Jump to content
PlzCoolerMe

Maurice Washington Faces Charges

Recommended Posts

Maybe we should pick sides.

 

Are you okay with what Washington did to the girl regardless of her age and therefore should be allowed to continue with the team?

 

Or

 

Are you not okay with what he did to the girl regardless of her age and think he shouldn't be on the team?

 

Or

 

Are you not okay with what he did to the girl regardless of her age but you're willing to let it go because he might be a good RB for 2019?

  • Thanks 1
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

or it was a messy breakup and she cheated on him? so he considers her a hoe? again we dont know squat 

We know he sent at best revenge porn and at worst child pornography.

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
California revenge porn penalties

PC 647(j)(4) makes revenge porn a misdemeanor in California law.9

The basic penalties for a first offense are:

But the penalties increase to up to one (1) year in county jail, and/or a fine of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000), if either of the following is true:

  1. You have one (1) or more prior convictions for revenge porn or Penal Code 647 invasion of privacy; or
  2. The victim of the revenge porn was a minor (in which case you may also need to worry about charges under California's child pornography laws).11
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, knapplc said:

 

Or maybe we should wait until we hear his side of the story, which may prove to be more true than hers?

 

I mean... this is all based on one side of the story.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Him sending the video is not one sided

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StPaulHusker said:

We know he sent at best revenge porn and at worst child pornography.

 

No, we don't. We know that's what he's accused of.

  • Plus1 2
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t revenge porn when a man and his gf/wife make a video and then after breaking up one of them posts it or makes it public?  Just asking because Mo sent it to the girl that was in the video, who had probably already seen it. It wasn’t like he posted it on Facebook.

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StPaulHusker said:

Him sending the video is not one sided

 

Do you know for a fact that he sent the video?

  • Thanks 2
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, knapplc said:

 

No, we don't. We know that's what he's accused of.

 

He sent the video.  What he may or may not be charged legally with is irrelevant.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 4skers89 said:

Isn’t revenge porn when a man and his gf/wife make a video and then after breaking up one of them posts it or makes it public?  Just asking because Mo sent it to the girl that was in the video, who had probably already seen it. It wasn’t like he posted it on Facebook.

No, the person sending the revenege porn doesn't have to be involved in making the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets pump the brakes a bit. Just a quick google search to look at the elements of the crime reveals the following: 

 

Under Penal Code 647(j)(4) PC, the legal definition of revenge porn/nonconsensual pornography is as follows:

  1. You have an image of the intimate body part of another identifiable person, or an image of that person engaged in sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation or masturbation;
  2. You intentionally distribute that image;
  3. There was an understanding between you and that person that the image would remain private;
  4. You know or should know that the distribution of the image will cause the person serious emotional distress; and
  5. The person depicted suffers serious emotional distress.

As such, it would be interesting to see how "distribute" is defined. Is just sending the picture back to the person considered "distributing"? I would doubt so. Also, it would seem the prosecution would have a tough time meeting element No. 3 of an "understanding that the image would remain private" - my guess would be there is no understanding between Maurice and the victim as she was likely unaware he was in possession. Similarly, the image would remain private as it was only disclosed to the person the image is of - and not the public. As many have said earlier, even if charged there are legal challenges to convicting of such a crime. I would venture to guess IF CHARGED (which he hasn't been yet), it would likely result in a plea deal of probation with deferment and expungement after 1 year. 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

Do you know for a fact that he sent the video?

The investigators say he sent the video. That seems like it'd be easy to prove or disprove.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

or it was a messy breakup and she cheated on him? so he considers her a hoe? again we dont know squat 

 

Yep.

 

What's the chance that she cheated on him, so that's why he broke up.  He then all of a sudden receives the video....thinking it's the situation that caused the breakup....and then sent the text.  

The wording in the text would make sense.

 

Now.....still......I guess that's still considered revenge porn.  But, that's also (to me anyway) not at the same level as if he posted it on the internet or mass forwarded it.

 

I think he did some things wrong.  I need more information before I completely condone the kid as a piece of crap.

  • Plus1 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StPaulHusker said:

 

He sent the video.  What he may or may not be charged legally with is irrelevant.

 

The video, according to her story, came from his phone.

 

Occam's Razor tells us he likely sent the video. But we don't know it was him. Could have been someone else on his phone. Could have been someone entirely different and she's lying.  We don't know anything yet.

  • Plus1 2
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

Maybe we should pick sides.

 

Are you okay with what Washington did to the girl regardless of her age and therefore should be allowed to continue with the team?

 

Or

 

Are you not okay with what he did to the girl regardless of her age and think he shouldn't be on the team?

