Pinkie Crush Fetish
Stefanie Lebon
On information from a Ventura County District Attorney investigator who had learned, through a chat room and subsequent conversation with defendant, that he had produced a "crush video" fn. 2 depicting rats, mice and baby mice ("pinkies") being crushed and killed by a female under heel of her [84 Cal. App. 4th 1066] shoe, Officer William Le Baron and other officers conducted a search of defendant's apartment for any evidence of his production and distribution of videos. Officer Le Baron found 30 or 40 videos in defendant's closet, then asked defendant for the crush video he had filmed with codefendant Diane Aileen Chaffin. Defendant told the officer the videotape was with the others and labeled "Diane." Officer Le Baron found two "Diane" videotapes which, defendant stated, had been filmed at the home of Chaffin's parents. Other items seized were defendant's computer containing chat room conversations relating to crush videos, clips taken from crush videos and still images.
The videotape in evidence is 60 minutes long and shows Chaffin crushing numerous mice, baby mice and rats under the heel of her shoe and under her bare feet. Part of the videotape depicts a mouse being held down and Chaffin crushing the animal to death; the mice and rats were "stepped on to the point where intestines and innards are torn apart and taken out of them. It is then smashed into the ground until the mouse or rat or pinkie appears to be dead and it stops moving." Involved were 12 animals consisting of four mice, six baby mice and two rats. They were all taunted, maimed, tortured, mutilated, disemboweled and ultimately slowly killed under the heel of a shoe. The videotape depicts Chaffin stepping on the shoulder of a mouse with the heel of her shoe, causing the mouse to spin in circles, then Chaffin crushing its head. In one instance a mouse is taped down by its tail to prevent escape before being crushed to death. These videotapes were produced by codefendant Chaffin and defendant to sell for profit. Defendant obtained the animals from The Feed Barn, a store that sells feeder mice used to feed other animals.
Second, the rats, mice and baby mice used by defendant in his crush video were not wild animals, but bred for a domestic purposefood for other animals. However, they were not used by defendant for this purpose, but to intentionally and maliciously maim, mutilate, torture and wound before ultimately slowly killing them, all for sexual gratification of others and for [84 Cal. App. 4th 1068] commercial gain. They differ from the rodents that run wildrats and mice, denizens of alleys, garbage cans, and sewersthat carry disease to restaurants and households and destroy property. The rats and mice used by defendant were not wild nor were they destroyed by him as hazardous to health or property. He obtained the animals from The Feed Barn, a store which sells feeder mice used to feed other animals. These bred rats and mice do not run wild but are kept in cages, and are not "dangerous to life, limb or property." They clearly do not fall within the exception described in Penal Code section 599c.
Nor does Health and Safety Code section 116125 aid appellant. This section, too, requires one possessing "any place that is infested with rodents" to destroy them "by poisoning, trapping, and other appropriate means." (Italics added.) Appellant argues that "crushing rodents is not proscribed" therefore, what he did "was clearly lawful." "Appropriate means" to eradicate the "pests" surely does not include "any means available" as urged by appellant, nor does it embrace maliciously and intentionally maiming, taunting, torturing, wounding and disemboweling before crushing the mutilated animal to a slow death. But the fallacy in appellant's argument as to the applicability of both of the above sections is that the evidence does not support the necessary premise that the rats and mice were killed for health and safety purposes. The facts are, that they were voluntarily brought to the "premises" or "place" to make crush videos, and were ultimately killed after maiming, torturing and mutilating the animals, all for profit and for the sexual gratification of others.
