Maurice Washington Faces Charges

Guy Chamberlin said:
Here's an example from my world, just last week.

A freshman at my son's high school, a kid we've known since they played Little League together, pulls his d!(k out in class and absent-mindedly plays with it under the desk. Another kid sees him doing it and films it on his phone. The clip gets sent around the school and everyone knows about it. Presumably to embarrass the kid, who -- let's face it - made the 100% avoidable choice of pulling his d!(k out of his pants in class.

Having spent the morning reading this thread, I informed my son just now that he and his friends have been distributing child porn. 

Huh, he said. 
Click to expand...


According to the letter of the law, sure. 

Is the kid going to be prosecuted? Who knows? Probably not, but that's not for me to say. 

 
Redux said:
Reported for sexual revenge bullying
Click to expand...


giphy.gif


 
StPaulHusker said:
Based on California's law of the definition of statutory rape, 'm not going to try to figure if they take the Webster's Dictionary version of "distribution" literally
Click to expand...
What about no 3? When elements 2 and 3 are read together it implies the message was distributed to someone outside of the parties. Nonetheless, there’s no evidence he violated element no 3 as the sending or “distribution” was still private. 

The revenge porn charges are weak. The child porn charges would be my concern. 

 
I have a "friend" on Facebook who posts s#!t articles like "All accidental pregnancies are mens fault because the have penises" and makes comments like "I'm appalled at how men don't realize or apologize enough for being men because some men rape therefore all men should feel bad".

Mind you, I know this chick because I worked with her 12 years ago in Lincoln when she cheated on her boyfriend with me by pushing me into a supply room and making out with me.  But yeah, perspective and all that jazz

 
bugeater17 said:
What about no 3? When elements 2 and 3 are read together it implies the message was distributed to someone outside of the parties. Nonetheless, there’s no evidence he violated element no 3 as the sending or “distribution” was still private. 

The revenge porn charges are weak. The child porn charges would be my concern. 
Click to expand...
Serious question.  Are you a California prosecutor or defense attorney?  Or an attorney at all anywhere?  You seem very sure of yourself and I was just wondering if you are coming from a place of expertise.  Because it would be very helpful to a lot of us if actual lawyers were identified and in this debate.

Forgive me if somewhere in the last 13 pages you said you were and I missed it. 

 
StPaulHusker said:
Serious question.  Are you a California prosecutor or defense attorney?  Or an attorney at all anywhere?  You seem very sure of yourself and I was just wondering if you are coming from a place of expertise.  Because it would be very helpful to a lot of us if actual lawyers were identified and in this debate.

Forgive me if somewhere in the last 13 pages you said you were and I missed it. 
Click to expand...
we know you are based on your expertise 

 
Back
Top