Teen Mmay Get 2yrs For Sex With Jesus Pic

[Pogo]

About a week confined in a cell with someone who could force him to assume his "Jesus position" might be enough to focus his mind.

So you disagree with the First Amendment.
Fine, start a petition to rescind it. Until then, law of the land, like it or lump it.

You really don't understand the First Amendment, do you? If the church wished to press charges, the kid has no First Amendment defense. Why? Look at the picture, he is on the church's property, and as soon as he laid hands upon the statue, he became a criminal.

You can protest all you want, but you cannot touch someone else, or get on someone else's property, this includes businesses and places of worship.

Law of the land, like it or lump it. By the way, you just got schooled!

That's trespassing. Has nothing to do with the First Amendment or free expression.

You just flunked Social Studies.

It does in this case, and everyone on here with an ounce of smarts knows it. You cannot argue free expression, while breaking the law. And this boy was breaking the law, by trespassing, and if the DA wants to add more charges, then attempted vandalism,(his hands is on the statue's head, perhaps he is trying to rip the head off.) comes in to play from just the kid's on photograph.

I know you hate being wrong, but, as much as you are, you should be used to it, but you keep trying, one day you might be right.But, I'm sure it will be by mistake.

If the church allows others to be on their grounds they wouldn't be able to single out one person and charge him with trespassing. So in this case the only law they can enforce is the unconstitutional law about not giving offense.

I must admit that I am totally enjoying watching the hypocritical cons being the PC police.

I don't believe the boy should get time, probably make him get in front of the congregation on Sunday morning and apologize for being a stupid teenager would suffice. One thing for the ones sticking up for this boy. If he went to one of your loved ones grave site and did something similar, would you feel the same? Our children need to be taught to respect others.

Faulty comparison. Gravesites represent real people.

Trotting him in front of a "congregation" to "confess" something he doesn't believe amounts to mind control.

well, that's sort of the point of punishment isn't it? He needs to go apologize to the church for insulting THEIR beliefs with THEIR property. He doesn't have to agree with their beliefs to do that.

Who has established that that's what his intention was?

 

[rdean]

Something tells me Jesus would laugh.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This is a kid who doesn't need jail.

Bring back public floggings give this kid 10 lashes and let's move on.

"cruel and unusual punishment" (Amendment VIII, op. cit.)

It IS unusual, I give you that, but I would argue that is FAR less cruel than sending him to jail would be.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

About a week confined in a cell with someone who could force him to assume his "Jesus position" might be enough to focus his mind.

So you disagree with the First Amendment.
Fine, start a petition to rescind it. Until then, law of the land, like it or lump it.

You really don't understand the First Amendment, do you? If the church wished to press charges, the kid has no First Amendment defense. Why? Look at the picture, he is on the church's property, and as soon as he laid hands upon the statue, he became a criminal.

You can protest all you want, but you cannot touch someone else, or get on someone else's property, this includes businesses and places of worship.

Law of the land, like it or lump it. By the way, you just got schooled!

That's trespassing. Has nothing to do with the First Amendment or free expression.

You just flunked Social Studies.

It does in this case, and everyone on here with an ounce of smarts knows it. You cannot argue free expression, while breaking the law. And this boy was breaking the law, by trespassing, and if the DA wants to add more charges, then attempted vandalism,(his hands is on the statue's head, perhaps he is trying to rip the head off.) comes in to play from just the kid's on photograph.

I know you hate being wrong, but, as much as you are, you should be used to it, but you keep trying, one day you might be right.But, I'm sure it will be by mistake.

If the church allows others to be on their grounds they wouldn't be able to single out one person and charge him with trespassing. So in this case the only law they can enforce is the unconstitutional law about not giving offense.

I must admit that I am totally enjoying watching the hypocritical cons being the PC police.

