392
Suspended
2488 Posts
user info
edit post |
| Quote : | "
Court Releases Cannibals Because There Is No Law Against Cannibalism
by Nkrumah Steward
Two men who were arrested last week for eating the fingers and toes of a body they were cremating. Afterwards they washed it down with a bottle of wine. They were freed by a Cambodian provincial court Saturday because there was no law against cannibalism in Cambodia, a public prosecutor said.
Their goes any tourism dollars for Cambodia this decade.
Third world countries like Cambodia that fall on the "lawless southwest Uganda" side of the fence need to institute what I call the "shot on sight" rule.
Since many of these countries lack the funding as well as the basic infrastructure to deal with even creating a facade of justice like we do here in the states, where we all know justice can be bought, I think the "shot on sight" rule, if instituted properly, would help these nations make long strides towards moving into the 18th century within our lifetimes.
According to Military police chief Rath Sreang the police in the Banteay Meanchey province, 140 miles northwest of Phnom Penh, were alerted to the case by villagers, who said the men often ate human parts after relatives of deceased had left the crematorium.
"The villagers told us they were afraid that when there is nobody to be cremated, the two men will kill their children to eat," Rath Sreang said.
See, there is no need to be afraid little drama queens. Your children will be safe. Just tell your local "Shot on Sight" officer and the rest would go something like this.
Li Weu, the "Shot on sight" officer with an official government issued "shot on sight" high powered rifle peers through the window of the crematorium and confirms these two sick bastards are eating grandma's feet.
Weu picks up his rifle. He Levels the barrel. He takes aim. He squeeze the trigger.
Hence the term "shot on sight."
Now the question is this, does Cambodia not have a law against cannibalism because they don't see anything wrong with it, or is it because they figured why bother writing a law like that? "Who the hell is going to be nasty enough to want to eat a corpse?"
If the second is the case then I agree. It is sad when you have to put into law a penalty for eating a corpse, fucking livestock, or auctioning your baby on eBay.
Unfortunately, laws like this often get written only after someone actually does the shit. Meaning that lawmakers don't immediately assume off the bat that society is going to need a "please don't fuck the livestock" law.
I guess that tells you how they see the basic nature of man.
I would rather have a law in the book that we have never prosecuted someone under than have someone do something like this and find out that we don't have a law against it.
"I ordered the military police to release them late Friday because there is no law to charge them with," Nhou Thol, a public prosecutor, told Reuters by telephone.
That's lou.
Source: Reuters" |
 11/20/2007 6:05:40 PM
|