 

Or

 

Are you not okay with what he did to the girl regardless of her age but you're willing to let it go because he might be a good RB for 2019?

 

Or, none of the above at this point?

  • Plus1 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

The video, according to her story, came from his phone.

 

Occam's Razor tells us he likely sent the video. But we don't know it was him. Could have been someone else on his phone. Could have been someone entirely different and she's lying.  We don't know anything yet.

Amen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

The investigators say he sent the video. That seems like it'd be easy to prove or disprove.

 

I don't get how you can say that with any certainty after having just written this minutes ago.

14 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Officers are people and people lie about a lot of things for a lot of reasons.

 

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

The video, according to her story, came from his phone.

 

Occam's Razor tells us he likely sent the video. But we don't know it was him. Could have been someone else on his phone. Could have been someone entirely different and she's lying.  We don't know anything yet.

Thanks knapplc  for being a voice of reason.  It is easy to jump to conclusions but we dont know enough yet to make a judgement one way or another.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

Lets pump the brakes a bit. Just a quick google search to look at the elements of the crime reveals the following: 

 

Under Penal Code 647(j)(4) PC, the legal definition of revenge porn/nonconsensual pornography is as follows:

  1. You have an image of the intimate body part of another identifiable person, or an image of that person engaged in sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation or masturbation;
  2. You intentionally distribute that image;
  3. There was an understanding between you and that person that the image would remain private;
  4. You know or should know that the distribution of the image will cause the person serious emotional distress; and
  5. The person depicted suffers serious emotional distress.

As such, it would be interesting to see how "distribute" is defined. Is just sending the picture back to the person considered "distributing"? I would doubt so. Also, it would seem the prosecution would have a tough time meeting element No. 3 of an "understanding that the image would remain private" - my guess would be there is no understanding between Maurice and the victim as she was likely unaware he was in possession. As many have said earlier, even if charged there are legal challenges to convicting of such a crime. I would venture to guess IF CHARGED (which he hasn't been yet), it would likely result in a plea deal of probation with deferment and expungement after 1 year. 

That’s what I thought. I don’t think this fits the definition of revenge porn. The situation sounds more like the girl reached out to congratulate Mo and his response was a clear message back that he didn’t want any contact from her and why.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

He wasn't in the video and didn't make the video. He should have deleted the video, but people on here are acting like those things are one in the same. It sounds much worse than what he actually did IMO

 

15 minutes ago, boach_clack said:

I agree!  stop acting like he was present and committed the act!

 

Distribution of said video is still a crime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

I don't get how you can say that with any certainty after having just written this minutes ago.

Because we don't have to believe the officers if they have evidence, which is why I said, "That seems like it'd be easy to prove or disprove."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Now you're getting closer.

 

Question....and it may not have a huge bearing on the outcome.  But, how old was he when this was happening?

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think his age matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 4skers89 said:

That’s what I thought. I don’t think this fits the definition of revenge porn. The situation sounds more like the girl reached out to congratulate Mo and his response was a clear message back that he didn’t want any contact from her and why.

Interesting take, I could see that being a scenario. I am just going to sit back and wait to see the rest of this unfold because we only know one side. Innocent until proven guilty is my style 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing we know for sure is that we have our first scandalous topic of the offseason. At least we have something to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cdog923 said:

 

 

Distribution of said video is still a crime. 

Is there a difference between sending it to the person in the video...and "distributing" it to multiple people who aren't?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

Interesting take, I could see that being a scenario. I am just going to sit back and wait to see the rest of this unfold because we only know one side. Innocent until proven guilty is my style 

 

This is absolutely where we all need to be. However, that's for a court of law, not for a football program. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, boach_clack said:

Curious, why were the parent monitoring her text messages?

 

I would guess they were watching out for exactly this sort of thing since the video had previously spread thru the school like wildfire and they were trying to protect her from further harm.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Is there a difference between sending it to the person in the video...and "distributing" it to multiple people who aren't?

 

According to the law? No. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Because we don't have to believe the officers if they have evidence, which is why I said, "That seems like it'd be easy to prove or disprove."

Is there a chance one of the boys who was involved in producing the film was playing on Mo's phone and thought it would be funny to send it to her from his phone?

 

I know the chances of that are slim.  But, I've known kids that age to do some pretty stupid stuff like that.  Heck, I had a friend get my wife's phone one time and was sending me text messages and thought it was funny as hell.  It's possible something like that happened here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Is there a difference between sending it to the person in the video...and "distributing" it to multiple people who aren't?

