Jump to content
PlzCoolerMe

Maurice Washington Faces Charges

Recommended Posts

5 minutes 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.

I now but I was trying to make sense of his comments.  As for as extradition, some states in the US do not and international is even worse.  

Share this post


Link to post

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

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.

Not without an extradition agreement!

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, SouthLincoln Husker said:

Not without an extradition agreement!

Of course, if I get caught in a cyber scheme by someone in Indonesia, Nebraska authorities are going to press charges and once extradited, they would be tried here in Nebraska.

Share this post


Link to post
3 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 

The alleged crime happened in California and the alleged victim was in California when she was allegedly victimized.  Therefore California has jurisdiction.  Nothing alleged about that part.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/11/2019 at 3:41 PM, knapplc said:

 

Having once been an 18-year-old guy I can tell you with some certainty that he likely was not thinking at all when he sent this, just reacting.

Shortly after the Mayflower landed.  

 

Innocent until proven guilty.  Need to wait until both sides are known.  I don't agree with the try on a message board.  Kids will be kids, I know he turned 18 and is considered an adult, but most of these kids are not adults, pampered, sheltered, idolized, their thought process is not always spot on.  I want Nebraska to be a clean program, and I think Frost will do things right.  I do remember that we had a fair share of kids that weren't perfect under Coach Osborne.

 

Let's wait and hear/know all the facts before we hang the kid.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You should tell your friend that the Supreme Court ruled on the detrimental effects way back in 1911. Summary:

 

In this ruling there is a 3 prong test all three test must be satisfied in order to meet the minimal requirements. I dont the element of intent is present in the 2nd requirement. To me it was maurice telling a girl off, and he doesnt want her praise. I dont think the intent behind it was to cause detrimental effects within the state. In fact I dont think anyone actually thinks that was intent at all, and this ruling does require that intent. But your probably right it will ultimately be California judges ruling on the case.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, SouthLincoln Husker said:

I'm surprised that this discussion continues as there has not been any new information in over a week! :confucius

agree, welcome to the off season.

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 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 

 

Does your buddy happen to be Jon Bruning? 

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, ndobney said:

In this ruling there is a 3 prong test all three test must be satisfied in order to meet the minimal requirements. I dont the element of intent is present in the 2nd requirement. To me it was maurice telling a girl off, and he doesnt want her praise. I dont think the intent behind it was to cause detrimental effects within the state. In fact I dont think anyone actually thinks that was intent at all, and this ruling does require that intent. But your probably right it will ultimately be California judges ruling on the case.

You don't think Mo's text was intended to be detrimental to the girl?

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You don't think Mo's text was intended to be detrimental to the girl?

I think that depends on whether or not he thought she was raped or not. If he didn't think she was raped then no I dont.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, ndobney said:

In this ruling there is a 3 prong test all three test must be satisfied in order to meet the minimal requirements. I dont the element of intent is present in the 2nd requirement. To me it was maurice telling a girl off, and he doesnt want her praise. I dont think the intent behind it was to cause detrimental effects within the state. In fact I dont think anyone actually thinks that was intent at all, and this ruling does require that intent. But your probably right it will ultimately be California judges ruling on the case.

 

California clearly has jurisdiction and it really isn't that close. The girl is located/domiciled in California and received the text in California. As such, there is clearly intent to act through the text (in whatever way it was meant) in California. Whether or not California has jurisdiction is not really an issue in this case. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, ndobney said:

I think that depends on whether or not he thought she was raped or not. If he didn't think she was raped then no I dont.

That's not what he's being charged with so it has no bearing here. It's whether Mo's text was detrimental to the girl in California based on child pornography and revenge porn laws.

Share this post


Link to post

Thought I would come out of the weather, and read a bit. Saw this thread, and cringed. 1620 in the last week or so has been just giddy, showing their true colors, loving on anything negative, surrounding huskers. Needless to say, I removed those numbers from my pre-programmed stations. Done with them.

 

Let us all just relax a bit on any predetermined outcome here. Too much unknown at this point. 

 

Back outside I go! 

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TAKODA said:

Thought I would come out of the weather, and read a bit. Saw this thread, and cringed. 1620 in the last week or so has been just giddy, showing their true colors, loving on anything negative, surrounding huskers. Needless to say, I removed those numbers from my pre-programmed stations. Done with them.

 

Let us all just relax a bit on any predetermined outcome here. Too much unknown at this point. 

 

Back outside I go! 

 

giphy.gif

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...