Twitter.com e-edition subscribe online Chippewa.com

Advertisement
WXPort
Click here to view Wisconsin Weather Radar

Updated Nov 27, 2008 - 12:06:16 CST

Web Search
powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Herald Archives
adv search

News

Who Makes Your Day?

Calling College Graduates!


Chi-Hi student found with nude photos on cell phone



24 comment(s)


By The Chippewa Herald
Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:06 PM CST

A Chippewa Falls High School student was arrested Tuesday after nude photos of females were found on his cell phone.

Joel D. Kolb, 17, was arrested for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and representation depicting nudity without the persons’ consent and knowledge Tuesday morning at the high school.

Administrators at the school had become aware that morning that Kolb allegedly had nude photos of a juvenile female on his phone. They asked School Resource Officer Dave BeBeau to assist in an investigation.

“When confronted, (Kolb) indicated that he did have pictures of numerous females in various states of undress, some that he had taken and some that had been sent to him,” said Lt. John Liddell with  the Chippewa Falls Police Department.

Kolb said the photos were all of women ages 17 to 23, but photos were found of at least one girl who was 16 years old.

The photos of the 16-year-old female were taken without the girl’s consent in a private setting, the report indicates.

During the investigation, Kolb became disorderly and threatened to burn the school down.

Although Kolb was arrested, he has not been formally charged. What charges, if any, are filed will be decided by the Chippewa County District Attorney’s Office.


PLEASE NOTE:

Comments on stories that are updated may disappear with each update. The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Chippewa Herald.

COMMENTS:

jollyroger wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:53 AM:

" To OKOKOKOK,
For being such an expert on the law, I thought you would know that you don't recieve a citation for that offense. Second she is considered a child at 16 and he is an adult at 17. He would be charged, her. Third the state of Wisconsin doesn't define photographs as sexual contact, which is required to be charged. Guess your not such a whiz after all. "

Report Abuse

hometowner wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:33 PM:

" Unfortunately, cell phones and the internet are the modern day version of the Playboy magazines that used to be hid under the bed. Another unfortunate reality is that sexual activity is starting at an increasingly younger age. This boy should not have taken pictures. This girl should have kept her clothes on. The teenage indiscretions of years ago at least had an element of privacy. Lots of victims here and no real solution in sight. "

Report Abuse

OKOKOKOK wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:01 AM:

" The age of consent for sexual activity in Wisconsin is 18 years of age. Where is this girl's citation?? "

Report Abuse

dilexit wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:24 PM:

" When does it go from boys being boys to boys going over the line? You have to draw the line somewhere don't you? If not here then where? "

Report Abuse

8588 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:14 PM:

" Wow, sure are allot of angry people posting on this story. If we all would just channel all this anger and use it in a positive way it would be such a nicer world for all of us to live in. I cannot believe this story is getting so much attention with everything else going on in the world with so much more at stake. "

Report Abuse

Blackhawkforever wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:28 AM:

" I'm fine with boys being boys. :) Wreck a four-wheeler, drink too much and get your face written on in permanent marker, make some mistakes, feel sorry, bear some consequences, repeat. That's just life.
I'm not fine with boys being unrepentant disrespectful pigs and/or criminals. "

Report Abuse

jimtownbum01 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:20 PM:

" "Boys will be boys!GET OVER IT!!!!!!!" "

Report Abuse

Blackhawkforever wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:26 PM:

" One more thing - I tend to believe that the photos of the 16 year old were taken without permission...obviously she wasn't in any sort of 'come hither' pose, or the police wouldn't believe it. The circumstances of the photo have to be such that a reasonable person would say it was taken without permission. "

Report Abuse

Blackhawkforever wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:23 PM:

" Whether she undressed voluntarily is a moot point. Something to talk about with the folks, yes, but irrelevant to anything else.
If he took her picture without permission, he should be prosecuted accordingly. An inappropriate photo that surfaces can be the downfall of scholarships, careers, and reputation.
There is a difference between being young and foolish (as we all were) and violating someone's trust and exploiting their vulnerability. That does need to be punished.
Girls who take photos of themselves - that's their own problem - but unsuspecting girls are victims. And regardless of our personal ideas, the LAW says 16 is a minor, and that is what matters. "

Report Abuse

happygolucky wrote on Nov 30, 2008 11:14 PM:

" oh yeah and one more thing -- HOW in the world was he put into a position where they were in a 'disclosed setting' and she was naked in front of him? Unless he was holding a gun to her head I think that a 16 year old is smart enough to know the difference yet they can cry when they want to because shock! they're a minor when daddy and mommy find out. and again, i apologize if he did it without permission and she didn't know he was seeing her naked. "

Report Abuse

happygolucky wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:45 PM:

" Ack half my post was accidentally deleted before I posted it. I don't remember all I put except that the point was that he is 17 and she is 16 and I don't think many of us were saints at that age. If he did not have permission then it's completely wrong to have. If she did give him permission the punish them both because it's not entirely his fault. "

