Mo wash cited for drug paraphernalia

Decoy73 said:
He has not entered a plea yet.  His court date is June 12 to enter his plea.  Look if Frost wants to boot hime for the Cali thing, he can. I just don't think he will.  Punishing him for it makes little sense to me as well as I"m sure the courts will take care of that. Had he been a member of the team when it happened, then some sort of punishment from the team/Frost would be expected.  I think that is an important factor here, but who knows.  We'll see how this all shakes out.
Click to expand...
My mistake on the plea, but you're still wrong on your main point: this is literally a criminal matter.

 
dvdcrr said:
Yeah, I think the 2 strikes makes it worse and you factor that into a bigger suspension.  As far as it bein unfair to him, Hey you put yourself in that spot.  You knew what team rules were.
Click to expand...


Not so much what I meant - it's not fair to the other guys. If your message is after the initial suspension you can play if the guys replacing you aren't getting it done, that is not a strong message. Or to put it another way, you're telling the backups we want you to replace the starter because he's breaking rules, but if you can't do it well enough we'll put him back in.

 
I think some folks maybe have a pie in the sky idea of what Nebraska has always been, yes, even when Dr. Tom was here. Under his watch I bet there was lots of weed smoking, lots of alcohol drinking and lots of sex being had. I also bet there was some criminal activity going on. You know what- I even bet those 90's teams probably had a whole lots of steroids going on. But does anyone want to go back in time and say you know what we cheated or did drugs so kick Frazier or Ahman off the team. Or give up the Natty's cause guys were juicin. 

Kids do dumb s#!t and s#!t happens at all university's. Lets not act like finding a device used to smoke weed that had residue on it is that big of a deal. 

 
Moiraine said:
The internet is fairly new. As times change, there are new reasons to add laws. Revenge porn law is directly related to how easily this stuff can get disseminated to hundreds/thousands/millions of people. That wasn't possible to this extent or even close to it 20 years ago. California is just the first state to have one. If other states think it ends up working well in California, I'm sure it will be adopted by more of them.

And that is not at all what I meant by intent. I was talking about the intent of the law, not the intent of people posting videos of naked people. The intent of the law is to punish people who post porn videos of others in order to get revenge on them. IMO, the intent of the law was not to punish people for sending a video back to the person in said video. However if Washington thought it was sexual assault (I don't think he did), then the law should apply here too, imo. And there are cut and dried cases where you can prove guilt if you have access to comments made by the parties posting the videos.

If you think posting porn without the subjects' permission is a freedom of speech issue, I don't know that it's worth discussing with you anymore.
Click to expand...
Not at all what I said and I need to clarify that I am not referring to the felony charge of child porn possession he is facing.  It is the "revenge porn" law that I have an issue with.  I certainly don't condone "revenge porn" as it is typically interpreted.  However, I think legality issues involving phones and social media, etc should be decided at the federal level. Otherwise as soon as you cross a state line your guilt status has now changed, meanwhile your cell signal is bouncing off towers in the other state.  How do they enforce that?  How can they prove you were in possession of your phone and not someone else?  And will they subpoena the GPS history of your phone to see what state your phone was in at the time?  What if the recipient was in a state that had no such law?   All this for a disorderly conduct misdemeanor?

The first amendment allows for "freedom of speech and expression".  How do people "speak" and "express" themselves nowadays?  For better or for worse it's often thru social media, cell phones, etc.  Therefore I think the these laws should be universal throughout the nation.  That's just the way I feel about it.  If you don't want to discuss it further, that is fine, but please don't make false insinuations.  

 
Decoy73 said:
Not at all what I said and I need to clarify that I am not referring to the felony charge of child porn possession he is facing.  It is the "revenge porn" law that I have an issue with.  I certainly don't condone "revenge porn" as it is typically interpreted.  However, I think legality issues involving phones and social media, etc should be decided at the federal level. Otherwise as soon as you cross a state line your guilt status has now changed, meanwhile your cell signal is bouncing off towers in the other state.  How do they enforce that?  How can they prove you were in possession of your phone and not someone else?  And will they subpoena the GPS history of your phone to see what state your phone was in at the time?  What if the recipient was in a state that had no such law?   All this for a disorderly conduct misdemeanor?

The first amendment allows for "freedom of speech and expression".  How do people "speak" and "express" themselves nowadays?  For better or for worse it's often thru social media, cell phones, etc.  Therefore I think the these laws should be universal throughout the nation.  That's just the way I feel about it.  If you don't want to discuss it further, that is fine, but please don't make false insinuations.  
Click to expand...






I knew exactly which law you were referring to and I was referring to the same one. It’s my understanding there are a lot of laws that weren’t federal until they built up steam at the state level. California has the right idea here and I’m perfectly fine with someone who does revenge porn in Minnesota being prosecuted for it if they move to California.

You’re talking about evidence in cases. You know they still have to prove this stuff right? Mo isn’t in jail. People aren’t convicted just because they’re accused.

I still fail to see how revenge porn is a first amendment issue. You keep bringing it up like it’s relevant to the topic.

And as a reminder, we were talking about the law in general, not Mo’s case. Revenge porn is a serious issue. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
My mistake on the plea, but you're still wrong on your main point: this is literally a criminal matter.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing out when I'm wrong.  Just to clarify, I said I didn't think this was a case of "obvious criminal activity" and I gave examples of murder, rape, assault, etc.  Are you equating those with what MO is accused of?  It sure sounds like it.   If you are going to call people out, get your facts straight first.  

