Nebraska RB faces revenge porn and child porn charges in state of California

[Pompous Elitist]

Thanks for the links.

Here is your original statement:

"But, California has become so crime-friendly and law enforcement a revolving door due to an overstressed system and hands off politicians I’m a bit surprised they’re hotly pursuing this or whether it will ever end up as an infraction with jail/prison time. What’s in the wind down there in casa Frost? Going to keep him?"

I see in the links you posted that California, like the rest of the US, is finally coming to realize that being among the world leaders in percentage of population under incarceration is not desirable. Not unless you want to compete with the likes of North Korea.

But where in the links you provided did it state that California is mandating a "crime-friendly" policy?

You have to deduce from available evidence. If one were to read a paper like the LA Times frequently one would see many stories about the following: the harried/harassed police are making fewer arrests and “standing down”; minor crimes now frequently go to diversion; felonies have been reclassified to misdemeanors; sentencing algorithms have changed. One may also have conversations with in the know individuals such as former police chiefs and district attorney office personnel. There is a national movement to reform criminals outside of correctional facilities. The Santa Clara D.A. is a backer of these policies.

My opinion is that this case is not analogous to a 45 year old with 3000 explicit photos on his PC. It isn’t the same as spreading the video publicly to live forever on the internet. Due to the preceding factors, and the factors in the paragraph preceding this one it’s my 2 cent opinion he will not be convicted of a felony and depending on the climate in Nebraska continue his career there after a public mea culpa, I’ve learned from this, blah blah. Sure he seems like a real jerk, agreed.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

If you are trying to display the persona of an a$$hole, you are crushing it.

Thanks - hat’s what I’m going for. What part of it set you off? I’m trying to hone my craft.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I'm gonna disagree with Pompous. Although black, this guy is a cis male that personifies toxic masculinity and male privilege by playing football. He's guilty until proven innocent when it comes to a girl's hurt feels. It's already obvious they're going to go after this guy hard. It's a felony to send a video back to someone that was in a video? I thought revenge porn was posted to the internet? Their whole school had the video three years ago when they all were minors, is the rest of the school being charged now that they're of age?

It’s true that black males have taken a back seat to females when there is a conflict.. It’s shocking how quickly guilt is assumed, and this from purportedly “liberal” folks. Many of them have gotten off their high horse long enough to tap on their keyboards in this thread.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

PLOT TWIST

It appears that an attorney representing the university.... knew the nature of the investigation and crimes...

https://www.1011now.com/content/new...Husker-running-back-last-fall--505801811.html

Holy **** Cornhuskers!

I mean after Penn St I shouldn't be surprised but I honestly didn't think someone would choose, child porn and revenge porn as a good hill to die on.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

This is good stuff

^^^^

 

[alchemy2u]

You have obviously never processed your own poultry.

Yes, I have and that is precisely why I suggested the boiled bird with the feather still on.

 

[alchemy2u]

PLOT TWIST

It appears that an attorney representing the university.... knew the nature of the investigation and crimes...

https://www.1011now.com/content/new...Husker-running-back-last-fall--505801811.html

Holy **** Cornhuskers!

I mean after Penn St I shouldn't be surprised but I honestly didn't think someone would choose, child porn and revenge porn as a good hill to die on.

Wow, so the former AG of Nebraska seems to interfere with the investigation claiming that he was representing the University when talking to the California Investigator and then later saying he never represented the University and didn't tell the University of warrant.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Wow, so the former AG of Nebraska seems to interfere with the investigation claiming that he was representing the University when talking to the California Investigator and then later saying he never represented the University and didn't tell the University of warrant.

It kinda smells like Penn St. in the sense that nobody tells anyone else this horrible thing ... they don't ask ... they don't follow up .... doesn't seem likely.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Maybe I’m reading that wrong but nothing indicates Bruning ever told the school the nature of the investigation, rather that officials wished to interview Washington, and nothing indicates the UNL police ever told the school anything other than the CA investigator wished to speak to him. There are some key details left out. Surely there were emails or letters issued rather than phone calls to help move this narrative along.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

It's a felony to send a video back to someone that was in a video?

If it constitutes child pornography, yes.

I thought revenge porn was posted to the internet?

It can be, but that isn't required. Here the relevant statute also covers other conduct, including sending the video to inflict emotional damage on the victim. That might be difficult to prove, but certainly the argument can be made that he sent the video here to let the victim know that he still possessed it and create fear that it could be circulated to others.

Their whole school had the video three years ago when they all were minors, is the rest of the school being charged now that they're of age?

Nope. The article stated that the students were advised to delete the video. Those who did won't face any prosecution. Those who didn't are in possession of child pornography and, while highly unlikely, could be charged for that. If, however, they follow Washington's example and circulate the video, they, too, could be charged with a felony.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

https://www.omaha.com/huskers/calif...cle_6f9a6c2e-4708-51f4-9ee1-dc637a7abc15.html


Arrest warrant time.

 

[bottlebass]

Yes, I have and that is precisely why I suggested the boiled bird with the feather still on.

Huh I figured your goal of choosing how to cook it would be to make it as unappetizing as possible. If you boil it the feathers would just come off. I'm sure crow without feathers tastes like crappy chicken.

 

[jimbo morgan]

If it constitutes child pornography, yes.



