Such pain knows no genders, darlin’.
And the sad part is, chances are she’ll get off easy.
But he sure won’t.
I think I heard something about alcohol being a significant factor, big surprise.
I don’t know shit about police codes, but in medicine we often use codes that sound strange without the opposite term being considered, ie theraputic abortion sounds weird for a healthy woman, but the tradition is spontaneous ab for miscarriage, theraputic ab for elective, which may be for choice, or may be for health.
I would imagine that genitals get injured in a lot of fights, but if you went for the stones in the first place, that’s a different matter entirely.
This article doesn’t say what the difference between “malicious” and “non-malicious” is in this context, except that consent is not the issue.
I’m back. Did you miss me? “Malice aforethought” seems to be the criterion:
I opened a thread several months ago on another similar charge asking the very same question. Of course that thread is gone now. Gone like the balls of a maliciously castrated man.
Here you go, Otto: Your post.
I think Ms Dawson demonstrated malice just in the manner in which she went after his twisticles.
I mean…
Leaving aside the pain of imagining having genitals ripped off, there’s also the pain of this writing:
Is it just me, or does it sound like this guy was dressed in genitals?
So if you castrate someone spontaneously, just on a whim, it’s not malicious?
(Actually, I guess it’s probably to distinguish it from the “Honest, Officer, I was just trying to free his zipper, and all of a sudden he was on the ground, and . . .”)
What, is he George Washington?
Thanks! Damn balky search engine.
I see that the people in my case were charged with castration without malice.
That’s some scarf and earmuffs…
i didn’t realize this was such a personal thread for you otto.
“I didn’t think you were holding a wrinkly purse.” (With thanks to Corner Gas.)
I think the “malicious” is a criminal/legal term meant to specify that the victim did not want his genitals cut off, maimed or disfigured, and that said cutting, maiming and disfiguring was intended for the specific purpose of causing pain, hurt and degradation, and not for any purpose that served any public or social good. Having covered several state legislatures and city councils over the years, they tend to talk that way.
Bwahahaha.
I mean…ouch.
Per my earlier thread on another SC castration case, the statute defines “malicious castraction” as:
Why do we suppose the victim’s genitals were out and available for attack during a Christmas party?