Yes there is a difference. An element of the crime of revenge porn is not keeping it private. A strong legal argument can be made that sending it back to the person it is of is not distributing it to the public. Instead, the prosecution will have a tough time meeting element no. 3 of the crime. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

According to the law? No. 

Hmmmm......

 

1 minute ago, bugeater17 said:

Yes there is a difference. An element of the crime of revenge porn is not keeping it private. A strong legal argument can be made that sending it back to the person it is of is not distributing it to the public. Instead, the prosecution will have a tough time meeting element no. 3 of the crime. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

Interesting take, I could see that being a scenario. I am just going to sit back and wait to see the rest of this unfold because we only know one side. Innocent until proven guilty is my style 

I think she hurt him when they broke up and maybe this video surfaced and took him by surprise and was the reason they broke up. It’s not like out of revenge for being hurt he posted the video online.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Is there a chance one of the boys who was involved in producing the film was playing on Mo's phone and thought it would be funny to send it to her from his phone?

 

I know the chances of that are slim.  But, I've known kids that age to do some pretty stupid stuff like that.  Heck, I had a friend get my wife's phone one time and was sending me text messages and thought it was funny as hell.  It's possible something like that happened here.

 

Yes. Anything is possible. He may have had nothing to do with this at all.

 

OR (and this is most likely, Occam's Razor & all that) he did something stupid, only this "something stupid" turns out to be a pretty major crime with (potentially) pretty serious consequences.

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, knapplc said:

 

Yes. Anything is possible. He may have had nothing to do with this at all.

 

OR (and this is most likely, Occam's Razor & all that) he did something stupid, only this "something stupid" turns out to be a pretty major crime with (potentially) pretty serious consequences.

Yep.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

but we dont know if he kept it on his phone or if he recently received it. 

 

In either case he'd still be a lowlife piece of s#!t.

  • Plus1 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Is there a chance one of the boys who was involved in producing the film was playing on Mo's phone and thought it would be funny to send it to her from his phone?

 

I know the chances of that are slim.  But, I've known kids that age to do some pretty stupid stuff like that.  Heck, I had a friend get my wife's phone one time and was sending me text messages and thought it was funny as hell.  It's possible something like that happened here.

Earlier in this thread, I said we should wait to hear from Mo before passing judgement. If he claims he didn't send the text, then we'll wait for the outcome of an investigation.

 

What I'm saying though, is that if he did send the text that he should be kicked off the team regardless of the legal details.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigRedBuster said:

Hmmmm......

 

 

 

You can hem and haw over what the precise definition of "distribution" and "revenge" are, but this pretty clearly falls under the "possession" category, at the very least. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF he was in the video or recorded the video I think we all would agree he should be gone today...BUT he wasn't in the video and didn't record it. He also DID NOT send it to any other person that we are aware of besides the girl who was in the video, who also happens to be his ex who broke up with him years past and decided to contact him because she saw he was a D1 football player. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Yes. Anything is possible. He may have had nothing to do with this at all.

 

OR (and this is most likely, Occam's Razor & all that) he did something stupid, only this "something stupid" turns out to be a pretty major crime with (potentially) pretty serious consequences.

 

This. The most likely scenario is that he did something stupid and didn't realize that he could get in major trouble for it. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

The second after he opened it, when he didn't contact the police, he was guilty. 

That's like saying someone slipped cocaine in your backpack without you knowing, then you found it and flushed it. But because you didn't call the police you are guilty of being a drug dealer.

 

Don't get me wrong the "alleged" incident is terrible. However, had he just not went full retard and sent the picture to the victim and deleted it we wouldn't be here. At this point he's guilty of being an absolute dumb@ss until he goes through the judicial process.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

The video, according to her story, came from his phone.

 

Occam's Razor tells us he likely sent the video. But we don't know it was him. Could have been someone else on his phone. Could have been someone entirely different and she's lying.  We don't know anything yet.

This is a very poor post Knapp.

 

I mean, is Dr. Strangelove replying to you or did my cat run across the keyboard? 

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the investigation:

 

She is raped (her words) in 2016 in California.  It's recorded by the 2 male individuals and sent to people in the school.

 

One of the male individuals was arrested in 2016 for the video distribution.

 

Washington receives the video in 2016.  Then he moves to Texas sometime between February 2016 and March 2018.

 

Washington sends the video to the girl in March of 2018.  

 

I'm thinking this wasn't a friend goofing around with Washington's phone.

 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope he has already contacted a lawyer.  I would think, if charges are filed, they would have to prove that he actually hit the button and sent the text.  

 

Seems like an ahole move but I would have no problem with suspending him for a few games and making it a learning experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×