It can be, but that isn't required. Here the relevant statute also covers other conduct, including sending the video to inflict emotional damage on the victim. That might be difficult to prove, but certainly the argument can be made that he sent the video here to let the victim know that he still possessed it and create fear that it could be circulated to others.



Nope. The article stated that the students were advised to delete the video. Those who did won't face any prosecution. Those who didn't are in possession of child pornography and, while highly unlikely, could be charged for that. If, however, they follow Washington's example and circulate the video, they, too, could be charged with a felony.

Well this is all good to know. Since Jeffrey Epstein skated with a slap on the wrist, I'm glad our judicial system is really gonna stick it to some teenagers.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

I'm glad our judicial system is really gonna stick it to some teenagers.

I don’t think anyone has predicted a bunch of prosecutions will come from this, but certainly this is an area of law where deterring the objectionable conduct is far superior to any remedy that can be crafted after the fact. You raised a number of questions which demonstrated a limited familiarity with the issues. I tried to provide you with some greater context under the belief that you were genuinely curious about the subject matter. If you were just trying to express your opinion that this isn’t a big deal, I misunderstood.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I don’t think anyone has predicted a bunch of prosecutions will come from this, but certainly this is an area of law where deterring the objectionable conduct is far superior to any remedy that can be crafted after the fact. You raised a number of questions which demonstrated a limited familiarity with the issues. I tried to provide you with some greater context under the belief that you were genuinely curious about the subject matter. If you were just trying to express your opinion that this isn’t a big deal, I misunderstood.

How much are you going to wager me on this? A stewed crow?

 

[tato2001]

I don’t think anyone has predicted a bunch of prosecutions will come from this, but certainly this is an area of law where deterring the objectionable conduct is far superior to any remedy that can be crafted after the fact.

For a long time, we've been told that punishment isn't a particularly good deterrent to crime. In fact, that line of thinking has been a key platform in the fight against capital punishment, the movement to reduce incarceration rates, and to do away with mandatory sentencing.

Now, suddenly, all that is apparently out the window and it's the (no longer) progressive movement that seeks to 'get tough on crime' (especially when nice young white girls are the victims). To wit, California introducing mandatory sentencing after the Brock Turner thing.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

For a long time, we've been told that punishment isn't a particularly good deterrent to crime. In fact, that line of thinking has been a key platform in the fight against capital punishment, the movement to reduce incarceration rates, and to do away with mandatory sentencing.

Now, suddenly, all that is apparently out the window and it's the (no longer) progressive movement that seeks to 'get tough on crime' (especially when nice young white girls are the victims). To wit, California introducing mandatory sentencing after the Brock Turner thing.

It does tend to melt the mind after awhile. We could have a very long discussion on the many psychological, political, socioeconomic factors fueling the mass psychosis right now. We’re devolving at a rapid pace.

 

[Spoofin]

I predict a bunch of prosecutions will come from this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[50PoundHead]

Does Nebraska have to extradite Washington in order for the arrest warrant to be delivered or is there something else in play?

Seems to me I remember years ago there was a player for the Minnesota Twins for whom an arrest warrant for failure to pay child support had been issued. The Twins were slated to play in the state where the warrant was issued and this player didn't make the trip. I don't know if they put him on the DL, but I remember that the player did not accompany the team to the series.

For the record, I don't know what is going to happen, but my initial post regarding the first two Minnesotans prosecuted under the 2017 revenge porn statute was posted for informational purposes only. I tend to let law enforcement figure these things out.

 

[caliGopher]

All last year he was allowed to play? Man o man, the rules are clearly different here.

Well, yeah. Wasn’t charged. And school (NE) wasn’t aware of charges.

Unlike the U where you’re guilty until proven innocent, it appears Nebraska doesn’t suspend people until there is some evidence in their possession that a crime was committed.

This is not an attempt to defend this kids behavior (assuming it’s true - the article suggests his attorney saying both he didn’t do it and doesn’t deny it) But attacking NE for not suspending him is a bit premature, if you read the article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alchemy2u]

Well, yeah. Wasn’t charged. And school (NE) wasn’t aware of charges.

Unlike the U where you’re guilty until proven innocent, it appears Nebraska doesn’t suspend people until there is some evidence in their possession that a crime was committed.

This is not an attempt to defend this kids behavior (assuming it’s true - the article suggests his attorney saying both he didn’t do it and doesn’t deny it) But attacking NE for not suspending him is a bit premature, if you read the article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not so fast. According to the CA investigators, they told Burning about the nature of the case and wanted to speak with the player back in September. Both articles said that Burning was communicating with the player and with FB coaches back in September, but it was all held up until February. We don’t know how much of the details Burning shared with the FB coaches, but someone dragged their feet and held it off until after the season. Burning (a former Nebraska Attorney General) looks like the major culprit and it depends how much the coaches knew.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[caliGopher]

Not so fast. According to the CA investigators, they told Burning about the nature of the case and wanted to speak with the player back in September. Both articles said that Burning was communicating with the player and with FB coaches back in September, but it was all held up until February. We don’t know how much of the details Burning shared with the FB coaches, but someone dragged their feet and held it off until after the season. Burning (a former Nebraska Attorney General) looks like the major culprit and it depends how much the coaches knew.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, Bruning seems to be the roadblock.

Some follow-up articles further muddy the waters on who, what, and when. Sounds like Bruning told the CA investigators he was representing the school and Athletic department but is not.

The articles hint at there’s more to the story, but it doesn’t excuse what allegedly was done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk