Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue?

originally posted by: mOjOm
You just gotta love these Moral Christian Soldiers!! Man the world is so full of Irony it's unbelievable!!

REVEALED: DA prosecuting kid for raunchy Jesus photo prank committed adultery, is a porn fan

The Pennsylvania attorney who is prosecuting a 14-year-old boy for simulating oral sex with a statue of Jesus posted porn-related material online and has used his office to conduct an extramarital affair that resulted in criminal charges against him.

Six years ago, Higgins admitted to having extramarital sex in his local courthouse office with a woman following a meeting of the Bedford County Republicans. At the time, Higgins was the organization’s vice-chair. The woman later sued him, accusing him of sexual assault, but the charges were later dropped.

Way to go there buddy. Keep up the good fight for Morality!!

In all fairness however, we don't know if "morality" has anything to do with the prosecution. Perhaps the kid was a known troublemaker who kept getting away with stuff and this is the only thing they could pin on him. Perhaps the DA's biggest campaign contributer hated the kid's dad and asked him to find something to pin on him and all they could find was a 90 year old law. Or the kid could have called the DA's kid names. There are a whole lot of potential hypotheticals and it is a tad bit unreasonable to blame "evil" Christians for it, especially since the church in question is refusing to press charges.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
In all fairness however, we don't know if "morality" has anything to do with the prosecution. ....There are a whole lot of potential hypotheticals and it is a tad bit unreasonable to blame "evil" Christians for it, especially since the church in question is refusing to press charges.

While those are all good guesses also, I'm going with the morality angle mainly because of the DA's own words from the article. Maybe you didn't read it.

Last week, Higgins invoked a “rarely used” law dating back to 1972 to charge the boy, saying that the “troubled young man” offended community morals with his display in front of a church in Everett, Pennsylvania. The teen faces up to two years in prison. “His actions constitute a violation of the law, and he will be prosecuted accordingly,” he was quoted as saying. “If that tends to upset the ‘anti-Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-display-of-Ten-Commandments’ crowd, I make no apologies.”

Looks like it was ONE of those "evil" Christians after all. Just another one of them rotten apples I guess.

I don't blame the church and have much respect for them for dealing with it the way they did. I think the church did what was appropriate. But it seems this DA is a Lamb who has run astray from such level headed thinking and decided to become the Lion.

That's where my accusations start becoming a little more reasonable wouldn't you say??

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc
In all fairness however, we don't know if "morality" has anything to do with the prosecution. ....There are a whole lot of potential hypotheticals and it is a tad bit unreasonable to blame "evil" Christians for it, especially since the church in question is refusing to press charges.

While those are all good guesses also, I'm going with the morality angle mainly because of the DA's own words from the article. Maybe you didn't read it.

Last week, Higgins invoked a “rarely used” law dating back to 1972 to charge the boy, saying that the “troubled young man” offended community morals with his display in front of a church in Everett, Pennsylvania. The teen faces up to two years in prison. “His actions constitute a violation of the law, and he will be prosecuted accordingly,” he was quoted as saying. “If that tends to upset the ‘anti-Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-display-of-Ten-Commandments’ crowd, I make no apologies.”

Looks like it was ONE of those "evil" Christians after all. Just another one of them rotten apples I guess.

I don't blame the church and have much respect for them for dealing with it the way they did. I think the church did what was appropriate. But it seems this DA is a Lamb who has run astray from such level headed thinking and decided to become the Lion.

That's where my accusations start becoming a little more reasonable wouldn't you say??

And when did politicians (the DA is an elective office) actually mean what they say and do what they mean? Considering that this is a rarely, if ever, used statute and most DAs in the state even know it exists like every other obscure almost 100 year old statute, do you not think that there are most likely other underlying motivators? Or do you think politics are that simple?

