Jump to content


Maurice Washington Faces Charges


Recommended Posts


44 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

We don't know why she's claiming assault. All we know is she claimed assault and the screwy Cali law that says a 15 yo can't give consent to another 15 yo allows that, among other possible reasons. I may be wrong but since one of the alleged assaulters (is that a word?) only got probation for the assault charge, I'm coming to the conclusion that those who determined probation was a just punishment for the "crime" didn't think it was any kind of real sexual assault so they gave him the lightest possible sentence based on that technicality in the law.

 

This conclusion doesn't make sense based on the information we have. Neither of the boys were charged with assault. California almost never pursues the charge for that for teenagers having consensual sex. Similarly, there are 13 states where sodomy is illegal, but they don't go around arresting all the gay guys. The boy's punishment had nothing to do with assault whatsoever, because the girl didn't make the assault claim until 2019 (possibly 2018 privately), 2 years after the video was taken, and it apparently wasn't clear on the video that it was assault (by normal laws). There was no technicality of the law or any of that, because it wasn't claimed until recently. The punishment was "for distribution of child pornography," not for assault.

 

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/University-of-Nebraska-Football-Player-Maurice-Washington-Faces-Revenge-Porn-Child-Porn-Charges-Over-Video-of-Bay-Area-Teen-505666711.html?akmobile=o

 

Here is another clear sign the mention of assault has nothing to do with their ages. There's no indication anywhere in the article that the accusation was due to age. It wasn't considered sexual assault because she didn't report it as such (and it apparently wasn't obvious in the video).

 

Quote

Although she did not report the incident as a rape at the time because she says she felt ashamed, Taylor told NBC Bay Area the video depicts a sexual assault, not a consensual sex act.

 

The only reason this law was ever brought up is because we were arguing some nuance or another and I googled it and we were amazed it's the law. That's literally the only reason anyone started talking about it. It didn't come from any information about Washington or the girl or anything else related to this story.

 

 

 

44 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

It would be really beneficial if they wouldn't lump such diverse possibilities as the same sexual assault charge. It feels like the same issue is allowing them to call what MW allegedly did as child porn or revenge porn. I don't think the word "porn" belongs in any possibility of what MW may have done. Revenge Harassment (better) but child porn is just wrong imo considering they are effectively the same age and dated each other.

 

Nobody is lumping anything. I'm not sure what you're talking about there. She says she was raped. It's extremely unlikely she's just talking about kids having sex with each other. The fact that no mention of sexual assault was made until 2018/2019 makes that pretty clear.

 

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? There's nothing wrong with calling it revenge porn if he was trying to hurt her with it. That's what the accusation is about for that part. But even with that charge he's guilty of lesser things than the real purpose of that law. The purpose of that law is to prevent people from doing what the charged boy did, which is disseminate video to other people. There are other laws to prevent sending videos to the victim as a threat, but that's blackmail and he's not being accused of that. With child porn,  it has connotations that don't apply in this case. It still is child porn by definition and it's illegal for anyone of any age to possess it. But the details of the case are not explained away by just stating "child porn" over and over like some have been doing.

 

 

44 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

To be honest, it just seems like it was consensual and not a thing until the video got out and her parents saw it. Then she claims it was assault (or maybe her parents claimed it was assault based on the technicality in the law). And now they are doing the same thing with these ancillary changes against MW. Maybe I'm too used to seeing parents who cannot accept certain realities about their own children. I've seen so much of that it likely is preventing me from interpreting this any other way.

 

On this we agree. It's hard for me not to imagine this girl didn't want to admit to her parents that she was willing, because that's worse to her than the alternative. Also, the video doesn't seem to corroborate what she's saying. As has been discussed a lot, it can have been sexual assault even if no one watching the video came to that conclusion, but it means the video doesn't help her case.

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, RedDenver said:

So we still haven't heard anything from Mo or his lawyer yet?

I haven't seen or heard a thing since the arrest warrant was officially issued. I'm sure MW is planning his way back to CA or is already there. But, even after he arrives, they have to find a time to turn him in voluntarily and he needs to be processed by the county before he even gets a court date. I'm guessing the next bit of info. we receive will be if/when there's an initial court date set and what comes out of it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

 

We don't know why she's claiming assault. All we know is she claimed assault and the screwy Cali law that says a 15 yo can't give consent to another 15 yo allows that, among other possible reasons. I may be wrong but since one of the alleged assaulters (is that a word?) only got probation for the assault charge, I'm coming to the conclusion that those who determined probation was a just punishment for the "crime" didn't think it was any kind of real sexual assault so they gave him the lightest possible sentence based on that technicality in the law.

 

It would be really beneficial if they wouldn't lump such diverse possibilities as the same sexual assault charge. It feels like the same issue is allowing them to call what MW allegedly did as child porn or revenge porn. I don't think the word "porn" belongs in any possibility of what MW may have done. Revenge Harassment (better) but child porn is just wrong imo considering they are effectively the same age and dated each other.

 

To be honest, it just seems like it was consensual and not a thing until the video got out and her parents saw it. Then she claims it was assault (or maybe her parents claimed it was assault based on the technicality in the law). And now they are doing the same thing with these ancillary changes against MW. Maybe I'm too used to seeing parents who cannot accept certain realities about their own children. I've seen so much of that it likely is preventing me from interpreting this any other way.

 

 

 

The sexual encounter happened in 2016.  There was a video taken.  The video was distributed at the school of the girl and the 2 guys in the video.  One of the people that received the video in 2016 was Maurice Washington as he went to that school as well.

 

One of the males in the video was charged and received probation for distribution of the video.  Not for an assault.