Third, even if the bred mice and rats used by defendant could be classified as animals "known as dangerous to life, or property," it is one thing to kill [84 Cal. App. 4th 1069] by traps or poison, rats and mice that run wild and create a health hazard, but quite another to intentionally and maliciously maim, mutilate, and torture the animals until they die, for the purpose of making and selling videotapes for commercial gain. fn. 3 Known as crush videos, they are fetish videos in which small animals are taunted, maimed, tortured and ultimately crushed to death under the heel of a shoe or bare feet of a provocatively dressed woman. The live animals are stepped on until their intestines and innards are torn apart, then disemboweled after which the animal is smashed on the ground until it dies or stops moving. The videotape exhibit depicts the codefendant talking to four mice, six baby mice and two rats, taunting them, stepping on the shoulder of a mouse with the heel of her shoe, causing the animal to spin around in circles before crushing its head. It also shows a mouse taped to the floor by its tail to prevent its escape before being mutilated and crushed to death.
FN 3. On December 9, 1999, President Clinton signed into law H.R. No. 1887, now 18 United States Code section 48, which prohibits interstate commerce involving, and commercial gain from, the distribution of crush videos, making such acts punishable by fine and/or not more than five years' imprisonment.
A crush fetish is a fetish and a paraphilia in which sexual arousal is associated with observing objects being crushed or being crushed oneself. The crushed objects vary from inanimate items (e.g., food), to injurious and/or fatal crushing of invertebrates (e.g., insects, snails, worms, spiders), or vertebrates (e.g., birds, reptiles, mammals).[1][2]
In the most severe cases, crushing has involved homicide[3] or extended torture until death of restrained animals including dogs, cats, pigs, and monkeys. Animal welfare organisations, such as the Humane Society of the United States, condemn this practice and consider it extremely disturbing.[2] Additionally, links between animal abuse and violence towards humans are being researched, with animal abuse perhaps being a precursor to further violence, and animal cruelty cases have been tracked by the American FBI since 2016.[4][5] The motivation for these acts may be in the financial gain derived from producing a film of the acts, which is sold on the Internet to crush fetishists who find the content sexually gratifying and perhaps entertaining, a tailored genre known as "crush film". Those in impoverished areas may be more likely to produce and star in this content due to financial gain.[6]
There are currently no laws specifically forbidding the crushing of animals, but the production or trade of crush erotica involving live vertebrates is illegal in many countries, including the United States, Italy and the United Kingdom.[7] In the United States, interstate commerce in (hard) crush videos has been illegal since 2010,[8] and many other countries also have banned them.[9]
In crush films, the crushing agent is typically a woman, who will concentrate her body weight upon her feet to compress the object against the floor. The feet are typically dressed in sexually suggestive dominatrix-like footwear, such as high-heels and lace stockings, but other footwear or bare feet may be used. This recalls elements of both foot fetishism and BDSM culture.[2]
The legality of crush films and the actual practice of crushing varies by region; however, many have been posted on web sites and are available for download via the Internet, making the control of their distribution difficult.
In 1999, the United States Congress enacted a statute affecting the legality of crush films which criminalized the creation, sale, and possession of depictions of animal cruelty, though with an exception for "any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."[19] In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit invalidated the ban on the sale and possession of such films (if not otherwise obscene) as a violation of the Constitution's guarantee for freedom of speech.[20] The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's decision in United States v. Stevens, finding the law unconstitutional because the law was so broad and vague that it included any portrayal of an animal in or being harmed such as by hunting or disease.[21] On November 28, 2010, bill H.R. 5566, which prohibits interstate commerce in animal crush films, was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and on December 9, the bill was signed by President Obama becoming the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010.[8]
In 2006 an Internet crush video surfaced in which a woman stomps on a kitten with stiletto high-heels. Eventually the woman drives her heel into the kitten's eye and penetrates the eye socket, leading to loss of blood and the death of the kitten.[26] Internet users discovered and revealed the identity of the woman, and revealed that the cameraman was a provincial television employee. The nurse posted an apology on the Luobei city government website, claiming that she was susceptible to persuasion to crush the kitten, being despondent from her recent divorce.[27] Both the nurse and the cameraman lost their jobs as a result of the incident, although their actions were not illegal under the country's animal cruelty laws.[28]
dd2b598166