Teen facing 2 years for photo with statue

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 9:00:22 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I'm pretty sure the people here who are saying the person has the right to defile a religious statue as freedom of speech would be jumping all over anyone who burned a cross in front of a mostly black church or picketed a gay funeral...

Oh wait...


That said - it's a stupid 14yo.  I agree with a few of the other posters - say about 500 hours of community service.  Obviously his parents didn't teach him to respect others, maybe that will. 

i would not be so quick to jump on the parents.  after all, there is no way this kid took this picture.  one of his friends did.

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 15, 2014 10:44:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2014 9:00:22 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I'm pretty sure the people here who are saying the person has the right to defile a religious statue as freedom of speech would be jumping all over anyone who burned a cross in front of a mostly black church or picketed a gay funeral...

Oh wait...


That said - it's a stupid 14yo.  I agree with a few of the other posters - say about 500 hours of community service.  Obviously his parents didn't teach him to respect others, maybe that will. 

i would not be so quick to jump on the parents.  after all, there is no way this kid took this picture.  one of his friends did.

Well, there is a way.  Not sure he had the brain cells needed to figure it out, though. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 9:22:37 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Speaking of westboro - did anything change with them after their founder died? 

yeah.  one of his kids replaced him.  PRAISE JESUS! 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 10:45:26 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Sept 15, 2014 10:44:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i would not be so quick to jump on the parents.  after all, there is no way this kid took this picture.  one of his friends did.

Well, there is a way.  Not sure he had the brain cells needed to figure it out, though. 

agreed.  i was expressing an opinion there, not a scientific fact, arch.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 9:26:20 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Sept 15, 2014 9:08:46 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The Captain-are you/were you intimidated or feared for your life by the boy simulating sex with the statue?

How does a burning cross put anyone in fear of their life? The point was drawing a parallel on trespassing on church property to do something that is against the resone that public access is granted.

the front yard of a black person being persecuted is totally different than a public place that has public access. 

but let's be frank: do you think this constitutes a HATE CRIME?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 10:07:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Sept 15, 2014 1:22:33 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

And if a person is already old enough to be in college, they are old enough to have some sensibility and know the difference between right & wrong - and not act out like a moron - just to "impress" his friends as the college clown & get a few laughs from his peers

It's ignorant, and completely disrespectful - that young man should be given a year of community service - even if it's doing grounds keeping for the church, picking up trash in a public park, or cleaning public restrooms.

People get outraged when other statues or symbols are desecrated or vandalized in any way. How is this any different? It's a complete lack of respect (not much different than someone burning the flag or spray painting over gravestones, etc.

I wonder how this young man would feel if someone tipped the headstone of a family member - or pee'd on it?

You can't compare outright vandalism that damages property to posing for a picture.  This would be more like teabagging the headstone of a relative and posting a picture online. 

This was an act that some find offensive.  Offensive doesn't equal illegal.  And unfortunately Christians have enough in their ranks that have no problem offending others, that I don't think they can cry foul when someone offends them.  I agree with others that free speech wins here.

i don't think it can be put much better than this.

[justme]

1) That statute looks quite close to the road. I wouldn't be totally surprised if it's within the easement (I think that's what it's called) where the city/county actually owns that property in case they want to expand the road or install sidewalks. So he very well could be on public property.

2) What if this was a statute of a gorilla and it was a photo of the kid tea bagging it? Should he be arrested? Jailed? (And this is a true thing that happened, it was part of a frat's scavenger hunt and the statute was most definitely on private property - but was restaurants/shops/tourist trap stuff so of course they welcomed all the public. No one got arrested or even kicked out though.)

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 10:41:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2014 8:31:21 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

But you do have a right not to have your property defaced. And a right not to be harassed.

defacement is something that needs fixing.  there is no defacement here.
harassment applies to people, not statues.  there is no harassment here.

The statue is used for the harassment of people of that faith. And the picture can't be fixed. It is out there.

