http://www.reuters.com/article/us-arizona-exposure-idUSKCN0XU05S
>An Arizona student who showed his penis in his football team's photograph was arrested briefly after his high school unwittingly sent the image to hundreds of his Phoenix-area classmates as part of its yearbook, officials said on Monday.
>The student, Hunter Osborn, 19, told police he was acting on a dare from another football player when court documents said "he exposed his penis through the top of his waistband of his football uniform pants."
>>42255
>Osborn, released from custody on Sunday after being arrested the day earlier, faces 69 counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure and one count of felony furnishing harmful items to minors, according to Mesa police spokesman Steve Berry and jail records.
Shouldn't the school be the ones charged, since they disrupted the "offensive" material? If a mate took a consensual picture of my dick and then showed it (without my knowledge) to children, would i get charged despite having 0 control over the situation?
>his penis
>"furnishing harmful items to minors"
lmao
>>42255
>dude showing his penis on the photo of his footballteam
>many teammates = appearance of every individual shrinks the more player they have
>dudes penis on the photo takes a few pixels
>instead of photoshop that 'joke', they get him arrested by police and will probably sue him for the 'damage' he caused.
i wouldn't be proud to be a murican.
thats ridiculous.
and i thought that we germans have no humour..
>>42309
Kek
The dude should be awarded for pulling that of
wtf america
>>42309
>America
They love semantics
>>42311
The whole thing was a publicized slap on the wrist, can't you read?
Where does it say he's even going to be in jail?
German discipline isn't what it used to be, right hans?
>>42255
>69 counts
For fuck's sake. This is what's wrong with America. It's a fucking police/prosecution state.
Was this kid a fucktard for doing this? Sure. He should've known he'd get in trouble. It's fucking hilarious, but it obviously carries consequences.
But fucking 69 counts? For fuck's sake.
>>42337
>Where does it say he's even going to be in jail?
It's not that hard to extrapolate his possible punishment. It lists the charges, and you can easily look up the law in Arizona.
Theoretically, he's facing up to a year for each of the 69 misd. counts and 3.75 years in prison, +4 years of probation + a fine of $150,000 for the felony.
Is it guaranteed he's going to jail? Of course not. But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on prison.
>>42255
I graduated from Red Mountain High School in 08' and 1/4 of the people that go there are goofy as fuck like that. There was a kid in my class who would randomly show his balls to everyone, or he would have them inadvertently touch his balls through some Machiavellian type scheme. There were kids who made human pyramids at lunch, and they would make the fattest kid roll down the hill like a bowling ball into them. That same group of kids tossed one of their friends through the Auditorium window just to see if the glass was "reinforced". I got a couple of days of in school suspension for wearing a dress to school (which today would prompt a civil rights riot), our Prom King was gay. And when they announced him winning, everyone boo'd and threw shit at him when he was dancing with the queen. Even a teacher yelled out "He should be PROM QUEEN" when the nomination was read.
Seriously, 25% of the people in that school are weirdos and just outright crazy. But I fucking loved that school.
>>42345
They always make those counts extremely high at first most of the time people don't get charged all of them even when they do lose their case
Just makes it sound more serious
>>42346
it says he will be charged each time a teammate that isn't an underage b& presses charges. it will be much lower stop lying this is /news/ not /pol/
>>42255
>19
Wut?
>>42255
What a monster. This is like 9/11 all over again.
>>42363
>presses charges
Lawyer here. The phrase "press charges" is a bullshit TV term that has no relation to real life. Supposed victims don't decide to press charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors make that decision. People are charged all the time in cases where the victims vehemently object to the charges.
>stop lying this is /news/ not /pol/
Let's look at what the article says:
>Osborn, released from custody on Sunday after being arrested the day earlier, faces 69 counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure and one count of felony furnishing harmful items to minors, according to Mesa police spokesman Steve Berry and jail records
He is facing those charges now. He was arrested and charged with those crimes. This isn't a possibility. This isn't speculation. Might he eventually plea to something less? Sure. But that doesn't mean he isn't charged.
>>42529
That's a clever thought, but not really realistic for multiple reasons:
1) Again, the decision to prosecute rests with law enforcement and with prosecutors. They're not going to go after a school. That's a risky target. It doesn't make sense from a public relations standpoint. It's much, much easier to demonize an individual.
