Teen Could Get Two Years for Facebook Photos with Jesus Statue

Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
632
Hmmm.... Even has a sheep.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Good-Sh...8&qid=1410556444&sr=1-2&keywords=jesus+statue

Sure it'd piss them off, but (I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I know the law, don't call me an armchair lawyer or any BS like that - I'm just throwing this out there) why not criminal trespass or trespass or whatever?

No damage was done. It was pissed off those that saw it because it was their statue and hurt their feelings over their religion. Kind of a shit thing to do, but teenagers do stupid shit all the time (I did). This isn't that big of a deal (not my church or religion, though, but it sounds more like an emotional law rather than a sensible one).


You cannot EVER reason with some fucking nut job about religion. If freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state were something that was truly a right in this country... explain to me why i cannot buy alcohol on sundays, OR, why i cannot buy alcohol until NOON on sundays, depending upon your state/county/etc.. Can you do that?

This is a statue on someone elses property, trespass, criminal trespass if you are pissed off, but 2 years? Pedophiles can get less time with good behavior. Thats just assinine.

As for Jesus, I know jesus, he lives in the bronx and washes windshields for a buck. Good deal. Although i dont think he deserves to have someone simulate butt fucking him, but hey, maybe he just didnt have change for that $20. Get over it.
 

Lunas

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
9,990
I don't know what to say perhaps "that's pretty gay brah." Or that was in poor taste.

I don't know what 2 years in juvenile detention will do. Community service perhaps perhaps a public apology.
 

xSneak

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
491
Free speech includes the license to offend. Sounds like the DA is a theocrat from his facebook post and believes there is a "war on Christmas" among other things.. Scary how people like him get put into these positions of power.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
You can offend, but you can also be sued for offending. Not sure on criminal charges though.

As for buying alcohol, it just depends on the law. If it was religious based, then prove it, and you can probably get it removed in a lawsuit. But I doubt you'll be able to prove it. If anything, they'll just expand it.

As for nutjobs about religion..... wouldn't a nutjob for about anything be the same? Sounds like you got some intolerance for religion going on there.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Assuming the statue was on private property (which this was), if no damage occurred, then it sounds like a case of trespassing.
Its only a case of trespassing on a community center if you're asked to leave. 99% chance that was not the case here, and the guy was driving by, saw the statue, snapped a pic, and left.

No damage occurred, no trespassing, nothing illegal whatsoever. The problem is that christians are butthurt, and while they claim to be different than the muslim extremists, there are many that aren't. They are just usually more quiet about it, because they don't think they have the swat to use the government to hurt people. In this case they think they can get away with it.

He shouldn't have to apologize, he shouldn't have to do community service, he shouldn't have to do ANYTHING for offending Christians or we're not different than the angry "behead those that insult islam" muslims overseas. Why can't people just accept that he's an a-hole and move on with their lives? There are a TON of people I hate and refuse to associate with, but just because they are dumbasses that offend me doesn't mean I try to throw them in jail.

Personally, if anything happens to this kid, I hope it creates a backlash wave of protest of desecration of religious icons in a constitutionally protected way. Have a bunch of guys in gay sex poses dressed as Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha dry humping each other in front of the white house or something.
 

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,466
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.

Two years for trespassing is wrong no matter how you look at it. That sort of punishment should be reserved for far more serious offenses. This kid's life will be hell for two years for one dumb mistake. Give him some community service and have him make a formal apology.
 

schmuckley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,236
The kid should be punished.I think 2 years is excessive.
That being said:This is the kind of mentality the schools are cranking out nowadays:Klebolds,Kids with no respect for anything because limits were never set for them.
The USA was founded on self-government,but if the government can do away with self-governing, it can say there's a need to step in and control everything.
This had been the agenda for the past 20 years in the education system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4
UN shills have usurped government for the people even down to the town level.
Be sure and see where you local politicians stand on this before you vote for them.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,688
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.
Nothing is stopping him from making his own effigy of Muhammad except laziness. The Dutch Cartoons essentially were.

He wouldn't dare though because there would potentially be real consequences not just a small furor with probably a wrist slap at worst at the end of the day. And in the end he'll get a bunch of high-fives from his circle of friends and associates.

What kind of effect does that have on say a kid. One religion is treated like toilet paper an another is treated with reverence (albeit out of fear). Basically the terrorist have won and religious detractors are cowards.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
He wouldn't dare though because there would potentially be real consequences
And while most Christians pretend to believe in the teachings of Jesus, lets just drop the pretense and admit that most would kick him out as a bleeding heart liberal with his "turn the other cheek" anti-war foreign-born socialist hippy hair nonsense if he were to walk into their homes and ask for a free meal and place to sleep if they didn't know who he was.