[zibazinski]

This picture will haunt him forever. He will never be able to live it down. For everyone of his friends that think its funny, they are clueless unless their parents tell them, of the long lasting ramifications of his actions. I miss being able to be stupid and get away with it but reality is what it is.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 10:07:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Sept 15, 2014 1:22:33 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

And if a person is already old enough to be in college, they are old enough to have some sensibility and know the difference between right & wrong - and not act out like a moron - just to "impress" his friends as the college clown & get a few laughs from his peers

It's ignorant, and completely disrespectful - that young man should be given a year of community service - even if it's doing grounds keeping for the church, picking up trash in a public park, or cleaning public restrooms.

People get outraged when other statues or symbols are desecrated or vandalized in any way. How is this any different? It's a complete lack of respect (not much different than someone burning the flag or spray painting over gravestones, etc.

I wonder how this young man would feel if someone tipped the headstone of a family member - or pee'd on it?

You can't compare outright vandalism that damages property to posing for a picture.  This would be more like teabagging the headstone of a relative and posting a picture online. 

This was an act that some find offensive.  Offensive doesn't equal illegal.  And unfortunately Christians have enough in their ranks that have no problem offending others, that I don't think they can cry foul when someone offends them.  I agree with others that free speech wins here.

That is petty. There are a lot of Christians that berate Christians that defile the religious artifacts of other religions.

[justme]

Sept 15, 2014 11:46:23 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 10:41:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

defacement is something that needs fixing.  there is no defacement here.
harassment applies to people, not statues.  there is no harassment here.

The statue is used for the harassment of people of that faith. And the picture can't be fixed. It is out there.

What if he did this to a statute of a gorilla or clown on private property?

[Deleted]

And if there are natural consequences to his behavior... If people are offended and treat him as such, etc. That is justifiable. You can't be free of the results of your actions either. BUT that does nto mean we need to criminalize behavior that is not physically hurting another person or property. 

Slippery slope to the thought police. People are easily offended these days we don't need to give them ammunition.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 10:59:36 GMT -5 justme said:

1) That statute looks quite close to the road. I wouldn't be totally surprised if it's within the easement (I think that's what it's called) where the city/county actually owns that property in case they want to expand the road or install sidewalks. So he very well could be on public property.

2) What if this was a statute of a gorilla and it was a photo of the kid tea bagging it? Should he be arrested? Jailed? (And this is a true thing that happened, it was part of a frat's scavenger hunt and the statute was most definitely on private property - but was restaurants/shops/tourist trap stuff so of course they welcomed all the public. No one got arrested or even kicked out though.)

There is a huge difference between a statue of a gorilla and a statue of the Christian Saviour in front of a place of Christian worship.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 11:53:34 GMT -5 justme said:

Sept 15, 2014 11:46:23 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

The statue is used for the harassment of people of that faith. And the picture can't be fixed. It is out there.

What if he did this to a statute of a gorilla or clown on private property?

At most trespassing. This kid is not being charged with trespassing.

[justme]

Sept 15, 2014 11:54:46 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 10:59:36 GMT -5 justme said:

1) That statute looks quite close to the road. I wouldn't be totally surprised if it's within the easement (I think that's what it's called) where the city/county actually owns that property in case they want to expand the road or install sidewalks. So he very well could be on public property.

2) What if this was a statute of a gorilla and it was a photo of the kid tea bagging it? Should he be arrested? Jailed? (And this is a true thing that happened, it was part of a frat's scavenger hunt and the statute was most definitely on private property - but was restaurants/shops/tourist trap stuff so of course they welcomed all the public. No one got arrested or even kicked out though.)

There is a huge difference between a statue of a gorilla and a statue of the Christian Saviour in front of a place of Christian worship.

There is no difference in the eyes of the law, at least in the US. "Government shall make no laws regarding religion" or something along those paraphrased lines. If it's not defacement and illegal against a non-religious statute, then it is not against a religious one. After all, Jane Goodall and her followers may be deeply offended for those pictures with a gorilla or the Church of Scientology would be offended at that happening with whatever they make statutes of. 

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 15, 2014 11:57:08 GMT -5 justme said:

Sept 15, 2014 11:54:46 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

There is a huge difference between a statue of a gorilla and a statue of the Christian Saviour in front of a place of Christian worship.

