Tulsa World: Woman receives suspended sentence in dog-sex case — Cripes. And she had to record herself?
eeeh! A woman accused of engaging in video-recorded sex acts with dogs has received a five-year suspended sentence and no prison time. As a condition of probation, Tulsa County District Judge William Kellough ordered Friday that Whalen, 55, to have “no custody or control” of any animals.
Tulsa County prosecutors charged Whalen and Donald R. Seigfried on June 23 with one count each of committing “crimes against nature,” records show.
Diane Sue Whalen will have a felony conviction, and she is required to register as a sex offender.
Wait, wait, wait. She has to register as a sex offender? Why? So they can notify the local kennels?? (Rimshot, maestro!)
LETS SEE,
no HUSBAND TO HIT HER.
NO inlaws,
NO KIDS if she gets pregnant,
GOOD for protecting her…
WHATS THE PROBLEM??
The video??
So, she wanted a bit of money on the side..
She could of gotten MORE in Mexico..
The Judge is either up for re-election or got into the marijuana evidence stash. This is silly.
Doggy-style.
Dogs are ok, but I’m a cat-lover myself.
…
NO WAIT I DIDN’T MEAN IT LIKE THAT!!!
Now It’s a crime to fuck the dog, in the good ol USA.
Shame It’s not a crime to fuck the people.
I wonder if she had to get the dog drunk first…
Let’s go with Doggie Mom. Honky Mom was already taken by the mom with the giant Palin imprint on her tee shirt.
Can someone pass me the eye bleach?
#6 – Of course not. The government has been doing that to us for years!
I hope somebody remembers to follow up and post what happens to her accomplice, Don Siegfried.
#1, #2, #5 – I’m just glad she can date you now.
menagerie a trois
#10
BUT as we all know, the US government doesn’t want competition.
John…where do you FIND this stuff??? lol
menagerie a troll
#5
PETA is against it also, as they think its CRUEL to the animal.
In the immortal words of Canada’s Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau:
Everybody agrees that, in general, the State has no business sticking its nose in the bedroom of consenting adults.
Why? It seems that the general principle is that the State exists for the good of the citizens. But the private life of citizens is a great good, since it’s one of the elements of the peace and freedom required by citizens to fulfill themselves. The State must therefore respect the private life of consenting adults.
On the other hand, I think this principle has been often abused over the past few years.
http://www.jesus-eucharistie.org/en/polit/artic/oeil_trudeau.htm
Do you have a picture of the woman?
If I remember correctly, it was about 10 years ago that Saddam Hussein sent Clinton a letter in which he noted that “sheep don’t talk”.
I’m wondering how this law would stand up to scrutiny under Lawrence v Texas.
Justice Kennedy quoting Justice Stevens
#18 – OvenMaster – …the State has no business sticking its nose in the bedroom of consenting adults.
Let’s emphasize that he talked about humans, not humans and animals.
This is a weird and super creepy case but I would guess that most women in pornography have been and are being abused in one way or the other. This woman, included.
I just don’t want to see it or have to hear about it.
Sex offender list?
One reason yah need to know what the people on such lists were actually convicted of doing is that it well may be nothing you care about.
Yah need to be able to sort out who might actually be a threat from the stuff that you don’t need to worry about.
This is what happens when feminists keep repeating “all men are dogs”… amirite?
Most states agree that dogs are considered property, so what, you cant screw your vibe anymore?