The reason why I became an athiest as an adult was that I discovered that there was no objective evidence to support the premise presented before me by religious people. I try to use that same principle going the other way when blaming Christians for stuff. This case actually makes the majority if Christians look good and a single DA look like a dick given the church does not want to prosecute the kid but the government, throught it's elected representative does. Kind of more an arguement agsinst morons in government than Chrustians as a whole.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc
In all fairness however, we don't know if "morality" has anything to do with the prosecution. ....There are a whole lot of potential hypotheticals and it is a tad bit unreasonable to blame "evil" Christians for it, especially since the church in question is refusing to press charges.

While those are all good guesses also, I'm going with the morality angle mainly because of the DA's own words from the article. Maybe you didn't read it.

Last week, Higgins invoked a “rarely used” law dating back to 1972 to charge the boy, saying that the “troubled young man” offended community morals with his display in front of a church in Everett, Pennsylvania. The teen faces up to two years in prison. “His actions constitute a violation of the law, and he will be prosecuted accordingly,” he was quoted as saying. “If that tends to upset the ‘anti-Christian, ban-school-prayer, war-on-Christmas, oppose-display-of-Ten-Commandments’ crowd, I make no apologies.”

Looks like it was ONE of those "evil" Christians after all. Just another one of them rotten apples I guess.

I don't blame the church and have much respect for them for dealing with it the way they did. I think the church did what was appropriate. But it seems this DA is a Lamb who has run astray from such level headed thinking and decided to become the Lion.

That's where my accusations start becoming a little more reasonable wouldn't you say??

And when did politicians (the DA is an elective office) actually mean what they say and do what they mean? Considering that this is a rarely, if ever, used statute and most DAs in the state even know it exists like every other obscure almost 100 year old statute, do you not think that there are most likely other underlying motivators? Or do you think politics are that simple?

The reason why I became an athiest as an adult was that I discovered that there was no objective evidence to support the premise presented before me by religious people. I try to use that same principle going the other way when blaming Christians for stuff. This case actually makes the majority if Christians look good and a single DA look like a dick given the church does not want to prosecute the kid but the government, throught it's elected representative does. Kind of more an arguement agsinst morons in government than Chrustians as a whole.

I give up trying to correct typos on an iPhone 3. You know what I mean to say.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Or do you think politics are that simple?

My guess for the top reason why he is doing it is because he's just kinda of a dick and likes to push people around because he can being the DA. Only someone who get's off on their ability to abuse power would even consider sending some kid to jail for two years for doing what he did. Especially since the even the "Victim" in this case isn't pressing charges.

I do agree that it has it's footing in Politics too. I'm sure there are some deep personal issues for him as well. I didn't intend for the Christian angle as much as it might seem, although there is certainly a common trend with some of the Religiously minded that I was pointing out. Mainly I was trying to illustrate how it's always the loudest one's who complain about all the noise, ya know what I mean??

I always find it hilarious how it's usually the "Crusader for Justice" who is the biggest criminal in the room. Politicians are of course the kings of this hands down!! Everything from "Mission Accomplished" to "Vote for Change" and "You can keep your Health Plan". When I hear about someone in Politics talking about "Honesty and Working for the people" I expect Lighting every time!!

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Or do you think politics are that simple?

My guess for the top reason why he is doing it is because he's just kinda of a dick and likes to push people around because he can being the DA. Only someone who get's off on their ability to abuse power would even consider sending some kid to jail for two years for doing what he did. Especially since the even the "Victim" in this case isn't pressing charges.

I do agree that it has it's footing in Politics too. I'm sure there are some deep personal issues for him as well. I didn't intend for the Christian angle as much as it might seem, although there is certainly a common trend with some of the Religiously minded that I was pointing out. Mainly I was trying to illustrate how it's always the loudest one's who complain about all the noise, ya know what I mean??

I always find it hilarious how it's usually the "Crusader for Justice" who is the biggest criminal in the room. Politicians are of course the kings of this hands down!! Everything from "Mission Accomplished" to "Vote for Change" and "You can keep your Health Plan". When I hear about someone in Politics talking about "Honesty and Working for the people" I expect Lighting every time!!