There is no difference in the eyes of the law, at least in the US. "Government shall make no laws regarding religion" or something along those paraphrased lines. If it's not defacement and illegal against a non-religious statute, then it is not against a religious one. After all, Jane Goodall and her followers may be deeply offended for those pictures with a gorilla or the Church of Scientology would be offended at that happening with whatever they make statutes of. 

That is not true. 

[justme]

Sept 15, 2014 11:57:52 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Sept 15, 2014 11:57:08 GMT -5 justme said:

There is no difference in the eyes of the law, at least in the US. "Government shall make no laws regarding religion" or something along those paraphrased lines. If it's not defacement and illegal against a non-religious statute, then it is not against a religious one. After all, Jane Goodall and her followers may be deeply offended for those pictures with a gorilla or the Church of Scientology would be offended at that happening with whatever they make statutes of. 

That is not true. 

What's not true?

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 15, 2014 12:00:53 GMT -5 justme said:

Sept 15, 2014 11:57:52 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

That is not true. 

What's not true?

That religion doesn't factor into determination of crimes.   

[justme]

Sept 15, 2014 12:01:56 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Sept 15, 2014 12:00:53 GMT -5 justme said:

What's not true?

That religion doesn't factor into determination of crimes.   

They do in those states that have hate crimes on the books. Not sure if every state does? But those hate crime laws don't make something illegal just because it involves one of the covered items - it just increases the severity of the sentence of something that's already illegal. Beating someone to a pulp is a crime, if it's because of their religion it becomes a hate crime and they can get more time.

If taking a crude photo with a statute isn't illegal, it doesn't suddenly become illegal because it's a religious statute. At least from my understanding. 

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 15, 2014 12:05:10 GMT -5 justme said:

Sept 15, 2014 12:01:56 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

That religion doesn't factor into determination of crimes.   

They do in those states that have hate crimes on the books. Not sure if every state does? But those hate crime laws don't make something illegal just because it involves one of the covered items - it just increases the severity of the sentence of something that's already illegal. Beating someone to a pulp is a crime, if it's because of their religion it becomes a hate crime and they can get more time.

If taking a crude photo with a statute isn't illegal, it doesn't suddenly become illegal because it's a religious statute. At least from my understanding. 

All that means is that there can be a difference in the eyes of law when religion is involved in a crime and when religion is not involved.  All other discussion is just about how much of a difference.  

[The Captain]

Sept 15, 2014 10:44:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2014 9:00:22 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I'm pretty sure the people here who are saying the person has the right to defile a religious statue as freedom of speech would be jumping all over anyone who burned a cross in front of a mostly black church or picketed a gay funeral...

Oh wait...


That said - it's a stupid 14yo.  I agree with a few of the other posters - say about 500 hours of community service.  Obviously his parents didn't teach him to respect others, maybe that will. 

i would not be so quick to jump on the parents.  after all, there is no way this kid took this picture.  one of his friends did.

DJ - you may be right. However, I'm pretty comfortable that my DD has been taught enough about respecting others that she'd never think of doing anything like that.    Only time will tell if I'm right.

I also don't buy into the whole "all teenage boys are stupid" argument.  I've known many young men who would walk away from crap like this and tell their friends it's not cool.

[ArchietheDragon]

I don't think of myself as a bad person.  I am not a perfect person by any stretch of the imagination, but I think I am mostly ok.   (Maybe others here will disagree.)  But during my younger years I did worse than the kid in the OP did.   Not that I am proud or necessarily happy that I did, but I did.  People do stupid things.    I would bet much of my savings that this kid will never see Juvie, or get any sort of lasting punishment.   It will be forgotten and he will reminisce about it with his friends in 20 years and laugh. 

[justme]

Sept 15, 2014 12:09:25 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Sept 15, 2014 12:05:10 GMT -5 justme said:

They do in those states that have hate crimes on the books. Not sure if every state does? But those hate crime laws don't make something illegal just because it involves one of the covered items - it just increases the severity of the sentence of something that's already illegal. Beating someone to a pulp is a crime, if it's because of their religion it becomes a hate crime and they can get more time.

If taking a crude photo with a statute isn't illegal, it doesn't suddenly become illegal because it's a religious statute. At least from my understanding. 

