Stupid waste of time by law enforcement

Whoa, Bruno's out on DVD already? Or was it pirated?

I was estimating low, it never occurred to me to count the circling spouses, haha!
And,some of the assaulted TVs were most certainly in the Electronics section!!
The DVD player was in the Furniture section, but was broadcast at different areas of the store on SIX different TVS….
However, this did occur around 10:45 pm (just found out the time)on September 3rd, a Thursday, so probably not too many innocent, questioning toddlers around… with a good lawyer these pranksters will probably get the felony reduced to a misdemeanor!! But, it will cost them!!
------------
No there were not very many people. NO none of the TV in the Electronics were playing it. Six Tv's in the Furniture section were playing it. Store cameras showed that NO ONE under 18 was in the area while it was playing. Also, if different music and video started playing on the tv's I would imagine that the employees would Notice that! There was a manager in the area also that walked in front of the tv's while it was playing. Seems I kinda know more about this than you do. LOL

I was estimating low, it never occurred to me to count the circling spouses, haha!
And,some of the assaulted TVs were most certainly in the Electronics section!!
The DVD player was in the Furniture section, but was broadcast at different areas of the store on SIX different TVS....
However, this did occur around 10:45 pm (just found out the time)on September 3rd, a Thursday, so probably not too many innocent, questioning toddlers around... with a good lawyer these pranksters will probably get the felony reduced to a misdemeanor!! But, it will cost them!!

eek. That would be spouses.

mom525, my comments were made before you kindly pointed out that it was not, in fact, porn.
madeabecbec: 50 people? It had to be 3 times that, at least! Especially if you count the trips the husbands/wives wandering in circle looking for their spouces made individually. lol

A felony is ridiculous!
I am very open with my kids about sex, and not uncomfortable talking about it, they know the details. However, I seem to have forgotten to include the "some men butt fuck" clause, family meeting tomorrow!

I just watched the trailer for Bruno! I may like Sasha after all, in this movie, I will watch it privately! He's kinda purdy as a gay guy! I did like him when he was on HBO as Ali G, but then after Borat, not so much. I'll skip through the sex with a ghost scene!! Just do not want to see that, it could burn me eyes.....

I just thought of something! Is it possible that Sexton and Andrews are on Jay Roachs payroll? What better way to promote a DVD than through controversy and the possibility of prison? It worked for "Borat" now didn't it?
Nah, couldn't be.....

Oh and the timer on the video surveillance, shows that from the time,Sexton and Andrews put the DVD on, it played for 29 minutes 14 seconds before it was discovered by a CUSTOMER and then turned off. 30 minutes in a WalMart store, I would estimate at least 50 people walked by those TVs and a fourth of those were children.
Don't ya know? WalMart employees ought to be too busy helping customers to observe what SHOULD be playing on Display TVs!!

And mom525: How do you know that no under the age of 18, saw the display? Can you tell everyone’s age or maturity level by a video surveillance film of them? If so, Did you train at the FBI Academy in Quantico?
---------
The police themselves are the ones that said no one under 18 saw the short film clip. And how bad do you think the clip was? It's not like the whole movie showed.

Bruno was rated R for a reason, Graphic displays of male on male nudity, erm, mature language,plus Sucky Boren is well, just obscene to look at and listen to.... I haven't watched Bruno, however I have family that have, some of the scenes and language they described, appears to me, OBSCENE and totally unappropriate for a WalMart screening! That's why there are Movie Theatres and Movie Rentals, people get to choose what they want to see and introduce their families to. So yeah, Obscenity laws being a felony is a good thing, otherwise, a simple misdemeanor wouldn't detour penises and vajajays going at it on every street corner. I still think Sexton and Andrews deserve only probation, a fine and community service. Hopefully, their parents will purchase them a DVD player for Christmas and a TV, too!


