More Crap !!!!!!!

[GIJoeRed]

The day social media, outside of the basic news, was created, was the day we as a society were willing to sacrifice our values all for a little attention.

IMO, outlets like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have become a cesspool of every agenda that humans wish to use them as.

Whomever is in charge of regulating content these days are seriously failing at their jobs just for the sake of "the bottom line."

Free speech is starting to cross the threshold towards pure evil, and we need to regain a sense of morailty, otherwise there will be some kind of "revolutionary" acts taken, because there are enough bad actor organizations that will push that narrative.

It's just how I feel.

 

[LinvingProog]

I'm all for people paying for their mistakes. It teaches valuable lessons when one is young. The issue is always what is the appropriate payment. Young people in high school do dumb things and make dumb mistakes. Should they pay for them over the entirety of their lives. It depends on the mistake.

I'm all for letting the legal system play out and then the coaching staff will make the correct decision about his status on the team. But we don't know all of the facts here and we may never know them. RELAX

 

[Uenth]

Uenth you are making a lot of assumptions here. First of all you are questioning why Mo kept the video of here being assaulted. How do you know he believed he was in possession of a video where she was assaulted. Is it possible that he kept a video of her with two guys just in case she ever tried to deny she cheated on him? If you had evidence of your spouse cheating would you keep it?

2nd of all do you even know there was an assault? The police investigated it and didn't charge anyone with it. Are you sure there was any type of struggle fight it off? Her comments about getting in a car and taken somewhere else are only HER comments. The police at the time didn't seem to believe her.

So let me ask you this. If the video came out that she was a clear participant in it......does that change your opinion of anything? I'm not saying Mo is guilty nor innocent. I'm just struggling with the people who are ready to hang him out without hearing the facts and not recognizing that the police already investigated this and didn't find it to be an assault.

It changes nothing. Just because I participate in something; that does not give anyone the right to send that video along with that particular text message. I've said a couple of times, assuming this is true. I don't think charges would be filed if the DA wasn't pretty damn sure of the evidence but I still find it plausible that someone grabbed his phone and was a d*ck. I still hope that is the case.

But just because a woman behaves like a skank ho on occasion and possibly has buyer's remorse; that does not give men an excuse to behave badly.

 

[Uenth]

So let me ask you this. If the video came out that she was a clear participant in it......does that change your opinion of anything? I'm not saying Mo is guilty nor innocent. I'm just struggling with the people who are ready to hang him out without hearing the facts and not recognizing that the police already investigated this and didn't find it to be an assault.

She did NOT go to the police at the time because she was ashamed (her words in her essay). I am not hanging Mo out to dry. I have said multiple times that I hope his phone was used against him. How much clearer do I need to be?

If; however, he had been holding onto that video for 2+ years, I question his character big time.

 

[Sandbarhusker]

It changes nothing. Just because I participate in something; that does not give anyone the right to send that video along with that particular text message. I've said a couple of times, assuming this is true. I don't think charges would be filed if the DA wasn't pretty damn sure of the evidence but I still find it plausible that someone grabbed his phone and was a d*ck. I still hope that is the case.

But just because a woman behaves like a skank ho on occasion and possibly has buyer's remorse; that does not give men an excuse to behave badly.

And there is no right for woman to behave badly either. Are you fine with her changing her story to drag guys down? This went from taping a concensual according to all police actions at the time to her now claiming she was raped.

I'm not justifying what MW did but you seem to be justifying everything that she did and hanging Mo at the stake. It seems we could use some objectivity on here. I can tell you there are men AND woman all over the world that have video's on their phones stored away for evidence purposes. And exercise that use when needed for evidence. Am I saying that is the case here? No. I'm saying there is the other side of the story that hasn't come out yet.

 

[Sandbarhusker]

She did NOT go to the police at the time because she was ashamed (her words in her essay). I am not hanging Mo out to dry. I have said multiple times that I hope his phone was used against him. How much clearer do I need to be?

If; however, he had been holding onto that video for 2+ years, I question his character big time.

According to her side of the story that has already changed. Why don't we wait for the other side.

 

[Crazyhole]

How old was he when he sent the text? Had he turned 18 yet?

 

[Uenth]

How old was he when he sent the text? Had he turned 18 yet?

I'm not sure but felony child porn, I don't think it matters. Like indecent exposure and having sex with an underage girl. Certain crimes age doesn't matter. I think it also holds true for girls and/or woman -- they are accountable under those statutes as well.

 

[Uenth]

According to her side of the story that has already changed. Why don't we wait for the other side.

According to the ESPN article -- last paragraph:

he young woman says she did not report the incident at the time because she was ashamed and tried to just move on. Her father says the family is now considering whether to pursue sexual assault charges.