I don't believe the boy should get time, probably make him get in front of the congregation on Sunday morning and apologize for being a stupid teenager would suffice. One thing for the ones sticking up for this boy. If he went to one of your loved ones grave site and did something similar, would you feel the same? Our children need to be taught to respect others.

Faulty comparison. Gravesites represent real people.

Trotting him in front of a "congregation" to "confess" something he doesn't believe amounts to mind control.

well, that's sort of the point of punishment isn't it? He needs to go apologize to the church for insulting THEIR beliefs with THEIR property. He doesn't have to agree with their beliefs to do that.

Who has established that that's what his intention was?

Intent is irrelevant.

You don't even have to KNOW you committed a crime to be convicted.

 

[Pogo]

I don't believe the boy should get time, probably make him get in front of the congregation on Sunday morning and apologize for being a stupid teenager would suffice. One thing for the ones sticking up for this boy. If he went to one of your loved ones grave site and did something similar, would you feel the same? Our children need to be taught to respect others.

Faulty comparison. Gravesites represent real people.

Trotting him in front of a "congregation" to "confess" something he doesn't believe amounts to mind control.

well, that's sort of the point of punishment isn't it? He needs to go apologize to the church for insulting THEIR beliefs with THEIR property. He doesn't have to agree with their beliefs to do that.

Who has established that that's what his intention was?

Intent is irrelevant.

You don't even have to KNOW you committed a crime to be convicted.

Actually it's crucial here. Read the law.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

About a week confined in a cell with someone who could force him to assume his "Jesus position" might be enough to focus his mind.

So you disagree with the First Amendment.
Fine, start a petition to rescind it. Until then, law of the land, like it or lump it.

You really don't understand the First Amendment, do you? If the church wished to press charges, the kid has no First Amendment defense. Why? Look at the picture, he is on the church's property, and as soon as he laid hands upon the statue, he became a criminal.

You can protest all you want, but you cannot touch someone else, or get on someone else's property, this includes businesses and places of worship.

Law of the land, like it or lump it. By the way, you just got schooled!

That's trespassing. Has nothing to do with the First Amendment or free expression.

You just flunked Social Studies.

It does in this case, and everyone on here with an ounce of smarts knows it. You cannot argue free expression, while breaking the law. And this boy was breaking the law, by trespassing, and if the DA wants to add more charges, then attempted vandalism,(his hands is on the statue's head, perhaps he is trying to rip the head off.) comes in to play from just the kid's on photograph.

I know you hate being wrong, but, as much as you are, you should be used to it, but you keep trying, one day you might be right.But, I'm sure it will be by mistake.

If the church allows others to be on their grounds they wouldn't be able to single out one person and charge him with trespassing. So in this case the only law they can enforce is the unconstitutional law about not giving offense.

I must admit that I am totally enjoying watching the hypocritical cons being the PC police.

I don't believe the boy should get time, probably make him get in front of the congregation on Sunday morning and apologize for being a stupid teenager would suffice. One thing for the ones sticking up for this boy. If he went to one of your loved ones grave site and did something similar, would you feel the same? Our children need to be taught to respect others.

Faulty comparison. Gravesites represent real people.

Trotting him in front of a "congregation" to "confess" something he doesn't believe amounts to mind control.

well, that's sort of the point of punishment isn't it? He needs to go apologize to the church for insulting THEIR beliefs with THEIR property. He doesn't have to agree with their beliefs to do that.

Who has established that that's what his intention was?

Intent is irrelevant.

You don't even have to KNOW you committed a crime to be convicted.

Actually it's crucial here. Read the law.

It's crucial for THIS stupid law, which I already stated that I oppose.

I would make him apologize , that is NOT the same thing as a criminal charge.

and I think that is completely within the discretionary power of a DA and a Judge

apologize and we'll forget about any criminal charges.

Done

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

About a week confined in a cell with someone who could force him to assume his "Jesus position" might be enough to focus his mind.

So you disagree with the First Amendment.
Fine, start a petition to rescind it. Until then, law of the land, like it or lump it.

