Mo wash cited for drug paraphernalia

[Decoy73]

10 minutes ago, Enhance said:

To be fair, mistakes made in your past can and often will be held against you in the present. How many celebrities and politicians do we have to look at for this evidence? Apples to Oranges comparo.  Mo's at a19yr old true freshman college athlete who may have violated a ridiculous CA law before enrolling here.  Not even close to what we hear about celebrities and politicians.  

 

 

Frost would be well within his right to issue some of kind team-related punishment. Sure, Frost can do whatever he wants here.  I never said he couldn't.  I just don't think he'll go there. We'll find out eventually.  

 

 

At the very least, he brought negative publicity to the program and his teammates, along with a slew of other logistical and PR headaches.  Overstated IMO. I'm sure not too many people outside of some Husker fans will care too much about this latest "incident".  I doubt his teammates are concerned with this "negative" pub.  More likely, they're going to support their brother. Maybe he'll run some stadium stairs or get a talk'in to, but they won't kick him to the curb like so many HB members want to.  

 

 

[Moiraine]

3 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

Mo's at a19yr old true freshman college athlete who may have violated a ridiculous CA law before enrolling here.

 

 

The law isn't ridiculous. IMO, cases like this weren't the intent of the law (he sent the video to her, not to other people), but the law should exist. Revenge porn can do a lot of damage to a person and there should be serious consequences for it.

[Decoy73]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The law isn't ridiculous. IMO, cases like this weren't the intent of the law (he sent the video to her, not to other people), but the law should exist. Revenge porn can do a lot of damage to a person and there should be serious consequences for it.

I have a big problem with the reliance on "intent" that this law has. If the law should exist then why isn't it universally adopted by other states?   It's too vague and near impossible to prove guilt without making assumptions.  I think laws like this that approach First Amendment discussions should be determined at the federal level.  

[teachercd]

20 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The law isn't ridiculous. IMO, cases like this weren't the intent of the law (he sent the video to her, not to other people), but the law should exist. Revenge porn can do a lot of damage to a person and there should be serious consequences for it.

This is why I always wear a Michael Myers mask when I bang...

 

 

 

 

 

 

The killer...not the comedian 

[skers83]

What if he was just holding it for a friend.

 

 

 

OK. I've decided I'll come clean in the morning.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

We’ll of course if he killed someone or committed assault, rape or robbery, etc. I wasn’t referring to obvious criminal activity. 

 

This is is not the case here. 

 

He's literally been charge with a crime, plead not guilty, and has a court date set.

[PasstheDamnBallGuy]

Meh couldn't care less. He was in a room with a pipe. Hopefully this doesn't lead to any kind of punishment. 

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Decoy73 said:

I have a big problem with the reliance on "intent" that this law has. If the law should exist then why isn't it universally adopted by other states?   It's too vague and near impossible to prove guilt without making assumptions.  I think laws like this that approach First Amendment discussions should be determined at the federal level.  

 

 

The internet is fairly new. As times change, there are new reasons to add laws. Revenge porn law is directly related to how easily this stuff can get disseminated to hundreds/thousands/millions of people. That wasn't possible to this extent or even close to it 20 years ago. California is just the first state to have one. If other states think it ends up working well in California, I'm sure it will be adopted by more of them.

And that is not at all what I meant by intent. I was talking about the intent of the law, not the intent of people posting videos of naked people. The intent of the law is to punish people who post porn videos of others in order to get revenge on them. IMO, the intent of the law was not to punish people for sending a video back to the person in said video. However if Washington thought it was sexual assault (I don't think he did), then the law should apply here too, imo. And there are cut and dried cases where you can prove guilt if you have access to comments made by the parties posting the videos.

 

If you think posting porn without the subjects' permission is a freedom of speech issue, I don't know that it's worth discussing with you anymore.

[Landlord]

God I would love to know the overlap of people explaining how dumb and idiotic Maurice is for smoking weed who are also parents who drank alcohol in high school and/or have kids that they don't mind drinking in high school.