 

The 3 in the video were expelled from the school.  The reason why the girl was expelled was because at the time, it was ASSUMED it was consensual because no one said otherwise.

 

The students that received the video were directed to delete it.  Maurice Washington, it appears, did not do that.

 

FAST FORWARD to 2018.  Girl reaches out to Mo to say congrats.  They start talking and he wants a sexual relationship with her.  When she declines, he gets mad.  She deletes him from social media.  He sends her the video.  These are her, and the police reports words.

 

The video is intercepted by her mother.  They call the police and here we are.  She says she didn't initially call it non-consensual, or assault, or rape, because she felt ashamed.  She now says that it was assault.  Believe her or don't. 

 

NO ONE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH AN ASSAULT AND THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT IT WAS AN ASSAULT.  The police were saying Mo COULD face charges related to an assault because he was refusing to speak to police so they had no idea what he knew or didn't know at the time the video was taken.

 

 

I think it is safe for us as Husker fans to not get wrapped up in the assault piece of this.  There is such a low chance that Mo will face any charges relating to an assault.  Let's focus on the distribution part.  That is where he is going to get in trouble if he in fact gets in trouble.

  • Plus1 4
  • Fire 1
Link to comment


6 hours ago, StPaulHusker said:

 

 

 

The sexual encounter happened in 2016.  There was a video taken.  The video was distributed at the school of the girl and the 2 guys in the video.  One of the people that received the video in 2016 was Maurice Washington as he went to that school as well.

 

One of the males in the video was charged and received probation for distribution of the video.  Not for an assault.

 

The 3 in the video were expelled from the school.  The reason why the girl was expelled was because at the time, it was ASSUMED it was consensual because no one said otherwise.

 

The students that received the video were directed to delete it.  Maurice Washington, it appears, did not do that.

 

FAST FORWARD to 2018.  Girl reaches out to Mo to say congrats.  They start talking and he wants a sexual relationship with her.  When she declines, he gets mad.  She deletes him from social media.  He sends her the video.  These are her, and the police reports words.

 

The video is intercepted by her mother.  They call the police and here we are.  She says she didn't initially call it non-consensual, or assault, or rape, because she felt ashamed.  She now says that it was assault.  Believe her or don't. 

 

NO ONE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH AN ASSAULT AND THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT IT WAS AN ASSAULT.  The police were saying Mo COULD face charges related to an assault because he was refusing to speak to police so they had no idea what he knew or didn't know at the time the video was taken.

 

 

I think it is safe for us as Husker fans to not get wrapped up in the assault piece of this.  There is such a low chance that Mo will face any charges relating to an assault.  Let's focus on the distribution part.  That is where he is going to get in trouble if he in fact gets in trouble.

This is a good summary, Thanks. As for the part I bolted, where have you found this information? That is new info to me. How do we know Mo wanted a sexual relationship with her now and then got mad? I know you said it was her and the police report words but where is that from?

 

BTW, I still am having trouble believing her. Sure she could’ve felt ashamed and not made the sexual assault charges sooner but I find it highly unlikely given all the other evidence, especially with a lack of any assault charges.  It just seems extremely convenient now to make that allegation.

 

The only reason I even ventured down this road is because I felt some people were jumping the gun on how heinous Mo’s supposed actions were, without hardly any evidence or facts. I know I run the risk of being labeled some kind of monster for doubting the character and voracity of a sexual assault victim. But false claims and charges by “victims” is extremely damaging to the efforts of actual victims. Much worse IMO than anything Mo has been accused of. Considering I really don’t know jack squat about it, I may have picked a bad hill to die on but I’ll still give Mo the benefit of the doubt until the facts suggest otherwise. Not because he’s a football player but because I don’t think the facts yet warrant many of the things that were said about him.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, DrunkOffPunch said:

It isn’t really. It’s just covering HS aged kids. Probably makes more sense for smaller schools  like the one I graduated from where we only had like 20 girls total in HS.

When i first read it , I was thinking more strange in its nature, than uncommon. It is a tricky , complex issue though and lines need to be drawn to prevent exploitation/abuse. 

To me 14 year olds are pretty young to be having sex with anyone but they do, and two young kids getting together shouldn't be a criminal offense. The difference between an 18 year old and 17 year old though is no big deal IMO and shouldn't be a criminal thing,  An 18 year old and a 14 year old isn't good, but  i'm not sure how "criminal" it should be considered. After further thought those laws do a pretty good job of covering things.   

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

This is a good summary, Thanks. As for the part I bolted, where have you found this information? That is new info to me. How do we know Mo wanted a sexual relationship with her now and then got mad? I know you said it was her and the police report words but where is that from?

 

BTW, I still am having trouble believing her. Sure she could’ve felt ashamed and not made the sexual assault charges sooner but I find it highly unlikely given all the other evidence, especially with a lack of any assault charges.  It just seems extremely convenient now to make that allegation.

 

The only reason I even ventured down this road is because I felt some people were jumping the gun on how heinous Mo’s supposed actions were, without hardly any evidence or facts. I know I run the risk of being labeled some kind of monster for doubting the character and voracity of a sexual assault victim. But false claims and charges by “victims” is extremely damaging to the efforts of actual victims. Much worse IMO than anything Mo has been accused of. Considering I really don’t know jack squat about it, I may have picked a bad hill to die on but I’ll still give Mo the benefit of the doubt until the facts suggest otherwise. Not because he’s a football player but because I don’t think the facts yet warrant many of the things that were said about him.

The bolded was from one of the articles posted a few pages back.  That’s all I can tell you.  I don’t remember which one. 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...