Kick his ass out of school, charge him with a felony, and make him pay for reprinting all 3,400 yearbooks.

Photographs are the property and responsibility of the photographer, not the subjects in the photo. That's how the industry works.

Models are paid to pose for photos, but after they get paid, they have no claim on the photos themselves.

Any and all responsibility for distributing obscene material legally lies with those who who gave the photos to others, assuming the photo qualified as obscene given the apparent small size of the photo.

Since none of the classmates in the photo apparently saw him disrobed, charges related to the direct incident are unsubstantiated.

Any punishment for the prank should be limited to the fact that it caused a headache for the school staff, and I'd say the false arrest, which should not have happened, more than suffices.

That obviously fall short of your desire that anyone found guilty of anything should be hanged from the nearest tree, but.... too bad.

No. This is school in 2016 where a student thinks it's funny to take a class photo with his dick hanging out. He's 19 and should know better.

Agree, hard to sympathize with this kid.

If he was arrested for having his girlfriends photo on his phone(that she emailed him) , like has happened, that would be different.

This one was pretty stupid,

"Since none of the classmates in the photo apparently saw him disrobed"

And they never opened their copy of the yearbook. Honest.

The charges occurred after Osborn’s teammates on the Red Mountain High football team dared him to expose his penis during the photo for the yearbook.

Osborn is a spoiled brat who earned what he deserved. Behaviour merits appropriate consequences. Life is serious. He might as well learn it now rather than later.

And they never opened their copy of the yearbook. Honest.

Some did not notice, some laughed, some black-outed it. Nobody cared to call you.

Attaboy!

Of course, you are in favor of charging those who distributed the books with felonies as well, right?

You're stupid. You would defend a pedophile exposing himself to your daughter.

The student should be beaten up. His ass should be kicked so bad that he is bruised and can't walk for a month.

Yeah, who does he think he is? Donald Trump?

You would defend a pedophile exposing himself to your daughter.

You know what Stone? You're a real asshole.

Comparing this kid to a pedophile is just ridiculous.

If a pedophile exposed himself to my daughter, I'd beat the shit out of him.

If I knew where you lived, I'd come over and beat the shit out of you just on general principle.

This was a stupid prank you blithering simpleton, not a felony.

If I knew where you lived, I'd come over and beat the shit out of you just on general principle.

This was a stupid prank you blithering simpleton, not a felony.

13-1402. Indecent exposure; exception; classification

A. A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act.

B. Indecent exposure does not include an act of breast-feeding by a mother.

C. Indecent exposure to a person who is fifteen or more years of age is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that it is a class 6 felony if the defendant has two or more prior convictions for a violation of this section or has one or more prior convictions for a violation of section 13-1406. Indecent exposure to a person who is under fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony.

D. A person who is convicted of a felony violation of this section and who has two or more historical prior felony convictions for a violation of this section or section 13-1403 involving indecent exposure or public sexual indecency to a minor who is under fifteen years of age is guilty of a class 3 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment as follows:

Mitigated Minimum Presumptive Maximum Aggravated 6 years 8 years 10 years 12 years 15 years

E. The presumptive term imposed pursuant to subsection D of this section may be mitigated or aggravated pursuant to section 13-701, subsections D and E.

Evidently, IT IS A FELONY.

The people of that state SAYS IT IS A FELONY... who the fuck are you to say what's a crime and what isn't? The people that live in that state feel strongly against small children (children under 15) being exposed to. Small children did in fact see this scumbags genitals. TO WIT; it is a felony.

It's a liberal trait to minimize personal responsibly. YOU DO THAT 24/7 HERE AT LF. Drug users do no wrong, people that fight with the police are innocent.... and our millennials THINK JUST LIKE YOU... Fucked up and irresponsible. We have a great big anything goes society now because of liberal shitbirds like you.

Come see me with the same offer... and sign a waiver of liability before doing so.... because I'd expect to answer for any law I break... and assault would just be the start with a scumbag like you.

