Yearbook prank -> 1 felony charge and 69 indecent exposure

Kid at our school whipped out his nuts for the tennis picture and he just wasn't able to walk at graduation. Pretty funny stuff if you ask me

adk22 wrote: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?

That is not the same at all. Hazing that involves sodomizing other kids should result in criminal charges or at least some sort of drastic in-school punishment. Whether it's "sexual" or not, it's not the kind of conduct that should be tolerated in schools.

A kid exposing himself in a team picture was dumb and childish but should never have involved the police or criminal prosecution.

True story. I know a guy who was walking home from the bar at 2 AM and decided to take a shortcut through a park. As he walking past a playground area he decided to stop and take a piss. He got busted for indecent exposure and is now on the sex offender registry.

I know another guy who got drunk at a bar on the Pearl Street mall in Boulder. As he was walking down the mall, in the middle of the day, he decides to go on a side street and take a piss against a wall. Turns out it wasn't a wall, but rather a very dark window that you could not see through. It was a window to a restaurant filled with diners. He whips it out and pisses on the window in full view of a room full of patrons, oblivious to his faux pas. Amazingly, he just walked away and didn't get busted.

Talk about dumb luck. The first guy gets busted in the middle of the night with no one around, and the second guy walks away from an incident in front of crowds of people in the middle of the day.

Apples vs. oranges wrote:

adk22 wrote: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?

That is not the same at all. Hazing that involves sodomizing other kids should result in criminal charges or at least some sort of drastic in-school punishment. Whether it's "sexual" or not, it's not the kind of conduct that should be tolerated in schools.

A kid exposing himself in a team picture was dumb and childish but should never have involved the police or criminal prosecution.

Don't you have to apply sentencing fairly evenly.....it is called justice. Remember, the 30 yo public urinator has to register as a sex offender.

Quite the group you hang around with.

messi wrote:Don't you have to apply sentencing fairly evenly.....it is called justice. Remember, the 30 yo public urinator has to register as a sex offender.

In the federal criminal system there are sentencing guidelines that require sentencing to be applied fairly evenly. That's not at all true in the state criminal systems where almost all of these cases end up. There are 50 different systems (plus D.C., etc.) that define crimes differently and even within each state there is generally no requirement that sentences be consistent beyond the minimum parameters set by a criminal statute. With all of the multiple overlapping criminal statutes in most states, prosecutors also have extensive discretion to pick which law they want to bring charges under. So no, sentencing is not necessarily very even within a single state or between different states.

As for sex offender registries (also a state-by-state thing), there are huge variations on what gets you on a registry and what the consequences are in different states.

In any case, sodomizing kids as part of hazing and indecent exposure as a prank are completely different and don't have to be treated the same by the law. In this case, the school never should have involved the police, the police never should have sent the case to the prosecutors, the prosecutors never should have filed charges, and if they were going to file charges they shouldn't have over-charged the kid so excessively.

Sometingwong wrote:

From the Deadspin article:

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

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

Huh huh huh. You said 69.

Heh heh heh. Nipple.

Wow imagine if he were black.

Judgmental much ? What the first guy did was completely innocent IMO, and is a good guy. Just got caught peeing in the park at 2AM on his way home. The second guy was a complete mess of a human. He was a relative of a friend of mine and I rarely was around him. He drank himself to death a few years ago. I knew both of them, but I did not "hang out" with them, nor would I call either one a friend. But, way to just go out there and blindly judge.

Apples vs. oranges wrote:

adk22 wrote: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?

That is not the same at all. Hazing that involves sodomizing other kids should result in criminal charges or at least some sort of drastic in-school punishment. Whether it's "sexual" or not, it's not the kind of conduct that should be tolerated in schools.

A kid exposing himself in a team picture was dumb and childish but should never have involved the police or criminal prosecution.

If you stick your finger up a girl's butt when she is fighting you off, it is rape. No difference for the boy in your school. Was he enjoying it and asking the guy to do it? No? Well not only is it sexual assault, it could be flat-out rape.

Get your head out of your butt hole.

On a related note, in my Senior picture, a few of my friends rolled joints/blunts and put them in their mouths for the picture. I still have the yearbook and it is as clear as day in the Senior class picture. I think there is a small amount of capitulation by the yearbook staff/editors with this kind of thing b/c they want a fun yearbook too. Also - and this sounds really creepy but it was a big deal at my school - when I was a Freshman there was a picture of some Junior girls at the beach and they were piled up in a cheer leading pose with their bathing suits on. One of the better-looking girls had a major bathing suit malfunction that she didn't know about until it was found by every single guy in the school.

Field Good wrote:

Judgmental much ? What the first guy did was completely innocent IMO, and is a good guy. Just got caught peeing in the park at 2AM on his way home. The second guy was a complete mess of a human. He was a relative of a friend of mine and I rarely was around him. He drank himself to death a few years ago. I knew both of them, but I did not "hang out" with them, nor would I call either one a friend. But, way to just go out there and blindly judge.

your welcome

opus wrote:

Field Good wrote:

Judgmental much ? What the first guy did was completely innocent IMO, and is a good guy. Just got caught peeing in the park at 2AM on his way home. The second guy was a complete mess of a human. He was a relative of a friend of mine and I rarely was around him. He drank himself to death a few years ago. I knew both of them, but I did not "hang out" with them, nor would I call either one a friend. But, way to just go out there and blindly judge.

your welcome

*you're

opus wrote:

Field Good wrote:

Judgmental much ? What the first guy did was completely innocent IMO, and is a good guy. Just got caught peeing in the park at 2AM on his way home. The second guy was a complete mess of a human. He was a relative of a friend of mine and I rarely was around him. He drank himself to death a few years ago. I knew both of them, but I did not "hang out" with them, nor would I call either one a friend. But, way to just go out there and blindly judge.

your welcome

*you're

Lie.

Both stories are true. Why would I lie about them ? The second story is crazy, but the guy was an out of control alcoholic who drank himself to death. People who get black out drunk all the time do some crazy things. I have tons of stories on the guy -- the first time I met him he was coming out of my friends house and my friend introduced him to me and he tripped on the stairs and fell flat on his face with his nose about 1 inch away from a fresh steaming pile of dog poo. He passed out cold and lie there for over an hour before he came to. Why can't people just enjoy a funny story instead of getting all judgmental in here ? Oh yeah, its LRC aka the mean girls club.

This is why we need Trump. He will talk some sense into the legal system.

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.

Well, we can tell who has watched Horrible Bosses a few to many times.

sillyteen wrote:

This is why we need Trump. He will talk some sense into the legal system.

Trump has boasted about having an endorsement from one of the two police chiefs involved in this silly case.

Left a lousy tip wrote:

HS football player pokes the little head out in a team photo. Legal poop hits fan. Am I the only one that thinks that this harmless sophomoric prank was kind of funny? Poor bugger. Adults out of control. Slap on the wrist and a harshly worded letter would have been sufficient.

http://deadspin.com/high-school-football-player-hit-with-felony-charge-and-1774368340

If any one's at fault here, certainly it's the editors of the yearbook. In my day, a teacher was the year book adviser and was supposed to be particularly vigilant for such shenanigans. Where was the teacher and the student editor on this?

This young fellow could say his "exposure" was inadvertent and it was the publishing of it that is the crime.