Maurice Washington Faces Charges

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. 
Click to expand...
Even if she isn't being honest about what happened which you have no proof of, what Washington did was wrong no matter what team he plays for. 

He used sexually explicit material of a young girl to try and shame her.

How and when he should be punished I'm not sure but some of these comments are getting ridiculous.

 
Undone said:
Oh, how silly of me to have assumed that! How stupid of me. I'm sure you're right; Huskers93-97's original comment was a completely separate conversation about sexual interactions in general, and was completely unrelated to the Maurice Washington situation.
Click to expand...






 - Equating The two things

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------- all sorts of room for different degrees of relationship between a topic at hand and an individual comment that is related but isn't completely related

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 - What @Undone apparently thinks the only other option is if it's not directly equating two things I guess :lol:
 

 
Moiraine said:
He’s confident because he’s merely talking about the claim, not what actually happened. If she’s saying something bad happened, it’s highly probable the bad thing isn’t what Landlord described or Huskers93-97 is talking about. The claim must be worse than that otherwise there’s no reason to make the claim, whether it’s a lie or not. 
Click to expand...


I was following you...right up until the bolded.  Typically, if there is a claim, something bad happened.  BUT....we all know of situations where it was a lie.  So, we don't know and so it's pretty hard for me to jump to the conclusion that she was raped.  The bolded is odd after the first part of the sentence.

Moiraine said:
That said I don’t think he meant the comment in the way people are taking it. 
Click to expand...


I believe that's the biggest point @Landlord was trying to make.  He can clarify that.

 
Landlord said:
What @Undone apparently thinks the only other option is if it's not directly equating two things I guess :lol:
Click to expand...


I edited my previous post, Landlord. I'm never looking for a fight on this board, and Huskers93-97 contributes good stuff to football discussions around here - which is what I show up for.

 
Undone said:
I edited my previous post, Landlord. I'm never looking for a fight on this board, and Huskers93-97 contributes good stuff to football discussions around here - which is what I show up for.
Click to expand...




The point being made, I think, or at least an element of the line of thinking, is that there is a very wide swath of possible explanations or meanings behind the girl's allegation of being coerced into that situation (allegations that it seems Washington didn't know about until after sending the video back to her, and that didn't exist for some amount of years between the incident and this current state). The spectrum of possible scenarios that could technically accurately be referred to by that language range from relatively innocuous to explicitly sexual assault. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
I was following you...right up until the bolded.  Typically, if there is a claim, something bad happened.  BUT....we all know of situations where it was a lie.  So, we don't know and so it's pretty hard for me to jump to the conclusion that she was raped.  The bolded is odd after the first part of the sentence.

I believe that's the biggest point @Landlord was trying to make.  He can clarify that.
Click to expand...




I don’t think I explained very well then. It isn’t relevant to the conversation about 93-97 whether she’s lying or not. Because it’s highly unlikely she went to the police to tell them the 2 boys did the things Landlord is talking about. She’s almost assuredly making a claim of something more serious than that; maybe they tried to blackmail her or threaten her - just throwing ideas out. People are defining coercian in different ways but it’s very unlikely she went to the police to say the boys wooed her or bought her flowers or offered to rub her back for her. Whether she’s lying or not, her claim is likely to be a more serious type of “coercian.”

I doubt 93-97 thinks the more serious definitions of coercian are ok things to do, which is why his post didn’t upset me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
People are defining coercian in different ways but it’s very unlikely she went to the police to say the boys wooed her or bought her flowers or offered to rub her back for her.
Click to expand...




But it is somewhat likely, or at least possible, that the coercion and the social pressure and her met somewhere in the middle in a messy grey matrix of influences, and though she felt pressured by them or the environment or reputation or all of the above or something else, she wasn't forced or incapable of refusing. That doesn't mean the guys aren't still culpable for some bad behavior but I guess my main point is that the language of sexual assault is probably way too blunt of a term to use for such a wide range of possible situations.

 
Moiraine said:
I don’t think I explained very well then. It isn’t relevant to the conversation about 93-97 whether she’s lying or not. Because it’s highly unlikely she went to the police to tell them the 2 boys did the things Landlord is talking about. She’s almost assuredly making a claim of something more serious than that; maybe they tried to blackmail her or threaten her - just throwing ideas out. People are defining coercian in different ways but it’s very unlikely she went to the police to say the boys wooed her or bought her flowers or offered to rub her back for her.
Click to expand...
It's clear the girl went to the police and basically said she was sexually assaulted and forced into sex and it was video taped (Rape).  I thought that was pretty dang clear.

But, if she lied about that, 93-97's comments (as crude as they were) make a valid point.

And...someone mentioned she's underage.  Yes.  And, I don't take that lightly.  But, so are the boys.  They are the same age.  If you're going to prosecute every 14-17 year old boy for having sex with a girl....well....

The biggest point that needs to be made is that we don't know what exactly happened in the car between the three.....jumping to conclusions either way is not productive nor appropriate.

 
BigRedBuster said:
And...someone mentioned she's underage.  Yes.  And, I don't take that lightly.  But, so are the boys.  They are the same age.  If you're going to prosecute every 14-17 year old boy for having sex with a girl....well....
Click to expand...


In some of these cases, they are. Or trying girls for sending nudes of herself, which would make her the victim of her own crime. Teens make mistakes, especially when they’re toting around supercomputers in their pockets. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
It's clear the girl went to the police and basically said she was sexually assaulted and forced into sex and it was video taped (Rape).  I thought that was pretty dang clear.

But, if she lied about that, 93-97's comments (as crude as they were) make a valid point.

And...someone mentioned she's underage.  Yes.  And, I don't take that lightly.  But, so are the boys.  They are the same age.  If you're going to prosecute every 14-17 year old boy for having sex with a girl....well....

The biggest point that needs to be made is that we don't know what exactly happened in the car between the three.....jumping to conclusions either way is not productive nor appropriate.
Click to expand...




Someone said (probably incorrectly) she said she was coerced. Then Huskers93-97 said all sex is coercion.

Well, no one would have even talked to her if her claim was about something like Landlord is describing or if the claim was about your every day attempt at having sex. That’s all I’m saying. Her claim, whatever it is, is clearly about something more serious than that, even if it is only that she was coerced; by blackmail or threats or any other more serious forms of talking her into it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nebfanatic said:
Back to Maurice, it's not that I don't think he should be punished, it is just complicated. First, I don't think he should catch a felony and be a registered sex offender over this. Misdeminor, sure. Pay a fine, take some classes, serve probation or whatever. That seems appropriate. As far as suspension and stuff goes, it would make things a heck of alot easier if the courts could just make a decision on this. That is what its all based on. I wish we could sit him in the non con and call it good. That would be appropriate in my view, but my worry is if dates get pushed and he gets convicted down the line if people will have amnesia that he sat already. The timing of everything complicates what should be pretty straightforward.
Click to expand...
The charges are a little odd and may fall into a legal gray area so the courts need to figure out what Mo is guilty of.  As of now, the coaches can't determine what Mo is guilty of so I think he plays.  It would be ridiculous to suspend him until the court makes a decision because the legal process could drag out to next year. The punishment should be contiguous and based on what the court convicts him on.  Unfortunately, that could be toward the end of the season when we need him most.  By not suspending him now we're potentially hurting ourselves but it seems like the right thing to do in this case.

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