Teen Could Get Two Years for Facebook Photos with Jesus Statue

Sorry, missed the part about private property. I thought this statue was on public land.

If I had to guess, if the kid hasn't already been sufficiently badgered by agents of the Marvel Universe, the worst he's looking at is a trespassing conviction with probation. Yawn.
 
This has almost nothing to do with technology therefore it seems kind of dumb that it was posted on [H] Front Page News.
 
mynamehere said:
I think his punishment should be to have to do that publicly to a statue of Mohammad.
I wonder how the so called "religion of peace" would react to that. I wonder if they'd think that was criminal...oh wait...no I don't. I'm quite certain he'd be the recipient of a swift and merciless beheading. :eek:
Click to expand...

That's one reason why Muslims don't have statues of Muhammad, you cant desecrate them.

That kid is a troll to be sure. Just trolling someone's faith.
Still, he is a kid and I think they should let it go, Kids do stupid stuff for attention and to be trolls. Punishment served already when pictured having homosexual sex with a statue in a digital picture, that will NEVER go away. Pitching or catching, you are still in "that" game. That picture will come back to troll him online the rest of his life.
Let it slide.

And I am a devout Roman Catholic.
 
I'm a Christian, so naturally this is kind of offensive (ok I have to admit it's kind of funny) but Jail? really? As a Christian I also believe in forgiveness, especially for a victim-less crime like this.

He should be forced to do community service or something but not jail. The US government seems so obsessed with sending as many people to jail as they can over the most silly things while keeping the real criminals on the streets.
 
dr/owned said:
Technically it's artistic free speech. Case dismissed.
Click to expand...

Not on private property. Let's say somebody went onto your porch and starting dry humping the floor. "Artistic free speech", therefore he shouldn't be charged based on your logic.

Oh and this was just a asshole thing to do. It's like a white guy screaming " dumb s" in the getto.
 
Is the Love in the Name of Christ HQ in Everett not open to the public? Because if it is, I don't see how this is trespassing.
 
dr.kevin said:
retarded puritans still living in PA?

I think this is characterized as freedom of speech, classified under comedy.
Click to expand...

In the center of the state along the southern border, it's pretty much backwards and there are entire towns of people that can't speak properly that have few to no teeth. They say things like "you'ns" (pronounced like the word you and then the letter n pluralized) to mean you and they "wursh it with wudder" when they discuss washing something with water. There are illiterates crawling down out of mountains, people who are hugely obese pretending to be outdoorsmen and survivalist hunters and there's a sea of pickup trucks with the big pipe sticking up behind where you sit blowing out ugly black smoke wasting absurd amounts of fuel to move one hick to the next crappy bar. Towns are basically clusters of churches and bars with a 24-hour gas station that serves sandwiches where people collect in the middle of the night in large numbers because they have literally nothing productive to do. It's an awful, miserable cesspool where the leftovers at the bottom of humanity's barrel all seem to gather to perpetuate the potential of our species regressing back down the evolutionary ladder.
 
2 years in juvi is the max. It is unlikely he will get that, unless he does something incredibly stupid in the courtroom. Or is just a bad kid, and this is just another example of chronic misbehavior and they decide to slam him.
 
GORANKAR said:
2 years in juvi is the max. It is unlikely he will get that, unless he does something incredibly stupid in the courtroom. Or is just a bad kid, and this is just another example of chronic misbehavior and they decide to slam him.
Click to expand...

Even then he would never get 2 years. Without a prior record, he won't do ANY time. This is nothing more than a sensationalist headline. Pay a fine, report to a probation officer for 3-6 months, erased from record when he turns 18. That's it.
 
big-lebowski_jesus.jpg
 
he should get some penalty like a lot of community service. he caused no physical harm but needs to be taught a lesson. forgot all the religions shit, just about life. his purpose was to offend he needs to taught that if you intention is to stir up shit the shit storm is going to hit you.
 