And mom525: How do you know that no under the age of 18, saw the display? Can you tell everyone's age or maturity level by a video surveillance film of them? If so, Did you train at the FBI Academy in Quantico?

mom525
4:47 pm on September 16th, 2009
Everyone should be asking this: why didn’t many Wal-Mart empolyees stop the video? Also,

ROFL! That’s right and we should all sue Wally World FREE the aholes sue Wally World
it’s Wally Worlds fault they didn’t turn it off fast enough, plus they have payoff money lets sue, the hell with the perpetrators, get Wally World
---------
Serious! There were employees working right in front of the tv's. I am not saying it is walmart's fault but hey how long does it take for one of them to see it playing and say that's not right and stop it?

I agree, in theory. These pranksters should absolutely be fired, same as they would if they had thrown graphic horror up there. But, from my perspective, there are no rational grounds upon which to criminalize their action and the fact that it’s a felony just floors me.

As for what age a parent is comfortable with their child seeing this, that or the other thing, I think the question that has been tip-toed around and begs to be asked is…

Why is a parent uncomfortable?

Once again we agree Athena (egads!). I still maintain that it's the parents who have the problem, not the kids. Kids are resilient, as you said. Maybe it's because I accidentally saw some softcore Cinemax "porn" when I was around 6 and my grandmother managed to explain it to me while still letting me know it was inappropriate for me at that age, and I was perfectly fine.

And MadeaBecBec, I'm a little confused by your post, you talked about obscenity laws but in the same post you said that the film was actually Bruno. You may not appreciate Sacha Baron Cohen's genius (for some reason!), but that is most definitely not pornography, by any standard.

damn it all to hell, I get that block quote thing wrong every time! Sorry!

mom525 said

Please get your facts straight before commenting!! ONE) it was the movie Bruno Rated R with Male Nudity NOT a prnographic video! TWO) NO ONE under the age of 18 saw the clip of the movie! THREE) they DO NOT deserve jail time for this! Community Service maybe, a slap on the wrist yes. One of them lost both of his part time jobs! How much more should a person lose for a prank??

in the original article posted by Morbid:

Not much on this one yet, but Cody and Kenny (also a Wal-Mart employee), both 20, played a prank at a Fort Smith Wal-Mart that may end up not being worth the laughs they got. They removed a promotional DVD and loaded a pornographic DVD into a player that was shown on over six screens in the store.

I was commenting on the information provided thank you very much! And if I am overprotective of my children to say I would be pissed if my kids saw that, so be it! I am NOT a prude, but I DO protect my children from things that they are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to process.

mom525
4:47 pm on September 16th, 2009
Everyone should be asking this: why didn’t many Wal-Mart empolyees stop the video? Also,

ROFL! That's right and we should all sue Wally World FREE the aholes sue Wally World
it's Wally Worlds fault they didn't turn it off fast enough, plus they have payoff money lets sue, the hell with the perpetrators, get Wally World

To Dreamstorm:I usually agree with the majority you guys… BUT!
I have seen porn. I LIKE porn. I think it can be a great visual aide. BUT!
If I had been in electronics with my 4 daughters ages 11, 8, 6 and 4, and some jackass threw some porn on the display TVs, I would be PISSED. Period. I would literally throw the single most discustingly huge bitch fit anyone had seen in ages.
Also, do you think they had the sound on? How would I explain to my daughters that “Yeah Baby, give me that cock!” comes anywhere near what they should be looking for in a loving sexual relationship?
Now. Having said that… I DO think felony is a bit overboard.

---------
Music was playing, not any so called porn talk. Again Bruno is not a Porn movie! Again, no children saw this clip.

Parents should have the right to teach their children about sex in the way they see fit. Sure most kids will learn more about sex from their friends, a fact I think most parents count on, but a parent should no more expect to have their children exposed to pornography in Wal-Mart than they should expect their daycare to show their children Texas Chainsaw Massacre without their consent.

I agree, in theory. These pranksters should absolutely be fired, same as they would if they had thrown graphic horror up there. But, from my perspective, there are no rational grounds upon which to criminalize their action and the fact that it's a felony just floors me.

