Maurice Washington Faces Charges

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. 

 
Huskerzoo said:
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. 
Click to expand...
True, and I think that it's causing some lines to be blurred, and alot of misinformation.

 
giphy.gif


 
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? 
Click to expand...
Also if Washington is going to get charged with distributing child porn because he sent it to his ex. Then shouldnt every single kid 3 years ago who received that video on their phone and sent it to one of their friends also get charged? 

If your going to charge washington because he sent it to his ex. You need to charge every single kid in that high school that forwarded that video to someone.

 
Huskers93-97 said:
Also if Washington is going to get charged with distributing child porn because he sent it to his ex. Then shouldnt every single kid 3 years ago who received that video on their phone and sent it to one of their friends also get charged? 
Click to expand...


Yes, according to California law.

Huskers93-97 said:
If your going to charge washington because he sent it to his ex. You need to charge every single kid in that high school that forwarded that video to someone. 
Click to expand...


Which is likely a defense Washington's lawyers will make.

It also makes it curious why this case is making headlines today. The Revenge Porn law is five years old.  None of the case law here would be new.  The biggest difference would be if nobody else had sent that video to that girl in a taunting/demeaning fashion in the intervening years. I find that unlikely, and if that's the case, have those people been similarly prosecuted? If not, why not?

These are the kinds of questions I'd ask the alleged victim in this case (or her parents) if I were a reporter, because that would tell us a lot about the motive of reporting Washington.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huskers93-97 said:
Also if Washington is going to get charged with distributing child porn because he sent it to his ex. Then shouldnt every single kid 3 years ago who received that video on their phone and sent it to one of their friends also get charged? 

If your going to charge washington because he sent it to his ex. You need to charge every single kid in that high school that forwarded that video to someone.
Click to expand...
I suppose they could.  They would have to track down every person that received it, see if they still have the phone that it was received on, and prove they sent it.

Unfortunately, Washington didn't delete the video and move on.  And that is who we are concerned with.

 
knapplc said:
It also makes it curious why this case is making headlines today. The Revenge Porn law is five years old.  None of the case law here would be new.  The biggest difference would be if nobody else had sent that video to that girl in a taunting/demeaning fashion in the intervening years. I find that unlikely, and if that's the case, have those people been similarly prosecuted? If not, why not?
Click to expand...


The case is making headlines today because Washington chose to not delete the video and then used it to harm the girl.  

 
knapplc said:
It also makes it curious why this case is making headlines today. The Revenge Porn law is five years old.  None of the case law here would be new.  The biggest difference would be if nobody else had sent that video to that girl in a taunting/demeaning fashion in the intervening years. I find that unlikely, and if that's the case, have those people been similarly prosecuted? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
So you're saying that if Mo didn't send it to her, we may not be having this conversation?

I'm just trying to understand, I think that's true though.

I'm also genuinely curious if anyone else has sent that video to her since it was distributed? and if so have they been reported as well?

It's a good thing the parents were monitoring the texts though, these days you never know what is happening.

 
I think it's totally understandable that some folks may not want to believe that the culture of crying wolf about rape doesn't happen as often as it does.  The fact it happens at all is getting to be just as big of a problem as rape itself, not that they are the same thing but in both cases peoples lives are destroyed.

The data being provided, showing that false accusations are statistically low, how can that even be presented as factual when in A LOT of false accusation cases, the accuser is going to be believed most of the time just on principle.  There are people out there who say and truly believe that all sex is rape.  Personally, I know a lot of gals I went to HS with who did things they are NOT proud of now.  But that doesn't change the circumstances 5, 10 or 15 years later.

Edit-  And if it comes out that yes she was indeed assaulted I hope those guilty get absolutely smacked around as hard as possible.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
StPaulHusker said:
The case is making headlines today because Washington chose to not delete the video and then used it to harm the girl.  
Click to expand...


That's one possible explanation. There are others.

hskrfan4life said:
So you're saying that if Mo didn't send it to her, we may not be having this conversation?

I'm just trying to understand, I think that's true though.

I'm also genuinely curious if anyone else has sent that video to her since it was distributed? and if so have they been reported as well?

It's a good thing the parents were monitoring the texts though, these days you never know what is happening.
Click to expand...


First question - Definitely. She's clearly seen the video before, and doesn't want to again, which is why she's making the accusation she's making against Washington.

Bold - that's a really good question. Because if someone else has sent it to her, and they haven't been prosecuted, it would be good to understand why.

 
Redux said:
I think it's totally understandable that some folks may not want to believe that the culture of crying wolf about rape doesn't happen as often as it does.  The fact it happens at all is getting to be just as big of a problem as rape itself, not that they are the same thing but in both cases peoples lives are destroyed.

The data being provided, showing that false accusations are statistically low, how can that even be presented as factual when in A LOT of false accusation cases, the accuser is going to be believed most of the time just on principle.  There are people out there who say and truly believe that all sex is rape.  Personally, I know a lot of gals I went to HS with who did things they are NOT proud of now.  But that doesn't change the circumstances 5, 10 or 15 years later.
Click to expand...
Lets just not huh? Factual data proves you wrong, you just have an opinion.

 
My question for this young lady is...

After everything that has happened to you, why do you have an axe to grind for your ex that you apparently felt good enough about to reach out and congratulate on social media?

Is it just because he shamed you with that video or is there more to it?

There had to be others that shamed you, why not them? Why just your ex?

 
Back
Top