The problem is, in the US, you do NOT have a right to NOT be offended at something.
Is anyone offended at something?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The problem is, in the US, you do NOT have a right to NOT be offended at something.
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).
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.Assuming the statue was on private property (which this was), if no damage occurred, then it sounds like a case of trespassing.
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.
Nothing is stopping him from making his own effigy of Muhammad except laziness. The Dutch Cartoons essentially were.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.
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.He wouldn't dare though because there would potentially be real consequences
This kind of stuff is a function of youth. Which of us never did anything as kids that we came to regret as adults?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.
How is "desecrating" one statue of a historical or make-believe character more offensive than another?
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.
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.
If there was no trespassing per the property owner, there is no cause for any charge imo.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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
There are thousands of these pictures on the web, none of which were punished:
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!
I have a better idea... air drop him to into an Iraq Isis stronghold.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).