As for what age a parent is comfortable with their child seeing this, that or the other thing, I think the question that has been tip-toed around and begs to be asked is...

Why is a parent uncomfortable?

Also, the TV's were in the furniture section and not near the Toys!
Please people get your facts straight!

Everyone should be asking this: why didn't many Wal-Mart empolyees stop the video? Also, why is it okay to show a woman in the nude and not a man!? OH, gosh they showed 4 seconds of a nude male!! Come on! The newscast showed people standing around watching it and liking it! LOL It was a prank and Walmart is upset because it showed the public just how easy it is to get to their store DVD players....anyone can do what these boys did!

*pornographic video* is a far cry from some *nudity* as you put it.

I equally think it is sad and ridiculous that people in our society think they have the RIGHT to subject others (especially children) to such things. Hell, if these boys had shown pornography to minors in a private setting that would be child abuse and they would be registered as sex offenders, rightfully so. That stuff is for CONSENTING ADULTS!

Please get your facts straight before commenting!! ONE) it was the movie Bruno Rated R with Male Nudity NOT a prnographic video! TWO) NO ONE under the age of 18 saw the clip of the movie! THREE) they DO NOT deserve jail time for this! Community Service maybe, a slap on the wrist yes. One of them lost both of his part time jobs! How much more should a person lose for a prank??

Morbid said:

It has an absolutely hilarious scene of Bruno sucking the dick of the ghost of the dead member of Milli Vanilli. Complete with an asshole reaming and a facial.

Oh!! So you've seen it?? LOL!

Besides, a felony does not equal jail.

So true. I suspect these two, if no prior felonies, will be given probation, a fine and a whole lot of shaming! No prison time!

Jeeze..but the judicial system is already clogged. Why add these silly kids into an overtaxed, overburdened and often ineffective (because its so overburdened) system..? A felony? Come on! There are much, much bigger fish to fry without wasting valuable time and money on these goofballs.

That makes sense. Let's not enforce laws that are being broken because we are effectively enforcing laws that are being broken? If overcrowded ails and prison are such a concern, then take that punishment out of the equation for certain charges. Besides, a felony does not equal jail.

Second, the movie was Bruno, R-rated and terribly mindless, it stars Sasha/Sacha/Sucky Boren, or whatever his name is (who is just plain offensive to look at) it does have male on male nudity, so I can see the obscenity in trying to explain that to the kiddos!

It has an absolutely hilarious scene of Bruno sucking the dick of the ghost of the dead member of Milli Vanilli. Complete with an asshole reaming and a facial.

Jeeze..but the judicial system is already clogged. Why add these silly kids into an overtaxed, overburdened and often ineffective (because its so overburdened) system..? A felony? Come on! There are much, much bigger fish to fry without wasting valuable time and money on these goofballs.

First, this happened in Fort Smith, a city on the state lines of Arkansas and Oklahoma, Sexton and Andrews live in Muldrow,OK (about 18 miles apart) No WalMart in Muldrow, there is a Dollar General, though.... But DG usually doesn't have a display of TVs with a DVD player connected...
Second, the movie was Bruno, R-rated and terribly mindless, it stars Sasha/Sacha/Sucky Boren, or whatever his name is (who is just plain offensive to look at) it does have male on male nudity, so I can see the obscenity in trying to explain that to the kiddos!
Third, WalMart doesn't sell Pornos or promote them, in order to sell a R-Rated movie at WalMart, the distributor must label it with a bright sticker stating so, even explicit Music CDs have to be labeled the same! WalMart advertises and takes pride in being a family oriented department store, so of course, Management is going to press that these pranksters be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law! The boys may as well have whipped out their own penises, same thing, heh?
Fourth, most every state has a felony obscenity law,stating to blatantly display pornographic material ,PUBLICLY is going to get you arrested and charged, being ignorant of that law is no excuse, so yeah, check the law books before you go pulling a joke on people or any entity.
Fifth and Final, Almost every WalMart store has their Electronics department across the aisles from the Toy Department and certainly the Gaming section is in with the electronics! Foolish boys, there will probably be a parent that gets the big idea to sue you or WalMart for subjecting their innocent child to your stupidity, demanding that you pay for their psychological trauma, until they're out of college!! ChaChing!

