minds thought of Robert Melia Jr. substituting his member for a cow's teat.

"They [children] enjoy the act of suckling," the judge said. "Cows may be of a different disposition."

Burlington County Assistant County Prosecutor Kevin Morgan was certainly irritated by the ruling, claiming the grand jury didn't see the videos of the alleged incident, including one in which one hungry calf allegedly head-butts Melia in the stomach.

"I think any reasonable juror could infer that a man's penis in the mouth of a calf is torment," Morgan argued. "It's a crime against nature."

Although a bill was introduced in 2005 to ban bestiality, New Jersey still has no explicit ban on the sexual penetration of animals, which is why the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office charged Melia with animal cruelty.

Morley said it was questionable whether Melia's alleged crimes against cows, although "disgusting," fit the definitions in the animal-cruelty statute.

"I'm not saying it's OK," Morley said. "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."

Sex with cows is the least of Melia's problems, though.

He and former girlfriend, Heather Lewis, of Pemberton Township, are also accused of sexually assaulting three young girls over a five-year period, sometimes in Melia's Cottage Avenue home in Moorestown, where he was a patrolman, authorities said.

Melia has been suspended from the force, said a spokesman with the Prosecutor's Office.

Melia and Lewis were both arrested in April 2008, shortly after one of the girls told her stepfather of the alleged abuse.

During the course of the investigation, authorities also discovered child pornography on Melia's home computer as well as videos of him with the cows.

Morley also ruled yesterday that the prosecution must turn over copies of images and videos from the computer to the defense, including one video that allegedly shows one of the girls being "subjected to sexual activity."

Lewis, who also appeared in court yesterday, is also accused of sexually assaulting a juvenile male. Morley denied a defense motion to have Lewis's individual sexual assaults separated from Melia's case.

Melia, Lewis and their attorneys declined to comment after the hearing.

Morgan, the prosecutor, said in court that the owner of the cows was "very upset" by the incident.

[castle key]

Thank God!!

Thank God that my Uncle was not the judge as he is a judge in this county!!

[Boomhauer]

That's just creepy      

[AJ Dual]

Morley said it was questionable whether Melia's alleged crimes against cows, although "disgusting," fit the definitions in the animal-cruelty statute.

"I'm not saying it's OK," Morley said. "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."

It seems to me the judge was ruling purely on animal cruelty. Which I assume they were hoping to prove, that state lacking any bestiality statute with which to charge him.

I'm sure the couple is in enough legal hot water over any other number of charges.

Another way of looking at this is freeing up the court's time to deal with the more serious charges of child molestation and child pornography. Rather than tying it up and later courts in appeals if what they did to the calves is "cruel" or not. So in essence, the judge is declaring cows are less important than the children.

[RaspberrySurprise]

One might be persuaded to think that yon reporter believes that outlawing bestiality will make it stop.

Moo means no,

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It seems to me the judge was ruling purely on animal cruelty. Which I assume they were hoping to prove, that state lacking any bestiality statute with which to charge him.

I'm sure the couple is in enough legal hot water over any other number of charges.

Another way of looking at this is freeing up the court's time to deal with the more serious charges of child molestation and child pornography. Rather than tying it up and later courts in appeals if what they did to the calves is "cruel" or not. So in essence, the judge is declaring cows are less important than the children.

i think they call it lesser included offenses

[mellestad]

Lol, that poor judge, trying to be logical and deadpan about the whole thing.

Although, I can't say I am offended on how the judge or reporter is acting.  The reporter is reporting the most 'interesting' part of the story.  Sexual abuse of children happens more often, and is more tragic, than the bestiality in question.  Is lingering on it in bad taste?  Possibly, but obviously you were interested enough to bring it up here, and I doubt you would have if it were a 'plain' child abuse story, so by that measure you (and the rest of us) are just as guilty of sensationalizing and encouraging it.

As for the judge, what is he supposed to do differently?  It sounds like he is trying to strictly do his job without letting his emotions interfere, which is what most people want judges to do.

[Perd Hapley]

"Tormenting a cow"?  This is now a crime?   

[Strings]

I have to admit that I'm FAR more concerned about an officer utilizing his status as such to enable him to sexually abuse children than I am about him getting gratification from a barnyard animal. Maybe that's just me...

[seeker_two]

I can't wait until he finds out that calves have teeth.... 

[mellestad]

"Tormenting a cow"?  This is now a crime?   

Not to thread derail, but I always thought it was amusing that you can go to prison for being abusive to an animal, but you can eat your body weight in the same animals dead flesh and no-one bats an eye (almost no-one I guess).

[Stand_watie]

Lol, that poor judge, trying to be logical and deadpan about the whole thing.

Although, I can't say I am offended on how the judge or reporter is acting.  The reporter is reporting the most 'interesting' part of the story.  Sexual abuse of children happens more often, and is more tragic, than the bestiality in question.  Is lingering on it in bad taste?  Possibly, but obviously you were interested enough to bring it up here, and I doubt you would have if it were a 'plain' child abuse story, so by that measure you (and the rest of us) are just as guilty of sensationalizing and encouraging it.