NBC article:

Although she did not report the incident as a rape at the time because she says she felt ashamed, Taylor told NBC Bay Area the video depicts a sexual assault, not a consensual sex act. Taylor alleges the teen boys in the video forced her into having sex after telling her they were going to a fast food restaurant. NBC Bay Area is not naming the teens because they were juveniles at the time and were never charged with sexual assault.

According to the NBC article, Washington did hold onto the video:

Washington, according to the search warrant, still had a copy of the video.

From Taylor's essay:

They (the school, I believe) never reported the incident.

Also from the NBC article, Taylor's father said they are now pursuing sexual assault charges against the two young men:

Taylor’s father Brian said the family was trying to move on from the incident, but he supports her speaking out, and said the family is considering whether they will pursue sexual assault charges.

All of this leads me to believe that it was not reported, nor investigated. Two articles (ESPN, NBC) and Taylor's own essay.

I would prefer that Washington had no involvement in the entire incident. No matter how it turns out it is another black eye against the Husker football program. That is the bottom line.

 

[HuskerMo]

Something I fail to understand (I'm not too good with these smart phone things) but why would her step-mom have an app that intercepts any message sent to her step-daughter, especially after so much time after the incident ? Was she waiting for something to happen ? Was said step-daughter still getting messages about the incident ? Has Mo sent previous messages to said step-daughter ? Were they both waiting for something to happen ? Was step-daughter still sending Mo texts ?

Confusion is my middle name !!!!

 

[Hunchback Johnny]

I didn't see him say it wasn't a big deal (why put words in his mouth?)...What i did hear him say say is let this play out in a lawful manner.

You are correct Bugs. My bad. I guess I was just shocked to see Val (who I agree with 94.5% of the time) name calling other members because their knee jerk reaction was to be appalled by the allegations. Red Ed certainly opened my eyes to the possibility the recorded act was consensual, which changes my view on the severity of the charges. Not in the legal sense of course, just my opinion on the matter. To be clear, it doesn't change the stupidity of Mo to send it to her by any means... but it does change the malice to a large degree.

 

[Uenth]

Something I fail to understand (I'm not too good with these smart phone things) but why would her step-mom have an app that intercepts any message sent to her step-daughter, especially after so much time after the incident ? Was she waiting for something to happen ? Was said step-daughter still getting messages about the incident ? Has Mo sent previous messages to said step-daughter ? Were they both waiting for something to happen ? Was step-daughter still sending Mo texts ?

Confusion is my middle name !!!!

A lot of parents do that, is my understanding. In this case, I think all of her message traffic was monitored because of the video and the fall out. She and the two young men were expelled from the school. I don't know that is the reason for fact but it makes sense to me that M&D were just being protective of daughter.

 

[Uenth]

You are correct Bugs. My bad. I guess I was just shocked to see Val (who I agree with 94.5% of the time) name calling other members because their knee jerk reaction was to be appalled by the allegations. Red Ed certainly opened my eyes to the possibility the recorded act was consensual, which changes my view on the severity of the charges. Not in the legal sense of course, just my opinion on the matter. To be clear, it doesn't change the stupidity of Mo to send it to her by any means... but it does change the malice to a large degree.

If she had buyer's remorse (bad terminology, I know), it is still malicious. Or say, she's now a born again Christian and has repented a ton of things that she did before she found the Lord, this would still be a real kick in the solar plexus. Especially with the text message that accompanied it.

Any way you shake it, bad judgement IF Mo sent the message. That is still a huge unknown. Someone sent it from his phone. My suspicion is that investigators know who was around that phone at the time the text was sent and that is why they are charging Mo.

No matter how you look at it, it is another black eye for Nebraska. Glad we don't live in KS anymore so I don't have to hear all the Husker "Thugs" remarks again.

 

[Sandbarhusker]

According to the ESPN article -- last paragraph:

he young woman says she did not report the incident at the time because she was ashamed and tried to just move on. Her father says the family is now considering whether to pursue sexual assault charges.

NBC article:

Although she did not report the incident as a rape at the time because she says she felt ashamed, Taylor told NBC Bay Area the video depicts a sexual assault, not a consensual sex act. Taylor alleges the teen boys in the video forced her into having sex after telling her they were going to a fast food restaurant. NBC Bay Area is not naming the teens because they were juveniles at the time and were never charged with sexual assault.

According to the NBC article, Washington did hold onto the video:

Washington, according to the search warrant, still had a copy of the video.

From Taylor's essay:

They (the school, I believe) never reported the incident.

Also from the NBC article, Taylor's father said they are now pursuing sexual assault charges against the two young men:

Taylor’s father Brian said the family was trying to move on from the incident, but he supports her speaking out, and said the family is considering whether they will pursue sexual assault charges.

