It's actually two stories.
Standard preamble: I am taking the story at face value and everything I say is predicated on that premise. I make no warranty about the accuracy of the Toronto sun or the story.
That's a puppy. They're trying to manipulate the reader by using a different dog of a different age which looks "innocent and cute".
At an earlier hearing, court heard how Marshall and Reaney caused unnecessary suffering to the pug by “regularly subjecting him to habitual sexual activity.”
<sarcasm> An adult male who is regularly subjected to habitual sexual activity. The horror. Somebody save that poor dog! </sarcasm>
“failed to protect him from pain and suffering caused by habitual sexual activity.”
<sarcasm>Yep, sex is terrible. Don't ask where puppies come from. Just get angry.</sarcasm>
If only the New York Conservation cops would come to do the right thing and rescue this poor tortured animal from his habitual sexual activity and then chop off his head to look for rabies that they damn well know isn't there.
BTW, whenever a zoosexual is caught; I get angry about how the humans are treated, but when (and it often happens) the animals are killed I lose it. Like I go attack inanimate objects angry. So I'm not going to try and find out this time please don't tell me if they kill charlie.
If I ever murder someone it will probably be because they killed a beloved animal with a family and gave their delusional self-righteous nonsense as an excuse.
The man also pleaded guilty to one count of voyeurism and three counts of possessing extreme pornographic images relating to sexual acts involving a “dead/alive animal.”
These guilty pleas don't mean anything. I am a bit embarrassed it took nearly 10 years of my adult life to realize the obvious: When prosecutors have the ability to make deals if you plead guilty or give testimony of course it doesn't mean anything.
That is and always has been a flaw in the legal system. There should be no plea deals, no short cuts, no opportunities to frighten or intimidate defendants and witnesses. The key to ending corruption is to remove corrupt motivations and these deals as well as prosecutorial discretion is nothing but one big mountain of potentially corrupt motivation.
If they have proof then they need to prove it, not just convince the defendant/lawyer that the jury would be against them, as they would in this case due to irrational disgust.
And he copped to making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children.
What is a pseudo-photograph?
First off I just want to apologize to my family, my friends, my community, I know I caused a lot of hurt and a lot of shame and a lot of mistrust and I accept full responsibility for that. there is no excuse
There are plenty of excuses, but they will unethically punish you harder for using them so I understand why you would pretend to be sorry. Same thing happened with Jan 6 protestors, they were forced to sign letters of apology which were basically "orange-man is hitler, elections are perfect".
I consider any modification to punishment based on expressed moral opinion or contriteness to be forced speech and a violation of the 1st amendment.
Rosales still faces three felony charges in Washington County for sexual misconduct by school staff, as well as two charges of misconduct in office.
Doesn't sound like a criminal statute...
That hasn't been proven (the article proves nothing), but I don't think that law can be justified. If you want to blacklist him from working for the government again sure, but two consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want (morally).