Now, come over here while MadeaBecBec takes off her urrings....

It makes it a stupid prank that caused some parents to agonize and wring their hands because they were unprepared for their kids to encounter uncomfortable situations.

Yeah, because most parents are equipped and prepared to explain to their 6-year-old daughter what ass fucking is all about in the electronic section of Wal-mart.

Parents should have the right to teach their children about sex in the way they see fit. Sure most kids will learn more about sex from their friends, a fact I think most parents count on, but a parent should no more expect to have their children exposed to pornography in Wal-Mart than they should expect their daycare to show their children Texas Chainsaw Massacre without their consent.

For some of you who think this is just harmless fun and knee-jerking from hand-wringing, who are parents? I only ask because I am curious if you have children, at what age would you be comfortable with your kid watching a woman sucking a man's cock in the produce aisle, or a man walking around Target masturbating.

My problem is THEY went out of THEIR way to expose people to pornography. We all know the people that shop there is a huge mix of EVERY demographic. Hell, if my GRANDMOTHER and I had been there I would STILL throw a hissy fit.
Maybe at a smaller store where they could actually SEE who was there.. Yeah, my husband and I would have laughed. Maybe joked with an employee about where we could pick up that DVD.
But this was just too much.
STILL not something I think that needs jail time.

ouch! Am I a hand wringing parent? Well, shit. Yeah I am. Probably a lot more often than I would prefer to be.
In my defense...
If that means I would prefer not to have to explain the porn unexpectedly displayed at Wally World during a trip to find the latest fucking Baby Alive doll.. So be it. If it means that I have to explain the porn they found on my computer, so be that as well. I would be just as pissed.
I would LIKE to think that I'm not a helicopter mother or that I am not puritanical in any way. I'm actually quite open to answering any and all questions they have, now and/or in the future.
I just think the prank was a bit much and I KNOW I would be pissed.
Having said all of that.. Of COURSE I would talk to them about it, answer questions (no answers would be "good people dont do that" or any variation) and expalin any thing they were curious about.
But I would still be pissed.

some aren’t even supposed to see themselves nude

And some shouldn't be allowed to be nude, judging from the nudies I've seen around this site:P

some aren’t even supposed to see themselves nude

Now THERE'S a recipe for constant stress and a miserable life! LOL.

Seriously, how much better off would the world be if everyone would just lighten the hell up?

Veronica
We agree on most of this issue, including the harshness of the law for this prank, there's probably a reason for the way the law was written, I really don't know. We're not really offended by what happened and see it as a lame/funny joke whatever. I'm just being devils advocate for those that found this offensive, remember we're a conglomerate of peoples and religions, some aren't even supposed to see themselves nude and some are more protective of their children than others
LOL
Hey it's been a while, having some fun with you, hope all is well
Take care

Biteme, do you ever tire of bitter cheap shots?

Athena is right (oops, there I go kissing her ass again!), people have no right not to be offended. That right simply doesn't exist, whether a person is religious or not. They are entitled to their opinions and beliefs, but that in no way equates to an actual right to have their delicate sensibilities catered to. Religious and/or easily offended people have the right to be upset, but NOT the right to not be made upset in the first place.

Now, these dumbasses should pay for what they did, it was stupid and irresponsible, but felony charges are a fucking joke. The level of outrage by hand-wringing parents does not make this some sort of ultra-serious offense. It makes it a stupid prank that caused some parents to agonize and wring their hands because they were unprepared for their kids to encounter uncomfortable situations.

I’ve often wondered what life as a kiss ass is like?

Oh, so people can't agree without being kiss asses? Boy, must be some contentious world you live in...

