14 Year Old Poses With Statue, Charged with Desecration by Cops

[tomm2thumbs]

I wouldn't say it was the most clever thing someone has done with a statue, but apparently this one is worthy of filing actual police charges against the 14 year old boy. According to Police report (link below), the teen photo was taken and posted on Facebook in late-July in front of Love In the Name of Christ, a Christian organization in Everett, his hometown.






Here are the actual charges filed against the teen for the picture.



Thank GOD the police are on the case! LORD knows what else he might do!



Love the Jesus Facepalm photo 'the smoking gun' put with their report. Says it all.


Link

[tomm2thumbs]

1. Desecration of a Venerated Object

I hope he didn't get a Venerial Disease

[marym625]

36. Hilarious!

[A HERETIC I AM]

2. What's next? Blasphemy laws? Stoning for saying "Fuck God"?

This country embarrases the shit out of me.

[yuiyoshida]

3. It might be

Truthful to say, there are some who secretly envy Sharia Law, and want something like it in place, here, in the United States. The photo was a harmless prank, but there are some who would love to see this kid receive a caning for for it, just as they might do in Indonesia or Malaysia. You don't mess with their religion, or else...

[AtomicKitten]

4. the thought police are micromanaging again

what was that again about big government?

[tomm2thumbs]

5. It took Pennsylvania State Police almost 2 full months to catch their man... but they did it!

Photo July 20th... charges filed Sept 9th

This one must have had them really digging through mounds of clues and tracking down hundreds of leads to take that long. They'd make Barney Fife proud!

[LuvNewcastle]

6. Someone needs to tell them that it's a statue, not the real Jesus.

You can't rape a statue. It has absolutely no feelings. I see no crime here, just crude humor.

[tomm2thumbs]

7. Jesus may have just been trying to see who made that stellar belt

It would definitely go with his sandals

[CaptainTruth]

8. So who decides what objects are venerated & which are not?

I may have a beautiful antique front door with wood & stained glass work done by master craftsmen ... so if police break through it I can prosecute them for desecration (& destruction) of a venerated object?

And who decides what constitutes desecration? What if, given all the violence & brutality (anti-Christian acts) committed by police, I feel that having a police officer (or patrol car) anywhere near that statue of Christ desecrates it?

How many unarmed citizens has that teenager beat the crap out of? How many unarmed black men has he killed? How many times has he born false witness to conceal his crimes? It seems like a good case can be made that a police uniform near that statue certainly desecrates it.

[Chan790]

23. Personally...

I consider a 100' buffer zone around all family-planning clinics to be holy and sacred venerated spaces and consider the presence of these assholes to be desecration.

[uppityperson]

9. That cop has a filthy mind. The kid is obviously playing leap frog.

[starroute]

10. Here's the law in question.

It sounds like "desecrating" is limited to "Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise physically mistreating." I don't see any physical mistreatment, and there's nothing that seems to apply to taking offensive photographs.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.055.009.000.html

§ 5509. Desecration or sale of venerated objects.
(a) Offense defined.--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) if he intentionally desecrates any other object of
veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof in
any public place; or
(3) sells or attempts to sell a veteran's marker as
described in section 1913 of the act of August 9, 1955
(P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code. This paragraph
shall not apply to the sale of veterans' markers authorized
by statute.
(a.1) Historic burial lots and burial places.--A person
commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if the person
intentionally desecrates a historic burial lot or historic
burial place.
(b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"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.

[eppur_se_muova]

14. Exactly. He's got a good case for wrongful arrest. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

43. did you read the definition of "desecration"?

"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.

There's really no question that what the kid did was desecration by that definition. Just because it doesn't bother the sensibilities of anyone here doesn't mean that it wouldn't to a lot of people. The fact that the kid did it was because he KNEW that in doing it it would be thought as an outrage to a lot of people. Personally, I just find it rude and uncouth. But it isn't my statute nor is Jesus an entity I find to be spiritually significant. I also don't find what are believed to be holy depictions of other religions to be spiritually significant. There's no question, however, that they ARE to a great lot of others that WOULD be offended.

This statue belonged to and was on the property of people that venerate Jesus, and of course they would be offended by the kid's actions. And of course he knew that or he never would have bothered doing it since offending people was the point.

If this was a statue of Mohamed on the property of and owned by Muslims nobody here would be finding this so silly. But this isn't about what religion or religious monuments are considered sacred or whether or not they are. They ARE when a lot of people believe them to be whether you agree with them or not.

It's not rocket science. There ARE certain things that certain people venerate for whatever reason whether it's a religious statue or a memorial or a grave site, etc. Nobody here gets to decide what is ok to venerate and what isn't. The simple fact that it is KNOWN to be venerated by many who would find the kid's actions offensive is how desecration is defined, and it's right there in the law. No one here can claim that a lot of people would not be offended because of their religious feelings, and that's all that matters according to the law. Just because no one HERE is offended and even finds it to be humorous doesn't matter.

[treestar]

49. I agree, DU would give Muslims some slack

and they can be in some instances far more unreasonable about these things.

[MattBaggins]

28. They should stick with defacing or destroying objects as unlawful

The supreme court has already decided on this "offending people bullshit" by knocking down every flag desecration law that comes before them.

No if his was private property the church might be able to take avtion for trespass perhaps.

[starroute]

34. What if he'd taken a photo of the statue and photoshopped it?

Just as offensive to the people who want to take offense -- but no physical contact with the object at all. This is one version that it's very hard to get around the first amendment. What they're trying to criminalize is the expression and not the physical action.

