Maurice Washington Faces Charges

[StPaulHusker]

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

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[4skers89]

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.

 

[knapplc]

Him sending the video is not one sided

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

 

[boach_clack]

If she broke up with him and the 2 hadnt spoken in years, why reach out? 

 

[StPaulHusker]

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.

 

[RedDenver]

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.

 

[bugeater17]

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. 

 

[RedDenver]

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.

 

[BigRedBuster]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[BigRedBuster]

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?

 

[teachercd]

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

 

[knapplc]

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.

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

 

[4skers89]

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.