2) Except in very rare circumstances, organizations (like companies) aren't charged with crimes. Schools aren't charged with crimes. Technically, could a teacher/administrator be charged with something? Sure, theoretically. However:
3) A crucial aspect of *most* (but not all) criminal statutes is intent. Did they distribute the yearbooks? Sure. But did they knowingly and intentionally distribute something with a dick in the picture? Probably not. Without intent, it's usually impossible to charge somebody. The only person who had intent to commit a crime in this case was the student. The school was just an unknowing intermediary.
>>42533
Thanks for the answer.
Is the actual case likely to go anywhere? Surely a half decent lawyer could get almost all the charges dropped?
This youth has destroyed the entire universe. He should be fired into the sun posthaste.
>>42534
My gut reaction is that this will end in somewhat convoluted plea deal. Charges are rarely ever dropped outright. The amount of evidence necessary to charge somebody and to bring a case to trial is shockingly low. Just based upon the facts in the news report, they have way more than enough to sustain the charges from a legal standpoint.
Realistically, though, it would be too cumbersome to try that many charges. As other anons have pointed out, they charge crazy stuff to encourage somebody to plea to lesser charges.
On the other hand, prosecutors really work hard to nail people on sex crimes, especially with minors. The punishments are draconian, and most prosecutors just eat that stuff up. They love fucking somebody over with sex crimes charges because it ruins people's lives and gives the prosecutors easy, massive sentences. Honestly, it's a power trip for them with this type of thing.
My best guess will be that they'll offer some sort of plea deal that will do away with the felony in exchange for an all-in-one sentence on some combination of the misdemeanors. The kid will probably get several years probation, some counseling, and some stupid fine. Some small jail time wouldn't surprise me, but I don't expect it.
>>42539
Cheers for the info, Jesus fucking christ all the same though.
Is there any potential for the kid to sue the school? Ie the ones that caused the error that fucked up his life in a way far beyond what he could have reasonably imagined at the time?
>>42540
Probably not. His action were contributory. As with criminal action against the school/teachers/admins, the kid would have to show that they knowingly did this to really sue them.
Theoretically, he could sue them under a negligence theory, meaning that, even though they didn't intend to fuck up his life, they were negligent in not catching this problem before printing. But even then, the defense of contributory negligence would likely get them off the hook for most if not all of it. Were they negligent? Sure. I'll grant that. But he caused the problem that caused them to be negligent.
Negligence claims only really work when you're just minding your own business and somebody, through their negligent behaviors, fuck you over.
>>42542
K k, cheers for all the info again anon.
>>42542
If he would of not admitted that he willingly performed the action would he of been in a better place? They probably asked other students and knew it was a prank but ive always wondered if its damning to tell the full on truth when you can leave it open ended.
>>42624
This is what I tell my clients 100% of the time: Talking to police is never, under any circumstances, a good idea. I don't care if you're as innocent as fucking innocent can be. Talking will only make things worse. The fact that he talked to police and admitted that he did it just makes it that much easier for them to prosecute the case.
They want to prosecute you no matter what. The whole "where's just trying to find out the truth" line is completely bullshit. They want arrests and they want convictions, plain and simple. The easiest way for them to make their case is for you to talk. They can try to get you to talk almost any way they want, too, including outright lies and fake promises.
I know that the natural inclination for most people is to think either (a) I'm innocent, so telling them the truth will help me, or (b) I'm guilty so cooperating will make them go easy on me. Neither of these are true. Neither. Talking to police will never help. A small percentage of the time, it will have a neutral result. The overwhelming majority of the time it will have a negative result. 99% of the time, if they're talking to a suspect, they've already made up their mind. They've already got what they need. They're just trying to get the suspect to talk as icing on the cake. If you say shit that hurts their case against you, they'll just ignore it. If you say ambiguous stuff, they'll construe it against you. If you say inculpatory stuff, they'll use it against you. There's no plus side to talking to them.
This guy just fucked himself over. His attorney's duty right now is going to be to try to find a way to get his statements thrown out, in order to weaken the state's case.
