Mo Washington Spill-Over Thread

JJ Husker said:
Another question that just came to me. If it was sent from his step dad's?? phone, how can they prove it was even MW that sent it? Maybe his step dad had knowledge of her, their previous relationship, trumped up assault case and thought she was a hoe....? (Sorry if it wasn't his step dad but that's what I thought I'd read)
Click to expand...
I sort of wondered that too, but it's just as likely that his step dad pays for his phone, so the phone is owned by the step dad according to the phone company.

 
RedDenver said:
I sort of wondered that too, but it's just as likely that his step dad pays for his phone, so the phone is owned by the step dad according to the phone company.
Click to expand...
Good point. I guess the phone company has no way of knowing 3 of the 4 lines I’m paying for are actually being used by others in my family. And if the police started researching any of those 4 numbers, they would all lead to me first. Makes sense.

 
JJ Husker said:
Maybe I'm being dense but I don't see how any of those answer any of my questions.

The boy who got a misdemeanor for revenge porn.....was he one of the accused in the assault or just some other rando?

Also, were all 3 actually expelled from the school or did any of them possibly leave by choice?

I can't imagine a girl who had actually or even possibly been sexually assaulted would ever be kicked out of her school. That seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen for the school. If she got kicked out of school, I'm leaning heavily towards the assault charge being groundless, her being some kind of tramp and therefore not finding anything significantly bad with him sending her such a video, if he did in fact send it.

Another question that just came to me. If it was sent from his step dad's?? phone, how can they prove it was even MW that sent it? Maybe his step dad had knowledge of her, their previous relationship, trumped up assault case and thought she was a hoe....? (Sorry if it wasn't his step dad but that's what I thought I'd read)

Sorry, I'm just trying to determine if there is any reason at all to not be giving him the benefit of the doubt and also trying to understand why a few hereabouts are already convinced what he supposedly did was terrible. I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure that the biggest confusion in the whole thing is the semantics.  Most people seem to think that it has to be against her will to be an "assault".  This is not true.  By the California legal definition, it is automatically an "assault" because she was a minor.  The girl apparently did not claim it was non-consensual until years after the event.  I agree that would be odd for her to get expelled if she was the victim of a non-consensual attack.

I believe the other boy who got in trouble was one of the boys in the video.

From what I've seen, all three were expelled.  

 
JJ Husker said:
Things I don't know about this case;

Was the girl actually sexually assaulted or was that just a story when a video got out?

Did the 2 kids she accused get any punishment whatsoever or was the assault case found totally lacking any evidence?

If he did send the video, did he have any idea that it was claimed as sexual assault by the girl?

Did she cheat on him to cause their breakup or was she possibly the hoe he supposedly said she was?

Those are some of the things I'd like to know before deciding how terrible his actions may or may not have been. It would only take 1 or 2 of them for me to quit giving him the benefit of the doubt. But if all of them fell in his favor, I'd have trouble thinking it was very bad at all. I haven't read every linked article completely. What am I missing?
Click to expand...


You're missing the fact that none of these questions really matter. The only questions that do are: did he have possession of the video, and did he send it to her with the explicit reasoning of causing her harm. 

 
If I'm a California prosecutor, this case isn't the hill where I'm planting my flag. Way too many unanswered questions to define case law with this stuff. 

Washington is allowed to plead this down, it metriculates down to pretrial diversion, and the case quietly goes away.

My guess is he serves a one game suspension and he's back for Colorado. 

 
Mavric said:
I'm pretty sure that the biggest confusion in the whole thing is the semantics.  Most people seem to think that it has to be against her will to be an "assault".  This is not true.  By the California legal definition, it is automatically an "assault" because she was a minor.  The girl apparently did not claim it was non-consensual until years after the event.  I agree that would be odd for her to get expelled if she was the victim of a non-consensual attack.

I believe the other boy who got in trouble was one of the boys in the video.

From what I've seen, all three were expelled.  
Click to expand...


Well that actually makes a lot of this mess make sense. So any under age sexual activity is classified as assault. Great. Weird Cali laws strike again. I mean that pretty much settles it that it wasn’t sexual assault like most rational people would view it. Sounds to me like she was just a hoe that got some video proof of it thrown back at her....but California. I hope nothing happens to Mo. He may be the least guilty party involved in this whole clusterf#ck (no pun intended  :lol: ).

 
Cdog923 said:
You're missing the fact that none of these questions really matter. The only questions that do are: did he have possession of the video, and did he send it to her with the explicit reasoning of causing her harm. 
Click to expand...
Those are the Cali legal questions. I could give two s#!ts about that. I’m only concerned if he knowingly taunted a girl who had been subjected to real assault.

 
RedDenver said:
I guess it comes down to whether you think it's not even worth any consequences for someone if that person can then get a second chance.
Click to expand...
I believe in consequences followed by second chances - situation dependent, obviously.

What I don't jive with is thinking he should be kicked off the team but available for literally anyone else. I think it would be different if he had been enrolled at the time. This all happened during the throws of 'will Mo even ever get here?' Like, I would think someone who wants to kick him out would feel he doesn't really deserve a chance anywhere.

But, again, it's a moot point to me. I don't think this is going to amount to much legally so I would expect the punishment from Frost to be commiserate. I could be wrong. But, if I'm right, my mind would be right where knapp's is.