As for the judge, what is he supposed to do differently?  It sounds like he is trying to strictly do his job without letting his emotions interfere, which is what most people want judges to do.

      Wrong and twisted? Sure. Would it give me concern that the individual involved might likely harm people be enough to warrant a very thorough investigation? Sure. But the action to the calves being a criminal act under N.J. law? Apparently not. I can't disparage the judge on that ruling from what I read in the article. IF the state really had the resources to go after self-defilers and IF we could really trust the state (hint, we can't) to be able to differentiate between harmless sexual gratification and mental illness perhaps we could look at psychiatric treatment for the purveyors and participants in internet kinky porn.

      In 17th century Puritan New England, this guy would have been horsewhipped and thrown out of the community for his actions to the calves (not because they cared about the calves, but because they didn't want perverts around), or hanged for his actions to children. Earliest laws in North America preventing "animal cruelty" were by the Puritans against a sport called "bearbaiting" where chained bears were killed by dogs (and killed a few dogs in the process). They were enacted to prevent "moral degradation" to observers. I don't disagree with that logic. I DO disagree with the notion of having any politician I have seen in my lifetime be the arbiter of what "moral degradation" is.

[Balog]

Not to thread derail, but I always thought it was amusing that you can go to prison for being abusive to an animal, but you can eat your body weight in the same animals dead flesh and no-one bats an eye (almost no-one I guess).

Oh God, a moral vegetarian too?

I have to admit that I'm FAR more concerned about an officer utilizing his status as such to enable him to sexually abuse children than I am about him getting gratification from a barnyard animal. Maybe that's just me...

This. Although it may irk Micro's sex positive views, I think once you get to the point you think boinking a cow sounds like fun you aren't to be trusted.

[GigaBuist]

n 17th century Puritan New England, this guy would have been horsewhipped and thrown out of the community for his actions to the calves (not because they cared about the calves, but because they didn't want perverts around), or hanged for his actions to children.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if his actions with the calves would have gotten him hung by themselves.  The first case of capital punishment in Massachusetts was for buggery of animals, and a 16 or 17 year old was hung for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Granger

Not to thread derail, but I always thought it was amusing that you can go to prison for being abusive to an animal, but you can eat your body weight in the same animals dead flesh and no-one bats an eye (almost no-one I guess).

Well, what I find amusing is that some states don't have laws against this stuff.  Oregon got that thrown in their face a few years ago when some dude died after doing the unnatural tango with a freaking horse.  When they went to convict his buddy that video-taped the event the best they could charge him with is trespassing I think.  My home state of Michigan had another weird one a few years ago where some guy gave his best to a dead deer in broad daylight across the street from a child day care center.  I believe the defense lawyer successfully argued that since the deer was technically dead it wasn't bestiality to which the judge replied something along the lines of, "Oh, we'll find something that sticks."  Pretty sure they did too.

Hundreds of years of common law and full-time legislatures banging out laws faster than GM can make a car and there are still whack jobs that find things nobody thought of making illegal. Amazing. Disturbing, but amazing.

Oh, and no, I don't think it's odd that you can kill and eat an animal and be perfectly legal while getting your funk on with one is illegal.  The killing and eating part is a perfectly normal activity for a human being, PETA be damned, and we've even got rules about how one goes about the killing part.  Buggery of a 4 legged critter, however, is not normal human behavior, and when that's on somebody's daily planner at 11am it's not unreasonable to assume that come 6pm-ish they might try some unnatural shenanigans with an actual human being.  You know, kinda like what this guy did.

[Balog]

Sadly, the death by horse secks guy was in Washington, not Oregon. They even made a movie about it, where they were careful to avoid mentioning that the group of guys taking turns being penetrated by the horse were gay.

[MicroBalrog]

Sadly, the death by horse secks guy was in Washington, not Oregon. They even made a movie about it, where they were careful to avoid mentioning that the group of guys taking turns being penetrated by the horse were gay.

Why does that matter? Am I missing something?

[Balog]

Why does that matter? Am I missing something?

I'd say there is a correlation between a man enjoying being anally penetrated and being gay. I thought it was amusing how far they went to avoid drawing that connection. In the review of it I read, even the super liberal writer thought it was glaring enough to point out.

[mellestad]

I'd say there is a correlation between a man enjoying being anally penetrated and being gay. I thought it was amusing how far they went to avoid drawing that connection. In the review of it I read, even the super liberal writer thought it was glaring enough to point out.

Technically, any man with a prostate would enjoy being anally penetrated.

Not necessarily to death though.  I always thought that horse story was horrible.  Not for the guy, but for their families.  Hard to go to parties and family reunions after that.

[Gewehr98]

Owing to the multiple-ages nature of this particular forum, I'm shutting this one down, so it'll scroll off the screen and not be visible to our underage forum members.