Maurice Washington Faces Charges

StPaulHusker said:
Both parties should be treated equally.  But if someone claims assault, then the cops investigate an assault.  And then go where the evidence and facts lead them. 
Click to expand...


But they aren't. Often alleged victims of sexual assault aren't identified, but alleged perpetrators are.  In instances where the alleged perp is exonerated, their name is still tied to that accusation.  Worse, accusations are usually given far bigger headlines than exonerations. 

StPaulHusker said:
But in no way could a cop do their job effectively if they immediately didn't believe a claim.  They wouldn't put the effort into proving or disproving 
Click to expand...


This is not the case at all. Police are not advocates. They are neutral fact-finders, and don't "believe" the victim any more than the accused. They identify legal issues they have jurisdiction over and conduct investigations. 

 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the two boys in the video were never charged with assault, and that all three of them were expelled after the incident. Then, one of the boys was charged for distributing the video? It seems like it was never being view through the lens of sexual assault until after Washington was involved? So, does that mean they go back and prosecute the two boys now?

 
Huskerzoo said:
I again want to encourage you to read some of the data on false accusations. The numbers are small. 

However, I'm curious about this. Do you feel like these same rights should be given to people charged with other crimes? Lets look at other crimes that involve 2 people regularly, murder. So if someone is accused of murder and the claims have at least some weight (so like in this case, we have a video showing a sexual act....lets say there's a video of the murdered person and someone accused of murder recently arguing and it's known that the person accused has access to a weapon) should the accused be able to walk around freely without having their name disclosed until their day in court? 

If no, why is this different? 

If yes, is there any case where a person without definitive proof should have their freedom stripped before they are found guilty? 

This is a genuine question, not trying to prove a point. 
Click to expand...


Although the numbers of false accusations are small, they are still damaging to those falsely accused.  The Duke Lacrosse case is only one very public example.

First bold - Yes.

Second bold - Yes, based on a preponderance of evidence, but asking if their freedom should be stripped is far different than asking if they should be publicly named. A person can be incarcerated pending trial based on evidence without telling the world what they're charged with. 

 
Saunders said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the two boys in the video were never charged with assault, and that all three of them were expelled after the incident. Then, one of the boys was charged for distributing the video? It seems like it was never being view through the lens of sexual assault until after Washington was involved? So, does that mean they go back and prosecute the two boys now?
Click to expand...


You're only partially correct. 

Mo - Being charged with (not found guilty of yet) revenge porn and child porn. That is to say he's distributing the video. He's not charged with sexual assault. 

The three students in the video were all expelled is my understanding. Mo's ex only recently stated that it was a rape rather than consensual. However, this issue is separate from Mo. 

 
Saunders said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the two boys in the video were never charged with assault, and that all three of them were expelled after the incident. Then, one of the boys was charged for distributing the video? It seems like it was never being view through the lens of sexual assault until after Washington was involved? So, does that mean they go back and prosecute the two boys now?
Click to expand...


It's an interesting question. As we're all learning about California law, anyone underage engaging in sex is doing something unlawful. This video was circulated years ago at their school. That being the case, why weren't all three charged with unlawful sex at the time? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saunders said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the two boys in the video were never charged with assault, and that all three of them were expelled after the incident. Then, one of the boys was charged for distributing the video? It seems like it was never being view through the lens of sexual assault until after Washington was involved? So, does that mean they go back and prosecute the two boys now?
Click to expand...
It wasn't being viewed as an assault in 2016 because the girl said she was ashamed

Fast forward to 2018 when she receives the video from Washington, she wants the record to show that it was non-consensual.  Or asasult

 
knapplc said:
It's an interesting question. As we're all learning about California law, anyone underage engaging in sex is doing something unlawful. This video was circulated years ago at their school. That being the case, why weren't all three charged with unlawful sex at the time? 

Have you seen the video?
Click to expand...
@Dewiz  DON'T ANSWER THAT!  IT'S A TRAP

 
knapplc said:
Although the numbers of false accusations are small, they are still damaging to those falsely accused.  The Duke Lacrosse case is only one very public example.

First bold - Yes.

Second bold - Yes, based on a preponderance of evidence, but asking if their freedom should be stripped is far different than asking if they should be publicly named. A person can be incarcerated pending trial based on evidence without telling the world what they're charged with. 
Click to expand...


That makes sense to me. I think it's a tricky situation, especially with celebrities or psuedo celebrities like Mo. This information gets leaked and people have to be named in lawsuits. The only time I've ever seen this really been done well is when secrets are essential to the case (like clearing a whole court floor in the Mueller report). 

Any thoughts on how to navigate this skillfully for other situations? I don't disagree with you but I do think that false accusations are super rare (based on scientific findings shared before) and that we need to take all claims seriously and not dismiss them apriori as a person regretting an act which I feel like is being done in this thread at times. 

Again, I see your concerns, I agree with them, but I don't think I know how to navigate the (horrible) collateral damage. 

 
Folks, let's be tactful in this discussion.

Edit: I cleaned up a few recent comments. Let's be smart about this conversation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huskerzoo said:
You're only partially correct. 

Mo - Being charged with (not found guilty of yet) revenge porn and child porn. That is to say he's distributing the video. He's not charged with sexual assault. 

The three students in the video were all expelled is my understanding. Mo's ex only recently stated that it was a rape rather than consensual. However, this issue is separate from Mo. 
Click to expand...
I get that it's a separate charge, it just seems like there's a lot of inconsistency in the whole thing.

 
Saunders said:
I get that it's a separate charge, it just seems like there's a lot of inconsistency in the whole thing.
Click to expand...


My impression is that it's because of the numerous legal things that are being brought up by the woman in the video. It's all kind of getting mushed together. I haven't seen anything that has linked Mo to being in the video in any way. I think a lot of people are having similar conversations to what we're seeing here. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top