Most want to see someone punished for insulting their beliefs, with the degree of punishment simply matching their religious devotion. The only difference from today and the torturous days of the inquisition for insulting the dominant religion is that the power of the church has waned. They don't really believe in freedom of speech, they just pretend to as long as the message isn't offensive to them. As soon as it is, they do everything in their power to suppress and punish it.

There are thousands of these pictures on the web, none of which were punished:
1399600757_8.jpg

Just google image search "statues funny".

How is "desecrating" one statue of a historical or make-believe character more offensive than another? Kind of depends on who is viewing, since its obviously subjective, and if we want to suppress everything that will offend someone somewhere, yeah, that's going to be a really fun society to live in. Ironically, its the society that liberals are trying to create for the most part! ;)
 

JeffDC

Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
775
Nothing is stopping him from making his own effigy of Muhammad except laziness. The Dutch Cartoons essentially were.

He wouldn't dare though because there would potentially be real consequences.

What kind of effect does that have on say a kid. One religion is treated like toilet paper an another is treated with reverence (albeit out of fear). Basically the terrorist have won and religious detractors are cowards.
This kind of stuff is a function of youth. Which of us never did anything as kids that we came to regret as adults?
 

Json23

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
1,380
At best they should only be able to get him for trespassing. If he damaged the statue in some way then vandalism. This? This is the fucking morality police/laws which we don't need in this country.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,798
I did a lot worse shit then that when I was a Kid =) I got caught but I didn't do any time =)
 

bucketlist

Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
1,019
Religion, gotta love it...
I guest those stain glass windows of children heads on JC's crotch are OK.
Where a old man rabbi can suck babies dicks all day long and be viewed OK.
 

Spewn

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
3,459
How is "desecrating" one statue of a historical or make-believe character more offensive than another?

It's really just a matter of not having any DA's who feel strongly about the sanctity of Ronald McDonald. This isn't about the law, it's about personal beliefs.
 

JeffDC

Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
775
What about the sanctity of private property? The kid needs a minor lesson, but it's one we all had to learn at some point.
 

oROEchimaru

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
4,662
Ha, dumbass he should move to Milwaukee where you can break and entry into people's homes and have it dismissed or multiple charges of abuse.
 

Spewn

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
3,459
What about the sanctity of private property? The kid needs a minor lesson, but it's one we all had to learn at some point.

First of all, trespassing charges are NOT being brought against this kid. The people who OWN THE PROPERTY are not bringing these charges, so I don't know why you guys keep bringing up "private property".

Second of all, it's not likely to be trespassing if the area is open to the public. It would seem that it is, but I could be wrong, but even if I am it doesn't matter because the people who own the property aren't calling it trespassing therefore it's not trespassing.
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
What about the sanctity of private property? The kid needs a minor lesson, but it's one we all had to learn at some point.

Not everyone does illegal stuff and gets in trouble just to learn things the hard way. Some of us are just like, "Oh, that's not legal? I won't do it."
 

JeffDC

Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
775
First of all, trespassing charges are NOT being brought against this kid. The people who OWN THE PROPERTY are not bringing these charges, so I don't know why you guys keep bringing up "private property".

Second of all, it's not likely to be trespassing if the area is open to the public. It would seem that it is, but I could be wrong, but even if I am it doesn't matter because the people who own the property aren't calling it trespassing therefore it's not trespassing.
If there was no trespassing per the property owner, there is no cause for any charge imo.

BTW here's the actual PA law. As far as I can tell it explicitly limits itself to public places.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,866
If this is a malicious prosecution as so many of you seem to infer it is, then this can fall under an abuse of power by the DA. He is the one going ahead with charges, not the Christian organization that owns the statue.

Honestly, I think the kids parent should beat his ass, ground him, and then have him police the grounds around the statue for a month or two with no legal action. But since actually raising children correctly seems to be too inconvenient these days, and disciplining them appears to be damn near illegal, I guess we need to let the state take care of punishing our kids for us.
This is what so many wanted, why the complaints when they get it?
 