 
JJ Husker said:
Well that actually makes a lot of this mess make sense. So any under age sexual activity is classified as assault. Great. Weird Cali laws strike again. I mean that pretty much settles it that it wasn’t sexual assault like most rational people would view it. Sounds to me like she was just a hoe that got some video proof of it thrown back at her....but California. I hope nothing happens to Mo. He may be the least guilty party involved in this whole clusterf#ck (no pun intended  :lol: ).
Click to expand...
California law has any underage consensual sex as an assault because minors can’t consent. So basically BOTH parties (or in this case 3) would all be guilty if they were all willing participants.  I doubt it gets enforced because of the sheer number of teenagers having sex.  What it does is probably discourages a parent of one teen from claiming an assault by another because they caught their 16 year old having sex with an 18 year old or something like that.  But that law is sort of nullified if one party claims an actual forced assault or rape has occurred.  

It doesn’t settle anything because she is NOW saying that it wasn’t consensual and she was raped.

She was expelled from school with the 2 boys immediately following the initial sharing of the video because the school ASSUMED it was a consensual thing because she didn’t speak up because she felt ashamed (her words).

Choose to believe her or not but calling her a hoe is part of what got Washington in this mess in the first place

 
JJ Husker said:
Maybe I'm being dense but I don't see how any of those answer any of my questions.

The boy who got a misdemeanor for revenge porn.....was he one of the accused in the assault or just some other rando?

Also, were all 3 actually expelled from the school or did any of them possibly leave by choice?

I can't imagine a girl who had actually or even possibly been sexually assaulted would ever be kicked out of her school. That seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen for the school. If she got kicked out of school, I'm leaning heavily towards the assault charge being groundless, her being some kind of tramp and therefore not finding anything significantly bad with him sending her such a video, if he did in fact send it.

Another question that just came to me. If it was sent from his step dad's?? phone, how can they prove it was even MW that sent it? Maybe his step dad had knowledge of her, their previous relationship, trumped up assault case and thought she was a hoe....? (Sorry if it wasn't his step dad but that's what I thought I'd read)

Sorry, I'm just trying to determine if there is any reason at all to not be giving him the benefit of the doubt and also trying to understand why a few hereabouts are already convinced what he supposedly did was terrible. I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...






You’re either being dense or you’re ignoring my partial answers. 

You said “Was the girl actually sexually assaulted or was that just a story when a video got out?”

The 2nd part of your question was incorrect regardless of the first part. It wasn’t a story when the video got out. It wasn’t an allegation until very recently, which is important, imo. On the first part, we can’t know if it was sexual assault. Only the girl and boys really know that. I really am tired of explaining that there doesn’t have to be obvious physical force for rape to be rape. It makes it almost impossible for her to prove it was rape but that doesn’t mean it’s not.

“Did the 2 kids she accused get any punishment whatsoever or was the assault case found totally lacking any evidence?”

I told you they got kicked out of school. Now you’re wondering how I answered your questions and you ask the same question again. What?

”Also, were all 3 actually expelled from the school or did any of them possibly leave by choice?”

I’ll answer it again for you - They got kicked out of school. 

“I can't imagine a girl who had actually or even possibly been sexually assaulted would ever be kicked out of her school.”

It’s really sad that I have to keep explaining this. She made no rape claim at the time it got out, so it’s likely there isn’t physical force shown in the video. This does not however mean it wasn’t rape. There is such a thing as blackmail, coercian, threats, other circumstances where, by the legal definition of rape, it’s rape without someone holding the victim down physically.

And I’ll repeat it again so I can avoid certain replies - I think there are several reasons to doubt her. I’m not believing her automatically. But thinking about sexual assault in general, you’re at least the 5th person on here who is talking like it can’t be rape because it doesn’t “look” like rape, as if rape has to look like physical force to be rape.

 
Mavric said:
I'm pretty sure that the biggest confusion in the whole thing is the semantics.  Most people seem to think that it has to be against her will to be an "assault".  This is not true.  By the California legal definition, it is automatically an "assault" because she was a minor.  The girl apparently did not claim it was non-consensual until years after the event.  I agree that would be odd for her to get expelled if she was the victim of a non-consensual attack.

I believe the other boy who got in trouble was one of the boys in the video.

From what I've seen, all three were expelled.  
Click to expand...




@Mavric @JJ Husker

That isn’t what’s going on here. Yes it’s true that it’s the legal definition, but the girl is claiming it was non consensual, and not due to her age. She says she was an unwilling participant and said no multiple times.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker said:
Well that actually makes a lot of this mess make sense. So any under age sexual activity is classified as assault. Great. Weird Cali laws strike again. I mean that pretty much settles it that it wasn’t sexual assault like most rational people would view it.
Click to expand...




No it doesn’t. You were misinformed. The girl stated she said no multiple times and she told them she didn’t want to.

The sexual assault allegation has nothing to due with the dumb California law about teenage sex. 

Edit: here is the quote. She doesn’t say she said no multiple times - I was confusing that with the jack in the box part. But the point is she’s claiming it’s rape. The allegation is not because she’s 15 but because she said she was unwilling. I really don’t think when she says she was being raped she’s talking about being 15. The CA law can’t possibly be used often or half the teenagers would be in juvenile detention or jail.

“They’re driving this way, and I’m like, ‘Jack in the Box is back that way,’” Taylor said. “And I said that probably 30 times to them, and eventually they pulled over at this park, with houses on the left hand side, and they’re like, ‘We’re going to have a threesome.’”

Taylor said she froze, terrified.

“That’s when they started to rape me, and while I was being raped, they took a video that I had no idea about.”
Click to expand...




She’s not even claiming she said no. I’m guessing she’s never going to press charges.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker said:
Those are the Cali legal questions. I could give two s#!ts about that. I’m only concerned if he knowingly taunted a girl who had been subjected to real assault.
Click to expand...




And back to this - no, I don’t think he did. The police and school didn’t come to the conclusion it was sexual assault, so why would an 18 year old?

 
Back
Top