Maurice Washington Faces Charges

[StPaulHusker]

3 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

That post kind of implied that only lawyers should be allowed to comment on legal topics. People have various levels of knowledge on different things, but if someone is talking out of their a$$, they will get exposed soon enough. I don't know how many actual lawyers are on this board, but there are several of us who work in legal or quasi-legal fields and can speak intelligently about this stuff.

 

It's kind of like asking, if we are debating the morality of something, if you are a philosopher or a clergyman, otherwise we won't trust your expertise on the topic.

 

Ric Flair used to pretend that he taught law or some such nonsense, but it was obvious from his posting that he held no such intellectual ground, so if someone on this board tells us they are a lawyer, I would take it with a grain of salt anyway.

No I get it.  Probably came off that way.  I just meant there might be some legal insight that could be shared that people might not understand or whatever.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

This story is going to get a bit more play than the average naughty athlete story because it involves test cases for fairly new California statues. That means people who don't care at all about football will be weighing in. 

 

Washington was a headline in today's San Francisco Chronicle sports section and was in the crawl on ESPN all last night. Kareem Hunt proved to be a slightly bigger story in this cycle. We'll see if it has legs. There's a lot of bad behavior that skirts the law, leaving the consequence to the court of public opinion and guys like Frost and Moos.

[Huskerzoo]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, if a person you are friends with screws up and does one thing wrong, you condemn them as a horrible person and disassociate with them.

 

Wow....that's some pretty high standards that I hope you can live up to yourself.  If you can, you are one hell of an amazing person.

 

I'm gonna go ahead and step in here as a psychologist. Behavior only changes when there are consequences. 

 

There are two variables in play here that the conversation is going back and forth on. The first is, do we know for sure he did it (and what is the context of him doing it)? 

 

The second is, if he did it should there be consequences and if so, what should the consequences be?

 

Your comment is mushing it all together and spinning peoples comments. 

 

The nice thing here is if we're patient, we will know number 1. Unless they used an encrypted software like what's app and they didn't save the messages, we will know all the information about if he did it and the rest of the conversation looked like. I think the problem that many people here are attending to is not taking the victim serious. Which is the sad history surrounding sex related laws in our country. These are also notoriously hard to prove because the evidence is temporary, and there are variables related to shame, embarassment, etc that come with sex crimes that prevent people from wanting to share. 

 

So while we should take an innocent until proven guilty stance, I think we lose track of other things. If he were accused of murder, would you say "until he's proven guilty he should stay on the team"? If your answer is no, we're drawing an arbitrary line somewhere. At some point, we take allegations seriously and there are consequences while we sort things out. This is how the legal system regularly plays out. So if you think he should be the equivalent of suspended without pay while we investigate, I'm game. But this no consequences until found guilty thing isn't how the world works. 

[Stumpy1]

26 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

I don't know about you guys but I want to hear more about @Stumpy1 friends new boobs!

According to my wife, she went from an A cup to a 36C.  All I know is they were nice.  

 

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

Just now, Stumpy1 said:

According to my wife, she went from an A cup to a 36C.  All I know is they were nice.  

 

 

should of asked for more pictures 

[Stumpy1]

3 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

should of asked for more pictures 

I was flirting with death the way it was.  

[hskrfan4life]

5 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

should of asked for more pictures 

Could you distribute those to me while I'm in Cali?

[Hedley Lamarr]

1 minute ago, hskrfan4life said:

Could you distribute those to me while I'm in Cali?

I think so but not sure let me ask @StPaulHusker on the morality of this so I know if I will be condemned as a terrible human being 

[Ulty]

2 minutes ago, hskrfan4life said:

Could you distribute those to me while I'm in Cali?

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, Huskerzoo said:

 

I'm gonna go ahead and step in here as a psychologist. Behavior only changes when there are consequences. 

 

There are two variables in play here that the conversation is going back and forth on. The first is, do we know for sure he did it (and what is the context of him doing it)? 

 

The second is, if he did it should there be consequences and if so, what should the consequences be?

 

Your comment is mushing it all together and spinning peoples comments. 

 

The nice thing here is if we're patient, we will know number 1. Unless they used an encrypted software like what's app and they didn't save the messages, we will know all the information about if he did it and the rest of the conversation looked like. I think the problem that many people here are attending to is not taking the victim serious. Which is the sad history surrounding sex related laws in our country. These are also notoriously hard to prove because the evidence is temporary, and there are variables related to shame, embarassment, etc that come with sex crimes that prevent people from wanting to share. 

 

So while we should take an innocent until proven guilty stance, I think we lose track of other things. If he were accused of murder, would you say "until he's proven guilty he should stay on the team"? If your answer is no, we're drawing an arbitrary line somewhere. At some point, we take allegations seriously and there are consequences while we sort things out. This is how the legal system regularly plays out. So if you think he should be the equivalent of suspended without pay while we investigate, I'm game. But this no consequences until found guilty thing isn't how the world works. 

 

On the very first page, StPaul proclaimed that Washington is a "low character guy" and should be kicked off the team.  He also proclaimed that Frost obviously doesn't care about high character guys on the team.  Now, this was on the very first page when we actually knew less than what we do now...for which still isn't very much.

 

StPaul then tried to act like some of his comments were in jest....meanwhile, he has kept up the same mantra throughout over 10 pages now of this thread.  He has proclaimed him guilty and that is evidence alone of the entirety of the man's character.  

 

The vast majority of the people (including me) in this thread simply want the facts to come out before we rush to judgement....then, an appropriate punishment should be put in place.  That obviously isn't good enough for him because he continues to argue that their opinion isn't harsh enough.

 

I see no difference between this and other more famous incidents where rush to judgement is done way before all facts are known.  

[hskrfan4life]

1 minute ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

I think so but not sure let me ask @StPaulHusker on the morality of this so I know if I will be condemned as a terrible human being 

If you're a terrible human being would that mean I would also be a terrible human being? Or only if it I distribute it to more people? It's a real foggy line.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Just now, hskrfan4life said:

If you're a terrible human being would that mean I would also be a terrible human being? Or only if it I distribute it to more people? It's a real foggy line.

@StPaulHusker PLEASE HELP!!!!

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, StPaulHusker said:

Yeah.  That's not going to justify revenge porn. 

 

 

I find it highly unlikely the purpose of a revenge porn law is to stop people from sending video back to the person who’s in it. And if it’s sent to them for blackmail purposes, there are already laws for that.

 

The goal of revenge porn laws is to stop people from distributing videos of others without their permission, to publicly shame them. IMO the law wasn’t meant for what Washington did but they’ll have to follow the letter.

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, StPaulHusker said:

I literally have zero notion that a coach can do that 100% of the time.  But go back and look at people on here that do.  Claiming he's "doing it the right way, etc"  I think that is where you will find your proverbial high horse.

 

 

 

 

Huh, I guess all I'm seeing is you claiming this is some kind of proof that Frost isn't doing it the right way and isn't striving for high character guys. I've seen no evidence to support that take at all. All it took for you is one allegation with zero facts or any real knowledge of what actually transpired.

[Redux]

32 minutes ago, Stumpy1 said:

I was flirting with death the way it was.  

 

I'm curious who it was now