Magnus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
1,183
There has always been and, will always be, penalties for flouting the unwritten rules of the society you inhabit. Whether you agree with the penalties or, consider yourself to be a member of said society is irrelevant. Kids, teens and, socially impaired adults usually absorb the rules of their society by incurring minor penalties and/or watching what happens to others over many years of living in their respective societies. The internet has created a major change in that the rules for participating in this society are drastically different than those of the real world, has only existed for a single generation and, continues to change at the speed of light (or at least, your ISP). Many 'youts' truly believe their interactions online are interchangeable or, equivalent to those in real life society. Therein lies the rub.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,823
You cannot EVER reason with some fucking nut job about religion. If freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state were something that was truly a right in this country... explain to me why i cannot buy alcohol on sundays, OR, why i cannot buy alcohol until NOON on sundays, depending upon your state/county/etc.. Can you do that?

This is a statue on someone elses property, trespass, criminal trespass if you are pissed off, but 2 years? Pedophiles can get less time with good behavior. Thats just assinine.

As for Jesus, I know jesus, he lives in the bronx and washes windshields for a buck. Good deal. Although i dont think he deserves to have someone simulate butt fucking him, but hey, maybe he just didnt have change for that $20. Get over it.

New Orleans is very catholic and you can buy alcohol 24x7. BTW, that looked more like a BJ than a BF, but maybe jesus had an ass like a face.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,823
The kid should be punished.I think 2 years is excessive.
That being said:This is the kind of mentality the schools are cranking out nowadays:Klebolds,Kids with no respect for anything because limits were never set for them.
The USA was founded on self-government,but if the government can do away with self-governing, it can say there's a need to step in and control everything.
This had been the agenda for the past 20 years in the education system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4
UN shills have usurped government for the people even down to the town level.
Be sure and see where you local politicians stand on this before you vote for them.

OMFG, get over your generation. Unless you're at least 65 or 70, your generation wasn't that good (and they probably weren't that good if you are that age). If you're under 50, then you were either a sheltered child or you've got selective amnesia.

Kids do shit. This picture was pretty funny. Get over it. That's not Jesus, it's a statue. And he didn't do anything to the statue. This was a few seconds of a kid taking an irreverent picture of his friend.

I bet Jesus got a laugh out of this. If not, then he's got no sense of humor.
 

JeffDC

Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
775
At the risk of being misunderstood, if not thrown off the forum, there's actually more evidence in the NT ("the disciple whom Jesus loved" etc) to suggest the pics may have brought back some memories for Jesus.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,823
Nothing is stopping him from making his own effigy of Muhammad except laziness. The Dutch Cartoons essentially were.

He wouldn't dare though because there would potentially be real consequences not just a small furor with probably a wrist slap at worst at the end of the day. And in the end he'll get a bunch of high-fives from his circle of friends and associates.

What kind of effect does that have on say a kid. One religion is treated like toilet paper an another is treated with reverence (albeit out of fear). Basically the terrorist have won and religious detractors are cowards.

How many of those threats came from the U.S.? Of those, how many were against U.S. citiziens?
 

Phoenix333

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,510
I don't see how this is a tech-related story. This is about someone doing something stupid and posting it on Failbook. Steve, are you posting trollbait articles to try to start a flamewar over religion on the boards?
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,566
First of all, trespassing charges are NOT being brought against this kid. The people who OWN THE PROPERTY are not bringing these charges, so I don't know why you guys keep bringing up "private property".

Because the other law is ridiculous. So, it the trespassing charges a NOT being brought against this kid, then he should be off with no charges. The current charge is BS, in my opinion. Tasteless, but almost like saying "God Damn it!" in a church to get a reaction. 2 years for that? Come on. Trespassing was brought up along with private property because the charge that is against him is stupid. So, we were discussing the other options and if they would fir. That's why it's been brought up. Just in case you didn't read the rest of the thread or didn't understand.
 

EODetroit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,485
It shouldn't be (just) not guilty. It shouldn't be just trespassing. The law itself should be torn up as unconstitutional. And that should be the end of the story.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,823
There are thousands of these pictures on the web, none of which were punished:
1399600757_8.jpg

Just google image search "statues funny".

How is "desecrating" one statue of a historical or make-believe character more offensive than another? Kind of depends on who is viewing, since its obviously subjective, and if we want to suppress everything that will offend someone somewhere, yeah, that's going to be a really fun society to live in. Ironically, its the society that liberals are trying to create for the most part! ;)

Ronald does seem to be enjoying it.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,823
If there was no trespassing per the property owner, there is no cause for any charge imo.

BTW here's the actual PA law. As far as I can tell it explicitly limits itself to public places.

