Maurice Washington Faces Charges

funhusker said:
One of the boys who was actually in the video and distributed it to the entire school only got probation.

Why would a kid who wasn't in the video, and only sent it to a single person (who was in the video) be held to a more harsh sentence?

Not condoning his actions, just asking for the sake of punishments...
Click to expand...
It has been discussed a couple pages ago.  The person that received probation was due to the fact that he was a minor at the time of filming and distribution.  Washington was not a minor 3 years later when he sent the girl the video.

 
30-50 Feral Hogs said:
I get the feeling from some in this discussion that they don't really care that Washington did what he did.  Legalities aside.  Because even if it is negotiated down from a felony to a misdemeanor, he still did what he did.  It doesn't make it less awful from a human standpoint. 
Click to expand...
There is a difference between not caring and wanting to see appropriate punishment.

 
knapplc said:
I said no such thing.
Click to expand...
Maybe you meant something different, but that's what it seemed like you were saying. Here's the sequence of posts:

Or the coaches/university could decide on a punishment based on Mo sending a sex video to humiliate someone regardless of the legal ramifications. And then the coaches/university make a clear statement about the punishment.
Click to expand...


knapplc said:
How do you know they haven't?
Click to expand...


RedDenver said:
Maybe I missed it. Can you point me to the press release about Mo's punishment?
Click to expand...


knapplc said:
You know they don't announce all punishments with a press release. C'mon.
Click to expand...

 
RedDenver said:
Maybe you meant something different, but that's what it seemed like you were saying. Here's the sequence of posts:
Click to expand...


I see. You made a couple of statements in that post.

I was responding to: "Or the coaches/university could decide on a punishment based on Mo sending a sex video to humiliate someone regardless of the legal ramifications."

 
BlitzFirst said:
We don't know what the suspension was for.  It could have nothing to do with CA.  In this instance, the only logic flaw is applying the suspension as a result of what we think is the CA case.
Click to expand...
No, the flaw is that there's no explanation for the punishment, which means it's fair game to make educated guesses about what it was for. Considering that no other players were suspended for drug-related incidents and there are no other incidents involving Mo, the only logical conclusion is that Mo's suspension was for the CA case.

 
RedDenver said:
No, the flaw is that there's no explanation for the punishment, which means it's fair game to make educated guesses about what it was for. Considering that no other players were suspended for drug-related incidents and there are no other incidents involving Mo, the only logical conclusion is that Mo's suspension was for the CA case.
Click to expand...


Didn't all of the citations for weed get tossed for all of the players?

 
30-50 Feral Hogs said:
Do you think what he did was awful?  What is the appropriate punishment, outside of anything from the courts?
Click to expand...
I think it was awful but there are levels to this. It was immature and hurtful but it was not heinous. It was out of spite. This is a person he knew intimately. There is a strong chance Mo wasn't aware it was assualt in the video. That doesn't make it ok, but it is nowhere in the same ballpark as groping someone or beyond. Its not in the same universe as a 30+ year old person looking at 15 year olds. I think an appropriate punishment would be a 3 or 4 game suspension. 

 
Back
Top