Kind of sad a kid that pretends to do a sex act with a statue is going to get 2 years in juvi, but their starting NFL qb rapes a chick and beats her head agsinst the bathroom wall so she can't remember exactly what happened and walks.
Then there was that whole Penn State Sandusky thing where over 14 kids got molested and everyone turned their head because it was Joe P's buddy.
Gotta love how f#cked up Pennsylvania is.
 
gesicht said:
he should get some penalty like a lot of community service. he caused no physical harm but needs to be taught a lesson. forgot all the religions shit, just about life. his purpose was to offend he needs to taught that if you intention is to stir up shit the shit storm is going to hit you.
Click to expand...
The law is against desecration, best of luck qualifying photography as desecration to any judge or jury. My first thought on seeing the article photo was that the kid was climbing or jumping over the statue.
 
Wierdo said:
2 years for this? Does the legal system work on Fatwas now?
Click to expand...
Up to 2 years, Judge's discretion. Unless the law has minimums that can mean 0 years or up to 2 years. Reporting has really gone downhill when people don't understand how the american legal system works in the reports.
 
gesicht said:
he should get some penalty like a lot of community service. he caused no physical harm but needs to be taught a lesson. forgot all the religions shit, just about life. his purpose was to offend he needs to taught that if you intention is to stir up shit the shit storm is going to hit you.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? This is the United States of F'n America.

The government has no right to implement punitive punishments for offending a religious icon. Period. That's the entire point of having that protection in the constitution, not to protect non-offensive expressions from government reprisal. Now if you on a PERSONAL level want to call him an a-hole and not let him into your club, that's your right.

If I want to depict Jesus getting beat up by Satan, or taking a big dump on the prophet mohammed, I can. That's what makes a free nation free. Sad how many here are basically willing to implement the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law.
Southpark_ep108_2.jpg
 
griff30 said:
That kid is a troll to be sure. Just trolling someone's faith...

And I am a devout Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...

Become a priest and diddle kids, get protected by the Catholic church.

Pretend to have sex with a Jesus statue? You're going to jail, motherfucker.

Oh well, that's justice for you. I'm sure the statue will feel a lot better knowing this kid is being punished for his crimes.
 
DoubleTap said:
At first, I thought that was outrageous because - free speech - but this is private property. If you want to do that, go do it with your own Jesus statue on your own property.

To my surprise, I think I might agree with this outcome.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same thoughts here.

I think the kid's an idiot for doing something like that, but that might be my bias considering I'm catholic.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Become a priest and diddle kids, get protected by the Catholic church.

Pretend to have sex with a Jesus statue? You're going to jail, motherfucker.

Oh well, that's justice for you. I'm sure the statue will feel a lot better knowing this kid is being punished for his crimes.
Click to expand...
Your irony mirror is facing my irony mirror, and I'm seeing irony infinity.
 
at least there arent christians wanting to behead him now.
 
kirbyrj said:
Even then he would never get 2 years. Without a prior record, he won't do ANY time. This is nothing more than a sensationalist headline. Pay a fine, report to a probation officer for 3-6 months, erased from record when he turns 18. That's it.
Click to expand...

Prolly so, prolly so.
 
DoubleTap said:
At first, I thought that was outrageous because - free speech - but this is private property. If you want to do that, go do it with your own Jesus statue on your own property.

To my surprise, I think I might agree with this outcome.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. Since it's private property and the guy is posting pictures then some punishment is necessary. 2 years seems to harsh though and I'm a Christian.
 
4saken said:
at least there arent christians wanting to behead him now.
Click to expand...

Christians were burning people alive for lesser crimes a couple centuries ago. You can thank secular government and the scientific revolution for getting that bullshit under control.
 
PCunicorn said:
Not on private property. Let's say somebody went onto your porch and starting dry humping the floor. "Artistic free speech", therefore he shouldn't be charged based on your logic.
Click to expand...

He'd get trespassing. No damage was done, so it wouldn't be some desecrating your floor.

I just think the charge is a bit much, not that he shouldn't be charged with a crime. Just not THAT crime.
 
Ducman69 said:
Are you kidding me? This is the United States of F'n America.

The government has no right to implement punitive punishments for offending a religious icon. Period. That's the entire point of having that protection in the constitution, not to protect non-offensive expressions from government reprisal. Now if you on a PERSONAL level want to call him an a-hole and not let him into your club, that's your right.

If I want to depict Jesus getting beat up by Satan, or taking a big dump on the prophet mohammed, I can. That's what makes a free nation free. Sad how many here are basically willing to implement the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law.
Southpark_ep108_2.jpg
Click to expand...

