Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue?

article

SEPTEMBER 10--A Pennsylvania teenager has been charged with desecrating a statue of Jesus after he posted Facebook photos that showed him simulating a sex act with the statue. According to State Police officials, the boy posed for the photos in late-July in front of Love In the Name of Christ, a Christian organization in Everett, the boy’s hometown. The teenager, who was not identified by cops, was charged yesterday with desecration of a venerated object, a misdemeanor. His case will be handled in juvenile court.

14 year old being stupid.
Is this really even against the law? Distasteful and immature yeah, but illegal?
Seems like a violation of freedom of speech or something.
He could probably claim it is art lol.


I see people do this to ronald mcdonald and other statues so whats so special here? If it were a statue of Zues or Santa would he have been charged?

( can't figure out how to add pic.)

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare



Here you go.

I saw this the other day. I just don't see a crime here and agree, this is covered under freedom of speech.
Though I think it lack maturity, this is NOT a crime.

As I said when I posted this to my fb page the other day...Only when one's sensibilities are smacking in the face will one truly know if they desire freedom for all.

a reply to: Jakal26

Thanks

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

The only way I can see him being charged for anything is if he damaged it in some way. That can include urination otherwise this is a matter or his parents not big brother.

If no harm was caused to the statue there is absolutely no reason to have the police involved.

If he had done something where he exposed himself then that would be public indecency at the worst but even then it is a picture and if that was prosecutable I guess the cops need to start on the backlogs of videos out there.

This is freaking stupid it harmed no one.

lol get whasts coming, obey or get locked up-

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

From: www.washingtonpost.com...

The law provides,

A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he:

(1) intentionally desecrates any public monument or structure, or place of worship or burial;

(2) intentionally desecrates any other object of veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof in any public place; …

Definitions. — “Desecrate.” 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.

Sounds like it is a law, and it sounds like he will be charged.

Ooops...Taking back what I said here because the poster above that I didn't see because I was typing proved otherwise.

Stupid charges, nonetheless.

I guess ole Ronald Mac isn't "venerated", huh? LOL

a reply to: Elton

Yes but wouldn't that only apply to state and federal public property? Churches are privately owned so I am not seeing where this law would come into play.

originally posted by: Jakal26
Ooops...Taking back what I said here because the poster above that I didn't see because I was typing proved otherwise.

Stupid charges, nonetheless.

I guess ole Ronald Mac isn't "venerated", huh? LOL

HAHA by the looks of most of the American population I would say that ol ronald is much more venerated.

All praise be to the toxic big mac of prophecy

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Right...

Praise be unto the holy nuggets.
Ummm...did someone say nuggets?

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare
It would seem to me that - if you go onto private property TO perform such an act, you've exceeded the bounds of decency and civility...and thus, civil misconduct could apply.
If this kid came into your yard, and had the same kind of photo taken of himself with your young daughter's face where the statue's face is in the incriminating photo...then, posted the photo online - having never forced said daughter to do anything...would you &/or your daughter feel/be violated?

Maybe something to consider...

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

I'm guessing maybe the church wants him charged.
Second....

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

If he did it to a mannequin in the middle of J.C. Penney store he'd probably be charged with something too.

Really, people don't want to see this kind of stuff in their community, and that's why laws are passed.

Freedom of speech? Give me a break. I suppose you would like it if he holds a burning flag in one hand at the same time?

When I was growing up stuff like this wasn't allowed no matter what your religion or lack of...

What if someone takes a pic of your wife and photoshops a donkey into the pic giving it to her good, and posts it online for the world to see. Freedom of speech? Art? I don't think so.

Let's call stuff what it is and put an end to this drivel about everyone ELSE's rights besides our own!

a reply to: WanDash

I will begrudgingly admit that what you have said here makes sense.

a reply to: AreUKiddingMe

Again, I'm going to have to agree, to some extent.
The dumb part on his behalf, was posting it online.

When I was growing up stuff like this wasn't allowed no matter what your religion or lack of

When I was growing up, had I done this...my parents would have beat my ass into next week. Though, the cops would not have been involved. Welcome to the internet age, I guess.

a reply to: Jakal26
No grudge here... ...but thanks for the acknowledgment.
Kids will be kids... But - if kids don't have to deal with consequences...they'll do this to you and yours without a second thought...too.

My son had to deal with the consequences of 'egging' the Superintendent of Schools' home... Wasn't fun for any of us.
He wasn't the only one...and, some of the other perpetrators escaped unscathed (they didn't admit their participation - and he, and those that did admit...didn't rat on them). I don't think he's egged anyone-else's house since, though...
(WHEW!)

a reply to: WanDash

I just hope that the consequences aren't so severe that they ruin his life instead of instilling some decency. Maybe some community service, something like that. Probation seems to be a way just to get the "hook" in them for life. I've seen it happen too many times with kids that would have otherwise probably learned from their mistakes if showed the wrongs of their ways.

Maybe, in the end, that is why I was initially advocating something I am now backtracking on. (underplaying it)
But hey, at least I'm man enough to admit when I was wrong or just not thinking as clearly as I could have been...lol

I'm gonna LMAO if he winds up in jail for more than 72 hours over this. Rest assured, he'll find out what it's like to be on the 'receiving' end of that position ... and I'm certain there are a couple of Christian correctional officers who will make sure of it.

a reply to: Snarl

I'm certain there are a couple of Christian correctional officers who will make sure of it.

And if they do such a thing defining themselves as "Christian" will need to go the way of the wind. You know, that pesky "turn the other cheek" thing.

I believe such a punish is a bit much for this. Jesus, man.

a reply to: Jakal26

LOL

You know, that pesky "turn the other cheek" thing.

I was going in more for the, "Do unto others" bit.