Guy Chamberlin Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 18 minutes ago, boach_clack said: I agree. I have seen it happen. Its not a big deal, until its a big deal. I have seen kids expelled for the entire year. Maybe we were the same way before the internet, but a lot of kids have no understanding of actions and consequences. But the internet changes a lot of it. Kids actually post videos of themselves committing crimes as some kind of brag, then seem befuddled when they get arrested. Even the non-criminal kids need to be reminded that future employers can run simple internet searches and learn an awful lot about you. Are you sure you want that thing you posted to last forever, available to anyone? 1 Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 16 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said: I wonder how much of this could have been avoided if Washington's lawyers just let him speak to the police and explain what happened instead of running interference. Probably not much. 4 Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Just now, BigRedBuster said: Probably not much. I disagree Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 hour ago, StPaulHusker said: I disagree It could've meant something, it could've meant nothing. I don't think there's enough information to have an informed opinion either way. Washington has the right to remain silent and no charges were brought against him last fall. And, according to Bruning, the CA county attorneys were being hostile and unprofessional at the time. So, legally speaking, they had no obligation to do anything and it could actually benefit them in court. 4 Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 37 minutes ago, Enhance said: It could've meant something, it could've meant nothing. I don't think there's enough information to have an informed opinion either way. Washington has the right to remain silent and no charges were brought against him last fall. And, according to Bruning, the CA county attorneys were being hostile and unprofessional at the time. So, legally speaking, they had no obligation to do anything and it could actually benefit them in court. If they cops weren't being forthright in what they wanted to discuss (they usually won't be), then you definitely don't talk to them without a lawyer. We've already established that they were vague with the University, and I doubt they were any less vague with Mo and his lawyer. 5 1 Quote Link to comment
ndobney Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Enhance said: 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. No I actually just talked to a lawyer friend I have, and he confirmed jurisdiction would lay where the alleged evil act occurs. If he was out of state California has no jurisdiction Quote Link to comment
Husker in WI Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, ndobney said: No I actually just talked to a lawyer friend I have, and he confirmed jurisdiction would lay where the alleged evil act occurs. If he was out of state California has no jurisdiction I don't think they would've issued a CA arrest warrant for Washington if they didn't have jurisdiction. Maybe don't hire your buddy if you ever need a lawyer. 4 1 Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Maybe we were the same way before the internet, but a lot of kids have no understanding of actions and consequences. But the internet changes a lot of it. Kids actually post videos of themselves committing crimes as some kind of brag, then seem befuddled when they get arrested. 2 Quote Link to comment
Bigred_inSD Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 36 minutes ago, Landlord said: Not enough +1 in the world for this post Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 hour ago, ndobney said: No I actually just talked to a lawyer friend I have, and he confirmed jurisdiction would lay where the alleged evil act occurs. If he was out of state California has no jurisdiction Then you need to consult with a different lawyer because that's not accurate to this case. At all. I believe @Redux was selling timeshares if you're interested. 1 Quote Link to comment
SouthLincoln Husker Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 19 minutes ago, Enhance said: Then you need to consult with a different lawyer because that's not accurate to this case. At all. I believe @Redux was selling timeshares if you're interested. My guess is your talking about extradition. California can not or will not extradite for a misdemeanor, but can for a felony. This explains the child porn charge! Quote Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 2 hours ago, ndobney said: No I actually just talked to a lawyer friend I have, and he confirmed jurisdiction would lay where the alleged evil act occurs. If he was out of state California has no jurisdiction You should tell your friend that the Supreme Court ruled on the detrimental effects way back in 1911. Summary: Quote To satisfy the minimum requirements for an exercise of criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state conduct, there must be (1) an act occurring outside the state, which is (2) intended to produce detrimental effects within the state, and (3) is the cause of detrimental effects within the state. Unlike the jurisdictional analysis in civil cases, the "minimum contacts" analysis does not apply when determining criminal jurisdiction.6 In criminal cases, the analysis focuses on the intent of the defendant and the effects within the forum state. 1 1 Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 12 minutes ago, SouthLincoln Husker said: My guess is your talking about extradition. California can not or will not extradite for a misdemeanor, but can for a felony. This explains the child porn charge! It's not about extradition. @ndobney was talking about jurisdiction and prosecution. The alleged victim in this crime received the text in California. It does not matter if the perpetrator was in Nebraska or Tibet. The alleged text was a crime in California and they can prosecute it under California law. It's the exact same way we prosecute other inter-state cyber crimes. 1 Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Enhance said: It's not about extradition. @ndobney was talking about jurisdiction and prosecution. The alleged victim in this crime received the text in California. It does not matter if the perpetrator was in Nebraska or Tibet. The alleged text was a crime in California and they can prosecute it under California law. It's the exact same way we prosecute inter-state cyber crimes. Correct. It wouldn't make any sense in saying the jurisdiction is where the perpetrator is instead of the victim in cyber crimes since so many perpetrators are outside the country. You would never be able to prosecute them in the US. 1 Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 43 minutes ago, Enhance said: Then you need to consult with a different lawyer because that's not accurate to this case. At all. I believe @Redux was selling timeshares if you're interested. And they are selling fast! Do. Not. Hesitate! 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.