All of this leads me to believe that it was not reported, nor investigated. Two articles (ESPN, NBC) and Taylor's own essay.

I would prefer that Washington had no involvement in the entire incident. No matter how it turns out it is another black eye against the Husker football program. That is the bottom line.

I will repeat......your are quoting her side of the story only. What SHE has told the news outlets. Yes it had been investigated years ago and the police did see the videos because they charged one of the kids with a misdemeanor for distributing it. They did not find anything that warranted rape and or sexual abuse charges AT THAT TIME. Now.......years later the family is talking about pursing charges that they didn't pursue......nor did the police purse. Sometimes you have to be careful judging the potential victims account through the news that hasn't even interviewed the other side, nor takeen into account some reasonable discrepancies in the story.

But it doesn't matter. You have already judged.....I'm holding out for a more informed opinion. At some point we might have the same views but certainly not at this time. No use pushing a bad situation with anymore arguments on it.

 

[justino52]

If she had buyer's remorse (bad terminology, I know), it is still malicious. Or say, she's now a born again Christian and has repented a ton of things that she did before she found the Lord, this would still be a real kick in the solar plexus. Especially with the text message that accompanied it.

Any way you shake it, bad judgement IF Mo sent the message. That is still a huge unknown. Someone sent it from his phone. My suspicion is that investigators know who was around that phone at the time the text was sent and that is why they are charging Mo.

No matter how you look at it, it is another black eye for Nebraska. Glad we don't live in KS anymore so I don't have to hear all the Husker "Thugs" remarks again.

From my understanding from the various articles there is the video as well as Instagram messages of a sexual nature sent from his account. From Washington's standpoint, he's going to have to show that someone else sent them from his phone/account or could have. If things even get that far.

I'm also guessing there is a lot of stuff being deleted from player phones the last day or so. If a formal sit down hasn't happened, I'm sure an informal one has about what you have one your phone and what you've sent or received. Lets just hope that nothing was shared between current players.

 

[Uenth]

I will repeat......your are quoting her side of the story only. What SHE has told the news outlets. Yes it had been investigated years ago and the police did see the videos because they charged one of the kids with a misdemeanor for distributing it. They did not find anything that warranted rape and or sexual abuse charges AT THAT TIME. Now.......years later the family is talking about pursing charges that they didn't pursue......nor did the police purse. Sometimes you have to be careful judging the potential victims account through the news that hasn't even interviewed the other side, nor takeen into account some reasonable discrepancies in the story.

But it doesn't matter. You have already judged.....I'm holding out for a more informed opinion. At some point we might have the same views but certainly not at this time. No use pushing a bad situation with anymore arguments on it.

The DA has authorized a warrant for his arrest. That is MORE than "her side of the story".

 

[Sandbarhusker]

The DA has authorized a warrant for his arrest. That is MORE than "her side of the story".

Yes and guess what......the DA will let him go to trail and be judged. Why don't you?

 

[Sandbarhusker]

Yes and guess what......the DA will let him go to trail and be judged. Why don't you?

 

[LinvingProog]

The DA has authorized a warrant for his arrest. That is MORE than "her side of the story".

Do you think they will use the SWAT team?

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Go to my second paragraph, the video was sent from Mo's phone to the victim with the "remember this hoe" text. Because the victim was 15 when the video was shot, it is considered child porn and that makes it a felony. Also because of the text, it falls under the revenge porn law as the remember this line makes it "intent to inflict harm" on the alleged victim.

I read what Taylor wrote about this. She was kicked out of school because of this. She told the principal that she was not a willing participant. Because the two young men said she was willing,i it was her word against theirs.

I still question why Mo had this video on his phone. That is incredibly bad judgement. What we don't know is if someone grabbed his phone and sent that video to the alleged victim. I'm not passing judgement on Mo, other than to have kept the video on his phone (that is how I read the article). It is possible that someone grabbed his phone, found that video on the internet and sent it to Taylor. That is the big, HUGE unknown. If that is what happened, scratch my bad judgement remark.

OK, its all relevant.
They were all juveniles at the time, he was too when he got the vid.
Holding onto it, there is a reason.
She getting kicked out of school,there is a reason.
A school doubling down in the wrong direction is very very liable in Cali, its like handing her money, itd be just the matter of her and her lawyer to determine how much was acceptable in Cali at the time, or even now, and Im sure itd be a high number.
This right here brings more questions.
If there was a reason for a fifteen year old jilted lover to hold onto a vid like this, we just need to understand what Mo was feeling, and whether its understandable and relevant.
The judge has had this in front of him for quite awhile, now the law is pushing, but again, how hard?
Will the law enforcement end of this be told to lay low by the justice end?
Theres too many things not known to consider no one has info on, her guilt,his guilt,where it sits, was it a felony,is it prosecutable?