Report Abuse

happygolucky wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:38 PM:

" i believe the law these days does go a little overboard on sexual behavior. heck, many of us older people would have been hauled off without question. i think the laws in this city is borderline religious fanaticism except for allowing people who do drugs to raise kids which is stupid.

he did have the picture without permission though, and that is a really bad thing to do--especially if she didn't give him permission to see her naked at all. had she given him permission then she's 16. get over it. i doubt if you were so pure when you were 16. were you? "

Report Abuse

Jakers wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:29 PM:

" He is stupid enough to do something like this. You don't just show people pictures of a nude 16 year old. That's deranged. "

Report Abuse

concerned2 wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:02 AM:

" whats up with all you people isnt the kid 17 the girl he had pictures of 16 im not saying what he did is the right thing but they are young and foolish all kids do foolish things apparently the girl wasnt so innocent either undressing in front of someone some where in a private setting as they call it... who knows and who has the right to judge maybe he is just another 17 year old kid that did a dumb thing some day it will be in his past like all the adults out there who can admit to doing some foolish things as a teenager right? i do not agree with chuckie that this should be on his record as a sexual pred for the rest of his life especially for one dumb and foolish mistake I feel bad for the girl on the cell phone if in deed she didnt know her pic was being taken but then again we havent seen if the pic was in a bathroom or in the middle of the woods some where if you were 16 would you want to admit to your parents that you didit "

Report Abuse

This Guy wrote on Nov 29, 2008 5:34 PM:

" Congratulations, Chippewa Falls!

We've again made foxnews.com! We report, you decide, felt this was a national news story. "

Report Abuse

8588 wrote on Nov 29, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Really45
You are right, I did not know about the whole arrest and charge thing so thank you for the lesson. Did not mean to upset anyone so if I did I am sorry. "

Report Abuse

chuckie wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:19 AM:

" There are several laws being broken here. Hopefully this creep will be registered as a sexual pervert. Then he will know what it is like to have his pictured viewed by the public. What comes around goes around "Bucko", get some help and live with your mistakes. And you threatened to burn down the school? "

Report Abuse

chipplady wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:11 AM:

" The article states that the pictures were taken WITHOUT HER CONSENT and where the 'private setting' in which they were taken was, is not stated in the article. So......since a couple of you don't have all the facts regarding this little piece of the puzzle, stop judging! Also even if the account was in the parents name, the phone is HIS and he is accountable for his actions with it! "

Report Abuse

really45 wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:15 AM:

" okokokok and 8588
I guess you need to take a law course. Police do not "charge" anyone, ever. Police make an arrest based upon probable cause and the District Attorney's Office files charges. So, yes, you can be arrested with no charges filed. The DA can wait to review all of the evidence involved BEFORE deciding to file charges or not. Also, if the DA decides not to file charges, it is still a lawful arrest so long as probable cause existed to make an arrest. Probable cause for the arrest are the pictures themselves. Any picture that depicts a child under the age of 18 yrs in "sexually explicit conduct" is considered child pornography. I will let you decide your own definition for "sexually explicit conduct." Also keeping in mind neither you nor I know what exactly the pictures protrayed. "

Report Abuse

jollyroger wrote on Nov 28, 2008 8:53 PM:

" Is it possible that this kid is a peeping tom? Maybe that is how he got the photos. "

Report Abuse

8588 wrote on Nov 28, 2008 5:29 PM:

" Okay let me get this straight. He is arrested and when you ask on what charges they say what? There are no charges? How can this be. Leave this kid alone and go after the real law breakers. I do not agree with what he and those girls did but give me a break here. Parents wake up and know what your children are up to. "

Report Abuse

bill wrote on Nov 28, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Ridiculous!
he did not force these girls to take their clothes off so he could take a cell phone pic. What I would question if it were my 16 year old daughter is how did you come to the point where you were even naked in front of this guy????
There's nothing here....no case at all. "

Report Abuse

OKOKOKOK wrote on Nov 28, 2008 2:10 PM:

" Guilty until proven innocent?? How can he be arrested if there aren't charges filed?? Does he have to prove himself innocent?? So the cop strongarms the kid and he moves so is disorderly?? Do all of the cops wear panties?? "

Report Abuse

RAJ wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:35 PM:

" Since the contract on the cell phone is likely in his parents' name, wouldn't the cell phone technically belong to the parents? In that regard, I'd imagine the content on the phone would then be theirs too. I'm not insinuating the parents should be held liable, but perhaps this will serve as a wake up call to all parents to monitor their kids' activities... "

Report Abuse

LOGIN / REGISTER:

*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

I agree to the terms and conditions

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MORE News


THIS WEEK'S TOP STORIES


MOST COMMENTED STORIES




Advertisements




Letter to the Editor | Comment about our Website

Copyright © 2009 Chippewa Valley Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.
All Chippewa Valley Newspapers pages are designed for screen resolutions set at 1024x768 or higher.
Click for our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use applicable to this site.