Maurice Washington Faces Charges

knapplc said:
These are pretty strong words. Do you think Washington intended to be "terrible" or "atrocious?" Or do you think he reacted in a moment of carelessness and did a bad thing?
Click to expand...
All of the above. I think he intended to be terrible and atrocious and he reacted in a moment of carelessness and did a bad thing.

 
One other thing.

The university says there was never any follow up but the CA people have said that Washington hasn’t been made available to them for interview.

Seems contradictory 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know there's some people versed in Title IX on the board. Should the university have done anything else under Title IX when they found out about the incident? I seem to remember there being rules about requiring an investigation and reporting to the feds, but I know the details matter quite a bit.

 
RedDenver said:
I know there's some people versed in Title IX on the board. Should the university have done anything else under Title IX when they found out about the incident? I seem to remember there being rules about requiring an investigation and reporting to the feds, but I know the details matter quite a bit.
Click to expand...
According to the statement, they make it sound like they didn’t know what the incident was

 
StPaulHusker said:
I’m failing to see the relevance of Washington’s age as to when he received or sent the sex video.  The video was of a 15 year old girl.  Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
If two minors send nudes to one another, is it still child pornography (obviously more at play here)? 

 
RedDenver said:
I know there's some people versed in Title IX on the board. Should the university have done anything else under Title IX when they found out about the incident? I seem to remember there being rules about requiring an investigation and reporting to the feds, but I know the details matter quite a bit.
Click to expand...


They don’t have to report anything to the feds. Title IX apples in this case because it is a potential sexual misconduct issue, but it only loosely applies to UNL because the victim is not associated with UNL in any way and Mo’s involvement occurred off campus and prior to being a UNL student himself. He was facing no criminal charges. The only thing UNL could have done is to investigate whatever allegations they knew about, keep it on file, and keep Mo on a short leash. It’s more of a PR issue than a Title IX issue for UNL at this point, in my educated opinion.

As I mentioned earlier, when folks at UNL caught wind of this, it likely generated lots of conversations among some important people at the university, and an investigation of sorts. But the investigation was likely limited to a couple of interviews with Mo himself, and they determined they didn’t have muh to go on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NM11046 said:
My understanding is that he wasn't there or involved.  2 other boys were with her - she knew she was being filmed but said it was not consensual (I assume she was incapacitated at the time).  One of the boys involved sent it to Mo.

A good person, one raised right, being coached and mentored - one that had run ins and was kicked out of school would report it right away after receiving it.  Especially knowing their future rides on not making waves with anything questionable.  A good person would not save the video for a year or two on their phone only to send it on to someone else or the victim.

Count me in as bye-bye Maurice.  Not a good character to build this program with.

Are you (ucking kidding me?
Click to expand...




We don't know he didn't get the video from her. She was his girlfriend previous to this or during. We have no idea that she didn't send it to him to hurt him. So I don't know why you're asking if he's kidding. We're all talking hypotheticals here because we don't know. You're also calling her a victim when we don't know whether that's the case or not other than by receiving the video. She said she "froze" when she was raped. I haven't seen any indication that she was incapacitated. If that were the case (e.g. that we knew she was drunk or unconscious) this wouldn't be a conversation. I've also seen no indication that "one of the boys" sent it to him, but feel free to post a link. The video was all over the school. He received it in 2016 along with the rest of the school, is how I understood it. Maybe one of the boys sent it to him to taunt him. *shrug*

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Waldo said:
If two minors send nudes to one another, is it still child pornography (obviously more at play here)? 
Click to expand...
I believe they can still be charged with distributing child porn, even if both are minors. I know a couple of students where I teach were charged for sending naked pics on their phones. Similar situation

 
NM11046 said:
My understanding is that he wasn't there or involved.  2 other boys were with her - she knew she was being filmed but said it was not consensual (I assume she was incapacitated at the time).  One of the boys involved sent it to Mo.

A good person, one raised right, being coached and mentored - one that had run ins and was kicked out of school would report it right away after receiving it.  Especially knowing their future rides on not making waves with anything questionable.  A good person would not save the video for a year or two on their phone only to send it on to someone else or the victim.

Count me in as bye-bye Maurice.  Not a good character to build this program with.

Are you (ucking kidding me?
Click to expand...
You wouldn't have to assume so much if you read some of the article :-) 

 
Hedley Lamarr said:
He stopped attending their school in Feb 2016 and the video took place in 2016. We really dont know anything other than what the article says which tells us very little as it pertains to what actually happened. 

I read the article again and it appears he sent it to her because she reached out to him when she found out he was going D-1. Maybe he viewed it as a "hey you made it whats up how have you been?" and he took it as her being thirsty so he felt it would be the way to "tell her off" ?? 
Click to expand...


This is very likely and it is possible that the shooting of the video was not welcome however the actions in the video were welcome at the time - hence why MW was done with her until the recent contact by her.  NOT SAYING THAT HIS RESPONSE WAS SMART OR EVEN JUSTIFIED - But it is possible that this is how it all went down....  He should be suspended from the team until answers are given - then again maybe they already have.

 
Moiraine said:
We don't know he didn't get the video from her. She was his girlfriend previous to this or during. We have no idea that she didn't send it to him to hurt him. So I don't know why you're asking if he's kidding. We're all talking hypotheticals here because we don't know. You're also calling her a victim when we don't know whether that's the case or not other than by receiving the video. She said she "froze" when she was raped. I haven't seen any indication that she was incapacitated. If that were the case (e.g. that we knew she was drunk or unconscious) this wouldn't be a conversation. I've also seen no indication that "one of the boys" sent it to him, but feel free to post a link. The video was all over the school. He received it in 2016 along with the rest of the school, is how I understood it. Maybe one of the boys sent it to him to taunt him. *shrug*
Click to expand...
The article I read said one of the boys involved sent it to him.

The article I read said she was not consenting to the acts.

I will go back and try to find it - not sure when I may be able to do that.

Regardless - him making the decision to send it to anyone after receiving it (however he received it) is questionable at best.  

 
Back
Top