[treestar]

48. outraging sensibilities

IMO that's an easy case. But there's no damage. Physically mistreating might be said to be there, though again, that's likely aimed at some sort of damage.

The kid's an asshole no doubt, but not a criminal most likely.

[starroute]

11. These laws mainly relate to flag-burning -- and are probably unconstitutional

In addition, it looks like the term "venerated object" -- and the fact that these laws mainly seem to be directed against flag-burning and defacing veterans' grave markers -- suggests that they were never intended to apply to religious symbols.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp108&sid=cp108UljC9&refer=&r_n=hr131.108&item=&&&sel=TOC_4748&

[Footnote] in 1989. In Johnson, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that burning an American flag as part of a political demonstration was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In that case, Gregory Johnson was convicted of violating a Texas law prohibiting the desecration of a `venerated object' after he publicly burned a stolen American flag in a protest outside of the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. The Texas law prohibited the intentional desecration of a national flag in a manner in which `the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action.' 10

[Footnote] His conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, but reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The United States Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the holding of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, finding that the act of burning an American flag during a protest rally was expressive conduct entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

[treestar]

47. Thanks - I was wondering about that

It's likely a minor charge and he's a juvenile, so they might just plead and get rid of it, but it would be interesting to see this interpretation of "venerated object" tested in the courts.

[Control-Z]

12. Is it wrong

that I literally laughed out loud?

[niyad]

20. no!! I got some damned funny looks for my laughter.

[tomm2thumbs]

21. never

never, never laugh during a sex act

it sends the wrong message

[brooklynite]

13. He's welcome to do that if he owns the statue...but he doesn't.

[jberryhill]

31. That's fine, however....

The offense you are thinking about is a civil action of trespass to chattels (along with trespass to property), where, provided the trespass has been discontinued, relief is in the form of monetary compensation of damages.

I agree with you that he did not have the right to enter the property and to climb on their statute.

However, the remedy for that, per se, is not a criminal charge.

[AzDar]

15. I'd maintain it's just a 'Reverse-Communion Sacrament'...

"Come Unto Me"--- Jesus

[IdaBriggs]

44. NO!!!

You owe me a keyboard cleaning!!!

DUZY!!!

And

[tomm2thumbs]

16. I hope the Police investigates the threat to the teenager made online as well

Hundreds of comments followed, many from outraged county residents. Several posted violent threats.

"Break his arms and legs, teach him some respect," one read.


Sounds like that community is just full of LOVE in Jesus name !!!!!
Ironically, the church involved, Love In the Name of Christ, also called Love INC
Corporate enough for you?


info on threats

[dickthegrouch]

22. What an excellent idea

He should file complaints against every unique user name making those threats. That should give the cops plenty to keep them busy.

[Union Scribe]

17. And a DU hero is born

[rickford66]

18. So we can define our own venerated objects?

Mmmm ..... let the games begin.

[tomm2thumbs]

19. How is it a sex act if his pants are on? (oh, it's that woo woo voodoo sex I have heard about...)

Make one think of Footloose mentality in that part of the world still exists



* and actually, even Jesus' pants are still on as well... now I know how virgin births happen

[jberryhill]

32. That's what I said many years ago under other circumstances

[Ilsa]

24. He's 14. Stupid cop. nt

[gvstn]

27. Charged 6 weeks after the actual act.

Very stupid cop! Unless the "church" had filed a complaint immediately because of some visible damage to the statue this whole thing is truly ridiculous. And what type of church doesn't want to forgive trespassing (at worst) especially when there was no monetary/property damage?

[TransitJohn]

25. I can see a trespassing charge, but

desecration of a venerated object? how is that constitutional?

[demwing]

26. Did you catch the victim's name?

"Love, Inc."

Too cute by half, and actually ironic.

[hunter]

29. Posted without comment... possibly NSFW

http://sarcasticsarcasms.blogspot.com/2013/05/sex-statues-18-inappropriate-public.html

http://thechive.com/2012/09/17/people-taking-advantage-of-statues-is-still-sexual-harassment-if-you-ask-me-70-photos

[tomm2thumbs]

30. that was an entertaining link!

who knew?!!

[Laelth]

39. Humans are sexual animals.

It's encoded (rather strongly) into our DNA. Any prude who abhors this fact is beating his or her head against a very sturdy brick wall that is millions of years old.

-Laelth

[stopbush]

33. Religion by its very nature screams out to be ridiculed

but once it's ridiculed it haz a sad.

[Warpy]

35. I guess they've never heard of Molesting Statues. Yes, it's a thing.

http://www.statuemolesters.com/

[marym625]

37. He took a blow for Jesus

What's wrong with that?

[deutsey]

38. Officer, I'd like file another complaint about the desecration of another venerated object

[Orrex]

41. Billions and billions served.

[JaneyVee]

40. I LOL'd.

[Orrex]

42. I love how "Love INC" is identified as the "victim."

If this enterprising youth had had a like-minded pal, then this other fellow could have had Jesus' back, as it were...

Not sure if that would be his "Left Behind" or turning the other cheek.

[MineralMan]

45. Juvenile. Of course, the boy IS 14, so

it's expected. Silly charge.

Wait 'til they see the photo of him copping a feel on a statue of Mary.

[treestar]

46. what is the actual charge?

does that state have a statute about "desecrating a venerated object?" If that's in the criminal code, it can be challenged under the First Amendment.