I can't disagree with any of that.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Actually here are the trespass laws for PA

Criminal Trespass

Criminal trespass is committed when an individual knows that she is not allowed to enter a property but does so "by subterfuge," or by "breaking into" the property. When committed by subterfuge, it is a felony of the third degree. By "breaking into" a property, the law means unauthorized opening of a lock or through "an opening not designed for human access." This type is a second-degree felony.

Defiant Trespass

Defiant trespass is committed when an individual enters a property in defiance of some communication that states he is not allowed to do so. Such communication may be a "Do not enter" sign or a barrier clearly designed to exclude intruders such as a fence. Defiant trespass is a third-degree misdemeanor.

Simple Trespass

Simple trespass occurs when an individual trespasses onto a property for the purpose of "threatening or terrorizing" an occupant, starting a fire on the premises or defacing the premises. This would constitute a summary offense.

Agricultural Trespass

If a person enters an agricultural area that he is knowingly restricted from, it constitutes a third-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to a year imprisonment and a fine of "not less than $250."

Defenses

The law allows for a number of defenses, which include if the property was abandoned, the premises was open to the public or the trespasser reasonably believed she was authorized to be there.


Read more : www.ehow.com...

I think the fact that it was open to the public and from the pic it seems he is not even 20 feet from the road shows that no trespass laws were broken. If there were they probably would have charged him.

Actually, what you posted are summaries of the actual statues. Here, let's ellaborate on the one that might actually count:

(b.1) Simple trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place for the purpose of:
(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;
(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or
(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.

Having been in the legal profession, I know how attorneys think, and "damaging the premises" doesn't necessarily have to mean physical damage--it could also mean damaging the reputation of the premises, that being the church. I would call that a stretch, but it would be relatively easy to prove that the teen should have known that he was not licensed or privileged to be on the property, climbing the statue and simulating a sex act. Further, it would be simple to argue that, by photographing what he did and posting it on social media, he was knowingly causing damage to the reputation of the church (and, on a broader scale, the religion as a whole).

But, in any case, if the church isn't going to press charges for trespassing, our conversation is a moot point. All I was getting at in my original comment is that someone's vague defense using the first amendment to do what he did does not trump local law that prohibits trespassing.

ETA: Also, please note that, legally speaking, "threatening" someone does not have to entail physical or verbal actions.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

All I was getting at in my original comment is that someone's vague defense using the first amendment to do what he did does not trump local law that prohibits trespassing.

I am not going to argue that it was a first amendment right of his but to see you first claim being in a legal profession then say that local/state laws override constitutional amendments/laws makes me think there is something amiss.

Maybe some of these "Christians" should look into the concept of idolatry...

It's a rock. He put his junk near the surface of a rock.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

So what. Priests do that to little boys all the time.

As far as ill intention or mallice goes from people towards religion, needless to say there are far greater examples. This was in (14 yo) fun. Really going after the wrong guy, and doing it because they can since he's 14.

a reply to: Turq1
You made one of the best points in this whole thread. *Idolatry*. Supposedly, it's a sin....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Yes because a living person and a statue are so much alike. I say if she lets ya go for it and if she lets you it isn't going to cause a stir.

Maybe he can say the statue didn't have a problem with it or better yet he heard a message from god telling him to do it.

So, the 14 year old wouldn't have a problem with it then? Unless he venerates his mother ...

I mean, who cares how he feels? But to "play along" with your line of thinking ... a life sized picture of his mother would do.

You do realize you are talking about a 14 year old here. His friends have probably already done that because teenagers will do anything they can to belittle each other for a laugh.

Oh, I absolutely know we are talking about a 14 year old.

So .. anyways, my question was ... it would be perfectly OK to pose that way with his mom wouldn't it?

On a related note, somebody put up a very artistically talented statue of Satan with a massive erection in Vancouver - alongside the SkyTrain, nearby 'GrandView' Station. Get it?