The Arizona teenager who flashed his genitals in the yearbook photo of his high school football team won't face charges, prosecutors say.

Hunter Osborn, now 19, was arrested Saturday for the stunt and was charged as an adult with 69 counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure — one count for every "victim" who appeared in the picture, police said.

Osborn, a member of Red Mountain High School's varsity football team, was also charged with a felony for furnishing harmful items to minors, and was ordered to wear an electronic monitor upon his release.

But the Maricopa County Attorney's Office said Wednesday that it would not pursue the felony charge because "evidence does not establish a violation of the statute."

County prosecutors forwarded the misdemeanor charges to the city of Mesa. In response, Mesa police said that none of the people in the photo wanted to press charges and "the case will be closed."

Osborn had pulled the prank on a dare, but later said he was "disgusted" by his actions, Mesa police told NBC affiliate WGBA. An online petition was started by supporters to "Free Hunter Osborn."

But the Maricopa County Attorney's Office said Wednesday that it would not pursue the felony charge because "evidence

That's the DA's prerogative to drop charges based on the libtard left pressure. You and people that think like you are why I live in a cesspool of drug addicts, welfare scum and millennials that have no responsibility.

That's the DA's prerogative to drop charges based on the libtard left pressure.

The DA was pressured?

No evidence - no crime.

Stop whining about it.

"If a pedophile exposed himself to my daughter, I'd beat the shit out of him."

If your daughter was one of those 3600 high school students, he did.

But she wasn't so you can give a FF.

"You would end up dead in an act of self defense."

If I was on the jury it wouldn't need to be self defense. Not guilty.

"Mesa police said that none of the people in the photo wanted to press charges and "the case will be closed."

Every football player in the photo is shoulder to shoulder -- except the two in front of the pedophile. For some reason, they made room for him to expose himself.

How did that happen?

he did.

Wrong again.

...the Maricopa County Attorney's Office said Wednesday that it would not pursue the felony charge because "evidence does not establish a violation of the statute."

I'll tell you the same thing I told the other asshat.

No no evidence - no crime.

Stop whining.

Osborn, a member of Red Mountain High School's varsity football team, was also charged with a felony for furnishing harmful items to minors

Uh, no - he didn't furnish "harmful items to minors".

That would be the photographer, editor and anyone else involved in the production and/or distribution of the yearbook.

"he did." "Wrong again."

Anyone opening their yearbook saw him with his dick hanging out. So yes. He did.

No different than if he sent that photo over the Internet to every student in the school.

Anyone opening their yearbook saw him with his dick hanging out. So yes. He did.

...(the) "Evidence does not establish a violation of the statute."

No evidence, no crime.

Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking with - the asshat who believes possessing cash is "evidence" of crime.

No evidence - no crime

Oh really? You don't think just one child under 15 saw his dick? Lay off the glass pipe, drug addict lover. The charges were dropped by libtard pressure. The perp was probably some important persons little child asshole... I guarantee the case would have won a preliminary hearing finding sufficient evidence that the exposure statute in Arizona was violated.

If I was on the jury it wouldn't need to be self defense. Not guilty.

Let the "anything goes bastard" suffer his own medicine. lol

Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking with - the asshat who believes possessing cash is "evidence" of crime.

If the cash is a product of a crime, then yes, ITS CALLED EVIDENCE. Dumb dumb.

If the cash is a product of a crime, then yes, ITS CALLED EVIDENCE

Seriously? You're gonna go with that?

How many times have we seen uniformed thugs seize cash from motorists who have committed no crime?

Police Can Seize And Sell Assets Even When The Owner Broke No Law

Here's just one example out of dozens:

Cops Seize $107,000 From Couple, Didn’t Charge Them With A Crime But Kept The Money

In October 2012, Adam and Jennifer Perry of Massachusetts were pulled over in the state of Illinois on Interstate 80 for speeding. The couple was headed to Salt Lake City, Utah to see a hearing specialist for an ear infection Adam had.