All that means is that there can be a difference in the eyes of law when religion is involved in a crime and when religion is not involved.  All other discussion is just about how much of a difference.  

My discussion has been whether this would be considered a crime if it wasn't religious. When I look up defacing in the dictionary - he did not do that. He also did not damage the statue. I'm not sure how you pollute a statue, so I'm going to go with a no on that one. I suppose an argument could be made that squatting on a statue is "physically mistreating it", though there's several non-religious statues out there that people squat/sit/climb on. 

[Tennesseer]

I have to wonder if the church leaves the statue out in the rain.  Do we get to charge Nature with a crime for eroding the statue?  

[Angel!]

Sept 15, 2014 11:52:19 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 10:07:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

You can't compare outright vandalism that damages property to posing for a picture.  This would be more like teabagging the headstone of a relative and posting a picture online. 

This was an act that some find offensive.  Offensive doesn't equal illegal.  And unfortunately Christians have enough in their ranks that have no problem offending others, that I don't think they can cry foul when someone offends them.  I agree with others that free speech wins here.

That is petty. There are a lot of Christians that berate Christians that defile the religious artifacts of other religions.

Not meant to be petty.  Just a fact.  There are people that call themselves Christians that feel they are not only ok, but justified in burning holy books of other religions, holding rallies at funerals, etc.  Those things are legal under freedom of speech, this should be as well.  The only thing that changed is the group that feels offended.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 11:46:23 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 10:41:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

defacement is something that needs fixing.  there is no defacement here.
harassment applies to people, not statues.  there is no harassment here.

The statue is used for the harassment of people of that faith. And the picture can't be fixed. It is out there.

i am a Christian, and i don't feel "harassed".  so, either we have a different meaning of that term, or you have it wrong.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 11:46:23 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 10:41:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

defacement is something that needs fixing.  there is no defacement here.
harassment applies to people, not statues.  there is no harassment here.

The statue is used for the harassment of people of that faith. And the picture can't be fixed. It is out there.

sure, but it is not a physical object.  if you don't like it, photoshop it with an image of Obama or something. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 11:54:46 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Sept 15, 2014 10:59:36 GMT -5 justme said:

1) That statute looks quite close to the road. I wouldn't be totally surprised if it's within the easement (I think that's what it's called) where the city/county actually owns that property in case they want to expand the road or install sidewalks. So he very well could be on public property.

2) What if this was a statute of a gorilla and it was a photo of the kid tea bagging it? Should he be arrested? Jailed? (And this is a true thing that happened, it was part of a frat's scavenger hunt and the statute was most definitely on private property - but was restaurants/shops/tourist trap stuff so of course they welcomed all the public. No one got arrested or even kicked out though.)

There is a huge difference between a statue of a gorilla and a statue of the Christian Saviour in front of a place of Christian worship.

that's true.  a gorilla wouldn't look as good in front of a church.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 12:09:30 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Sept 15, 2014 10:44:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i would not be so quick to jump on the parents.  after all, there is no way this kid took this picture.  one of his friends did.

DJ - you may be right. However, I'm pretty comfortable that my DD has been taught enough about respecting others that she'd never think of doing anything like that.    Only time will tell if I'm right.

I also don't buy into the whole "all teenage boys are stupid" argument.  I've known many young men who would walk away from crap like this and tell their friends it's not cool.

i was just thinking that someone might have put him up to it.  my son knows not to do something like this.  but he is 14, also.  and as a 14 year old, he has a LOT of social pressure to do stupid things.  he is going to make decisions i won't agree with.  and he will have to suffer the consequences for those.  esp if i find out. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 12:12:59 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

I don't think of myself as a bad person.  I am not a perfect person by any stretch of the imagination, but I think I am mostly ok.   (Maybe others here will disagree.)  But during my younger years I did worse than the kid in the OP did.   Not that I am proud or necessarily happy that I did, but I did.  People do stupid things.    I would bet much of my savings that this kid will never see Juvie, or get any sort of lasting punishment.   It will be forgotten and he will reminisce about it with his friends in 20 years and laugh. 

agreed.  if we were all held to account for our stupidity in our youth, none (or almost none) of us would ever have been given a chance.