You really don't understand the First Amendment, do you? If the church wished to press charges, the kid has no First Amendment defense. Why? Look at the picture, he is on the church's property, and as soon as he laid hands upon the statue, he became a criminal.

You can protest all you want, but you cannot touch someone else, or get on someone else's property, this includes businesses and places of worship.

Law of the land, like it or lump it. By the way, you just got schooled!

That's trespassing. Has nothing to do with the First Amendment or free expression.

You just flunked Social Studies.

It does in this case, and everyone on here with an ounce of smarts knows it. You cannot argue free expression, while breaking the law. And this boy was breaking the law, by trespassing, and if the DA wants to add more charges, then attempted vandalism,(his hands is on the statue's head, perhaps he is trying to rip the head off.) comes in to play from just the kid's on photograph.

I know you hate being wrong, but, as much as you are, you should be used to it, but you keep trying, one day you might be right.But, I'm sure it will be by mistake.

If the church allows others to be on their grounds they wouldn't be able to single out one person and charge him with trespassing. So in this case the only law they can enforce is the unconstitutional law about not giving offense.

I must admit that I am totally enjoying watching the hypocritical cons being the PC police.

I don't believe the boy should get time, probably make him get in front of the congregation on Sunday morning and apologize for being a stupid teenager would suffice. One thing for the ones sticking up for this boy. If he went to one of your loved ones grave site and did something similar, would you feel the same? Our children need to be taught to respect others.

Faulty comparison. Gravesites represent real people.

Trotting him in front of a "congregation" to "confess" something he doesn't believe amounts to mind control.

well, that's sort of the point of punishment isn't it? He needs to go apologize to the church for insulting THEIR beliefs with THEIR property. He doesn't have to agree with their beliefs to do that.

Who has established that that's what his intention was?

Intent is irrelevant.

You don't even have to KNOW you committed a crime to be convicted.

Actually it's crucial here. Read the law.

It's crucial for THIS stupid law, which I already stated that I oppose.

I would make him apologize , that is NOT the same thing as a criminal charge.

OK then.
Since I went and fetched it and it's in my clipboard herewith for those just tuning in:

“Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”

I'd also point out here that unless the kid made some kind of statement (in text) with the pic, the message herein, though it may appear obvious, depends on the viewer to infer it. Therefore the kid can say he was... I dunno, leapfrogging over the statue, looked at it later, saw the implications, and posted it.

Implausible? Ridiculous? Of course it is. But how can the state prove that was not what was in his mind?
Note the operative word: "prove".

In effect the law amounts to me prosecuting you on the basis of not your speech but how I (the State) infer your speech.
Consider the implications. Just sayin'.

Allow me to reiterate

I oppose this law

Now , let me as you your stance on hate crime laws

 

[Pogo]

Trotting him in front of a "congregation" to "confess" something he doesn't believe amounts to mind control.

well, that's sort of the point of punishment isn't it? He needs to go apologize to the church for insulting THEIR beliefs with THEIR property. He doesn't have to agree with their beliefs to do that.

Who has established that that's what his intention was?

Intent is irrelevant.

You don't even have to KNOW you committed a crime to be convicted.

Actually it's crucial here. Read the law.

It's crucial for THIS stupid law, which I already stated that I oppose.

I would make him apologize , that is NOT the same thing as a criminal charge.

and I think that is completely within the discretionary power of a DA and a Judge

apologize and we'll forget about any criminal charges.

Done

OK then.
Since I went and fetched it and it's in my clipboard herewith for those just tuning in:

“Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”

I'd also point out here that unless the kid made some kind of statement (in text) with the pic, the message herein, though it may appear obvious, depends on the viewer to infer it. Therefore the kid can say he was... I dunno, leapfrogging over the statue, looked at it later, saw the implications, and posted it.

Implausible? Ridiculous? Of course it is. But how can the state prove that was not what was in his mind?
Note the operative word: "prove". Also note the word in the text of the law above: "likely".
Legal quicksand.