I found a really good unedited picture of it, but I don't think it will be allowed to be posted here. So edited it is:

Grand View Satan

Some people say it was the work of talented University students. But I guess there are always alternative theories...

As for this:



I personally think it's pretty awesome and hilarious. Christianity is really, truly infamous for casting sexual shame and repression on people, particularly males, for centuries with all kinds of psychological hang-ups as the result.

What is the natural impulse and response to sexual repression? Rebellion. A good looking young man like that just wants to have fun and is making a statement, not giving a # what people think. Of course, that is naivete and part of being young (been there, done that)... but the general desire to do what one wants in good fun, and within reason, is totally fair game. Harsh judgement on the boy would only reflect that same Christian repression that seems to have reigned supreme for too long.

However, in line with the above opinions, should a Christian correctional officer be offended enough by the boy's act, I suppose he should also be allowed to let the boy be on the receiving end of the act depicted, as Snarl suggested. Even though that would be hundreds of thousands of times more illegal in this society than making a silly pose with a statue.

The boy will definitely want to be placed in protective custody though! His rear would be mighty sore after if he were in general population...

If I was in PA, I would head on over to that statue and depict a simulated gangbang photoshoot with a lot of others involved, then post it on that PA police and the DA's facebook pages. If I was the kid's parents, I would be contacting the ACLU for assistance.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Yes because a living person and a statue are so much alike. I say if she lets ya go for it and if she lets you it isn't going to cause a stir.

Maybe he can say the statue didn't have a problem with it or better yet he heard a message from god telling him to do it.

So, the 14 year old wouldn't have a problem with it then? Unless he venerates his mother ...

I mean, who cares how he feels? But to "play along" with your line of thinking ... a life sized picture of his mother would do.

You do realize you are talking about a 14 year old here. His friends have probably already done that because teenagers will do anything they can to belittle each other for a laugh.

Oh, I absolutely know we are talking about a 14 year old.

So .. anyways, my question was ... it would be perfectly OK to pose that way with his mom wouldn't it?

Grimpachi already pointed out to you that someone's mother (a real person) is VASTLY different than a statue. For one, you don't need permission from a statue to do what was done in the OP. Someone's mother would have to be forced or agree to such an act. If she agreed, then she is complicit and the son shouldn't be getting upset. So you are comparing apples to oranges here because you want to be offended that someone desecrated a stupid statue.

a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare
just a boy being stupid and trying to look cool in front of his friends. ground him. but juvi court seems a bit extreme. we all did stupid things as kids. teenagers are a scapegoat generation...no one, when it comes to these types of situations will be on his side in court. everyone will be offended because its Jesus and even though they aren't supposed to bring their personal beliefs into court..you know they will. if it had been George Washington or someone....I don't think the deal would be made so big. hes going to learn bad things in juvi. I say keep him out of there and if this is the worst thing he has ever done then GOD bless him.

a reply to: Jakal26



hahah.. too funny

bad taste maybe but what crime?

i have to say i would have done something to the statue as well. maybe not this but something goofy would have happened.

i was visiting someone at the hospital last year and in the lobby their was a manger scene. i hopped over the rope and jumped in the manger and propped up little baby jesus' head and posed for a pic.

its ok to be funny

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed


Its is a very disgusting ACT OF PUBLIC LEWD BEHAVIOR which has ALWAYS been illegal.

I sure wouldn't want my kids seeing this display of utter disregard for morals, ethics, logic, and reason, and throw in a huge portion of lewd and lascivious conduct.

I know there are a lot of very sensitive kids that would suffer emotional damage for seeing this kind of thing,

my wife and i would probably look over and start lol'ing and then id make sure my son/daughter caught a glimpse of the kid face raping the statue.....

i tend to get a kick out of people doing stupid(non violent) things. so does my wife so we try to point it out to each other as much as possible.
no point in being uptight all the time.

as far as kids suffering emotional damage.....are you serious?
are they all whiney little babies?