Then it becomes a first amendment issue. This is a free speech issue if it's a public place.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,823
There has always been and, will always be, penalties for flouting the unwritten rules of the society you inhabit. Whether you agree with the penalties or, consider yourself to be a member of said society is irrelevant. Kids, teens and, socially impaired adults usually absorb the rules of their society by incurring minor penalties and/or watching what happens to others over many years of living in their respective societies. The internet has created a major change in that the rules for participating in this society are drastically different than those of the real world, has only existed for a single generation and, continues to change at the speed of light (or at least, your ISP). Many 'youts' truly believe their interactions online are interchangeable or, equivalent to those in real life society. Therein lies the rub.

The only difference is they post these things on line. This type of shit happened 40 years ago. If you don't believe that, then you're either too old or to young to remember it.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
BTW another interesting factoid about this case is that vandalism carries a maximum sentence of one year:
So let’s say an adult (subject to harsher penalties than minors) elected to spray paint “Jesus loves dicks” on the side of this boy’s school. That guy, at most (and the “at most” comes in to play for people with previous criminal records, which this boy doesn’t have), would serve a year in jail – and that’s assuming the cost of having the wall re-painted exceeds $150, otherwise the penalty would be less.

But a 14 year-old does something stupid that causes literally zero property damage and he could face two years in juvenile jail because it’s a “venerated object”? That’s insane. That’s really ludicrous.
 

Spewn

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
3,459
Because the other law is ridiculous. So, it the trespassing charges a NOT being brought against this kid, then he should be off with no charges. The current charge is BS, in my opinion. Tasteless, but almost like saying "God Damn it!" in a church to get a reaction. 2 years for that? Come on. Trespassing was brought up along with private property because the charge that is against him is stupid. So, we were discussing the other options and if they would fir. That's why it's been brought up. Just in case you didn't read the rest of the thread or didn't understand.

I did read the rest of the thread, I guess I just (incorrectly) assumed that people in America weren't in favor of charging people with crimes they didn't actually commit in order to exact a sort of "deserved" justice in the case of a crime that shouldn't really be criminal in the first place. What sense does it make to say "Well that law shouldn't be on the books, but he ought to be punished in some way so let's charge him with a crime he didn't commit."?

Most of the people bringing up trespassing or private property seemed to be saying either a) that the desecration charge shouldn't or wouldn't stick but a trespassing charge should or would, or b) that the desecration charge is appropriate because "its' someone else's statue". Neither of those things make any sense.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,566
I did read the rest of the thread, I guess I just (incorrectly) assumed that people in America weren't in favor of charging people with crimes they didn't actually commit in order to exact a sort of "deserved" justice in the case of a crime that shouldn't really be criminal in the first place. What sense does it make to say "Well that law shouldn't be on the books, but he ought to be punished in some way so let's charge him with a crime he didn't commit."?

Most of the people bringing up trespassing or private property seemed to be saying either a) that the desecration charge shouldn't or wouldn't stick but a trespassing charge should or would, or b) that the desecration charge is appropriate because "its' someone else's statue". Neither of those things make any sense.

I think that most of us aren't lawyers, so we bring up things that might be feasible. Apparently, he WASN'T trespassing, so that wouldn't work. It's not that we want to give him that charge, but it sounded like that's the most they could get him on. Since that's not valid, I really don't know what else they could charge him with. Being an asshole isn't against the law (apparently there it is, though).

So, it was just a possibility of trespassing charge, not that we were saying that's what he should get. Mostly just a bunch of bitching and moaning about the stupid law and finding alternatives (through brainstorming, which a lot of things have been shot down - including the trespassing one).
 

PCunicorn

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
1,638
I think a light slap on the wrist and nothing more, if he's not really trespassing (trespassing is really only trespassing when the owner says it is, and he hasn't). He did do something wrong, which was “Desecration of a Venerated Object", and another thing he did wrong was post the damn picture on Facebook.

He's been humiliated, I think he only deserves a month of probation.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,823
I think that most of us aren't lawyers, so we bring up things that might be feasible. Apparently, he WASN'T trespassing, so that wouldn't work. It's not that we want to give him that charge, but it sounded like that's the most they could get him on. Since that's not valid, I really don't know what else they could charge him with. Being an asshole isn't against the law (apparently there it is, though).

So, it was just a possibility of trespassing charge, not that we were saying that's what he should get. Mostly just a bunch of bitching and moaning about the stupid law and finding alternatives (through brainstorming, which a lot of things have been shot down - including the trespassing one).

I mostly agree, except for the part about him being an asshole. Irreverence != asshole. He may be an asshole, but that's got nothing to do with this picture.
 
Top