In effect the law amounts to me prosecuting you on the basis of not your speech but how I (the State) infer your speech.
Consider the implications. Just sayin'.

 

[Pogo]

Allow me to reiterate

I oppose this law

Now , let me as you your stance on hate crime laws

Look Dood.........

You've got to hold up your end here. You know how much work I just did -- and keep doing -- to pare down this nest building? Put something into it. I don't work for you.

You'd have to show me the language but if a law purports to prosecute states of mind, that's a bad law. Seems like mind control to me.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Allow me to reiterate

I oppose this law

Now , let me as you your stance on hate crime laws

Look Dood.........

You've got to hold up your end here. You know how much work I just did -- and keep doing -- to pare down this nest building? Put something into it. I don't work for you.

You'd have to show me the language but if a law purports to prosecute states of mind, that's a bad law. Seems like mind control to me.

Sorry, I usually cut the nests out, got lazy

Glad to see you agree on hate crime laws. I hate it when people go partisan when there is no difference in something like we see with this law and hate crime laws

 

[Pogo]

Allow me to reiterate

I oppose this law

Now , let me as you your stance on hate crime laws

Look Dood.........

You've got to hold up your end here. You know how much work I just did -- and keep doing -- to pare down this nest building? Put something into it. I don't work for you.

You'd have to show me the language but if a law purports to prosecute states of mind, that's a bad law. Seems like mind control to me.

Sorry, I usually cut the nests out, got lazy

Glad to see you agree on hate crime laws. I hate it when people go partisan when there is no difference in something like we see with this law and hate crime laws

Ya gotta be consistent, sez I... mind control is mind control, even if it's got good intentions. Legal quicksand.

I haven't actually read "hate crime" law language but if they're like this, this law would amount to a "hate crime" law protecting Jesus rather than gays, blacks, etc. That's way too grey to be law IMHO.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Teen May Get 2 Years For Pic Of Fake Oral Sex With Jesus PHOTO

The photo was taken in front of Love in the Name of Christ, a Christian organization in Everett, Pennsylvania, and posted on Facebook back in July.

On Tuesday, the 14-year-old — whose name has not been released by police — was charged with desecration of a venerated object, the Smoking Gun reported. If convicted, he could wind up spending two years in a juvenile jail, according to Kron 4.

“Desecration” is defined in Pennsyvlania as ““Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.”

Patheos.com notes that in Pennsylvania, a vandalism charge usually carries a maximum penalty of only one year in jail. JT Eberhard writes:

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.

This one will bring the phony christians out in droves.

I bet if he had fake sex with an Obama statue you would demand 2 years at a minimum.

Naw...pesky 1st amendment.

If he did it with his own statue, it would probably be fine under the 1st, however he did it to someone else's, and the 1st amendment doesn't allow you to fuck around with someone else's property.

The statue wasn't at all harmed or defaced, nor did its owners complain.

Anything else?

Police don't need a complaint to enforce the law.

But their prosecutor will need what's known as "evidence".

He posted it on Facebook. Case closed.

Exactly. That's not "evidence" of anything except having posted something on Nosebook.
He could simply say it's photoshopped. Who's going to prove it isn't with no witnesses?

"Case closed" is right.

Of course. Beyond that, it is for the judge or jury to decide. You can't have "photoshopped" as a carte blanche excuse to skirt the law. He sure made it look genuine, and if he's that much of a genius, maybe he needs some time alone to celebrate it.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I don't believe the boy should get time, probably make him get in front of the congregation on Sunday morning and apologize for being a stupid teenager would suffice. One thing for the ones sticking up for this boy. If he went to one of your loved ones grave site and did something similar, would you feel the same? Our children need to be taught to respect others.

Faulty comparison. Gravesites represent real people.