We all have our opinions, I’m sure those that have children feel much stronger about the pornography pushed on their children while shopping than those without children
It’s not even a question of sheltering or being over protective, I see it as infringing on someone else’s rights and wether you agree or support certain religions they have a right to their laws and beliefs, I’m sure many found this very disturbing because of upbringing or religion and they have a right to be upset. The laws are what they are and these idiots will find out some didn’t like their little joke.
Again I don’t always agree with the laws and I have no problem with pornography, and I agree Americans are up tight, but those that are, have that right.

Having or not having children has nothing to do with it. Popping out a kid doesn't trigger a reset of a person's opinions. In fact, I got a lot of my opinions from my parents... you know, people with children.

The point about "right" is an interesting one. Do people have a right to not be offended? Had these boys grabbed a microphone and launched into an obscenity-filled tirade, people would have been equally offended, but it wouldn't have resulted in jail time. It would have cost them their job, but that's it.

You see, obscenity laws like this provide no tangible value to society. They prevent people from being offended which, no, is not a right. I'm reminded of that every time I hear the song "Honkeytonk Badonkadonk" in a public venue. The fact is, obscenity laws do nothing but reinforced this nation's puritanical values, which is ridiculous. It's nothing but a thinly-veiled way to get religion into legislation.

I've often wondered what life as a kiss ass is like?
We all have our opinions, I'm sure those that have children feel much stronger about the pornography pushed on their children while shopping than those without children
It's not even a question of sheltering or being over protective, I see it as infringing on someone else's rights and wether you agree or support certain religions they have a right to their laws and beliefs, I'm sure many found this very disturbing because of upbringing or religion and they have a right to be upset. The laws are what they are and these idiots will find out some didn't like their little joke.
Again I don't always agree with the laws and I have no problem with pornography, and I agree Americans are up tight, but those that are, have that right.

No. See, the trauma lies in the reaction. Human beings – children – are remarkably resilient creatures. There are very few things a child sees that will result in trauma if it is met with education and understanding. If, on the other hand, a parent freaks out, well, then it becomes traumatic.

And, while I agree that there are degrees of pornography that extend past nudity, simple, straightforward porn is nudity, and explaining what they’re doing while nude is an okay conversation to have when you’re not uncomfortable in your own skin. Of course, I don’t propose going out of your way to expose children to porn, but this reaction that it is inherently vile and harmful probably contributes to strong correlation between sex and violence in this country.

Reacting as though your child will become infected by depravity as the result of being exposed to a few seconds of porn isn’t doing anyone, especially the child in question, ANY favors. Flipping out instead of stemming the trauma by explaining what just happened is exactly what will cause the trauma.

*clap clap clap*

Bravo!

Many things that fall under the heading “porn” besides nudity could be traumatic for a kid to see.

No. See, the trauma lies in the reaction. Human beings - children - are remarkably resilient creatures. There are very few things a child sees that will result in trauma if it is met with education and understanding. If, on the other hand, a parent freaks out, well, then it becomes traumatic.

And, while I agree that there are degrees of pornography that extend past nudity, simple, straightforward porn is nudity, and explaining what they're doing while nude is an okay conversation to have when you're not uncomfortable in your own skin. Of course, I don't propose going out of your way to expose children to porn, but this reaction that it is inherently vile and harmful probably contributes to the strong correlation between sex and violence in this country.

Reacting as though your child will become infected by depravity as the result of being exposed to a few seconds of porn isn't doing anyone, especially the child in question, ANY favors. Flipping out instead of stemming the trauma by explaining what just happened is exactly what will cause the trauma.

It could be a money shot followed by a fart in the face, it could be simulated rape. Many things that fall under the heading "porn" besides nudity could be traumatic for a kid to see. Again, just a prank, but porn does not equal nudity.

I don't post much but I follow the site, and I respect Athena. But I don't think questioning the assertion "porn=nudity" makes me uptight, except semantically. I also don't think it should be a felony.