Yearbook prank -> 1 felony charge and 69 indecent exposure

An ankle bracelet? Has our country lost its mind?!?!

Yes! Our country has lost its mind. This kid is probably under 18, so I guess that means there will charges brought against the photographer, publisher, and school district for possession and distribution of child p*rn*graphy? Right?

Subterfuge wrote:

An ankle bracelet? Has our country lost its mind?!?!

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

Yes! Our country has lost its mind.

This kid is probably under 18, so I guess that means there will charges brought against the photographer, publisher, and school district for possession and distribution of child p*rn*graphy? Right?

Subterfuge wrote:

An ankle bracelet? Has our country lost its mind?!?!

Kid is 19 so the odds of him being 18 in the photo are really high. If you think public exposure should be legal, take it up with your local congressman. I doubt many people will agree with you....

A huge overreaction to fairly harmless juvenile stupidity.

Missed his age in the article.

I don't think public exposure should be legal. But this nonsense about 69 counts of indecent exposure plus a felony is insane! Adults in the school district and legal system are basically ruining his kid's life for a prank that actually could have (and should have) been prevented by whomever was responsible for choosing and reviewing photos as well as the company that edited and printed the yearbooks.

School administrators and prosecutors are pumping up their own egos, self-esteem, and "reputations" by treating this kid unjustly. The punishment far outweighs the crime. The article even says the details are difficult to discern.

Everyone has to look tough instead of having some common sense and compassion. A more appropriate response would have been making the kid pay for any recall and editing costs, write a letter of apology to his fellow students, principal and school board, maybe throw in some community service or similar penance that would help the school or serve other students.

I'm not even going to open the can of worms that is the hypocritical puritanical attitudes that also seems to be out of control in today's society. It's a p3n1s, so what; it's just a body part.

The kid should have to work at the school in some capacity until he earns enough to buy back every Yearbook and a replacement Yearbook.

Trump would put a stop to this.

Left a lousy tip wrote:

Adults out of control.

Agreed.

For some reason this reminds me of a high school hazing case where some kid put his finger in another kid's butt. I think the offender was charged with sex crimes, but it's not obvious to me that this was sexual at all. Which body parts and affiliated actions do we get to define as sexual?

Your country is just F'ed.

whoa horses wrote:

The kid should have to work at the school in some capacity until he earns enough to buy back every Yearbook and a replacement Yearbook.

Spot on. The kid made a "dumb kid" mistake that every dumb kid makes. (Maybe not the same but we've all done something that could be chalked up to 'just being a kid') He should be punished. But take this as a learning opportunity. He ruined the yearbook, he should have to replace every yearbook and not wish just a check from Mommy and Daddy. This is a perfect punishment.

From the Deadspin article:

"The 69 counts of indecent exposure were for every person present when the photo was taken."

If they didn't see it, they weren't exposed to it.

Do they bring up 70.000 counts of indecent exposure against someone if they go streaking thru a full football stadium?

Was CBS or Janet Jackson charged with 850 million counts of indecent exposure when Janet Jackson bared her nipple during the Super Bowl?

Seems a bit harsh, but the police and school administrators are not known for being reasonable and rational in such situations. Throwing the book at the culprit is always the knee jerk reaction and reason typically does not prevail.

Not a coincidence that this is in Maricopa County. Not exactly playing with a full deck in Sherriff Arpaio's jurisdiction.

The criminal courts should only assume jurisdiction over kids when they are really being criminals, not when they are being stupid kids. Schools are too frequently using the criminal system in lieu of discipline. That ends up making good kids who do stupid things into bad kids.

At the end of the day, I think this is just a PR play. The school district is pulling a CYA move in case they get sued by an illogical parent whose precious snowflake saw the photo in question. They are probably also trying to discourage future pranks. At the end of the day, the punishment will probably be much smaller than the charges, but in the meantime the kid's life is ruined. It is the long-term effect of the media coverage which will truly be unjust in this case.

It baffles me that police will get involved with a situation like this, but they rarely get involved with actual acts of violence in schools. Every day, kids are receiving suspensions and detentions for acts that would bring assault and battery charges in "the real world." I guess it's just a part of our society's bizarre ideology that violence is basically okay, but anything remotely sexual is reprehensible. For my money, if we're going to start prosecuting kids for in-school behavior, maybe we should start by bringing battery charges instead of suspensions when one student beats the hell out of another.

I guess for now, the message to high schoolers is this: If you want to be defiant, go knock another kid's teeth out. No one will do much of anything. But just make sure that no one sees your penis while you're doing it, because that will get the wheels of justice turning, and you'll be crushed beneath them.

Stuff like this happens all the time. Guy gets drunk, walks home, stops to pee on some bushes or fence, get's popped by the police for public drunk, BUT those bushes were in front of a school. NOW he is charged with indecent expose and he has to go on the sex offender register because he exposed himself at a school.... even if it was 11:30 at night.

Guy gets caught with weed at his house, has a hand gun laying on a table in the bed room. He get charged with brandishing a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

This kid is probably under 18, so I guess that means there will charges brought against the photographer, publisher, and school district for possession and distribution of child p*rn*graphy? Right?

Nudity is not pornography

VerminMeat wrote:

Stuff like this happens all the time. Guy gets drunk, walks home, stops to pee on some bushes or fence, get's popped by the police for public drunk, BUT those bushes were in front of a school. NOW he is charged with indecent expose and he has to go on the sex offender register because he exposed himself at a school.... even if it was 11:30 at night.

Guy gets caught with weed at his house, has a hand gun laying on a table in the bed room. He get charged with brandishing a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Name two times this has happened.

The world of no tolerance wrote:

A huge overreaction to fairly harmless juvenile stupidity.

You are right about the juvenile stupidity part. He sure is stupid. So lock him up. He won't contribute to society anyways.

For the record he will likely plead this down to simple community service. So pretty much a slap on the wrist. But God help him if a freshman girl's parents find out their daughter saw this picture. He will get sued and be paying those charges his whole life