 
Moiraine said:
I knew exactly which law you were referring to and I was referring to the same one. It’s my understanding there are a lot of laws that weren’t federal until something they built up steam at the state level. California has the right idea here and I’m perfectly fine with someone who does revenge porn in Minnesota being prosecuted for it if they move to California.

I still fail to see how revenge porn is a first amendment issue.
Click to expand...
I said laws like this  (that involve social media, cell phones, etc) APPROACH first amendment issues IMO.  Never said "revenge porn" IS a first amendment issue.  What I'm trying to (and apparently failing) convey is that social media related laws are definitely a gray area that bring up all kinds of questions.  Some of which relate to the first amendment.  I think this law and other similar ones will probably need to be addressed by the Supreme Court someday.  

 
Landlord said:
I disagree. I think it's totally okay.

I personally reject the idea that rules don't define if something is inherently okay or not. 

I'm not confusing the two, I know what each is. I just weight them and evaluate them differently than you.

People think this is what teams do because........this is what teams do :lol: . I couldn't care less if it's good or not; it's happening and it's true. Overwhelming majority of players for Nebraska, Utah, Alabama, Michigan, Clemson, UMASS, Iowa State and Harvard all smoke weed.
Click to expand...


Well, you’re wrong  :P  You can disagree, think it’s okay and personally reject all the ideas you want. We aren’t dealing with defining if it is inherently okay or not. It is clearly and decidedly not okay because it is against the law and University rules. That fact is not debatable.

It is perfectly fine to have the opinion that weed use should be legal and should not be against University or team rules. Heck I might even agree with you on that. But it is just flat out wrong to say it’s okay now simply because it “should” be or because others do it. And the “other players and teams are doing it” will never be any kind of good argument. In fact it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve read in quite some time. Since when does what other people do have any bearing at all on what is good to do? Show me the studies that prove weed use aids sports performance and I might begin to listen.

And while you’re at it, please support your claim that the overwhelming majority of players on the teams listed smoke weed. You might smoke weed. I might smoke weed. Heck we both may have seen plenty of NU football players smoke weed (I saw a very high profile player from an early 80’s team doing coke) but that is not the same as claiming an overwhelming majority do it. Really, I’d be interested to see the proof of this.

 
Decoy73 said:
I said laws like this  (that involve social media, cell phones, etc) APPROACH first amendment issues IMO.  Never said "revenge porn" IS a first amendment issue.  What I'm trying to (and apparently failing) convey is that social media related laws are definitely a gray area that bring up all kinds of questions.  Some of which relate to the first amendment.  I think this law and other similar ones will probably need to be addressed by the Supreme Court someday.  
Click to expand...




Revenge porn isn’t going to be addressed at the federal level before laws exist on the state level, and they should exist. 

 
Decoy73 said:
Thanks for pointing out when I'm wrong.  Just to clarify, I said I didn't think this was a case of "obvious criminal activity" and I gave examples of murder, rape, assault, etc.  Are you equating those with what MO is accused of?  It sure sounds like it.   If you are going to call people out, get your facts straight first.  
Click to expand...
He's charged with felony possession of child porn along with the misdemeanor revenge porn. Yes, there are worse crimes, but that doesn't make his charges any less obvious or criminal.

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/06/04/already-facing-serious-felony-charge-nebraskas-maurice-washington-cited-for-drug-paraphernalia/

Washington is facing a felony count of possessing a video or photograph of a person under 18 who is engaging in or simulating sexual conduct and a misdemeanor count of posting a video or photograph of a person engaging in or simulating sexual conduct without consent, leading to the person suffering emotional distress.
Click to expand...

 
JJ Husker said:
And while you’re at it, please support your claim that the overwhelming majority of players on the teams listed smoke weed. You might smoke weed. I might smoke weed. Heck we both may have seen plenty of NU football players smoke weed (I saw a very high profile player from an early 80’s team doing coke) but that is not the same as claiming an overwhelming majority do it. Really, I’d be interested to see the proof of this.
Click to expand...




I spent 10 seconds on a google so not much time involved but here:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2018/04/11/martellus-bennett-89-percent-nfl-players-smoke-pot/508746002/

 
Landlord said:
I spent 10 seconds on a google so not much time involved but here:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2018/04/11/martellus-bennett-89-percent-nfl-players-smoke-pot/508746002/
Click to expand...


Soooo, they got one player to anecdotally hazard a guess at the percentage of NFL players who smoke weed and that’s your proof?  :lol:  And the premise of that article was NFL players using it as an alternative for pain management. That actually makes good sense for NFL players and anyone who is managing pain. Does Mo have lingering pain issues? I mean that one hit he took last year did look pretty nasty  :P

Look, I’m really not disagreeing with your position on weed. Hell I take CBD oil and occasionally marijuana edibles for health reasons, and I’ve been known to puff the magic dragon for purely recreational purposes (it’s legal where I live, unlike Lincoln Nebraska) But until the law and rules actually change, what Mo did in this instance was wrong. I’m not saying kick him off the team or that it is some huge character flaw. I’m just saying it was stupid and not team oriented behavior.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For more info, Bleacher Report interviewed 12 former pro athletes and 8 of them said they smoked weed regularly while playing. 

Eben Britton estimates at least 50% and up to 75% of NFL players smoke weed. An anonymous sports agent in the same article guessed 80%.

Ricky Williams thinks at least 70% in the early 2000s smoked.

The NCAA did a research study that said at least 25% did, although I couldn't find their research methodology.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top