[bugeater17]

4 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The internet is fairly new. As times change, there are new reasons to add laws. Revenge porn law is directly related to how easily this stuff can get disseminated to hundreds/thousands/millions of people. That wasn't possible to this extent or even close to it 20 years ago. California is just the first state to have one. If other states think it ends up working well in California, I'm sure it will be adopted by more of them.

And that is not at all what I meant by intent. I was talking about the intent of the law, not the intent of people posting videos of naked people. The intent of the law is to punish people who post porn videos of others in order to get revenge on them. IMO, the intent of the law was not to punish people for sending a video back to the person in said video. However if Washington thought it was sexual assault (I don't think he did), then the law should apply here too, imo. And there are cut and dried cases where you can prove guilt if you have access to comments made by the parties posting the videos.

 

If you think posting porn without the subjects' permission is a freedom of speech issue, I don't know that it's worth discussing with you anymore.

The revenge porn law is poorly written - for the reasons with the intent of the law being lost as you point out. Mo’s biggest legal problem is the child porn charge though.

 

Either way, getting busted on the weed paraphernalia is minor as well. But I do think he should/will get punished 1 game, possibly 2 (1 for each offense). 

[teachercd]

5 hours ago, Landlord said:

God I would love to know the overlap of people explaining how dumb and idiotic Maurice is for smoking weed who are also parents who drank alcohol in high school and/or have kids that they don't mind drinking in high school.

Me too!

 

The "cool" thing now...parents that host after prom parties but take the kids keys...and let them drink in their house.

[Ulty]

I shake my head at this, not because of the severity of the crime, but because of the poor judgment shown when everyone knows that the spotlight is on him. This is nowhere close to LP, but you better pull your head out of your dumb a$$ and start thinking about the choices you make and how they reflect on you and your team. Weed paraphernalia may be small potatoes in the whole scheme of things, but this is how you erode trust. 

 

We have a wave of positive press and good hype going into the season. The biggest black eye during the offseason so far has been Maurice Washington, and now he's brought it on himself again.

[dvdcrr]

You send a message with your actions as a leader.  Is it OK to sit up in those posh dorms and smoke weed if you are a Nebraska Cornhusker football player?  Is that what teams do when they are trying to climb to the top?  

I'd give him a 5 game suspension and see what the new kids can do.  If they crank out  like 6.1 ypc and catch well, I think I'd make that a permanent suspension in the form of a warm bench seat.  Wait for him to screw up again or walk. Yank his schollie.

[Frostberg]

10 hours ago, Enhance said:

But, neither of them were facing a felony and misdemeanor charge for a separate crime. I think we have to be cognizant and realistic about what the law currently says about marijuana in Nebraska, and MW violated that law. Add this into the California case and it's just a big a$$ face palm.

 

Personally, I don't care if people smoke weed recreationally, but this is a pretty dumb move on MW's part. IMO he has to be better than that given his whole situation.

 

My comment was made in response to (what seemed like) a majority saying "he's gone" early in this thread. The point I was trying to make was that Morgan and Reed were charged with felony possession, those charges were later dropped and not much punishment (publicly) came of it.

 

Anything can happen with Washington's charges - plea deals, dropped charges, convictions, etc. and we don't know how its all going to play out. What if his Cali charges are dropped (unlikely, I know) and all he is left with is a paraphernalia charge. Do we still want him kicked off the team? The only thing we can do as a fan base is reserve judgment until this all goes through the court system.

[Nebfanatic]

7 hours ago, Landlord said:

God I would love to know the overlap of people explaining how dumb and idiotic Maurice is for smoking weed who are also parents who drank alcohol in high school and/or have kids that they don't mind drinking in high school.

It's one thing to smoke some weed. It's another thing entirely to do so as a high profile football player already under scutiny due to an ongoing trial in California. Everybody makes mistakes, but I'm not sure its the same as drinking in high school. Maybe drinking in high school after you got mipped a week ago.

 

That said I don't think Mo gets booted pending the results of his trial. A few games suspension will be all we see.