A drug-sniffing dog was triggered off the scent of the car, inciting a search of the vehicle. No drugs or paraphernalia were found, but the officer did find $107,520 in a suitcase and the wallet of Jennifer Perry. No crime was committed, and no charges were ever filed against the Perrys, but the cash was seized and turned over to the federal government. Authorities used civil forfeiture laws to seize the money under presumptions the cash was tied to illegal activity.

Three years later, the Perrys are still in court fighting to get their money back. According to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian non-profit public interest legal organization, the couple wrote in a letter earlier this month, “Adam claims that the taken cash came from savings and disability settlements and payments.”

*****

How about one more :

DEA Steals $16,000 In Cash From Young Black Man, Because He Must Be A Drug Dealer

After scraping together enough money to produce a music video in Hollywood, 22-year-old Joseph Rivers set out last month on a train trip from Michigan to Los Angeles, hoping it was the start of something big.

Before he made it to California, however, Rivers fell victim to a legal form of government highway robbery.

Rivers changed trains at the Amtrak station in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on April 15, with bags containing his clothes, other possessions and an envelope filled with the $16,000 in cash he had raised with the help of his family, the Albuquerque Journal reports. Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration got on after him and began looking for people who might be trafficking drugs.

Rivers said the agents questioned passengers at random, asking for their destination and reason for travel. When one of the agents got to Rivers, who was the only black person in his car, according to witnesses, the agent took the interrogation further, asking to search his bags. Rivers complied. The agent found the cash — still in a bank envelope — and decided to seize it on suspicion that it may be tied to narcotics. River pleaded with the agents, explaining his situation and even putting his mother on the phone to verify the story.

No luck.

“These officers took everything that I had worked so hard to save and even money that was given to me by family that believed in me,” Rivers told the Journal. “I told (the DEA agents) I had no money and no means to survive in Los Angeles if they took my money. They informed me that it was my responsibility to figure out how I was going to do that.”

Lay off the glass pipe, drug addict lover.

drug
autism

activism

savant
idiots

love
boris

Seriously? You're gonna go with that?

Yes, even the supreme Court "goes with that". Douche

Yes, even the supreme Court "goes with that".

You are seriously misinformed, as usual.

So you are saying that it is perfectly legal to seize cash without any evidence of a crime?

You really are a fascist at heart, aren't you?

1) You are seriously misinformed, as usual.

2) So you are saying that it is perfectly legal to seize cash without any evidence of a crime?

3) You really are a fascist at heart, aren't you?

1) misinformed? Shall I quote you upper court case law on how cash from a crime can be siezed as Evidence and sometimes forfeited? I don't make this shit up, bozo. It's fact.

2) I didn't say that at all... that's the yella spin you put on what you don't agree with. Of course there needs to be evidence of a crime before proceeds are confiscated or siezed. Nobody says otherwise, YOU JUST WANT THE SHEEP OF THIS FORUM TO THINK THAT'S THE NORM... to sell your pro drug AGENDA.

3) No... I'm a conservative that demands people take 100% responsibility for their actions. If they can't, then they should suffer the hole they dug themselves in. I don't want to pay to help them.

Of course there needs to be evidence of a crime before proceeds are confiscated or siezed.

Shall I quote you upper court case law on how cash from a crime can be siezed as Evidence and sometimes forfeited?

You effing moron, cops are seizing cash without any evidence of a crime.

What part of that does your feeble mind not comprehend?

How many times have we seen uniformed thugs seize cash from motorists who have committed no crime?

Police Can Seize And Sell Assets Even When The Owner Broke No Law

Here's just one example out of dozens:

Cops Seize $107,000 From Couple, Didn’t Charge Them With A Crime But Kept The Money

I'm done with you here pig-boy.

You effing moron, cops are seizing cash without any evidence of a crime.

Law enforcement siezes evidence literally millions of times a day across America. Go ahead and provide a few hundred examples of what YOU FEEL is cash siezed without probable cause.... then I'll tell you that your examples, if accurate, represent less than 1% of how much evidence is actually siezed on a daily bases.

