Maurice Washington Faces Charges

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...


While I agree that they should have better explained the reason for the suspension, Mo's situation is not the same as the others busted for weed/paraphernalia. Mo is under scrutiny for a possible felony conviction, while the other guys were just dumb about weed.

Different scenarios, different punishment. It's not logical to presume the suspension was for the CA situation, just like we can't rule it out.

 
knapplc said:
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."
Click to expand...
I see now. I think the discussion has several facets that are kind of running together. There's the 1st half suspension what/why, how the university handled the suspension, whether the university/coaches can make a decision without waiting out the trial, what Mo's punishment should/shouldn't be while awaiting the trial results, and probably more.

BlitzFirst said:
No explanation is needed.  If you don't know the reason something occurred, making assumptions is just that.  An uninformed opinion.

Sure, go talk about it all you want...but don't assume you know the reasoning when you do talk about it.  I've seen a lot of assumption in this thread (not saying from you...but I've seen a lot of people just assume the half game was for CA)
Click to expand...
I disagree that it's an uninformed opinion. There's evidence for me to make an informed opinion on the matter. The university choosing not to help me make a more informed opinion does not mean that I simply have to throw up my hands and say I can conclude nothing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nebfanatic said:
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. 
Click to expand...


I believe he didn't know the legalities of what he was doing at the time.  I doubt too many people would have.  I also believe he didn't know it was an assault.  I can't get past the part that he kept the video for 3 years, and then used it towards the girl after she (allegedly) rebuked his suggestions to "rekindle their relationship."  That is the part that I am stuck on.  And that makes him an awful person.  I don't know what the right punishment is.  And neither do the coaches or the university. 

 
30-50 Feral Hogs said:
I believe he didn't know the legalities of what he was doing at the time.  I doubt too many people would have.  I also believe he didn't know it was an assault.  I can't get past the part that he kept the video for 3 years, and then used it towards the girl after she (allegedly) rebuked his suggestions to "rekindle their relationship."  That is the part that I am stuck on.  And that makes him an awful person.  I don't know what the right punishment is.  And neither do the coaches or the university. 
Click to expand...
What he did was awful, but I strongly disagree with the bolded. I refuse to make judgements on his character based on one very publicized mistake. I don't think its that crazy he kept the video. He may have forgot it was even in his phones memory and stumbled upon therefor sparking his outreach to the girl. That is speculation but point is it may not be as terrible as it sounds mainly when it comes to him keeping the video.

 
knapplc said:
While I agree that they should have better explained the reason for the suspension, Mo's situation is not the same as the others busted for weed/paraphernalia. Mo is under scrutiny for a possible felony conviction, while the other guys were just dumb about weed.

Different scenarios, different punishment. It's not logical to presume the suspension was for the CA situation, just like we can't rule it out.
Click to expand...
I disagree about it not being logical to make presumptions.

I agree Mo's situation is different, but I'm pointing out that it's logical to look at the no punishment for the others and come to the logical conclusion that Mo would get the same no punishment. Given there's no other logical reason for the 1st half suspension, I come to the logical conclusion that it's related to the CA case. Yes, it true that I can't say that it's proof, but I also know that there's rarely anything in life that can be proven conclusively, so we have to make judgments based on the evidence.

All of that is exactly why the university choosing not to issue a statement is such a ham-fisted handling of the situation. Choosing not to give a reason is essentially telling us to draw our own conclusions.

 
RedDenver said:
I disagree about it not being logical to make presumptions. 

I agree Mo's situation is different, but I'm pointing out that it's logical to look at the no punishment for the others and come to the logical conclusion that Mo would get the same no punishment. Given there's no other logical reason for the 1st half suspension, I come to the logical conclusion that it's related to the CA case. Yes, it true that I can't say that it's proof, but I also know that there's rarely anything in life that can be proven conclusively, so we have to make judgments based on the evidence.

All of that is exactly why the university choosing not to issue a statement is such a ham-fisted handling of the situation. Choosing not to give a reason is essentially telling us to draw our own conclusions.
Click to expand...




There is a logical reason for the 1st half suspension. While Mo is waiting for his legal proceedings to move forward, he has been advised to keep his nose clean. He did not. Bam - suspension.

Is that what happened? Who knows. But it's another logical explanation for what happened, and why the same didn't happen to the other weed dudes.

 
ActualCornHusker said:
1) Presumption of innocence is a foundation of our legal system for good reason

2) As others have said, the actual situation of what happened is far less serious than what should be a felony (not saying it wasn't a mistake by Mo)

3) You don't believe that coaches should show their players grace when they do wrong?
Click to expand...


1. Presumption of innocence has no bearing on whether or not Maurice Washington should be allowed to play football, only whether or not he should be in jail/on probation. 

2. The Revenge Porn statute in California disputes this. 

3. I believe that they are showing Maurice grace by allowing him to remain on the team.

4skers89 said:
I disagree.  Mo did this before he was part of the team.  Frost still wants high character players.  I suppose if you believe Frost knew about this incident when he brought Mo in then sure, lost credibility.  Being the first class the staff may not have had time to fully vet all the recruits.
Click to expand...


If you take the timeline at face value, Frost has known about this since January, which is plenty of time to determine what to do with Washington while his legal proceedings take place. You have to admit, though: giving him an arbitrary half game suspension then letting him play when the team is struggling is a bad look that invites hot takes from people outside the program. 

