Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Teen Faces Jail Over Raunchy Jesus Pic [UPDATE]" video.

  1. This is lewd misconduct in public, it is illegal.  It can also be considered vandalism.  Religion has nothing to do with it.  It is no different if this person were to do it to a garden gnome on someone else's private property. 
    3
  2. How it is unconstitutional?  It is defacing private property.  It is also lewd conduct on private property. 
    1
  3. Chaoitcme Ruining the symbolism of the statue could be consider defacing it. The owner didn't intend to have that statue symbolize oral sex.  If they did they would have put it up that way. If the statue was put up by the government then I would agree it should be removed.   
    1
  4. Chaoitcme When it comes to the law that 2 years is the max and there to basically punish repeat offenders or those on parole.  This boy will most likely get probation and maybe community service.  Hardly anyone get punished to the max. I knew a guy who was facing 11 felony charges and over 50 years of prison time.  He got only 2 felonies, 5 years, and now 10 years parole.  
    1
  5. karl john Lewd misconduct is any lewd actions, it doesn't matter if they are nude or not.  That statue, to that owner, could have most likely symbolized something.  That boy doing that to that statue and then posting pictures of it gave it a different symbol that owner didn't want so that is vandalism.  If the owner wanted that statue to symbolized that they would have put it up in a similar fashion.   
    1
  6. Dave Blair Than vandalism is off the table.  You still have lewd misconduct. 
    1
  7. BlackLotus30 Yes it is.  It was making a sexual gesture in public.  Try doing that to a statue in a park and see what happens. 
    1
  8. Andrew Chase One could argue that property was damaged.  The owner puts up this statue on private property to symbolize something.  That symbolism has now been destroyed.  This was lewd misconduct.  It is no different than make a sexual gesture in public.  Try going to a part and doing that to a statue there.   
    1
  9. Andrew Chase http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/lewd.html It doesn't state that there has to be nudity. Damage?  Well the person putting that statue on their private property did so for symbolism. That symbolism could have been ruined for that particular object now.  Instead of meaning something religious to that private individual it now means something sexual.  Based on that we have vandalism.  Now that is a bit of a stretch but I can see it happening.  But you do have lewd misconduct.   
    1
  10. Keith Voltaire Yep, I am a troll when I gave a definition of lewd misconduct.  Try again. 
    1
  11. Ed Davis Great point.  That is what I was leaning too.   
    1