I'm done with you here pig-boy

Whatever you say, criminal cocksucker.

I'll tell you that your examples, if accurate, represent less than 1% of how much evidence is actually siezed on a daily bases.

Well, you got one thing right anyways.

American Cops Now Steal More Property than All US Burglars

Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually. In 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% from 2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989.

Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year. According to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.

The police have been violating the laws to confiscate assets all over the country. A scathing report on California warns of pervasive abuse by police to rob the people without proving that any crime occurred.

Bloomberg News has reported now that Stop-and-Seize authority is turning the Police Into Self-Funding Gangs. They are simply confiscating money all under the abuse of this civil asset forfeiture where they do not have to prove you did anything. Prosecutors are now instructing police on how to confiscate money within the grey area of the law.

Cops Now Take More Than Robbers

Created in the early days of the nation's war on drugs, asset forfeiture was designed to grab the proceeds from drug kingpins. But most of the money now is grabbed from ordinary citizens. According to a study last year, about 80 percent of the time, seized property is taken from people who have never been charged with anything. That same study, by the Drug Policy Alliance, found wanton abuses in California cities. Police are not supposed to budget forfeiture proceeds, but they increasingly depend on the revenues to fund their operations.

criminal cocksucker.

You must be referring to the cops who STEAL money from citizens who have committed NO CRIME.

Go fuck yourself.

You must be referring to the cops who STEAL money from citizens who have committed NO CRIME

Just because you say that happens, doesn't make it true, AGENDA BOY. You'll only fool the sheep that follow you into believing that LE are knocking at random doors just seizing property for themselves.... so let's fire all the cops so you can be a worry free drug dealer, addict and scumbag.

If a man exposed himself to your kid would you not snap his neck?

This dumb ass over step prank to being a pervert!

... LE are knocking at random doors just seizing property for themselves ...

I beleive your perspective is true just as much as shit Trump happens on a daily basis.

You need to evaluate your warped way of thinking to change your low moral standards and stop the full concentration on your own self-dealing.

Ignore this advice at your own peril … I have spoken.

...the Maricopa County Attorney's Office said Wednesday that it would not pursue the felony charge because "evidence does not establish a violation of the statute."

County prosecutors forwarded the misdemeanor charges to the city of Mesa. In response, Mesa police said that none of the people in the photo wanted to press charges and "the case will be closed." T

I have spoken.

I HAVE SPOKEN !!!

...the Maricopa County Attorney's Office said Wednesday that it would not pursue the felony charge because "evidence does not establish a violation of the statute."

Why are you posting this? I not say that he should be prosecuted as a felony. I do, however, believe that a misdemeanor charge was appropriate.

13-1402. Indecent exposure; exception; classification
A. A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act.

Then let the little bastard spend a few weeks in Sheriff Joe’s Tent City. There are some “guys” there who would no doubt just love for him to pull his penis out for them …

I HAVE SPOKEN !!!

then I'll tell you that your examples, if accurate, represent less than 1% of how much evidence is actually siezed on a daily bases.

That very well may be true, but it wouldn't be much comfort to you if if were one of the 1%.

Look up the matter under "Sulphur LA" for example.

I do, however, believe that a misdemeanor charge was appropriate.

You "believe" wrongly.

County prosecutors forwarded the misdemeanor charges to the city of Mesa. In response, Mesa police said that none of the people in the photo wanted to press charges and "the case will be closed."

Then let the little bastard spend a few weeks in Sheriff Joe’s Tent City. There are some “guys” there who would no doubt just love for him to pull his penis out for them …

Attaboy - you'd like to see this kid raped.

Your sick sexual fantasies are on full display this morning.

Paultards

In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, Ron Paul has been out of office for several years.

It's amusing to see assclowns like you and GrandSphincter bandy that term around as if it's an insult.

Act your age gramps.

What is a "paultard" ...

Apparently it means "anyone who shows Gatlin to be a simpleton".