Hold the door!
they both were rock hard.
Didja hear about the jurisprudence fetishist?
He got off on a technicality.
My Security System goes off.
I added a spoiler box to make it comply with the two-click rule.
[ol][li]As long as you use your own property, this looks like flag-burning or cross-burning. None of the police’s business.[/li][li]Trespassing is another matter.[/li][li]I appreciate the consideration this kid showed in making it clear that he is a childish asshole. The Internet and social media are good for that.[/ol][/li]Regards,
Shodan
When Bricker said desecrating a statute, I though some Republican was pissing on the ACA law.
As for the statue, what would the response of the law be if it were a gnome? Or if he took a picture with his arm around this statue. If there were a trespassing issue, they should be charged the same. If both those cases would be okay, than this one should be also.
If he took a picture with his arm around it, that wouldn’t be desecration, would it?
But you make a very good point - if things were different, then they wouldn’t be the same.
Regards,
Shodan
“Pennsylvania law defines desecration 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.””
So if you had plans to dry-hump the statue of Rocky Balboa, I would reconsider it.
I’ve been through Everett and I know the statue in question; my money says his is not the only picture like that floating around. Depending on his age, I surprised he didn’t get hit with producing child pornography for having/being an underaged child simulating a sex act.
I was in a rural community ------ usually it was one of the sheep.
would a lawn gnome kidnapping with your team logo on it face this charge?
It was definitely nonconsensual sex-the victim was stoned from start to finish.
Sure it wasn’t more like plastered?
:smack:
(Leviticus made me say it)
Doesn’t Matthew 11:28 cover this?
What? It says “to,” not “on?”
Nevermind.
As teenagers’ assholish behaviour go, I would put this very low on the scale. If it’s the only assholish thing he ever did, he probably should be a role-model. He didn’t even endanger anybody, not even himself, which is already a feat.
And yes, I’m a liberal atheist, but frankly, I can’t see myself being very bothered by a kid doing that, even if I were a devout Christian. Artists have done much worse to “venerated objects”. And a statue isn’t holy in any way for a Christian (contrarily to, for instance, a consecrated host for a Catholic), so it isn’t even desacration.
So, Meh…
Holy $#!*. I thought for sure this was a leftover law from 18xx but it was only passed (relatively) recently???
You have to understand PA and the number of colleges and breweries we have. Moving and modifying various statues and artworks is almost a state tradition. I believe the law actually came out of a spray-paint campaign when “Save Soviet Jewry” was common around synagogs.
(Adding “Win Valuable Prizes” was almost a requirement for graduation at Pitt)
That’s a pretty deceptive story.
The linked story begins:
But the details are that the “porn-related” material was a radio interview between Howard Stern and a porn star, and the criminal charges were dropped when the accusations were disproved.
So the story is factual, but deceptive.
Wait, what? He’s 14? I thought he was 17. If he’s actually below the age of consent then shouldn’t the statue be the one being charged with something? It really was statutory but the other way around.
How old is the statue?