Maurice Washington Faces Charges

[CapoValley]

Just now, teachercd said:

Thanks LA LAW...

What in the world is wrong with you?

[teachercd]

Just now, CapoValley said:

What in the world is wrong with you?

Do you not remember that show?

[Red Dead Redemption]

28 minutes ago, CapoValley said:

Some great discourse here 

 

I know, right?
I asked you a simple yes/no question, and you avoided it as if one saw their cousin at a family reunion they recently had sex with.

[CapoValley]

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

Do you not remember that show?

You and a few others are being intentionally obtuse about Washington’s situation. I don’t unequivocally know the reasons why but I’m pretty sure it’s because the person in question appears to be a big catalyst whether or not Nebraska makes a bowl or not this year. 

 

Pretend Mo plays for Ohio St.  Do you still have the same opinion?  Pretend he’s just Maurice from Santa Clara. Do you even care?

[CapoValley]

1 minute ago, Red Dead Redemption said:

 

I know, right?
I asked you a simple yes/no question, and you avoided it as if you saw your cousin at a family reunion you recently had sex with.

You asked a question about case that couldn’t be further away from what the Maurice Washington case is about. 

 

Now you’re making crude jokes about me and my family. Because you want Nebraska to have a good running back. 

 

 

[teachercd]

Just now, CapoValley said:

You and a few others are being intentionally obtuse about Washington’s situation. I don’t unequivocally know the reasons why but I’m pretty sure it’s because the person in question appears to be a big catalyst whether or not Nebraska makes a bowl or not this year. 

 

Pretend Mo plays for Ohio St.  Do you still have the same opinion?  Pretend he’s just Maurice from Santa Clara. Do you even care?

I don't care at all no matter who he is...I don't know the guy or the girl.  I also won't pretend about college guys playing for other college teams, I think that is a bit weird.

 

Also, do you really not know LA Law?

[Red Dead Redemption]

8 minutes ago, HuskerPowerVA said:

Its called the judicial process.  It was a felony.  So now do I have to explain the investigatory process: probable cause, what a preliminary hearing does,  and the arriagnment?   It should have been filed.  If a deal is made or a trail finds the facts call for lesser punishment or none at all is when that discretion is made.  

 

For someone who previously implied a single piece of evidence clearly indicates circumstances are quite black and white, you now seem to be injecting a lot of gray...

[CapoValley]

7 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I don't care at all no matter who he is...I don't know the guy or the girl.  I also won't pretend about college guys playing for other college teams, I think that is a bit weird.

 

Also, do you really not know LA Law?

 

Super neat you teach people’s children.  

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, CapoValley said:

 

Super neat you teach people’s children.  

Oh, thanks!  I sort of thought we got off on the wrong foot but I appreciate that.  

 

What do you do for a living?

[CapoValley]

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

Oh, thanks!  I sort of thought we got off on the wrong foot but I appreciate that.  

 

What do you do for a living?

Tell me where you teach and I’ll tell

you

[teachercd]

5 minutes ago, CapoValley said:

Tell me where you teach and I’ll tell

you

Sure.

 

I teach online for an online HS.  

 

You?

[WyoHusker56]

35 minutes ago, HuskerPowerVA said:

If you keep a video of a 15 year old and send it years later, yes, you are.   Sorry technology is an excuse for you to be a creep.  

 

Saving the video and sending it years later is the Revenge Porn charge. Having the video regardless of how long is the possession part. That's where people are drawing the line. 

 

I agree what Mo did was wrong and stupid and he should be punished. However comparing him or any high schooler to some real child porn creep makes no sense to me. 

[Red Dead Redemption]

6 minutes ago, CapoValley said:

You asked a question about case that couldn’t be further away from what the Maurice Washington case is about. 

Now you are just making excuses.

In the MW case, you implied its black and white -- clearly child pornography, mitigating circumstances don't matter

 

The case I asked you about should be just as black and white. The dude admitted to stealing a truck. Is that not a felony? 

 

6 minutes ago, CapoValley said:

Now you’re making crude jokes about me and my family. Because you want Nebraska to have a good running back. 

 

Now you are lying. I didn't say anything about your family. It was a hypothetical/fictional account using the "royal you". If it make you feel better, perhaps I should have phrased it as "as if one saw their cousin at a family reunion they recently had sex with."

 

Oh, and your last sentence is a lie as well.

I clearly stated earlier in this thread that I don't care if MW is a football player for ANY team or not, or just some random kid.

While what MW did was morally wrong, the "child porn" charge is unjust.

[teachercd]

Just now, WyoHusker56 said:

 

Saving the video and sending it years later is the Revenge Porn charge. Having the video regardless of how long is the possession part. That's where people are drawing the line. 

 

I agree what Mo did was wrong and stupid and he should be punished. However comparing him or any high schooler to some real child porn creep makes no sense to me. 

NOoooooo!   IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!!

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, HuskerPowerVA said:

Clearly your entire knowledge of the legal system comes from Google search.  He is not being charged by federal guidelines.  Laws should change because we have cell phones?  LOL!!!   BY that reasoning we should have changed them when we developed cameras. 

 

 

It’s not relevant whether he’s being charged by federal guidelines. The discussion we were having was how there are many consent laws the differ in punishment based on ages. Child porn is the same in some places. California happens to be one such place; in some instances the penalty is worse if the depicted person(s) is under 12.

 

Due to cell phones a lot of teenagers who aren’t pedophiles could be deemed felons for doing something that the laws weren’t intended to stop, so yes, looking into changes is something that should be considered. Having a nude photo of your 15 year old boyfriend when you’re 15 isn’t what child porn laws are intended for and it’s way more of an issue now than it was back when you had to go get film developed.