it's also about the facts. Not just the Tribune's distorted account or allegations, but what actually happened and the real material consequences. Minus those distortions. The state has yet to prove a case for felony criminal property destruction.

JW,

As far as the six hipsters is concerned... "don't start what you can't finish".

Snide comments + poor grammar = STFU.

I understand that. So what it might boil down to is the depth and amount of the damage. But still, why lobby for the charges to be dropped? I am not a lawyer, but can they plead no contest? The videotapes of the incident will show without a shadow of a doubt that the act was committed, and hopefully an impartial judge will have the common sense to assess the damage fairly. I know, you can argue that the court system is not fair, the police/government is corrupt, but that still does not excuse a person/individual from accepting responsibility for what they've done. Also, I'm sure some/a lot of the reporting of the incident in all media is distorted, but when it comes down to it, if the individuals were to offer to pay for the damage, I would like to think that the offer would be accepted. Sometimes "criminal" acts are prosecuted by the state, not the "victim", in this case the church. Does the church even have a say as to whether or not the charges could be dropped? Maybe I am naive to continue to think that if you can't admit/accept responsibility for something that you've done, you shouldn't have done it. I have done things in my life that I am not exactly proud of in hindsight, but I can't remember a time when I didn't stand my ground and accept responsibility for the things I did, which has resulted in me losing jobs, friends, money and opportunities. We all have lessons to learn, and for better or worse, the time has come for the Holy Name 6.

none of the defendants has refused to take responsibility, but as you point out, responsibility would be repairing the actual damage done... at most, $3000 of carpet replacement.

felony charges for a carpet stain is not about responsibility; it's about intimidating activists into stepping down just when we most need to step up.

though i cannot presume to speak for the six, i think they would quite happily take the opportunity to repair the actual, physical damage done, even if that meant scrubbing out the alleged food coloring with toothbrushes.

and then, i hope, they would go and do it all again. and this time, keep the stage blood *off* the carpet.

What is taking responsibility? Do they have an option to pay for the carpet and have the case dropped? It seems that it would be ideal to see the property damage resolved between the Archdiocese and the individuals, leaving the state out of it, if that is an option.

My sentiments exactly, if that is an option. But if every time a "criminal" act if committed, and restitution is made, should charges be dropped? I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but if I a rob a bank, simply by going in yelling and scaring people, no weapon involved, but am caught and give all the money back why should I be charged with a crime? Laws are writte to be a deterrent, and if they are broken, there are consequences. If these 6 individuals are/were smart, they should have looked into what is and is not legal. Maybe it's my overactive eye for detail, but in one photo it looks to me like a couple of the girls were trying to wipe up some of the "fake" blood off of the carpet. No law against spraying yourself with fake blood. And if that is the case, then yes, they are guilty of damaging property. Another wild comparison, I mark on the side of your house with a small black marker, while someone else uses a can of spray paint. Who is more guilty? If we're both caught we're both guilty. But neither of us shouldn't have been marking on your house anyway.