Maurice Washington Faces Charges

Moiraine said:
This conclusion doesn't make sense based on the information we have. Neither of the boys were charged with assault.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I assumed since everyone, including news sources, were now referring to it as assault that obviously somebody would’ve been charged with assault. I also thought that somebody (you IIRC) told me probation was the punishment one of the boys received for the assault. Mistakenly I assumed they found no evidence of assault but gave him the lighter punishment for distributing the video. My bad.

Nobody is lumping anything. I'm not sure what you're talking about there.
Click to expand...
Based on the revelation that California considers 15 year olds having consensual sex as assault, just as they would a rape victim being assaulted. The state of California lumps them together. That was my intent.

I'm really not sure why you're saying it's not porn. It's people having sex in a video. What else would it be?
Click to expand...
Yes, technically it is porn. But if it was consensual and the people involved were all okay with it......until it got out to the public. The wording of the charges against Mo just strikes me as unnecessarily inflammatory. It feels almost as if Mo is being railroaded on many fronts. The title of the charges. The articles I’ve seen with pictures show Mo in his Husker uniform and the little innocent victim kneeling down with her cute little puppy wearing a birthday hat. The tone and phrasing of the NBC Bay Area article.....Something doesn’t feel right about referring to her as a victim of sexual assault before anyone is actually charged with sexual assault. It’s not like they don’t know who to charge. The least they could do is throw an “alleged” in there. Feels like an intentional attempt to make him look as guilty as possible and to present her as completely innocent and as a legitimate victim with no proof and no charges filed.

 
JJ Husker said:
Yes, technically it is porn. But if it was consensual and the people involved were all okay with it......until it got out to the public. The wording of the charges against Mo just strikes me as unnecessarily inflammatory. It feels almost as if Mo is being railroaded on many fronts. The title of the charges. The articles I’ve seen with pictures show Mo in his Husker uniform and the little innocent victim kneeling down with her cute little puppy wearing a birthday hat. The tone and phrasing of the NBC Bay Area article.....Something doesn’t feel right about referring to her as a victim of sexual assault before anyone is actually charged with sexual assault. It’s not like they don’t know who to charge. The least they could do is throw an “alleged” in there. Feels like an intentional attempt to make him look as guilty as possible and to present her as completely innocent and as a legitimate victim with no proof and no charges filed.
Click to expand...




Ya, many of us have had issues with how different articles are wording things. Some of them seemed to purposely make it seem like he sent the victim a video of what he knew to be her sexual assault back to her, which is a hell of a lot more heinous than what actually happened. (I thought the choice of photo was interesting too).

I don't have an issue with it being called child porn, because that's what it is. But I don't think it should be oversimplified. And hey, maybe there should be a different name for it when you're 18 and you were in high school with said child. There are differences in the legal consequences in many states including Nebraska.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Serious question. If this was just a picture of the act, would people be as upset about it? I feel like because it was a video it is being judged more harshly. Like, if his friend had sent him a picture of his ex giving a blowie and he had downloaded it to save to his phone and then, when she contacts him 2 years later remembers he has this picture saved in his cloud, grabs it and fires it back at her. Maybe it’s the same. But it feels like the video aspect of this is causing a few more people to pick up a few more stones?

 
Husker03 said:
Serious question. If this was just a picture of the act, would people be as upset about it? I feel like because it was a video it is being judged more harshly. Like, if his friend had sent him a picture of his ex giving a blowie and he had downloaded it to save to his phone and then, when she contacts him 2 years later remembers he has this picture saved in his cloud, grabs it and fires it back at her. Maybe it’s the same. But it feels like the video aspect of this is causing a few more people to pick up a few more stones?
Click to expand...




Doubt it makes any difference in anyone's opinion whether it's a video or photograph. And do you have to call it "blowie" ? That's weird.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
Doubt it makes any difference in anyone's opinion whether it's a video or photograph. And do you have to call it "blowie" ? That's weird.
Click to expand...
NVM. I was going to list all the names he could have given it and then point out blowie was probably the most board friendly version.

And I see detective Enhance was already on the case  :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Husker03 said:
Serious question. If this was just a picture of the act, would people be as upset about it? I feel like because it was a video it is being judged more harshly. Like, if his friend had sent him a picture of his ex giving a blowie and he had downloaded it to save to his phone and then, when she contacts him 2 years later remembers he has this picture saved in his cloud, grabs it and fires it back at her. Maybe it’s the same. But it feels like the video aspect of this is causing a few more people to pick up a few more stones?
Click to expand...


Not at all. 

 
They also have to prove that maurice was in the state of California at the time the video was sent. A good lawyer would know this. That's just one thing that could make this case difficult to prosecute there could be several others. 

 
ndobney said:
They also have to prove that maurice was in the state of California at the time the video was sent. A good lawyer would know this. That's just one thing that could make this case difficult to prosecute there could be several others. 
Click to expand...
Not sure that one will hold up bub... maybe, and I mean MAYBE on the revenge porn part... but no one here’s really worried about that minor misdemeanor.   The one people are worried about is the distribution of child pornography.    That one doesn’t have state lines. 

 
Redux said:
Yes, I said EXACT situation could happen to any one of us OR someone we care about.  I guess you don't know any teenagers?
Click to expand...


It's not something that happened to him.  Taunting someone with child porn is an action that you have control over.  Saying it could happen to any one of us seems extremely dishonest.

 
The Dude said:
It's not something that happened to him.  Taunting someone with child porn is an action that you have control over.  Saying it could happen to any one of us seems extremely dishonest.
Click to expand...


Saying someone you know or care about couldn't be involved in a situation like this is being way more dishonest.

 
ndobney said:
They also have to prove that maurice was in the state of California at the time the video was sent. A good lawyer would know this. That's just one thing that could make this case difficult to prosecute there could be several others. 
Click to expand...
No, that's not true. The state where an alleged crime happened can have jurisdiction to prosecute the offense. Although MW may have been out-of-state when the alleged text was sent, the text was received in California, thus making it a crime in California. There's already legal precedent for this with cyber crimes.

 
I would assume that if MW needs to go back to California, it will need to be just a short trip.  He might need to turn himself in, see a judge where formal charges are read to him, make a plea and then can return to school while the case plays out.

 
Back
Top