You can do that all you want. With your statues. Not other peoples.
Remove Christianity from your argument since this situation has nothing to do with Christianity at all. It just happened to be a Jesus statue. You can say what you want, but not with my microphone. This is not a first amendment issue at all.
IE. If it had been your statue of Hillary Clinton, and some rabid republican decided to dry hump it and video tape it with the intent to shock, annoy, desecrate, or just piss you off, he would be in violation of the law, just like this moron kid is. I still don't think anything more than a bit of community service and probation is required as punishment though.
 
Keep in mind this has nothing to do with the church...

A spokesperson for Love in the Name of Christ told MailOnline they did not press charges in the incident. Instead, the pictures were found by the district attorney’s office (who filed the charges) and forwarded them to the state police in Bedford, Pennsylvania. He was arrested and will be tried in juvenile court as early as October 3.

http://www.newsweek.com/christianity-under-attack-teen-faces-jail-lewd-pose-jesus-statue-270120
 
It would show a lot of class imo if the church in question petitioned the DA to drop the case. It would make clear who the actual moron is.
 
And for religion in general, you dont see faith healers working in hospitals for the same reason you dont see psychics winning the lottery.
 
I think that it would be enough punishment for us to ridicule the kid for doing something this juvenile. The kid may grow up one day and realize how idiotic this act was and make amend for it somehow, which would be a far better outcome than draining resources to put him through a court trial and whatnot.
 
GORANKAR said:
You can do that all you want. With your statues. Not other peoples.
Remove Christianity from your argument since this situation has nothing to do with Christianity at all. It just happened to be a Jesus statue. You can say what you want, but not with my microphone. This is not a first amendment issue at all.
IE. If it had been your statue of Hillary Clinton, and some rabid republican decided to dry hump it and video tape it with the intent to shock, annoy, desecrate, or just piss you off, he would be in violation of the law, just like this moron kid is. I still don't think anything more than a bit of community service and probation is required as punishment though.
Click to expand...

Assuming the statue was on private property (which this was), if no damage occurred, then it sounds like a case of trespassing. If the Hillary statue is on public property, then it sounds like a first amendment issue and it'd be tossed.

He didn't do anything other than have an irreverent picture taken of him and a statue on private property.
 
nilepez said:
Assuming the statue was on private property (which this was), if no damage occurred, then it sounds like a case of trespassing.
Click to expand...

Being on private property isn't enough for a trespassing charge, though. The inside of a Walmart is private property but I won't be charged with trespassing for taking a picture of me flipping off the greeter at the front door. Now, if they ask me to leave and I refuse? Yeah, then I could face trespassing charges. So like I said earlier in the thread; is this place open to the public? If it is, then trespassing doesn't apply in this case.

Regardless, as has already been mentioned, it's not the church organization that's pressing charges. The DA found out someone made fun of his holy figure and he wants to make them pay. Read his comments on the case, it's very clear what this is about.
 
Spewn said:
Being on private property isn't enough for a trespassing charge, though. The inside of a Walmart is private property but I won't be charged with trespassing for taking a picture of me flipping off the greeter at the front door. Now, if they ask me to leave and I refuse? Yeah, then I could face trespassing charges. So like I said earlier in the thread; is this place open to the public? If it is, then trespassing doesn't apply in this case.

Regardless, as has already been mentioned, it's not the church organization that's pressing charges. The DA found out someone made fun of his holy figure and he wants to make them pay. Read his comments on the case, it's very clear what this is about.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but no matter what, trespassing sounds like the most you could get for this, even if it was in my backyard.
 
DoubleTap said:
To be clear, he's not being punished because it's illegal to do that to a religious statue - that would be a free speech issue.

He's being punished because it's illegal to do that to a religious statue that other people own because it was done "in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities".

Wiki has a good definition of desecration:
Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character, or the disrespectful, contemptuous, or destructive treatment of that which is held to be sacred or holy by a group or individual.

This is America - you can stil do creepy, sacrilegious things to statues, you just have to do them to your own statues.
Click to expand...

The problem is, in the US, you do NOT have a right to NOT be offended at something.
 
if i were and up and coming civil rights lawyer this would be a GODSEND (lulz pun) case to take
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top