 
Nebfanatic said:
What he did was awful, but I strongly disagree with the bolded. I refuse to make judgements on his character based on one very publicized mistake. I don't think its that crazy he kept the video. He may have forgot it was even in his phones memory and stumbled upon therefor sparking his outreach to the girl. That is speculation but point is it may not be as terrible as it sounds mainly when it comes to him keeping the video.
Click to expand...
That’s probably a reach. But on some level I do agree with you he’s maybe not an awful person because of this one act. One would hope he’s grown a little, but I’m still fine with him not playing until the matter is done. 

 
Nebfanatic said:
What he did was awful, but I strongly disagree with the bolded. I refuse to make judgements on his character based on one very publicized mistake. I don't think its that crazy he kept the video. He may have forgot it was even in his phones memory and stumbled upon therefor sparking his outreach to the girl. That is speculation but point is it may not be as terrible as it sounds mainly when it comes to him keeping the video. 
Click to expand...


Kids do a lot of weird things. I don't think it's wise to have kept the video, but I don't think it's beyond belief that a teenager kept a video of a girl he thinks is hot engaging in a sexual act, even if he's not supposed to. And kids often make unwise decisions.

He did not reach out to her after finding the video. She reached out to him to congratulate him after he got in to Nebraska, they exchanged some texts, and he sends the video and calls her a name (I forget what - it was bad), with something like, "Remember this, ______" (whatever the word was).

So it's pretty easy to say, that's an awful thing.

Does that awful thing make him an awful person?  I don't think so, but apparently opinions differ. He may very well be an awful person. None of us know the guy. He may be a great person who did a really, really stupid thing. Maybe he's just dumb - again, don't know the guy, can't say.

There are a lot of people making claims about him in this thread that shouldn't be. Nobody posting here knows the whole story.

For sure nobody here knows Mo's version of events.

 
Nebfanatic said:
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. 
Click to expand...
That's kind of where I'm at with this thing too.  I believe the other kids had already been charged in the case so the girl had already claimed that it was sexual assault.  Since he used to date the girl, I think Mo was hurt by the video and maybe he didn't believe that it was sexual assault.  The child porn thing is kind of a gotcha charge.  Mo was a minor when the sexual assault occurred and when he sent the text, in his mind and emotionally, he was still a minor.  Unfortunately, the calendar rolled over past his 18th birthday.  Because he sent the text after trying to hook up with the girl and getting rebuffed definitely makes it seem hurtful and spiteful.  Why the girl would initiate contact with someone who previously tried to get her to look at the video is beyond me but her mother intercepted the text and the girl never saw it.  Mo has probably already gotten the message that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and a 3 or 4 game suspension would crystallize it.  I don't think his life should be ruined over it.

 
CapoValley said:
Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with the privilege of playing on a football team. 
Click to expand...


But actually being guilty of the thing in question is important regarding being punished...right?

Have to just point out to you that the majority of the posts you make in this thread actually prove the opposite of the point you think you're making.

On a separate note, I don't give a f*** what trolls on the internet (that are probably Iowa/Colorado fans) say about how Frost is handling this. I really don't. I made this comment elsewhere - Football and all other sports are not a thing where good morals somehow contribute to the scoreboard or outcome of the game. What if a team is full of guys making bad decisions & getting away with crimes behind the scenes by way of people just not finding out about it? Is that considered cheating? No. Good morals don't count in any way. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Undone said:
But actually being guilty of the thing in question is important regarding being punished...right?

Have to just point out to you that the majority of the posts you make in this thread actually prove the opposite of the point you think you're making.
Click to expand...
I would think if he doesn’t (or rather, didn’t) have the video on his phone and didn’t send it to her, we aren’t having this discussion today. 

 
knapplc said:
Kids do a lot of weird things. I don't think it's wise to have kept the video, but I don't think it's beyond belief that a teenager kept a video of a girl he thinks is hot engaging in a sexual act, even if he's not supposed to. And kids often make unwise decisions.

He did not reach out to her after finding the video. She reached out to him to congratulate him after he got in to Nebraska, they exchanged some texts, and he sends the video and calls her a name (I forget what - it was bad), with something like, "Remember this, ______" (whatever the word was).

So it's pretty easy to say, that's an awful thing.

Does that awful thing make him an awful person?  I don't think so, but apparently opinions differ. He may very well be an awful person. None of us know the guy. He may be a great person who did a really, really stupid thing. Maybe he's just dumb - again, don't know the guy, can't say.

There are a lot of people making claims about him in this thread that shouldn't be. Nobody posting here knows the whole story.

For sure nobody here knows Mo's version of events.
Click to expand...


Severe and Benning gave a rough summary of the text messages between Mo and the girl.  Mo and the girl used to date when he lived in California.  She texted him in Spring 2018, congratulating him on signing with Nebraska and turning things around and heading to college.  Mo thought that she was being nice to him and texted something about hooking back up again.  She denied Mo's advances, Mo got mad, and texted the video of her sexual act.  Her parents then got involved and had her text to Mo to send the video again.  That's when Mo sent the video again, and her parents started working with the police and prosecutors.

What Mo did was very stupid, but it's behavior that doesn't seem out of the ordinary for stupid kids (most teenage kids are stupid).

 
Back
Top