Maurice Washington Faces Charges

[Fru]

58 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

The bolded is where issues arise. You can't just sit him for a game or two if his case is caught up in the courts. One game would work but after that you eitger have to play or sit him until its resolved. As others have stated, that is a bit unfair. I do understand the pattern of behavior, but I think the rest of your concerns are overblown. This I don't see going anywhere in the national media whatsoever. LeGrone and Hunts situation would garner national attention if rumors are true and  they weren't suspended, but this story doesn't have legs to stand on IMO. Child pornography is a very flimsy charge in this case and thats the only felony at play.

 

I meant game or two with the current court schedule. Not if it gets kicked down the road or something. 

 

Unfair? Actions have consequences. Things may not seem “fair” when you put yourself in position to be convicted of a felony. 

 

Who are you to say that it’s a flimsy charge? 

[Nebfanatic]

10 minutes ago, CapoValley said:

Here’s the problem: Mo's case is anything but the "standard" boyfriend-girlfriend sexting like is being talked about here. He objectively possessed (at least long enough to forward) a video of his ex girlfriend (allegedly) being sexually assaulted. He clearly knew her thoughts on the video. He then possessed that video (probably for close to 4 years) long enough to use it to revictimize her. That's only the misdemeanor, and you may or may not be right on the revenge porn charge. His felony is for possession, which couldn't be clearer.

 

Mo screwed up badly by having the video and sending it back. There’s no real debate that he possessed it. Now...is there a prosecutor looking to get a notch on a belt? Sure, they’re looking for a successful prosecution under a new law. 

 

This is going to trial unless he pleads out. And the team is going to have to do something. 

I know all of this. The felony is possession of the video. But realistically in my mind the major wrong was sending the video. That in the eyes of the law is a misdeminor. The possession by law is a felony and they may well charge him for felony child pornography but that would be pretty messed up in my view. Does my view matter in the court of law? No, but that is my opinion that a kid Maurices age getting convicted of felony child pornography knowing what we do is absurd. 

[Moiraine]

20 minutes ago, CapoValley said:

Here’s the problem: Mo's case is anything but the "standard" boyfriend-girlfriend sexting like is being talked about here. He objectively possessed (at least long enough to forward) a video of his ex girlfriend (allegedly) being sexually assaulted. He clearly knew her thoughts on the video. He then possessed that video (probably for close to 4 years) long enough to use it to revictimize her. That's only the misdemeanor, and you may or may not be right on the revenge porn charge. His felony is for possession, which couldn't be clearer.

 

Mo screwed up badly by having the video and sending it back. There’s no real debate that he possessed it. Now...is there a prosecutor looking to get a notch on a belt? Sure, they’re looking for a successful prosecution under a new law. 

 

This is going to trial unless he pleads out. And the team is going to have to do something. 

 

 

 

I know I’m nitpicking, but is isn’t accurate at all that he clearly knew her thoughts on the video. Police looked at the video when the incident happened. The school was involved. None of the adults involved knew it was potentially a sexual assault at the time. The girl didn’t make that accusation until years later. 

 

It’s actually far more likely Washington did NOT know her thoughts on the video because even the adults didn’t know it might be a rape. So why would he know? The more obvious choice is his recent ex girlfriend had a threesome when they were 15 and he was mad at her last year for not hooking up with him so he tried to shame her again for being a “slut.” In his mind the video embarrassed her. In his mind her thoughts were it was a video of an embarrassing incident. That’s a lot different than him thinking it was a video of rape.

 

A lot of the headlines on this tried to make it sound like he tried to hurt her by making her watch her own rape and the evidence we have points to him not even knowing she had ever made that accusation.

[Nebfanatic]

2 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

I meant game or two with the current court schedule. Not if it gets kicked down the road or something. 

 

Unfair? Actions have consequences. Things may not seem “fair” when you put yourself in position to be convicted of a felony. 

 

Who are you to say that it’s a flimsy charge? 

Is Maurice being tried in the court of law not a consequence? And I'm pretty sure if you asked the public to vote on if they think kids in possession of explict videos of their peers should be convicted of felony child pornography you would get a resounding no. That doesn't hold up in a court of law, but maybe the law should be changed then.

[knapplc]

 

[30-50 Feral Hogs]

12 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

You use the term sexually assaulted pretty loosely.  From my understanding she was willingly performing an act with another minor that got video tapped.  That is not sexual assault.  

I believe she claims she was coerced into being a willing participant and she was a minor.  And you might want to make sure that you have an understanding of what the California law on assault is before you claim what is or isn't.

[Undone]

16 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, it appears to me that the staff knows what they are going to do but don't want it released before the game.

 

Agreed.

 

Have to really drill into the public's perception that it's being taken seriously. But as I've posted too many times to count in this thread alone, to me it comes back to a thing where giving a suspension of 'X' number of games interferes with the overarching flow of the perception of the court proceedings. 

 

The happy medium might be that he just doesn't get played and that the reason given is not that it's a "suspension" or a "punishment" but rather just "waiting until we know more." This could probably play out best and it's my prediction that he probably won't play on Saturday.

[Fru]

6 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Is Maurice being tried in the court of law not a consequence? And I'm pretty sure if you asked the public to vote on if they think kids in possession of explict videos of their peers should be convicted of felony child pornography you would get a resounding no. That doesn't hold up in a court of law, but maybe the law should be changed then.

 

Aaaaaaand with that, I am done with this conversation. Govern yourself accordingly. 

[Huskers93-97]

2 minutes ago, 30-50 Feral Hogs said:

I believe she claims she was coerced into being a willing participant and she was a minor.  And you might want to make sure that you have an understanding of what the California law on assault is before you claim what is or isn't.

I think most of us on this board would not be alive and none of our kids would be alive if Dad didnt have to coerce mom. Just because you regret it later doesnt mean anyone did anything wrong. 

[Undone]

1 minute ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I think most of us on this board would not be alive and none of our kids would be alive if Dad didnt have to coerce mom. Just because you regret it later doesnt mean anyone did anything wrong. 

 

Wait...

 

Wait..

 

What?

[30-50 Feral Hogs]

1 minute ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I think most of us on this board would not be alive and none of our kids would be alive if Dad didnt have to coerce mom. Just because you regret it later doesnt mean anyone did anything wrong. 

[CapoValley]

1 minute ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I think most of us on this board would not be alive and none of our kids would be alive if Dad didnt have to coerce mom. Just because you regret it later doesnt mean anyone did anything wrong. 

 

Yeah, this is a terrible take. 

[Nebfanatic]

2 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

Aaaaaaand with that, I am done with this conversation. Govern yourself accordingly. 

You didn't answer my question about Maurices punishment. Is being in court and possibly being convicted of a crime not consequence for his actions? Is a felpny conviction and being a registered sex offender proper punishment for Maurice possessing an explicit video of his peer? That punishment does not fit the crime imo.

5 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I think most of us on this board would not be alive and none of our kids would be alive if Dad didnt have to coerce mom. Just because you regret it later doesnt mean anyone did anything wrong. 

Now this is a whole bunch of nope.

[WyoHusker56]

6 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I think most of us on this board would not be alive and none of our kids would be alive if Dad didnt have to coerce mom. Just because you regret it later doesnt mean anyone did anything wrong. 

 

No

[knapplc]

This is such nonsense. They're playing him, they just don't want to deal with any bad press before the game is played. Holding the news back until kickoff Saturday is the equivalent of a Friday afternoon news dump. It'll get buried in other game news.