Trotting him in front of a "congregation" to "confess" something he doesn't believe amounts to mind control.

well, that's sort of the point of punishment isn't it? He needs to go apologize to the church for insulting THEIR beliefs with THEIR property. He doesn't have to agree with their beliefs to do that.

Who has established that that's what his intention was?

Intent is irrelevant.

You don't even have to KNOW you committed a crime to be convicted.

Actually it's crucial here. Read the law.

That statement shows you are full of shit, and don't know a damn thing about the law.

If you knew half of what you claimed you did, you should have made a few hundred million by now, instead you post on USMB all day, and pose as someone who knows the law.

I call

 

[William Joyce]

He was trespassing on church property. Charge him for that.

 

[jknowgood]

Faulty comparison. Gravesites represent real people.

Trotting him in front of a "congregation" to "confess" something he doesn't believe amounts to mind control.

Just because you don't believe in him, doesn't mean he is not real. For all the people that do believe, that will offend them. So if he apologizes to them it doesn't mean he is professing his faith.

 

[Pogo]

He was trespassing on church property. Charge him for that.

You'd have to prove that. The (alleged) trespass would have happened two months ago. No witnesses.
Good luck on that.

 

[Pogo]

Faulty comparison. Gravesites represent real people.

Trotting him in front of a "congregation" to "confess" something he doesn't believe amounts to mind control.

Just because you don't believe in him, doesn't mean he is not real. For all the people that do believe, that will offend them. So if he apologizes to them it doesn't mean he is professing his faith.

Not what I believe -- what *he* believes. If you're forcing him to mouth an "apology" he doesn't believe himself, all you're doing is hiring an actor to read a script. What's the point? Other than mind control?

 

[Pogo]

I don't believe the boy should get time, probably make him get in front of the congregation on Sunday morning and apologize for being a stupid teenager would suffice. One thing for the ones sticking up for this boy. If he went to one of your loved ones grave site and did something similar, would you feel the same? Our children need to be taught to respect others.

Faulty comparison. Gravesites represent real people.

Trotting him in front of a "congregation" to "confess" something he doesn't believe amounts to mind control.

well, that's sort of the point of punishment isn't it? He needs to go apologize to the church for insulting THEIR beliefs with THEIR property. He doesn't have to agree with their beliefs to do that.

Who has established that that's what his intention was?

Intent is irrelevant.

You don't even have to KNOW you committed a crime to be convicted.

Actually it's crucial here. Read the law.

That statement shows you are full of shit, and don't know a damn thing about the law.

If you knew half of what you claimed you did, you should have made a few hundred million by now, instead you post on USMB all day, and pose as someone who knows the law.

I call

Ironic from a poster who has yet to post any substance.
OOooooh, BS flag! I'm so impressed.

 

[Pogo]

The statue wasn't at all harmed or defaced, nor did its owners complain.

Anything else?

Police don't need a complaint to enforce the law.

But their prosecutor will need what's known as "evidence".

He posted it on Facebook. Case closed.

Exactly. That's not "evidence" of anything except having posted something on Nosebook.
He could simply say it's photoshopped. Who's going to prove it isn't with no witnesses?

"Case closed" is right.[/QUOTE]

Of course. Beyond that, it is for the judge or jury to decide. You can't have "photoshopped" as a carte blanche excuse to skirt the law. He sure made it look genuine, and if he's that much of a genius, maybe he needs some time alone to celebrate it.[/QUOTE]

So you can be jailed for photoshopping if it's "sacrilege". That what you're saying?

You may have something here--- literally millions of job opportunities for inspectors to go door to door inspecting everybody's computers for evidence of disrespect to Religion Inc.!

What a shot in the arm for the economy. Get Cotton Mather on the phone right away; we need an experienced hand at the helm.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The boy is being punished more for his state of mind than the actual act. Most criminal laws have enhancements for state of mind.

A con supporting thought crimes. Can this get any better?

Katz is well-known as a psychotic nut. She's less a conservative than she is an authoritarian.