Maurice Washington Faces Charges

bugeater17 said:
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. 
Click to expand...
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.

 
knapplc said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks knapplc  for being a voice of reason.  It is easy to jump to conclusions but we dont know enough yet to make a judgement one way or another.  

 
4skers89 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting take, I could see that being a scenario. I am just going to sit back and wait to see the rest of this unfold because we only know one side. Innocent until proven guilty is my style 

 
The only thing we know for sure is that we have our first scandalous topic of the offseason. At least we have something to discuss.

 
Hedley Lamarr said:
Interesting take, I could see that being a scenario. I am just going to sit back and wait to see the rest of this unfold because we only know one side. Innocent until proven guilty is my style 
Click to expand...


This is absolutely where we all need to be. However, that's for a court of law, not for a football program. 

 
RedDenver said:
Because we don't have to believe the officers if they have evidence, which is why I said, "That seems like it'd be easy to prove or disprove."
Click to expand...
Is there a chance one of the boys who was involved in producing the film was playing on Mo's phone and thought it would be funny to send it to her from his phone?

I know the chances of that are slim.  But, I've known kids that age to do some pretty stupid stuff like that.  Heck, I had a friend get my wife's phone one time and was sending me text messages and thought it was funny as hell.  It's possible something like that happened here.

 
Back
Top