The teen’s parents are calling for charges against the now-former coach.
The incident allegedly occurred after the coach – who also served as a hall monitor – ordered Michael to do pushups because he was horsing around in the hallway, but the teen declined because he had hurt his hand
Cop mentality. Escalate until someone’s unconscious.
This sort of power-trip bullshit pisses me off so much. Kid’s “horsing around” in the hallway and it’s your job to keep the hallways calm? Then tell them to stop. Is it a pattern of behavior and they don’t listen? Assign them an official punishment with the power you’ve been given: detention of some kind (probably a lunch detention).
Trying to make them do pushups? Fuck off, this is school not the fucking army.
Note they keep saying the coach was an “employee” and not a teacher.
I don’t think they even allowed that when I was in middle school in the late 80s. All the coaches were also teachers.
the school district is distancing itself from the coach.
I’m sure they are, but I’m also betting this coach had absolutely no formal instruction on working with children.
Bet there been other reports of this guys aggressive behavior and hopefully others will feel safe coming forward.
My small school district typically only allows teachers to coach, but it’s a huge burden on teachers. We want the kids to have access to sports and clubs, but golly, please just do a background check on and/or train a community member who actually WANTS to coach.
I’d go with that. Background check and training at minimum should be required.
“allegedly”
“on video”
As is posted every single time someone comments this, until convicted you are “alleged” to have committed a crime.
No one should want that to change, because any group that is deemed to require summary punishments will be the group dissidents are identified as by the state.
Don’t like protestors? They’re all pedos now! No trials needed. Thank god we got all those pedos.
The “Alleged” is there to protect your rights. Even the most heinous crimes should be charged in court.
I see the point, but still think it’s a misuse of the word “alleged”. There is no doubt here that the teacher was strangling the kid: That part is on video, and is true whether or not they’re convicted of a crime for it. Whether the strangling was a crime, or whether there were mediating circumstances that make it not a crime is what remains to be determined.
I just think we should be able to separate between “person allegedly committed a crime”, which needs to be proven in court, or “person did XYZ and there is video evidence and multiple independent eyewitnesses accounts of it”, which shouldn’t need to be proven in court.
It’s not up to a newspaper to declare any person as a criminal. “Alleged” is the only word they can use legally. And if we allow them to label people as criminals, all the hell will break lose.
I absolutely agree that newspapers shouldn’t be allowed to label someone as a criminal before they have been sentenced. My point is that there’s a difference between reporting indisputable facts about an event, and reporting that those facts make someone a criminal.
Reporting that “Video shows person X shooting person Y”. Is different from reporting “Person X committed murder by shooting person Y”, because in the second case you are reporting that they committed a crime, when they may be acquitted of murder in court for any number of reasons. Reporting that “Person X allegedly shot and killed person Y according to this video” makes it seem like there’s any doubt about whether that happened.
How about their usage here which is:
alleged “assault”
It’s quoting someone if you read the rest of that paragraph.
The “alleged” is there to protect the news org from a libel lawsuit if the accused gets exonerated. They don’t give a shit about your rights.
What is with everyone on Lemmy constantly overexplaining things?
It’s a sarcastic commentary on the situation. It doesn’t automatically mean I hate fair justice systems. Holy shit.
Because this exact same joke is posted on every single article containing the word “alleged”.
Slightly off topic but this is a perfect example of why school staff should not be carrying firearms.
Disagree.
You’re right on-topic.
I mean, American police can’t even handle firearms responsibly. How are teachers expected to?
As an European, the only armed teachers working with kids should be the daycare teachers at Svalbard.
As a non Norwegian,why?
Polar bears can be hungry
Gotta keep those puffins in check
I was more thinking of the polar bears
I get that there are fucked up people in the world who can’t control themselves. It’s just inconceivable to me that you’d commit a crime that you know will get you caught. There’s no chance this guy didn’t realize cameras would catch him. And yet he still couldn’t restrain himself. That’s an incredible degree of anger.
What the fuck is that title, nothing alleged about it if it was caught on security cameras
News websites are cowardly and/or the courts are not doing their job stopping bullshit lawsuits.
To be fair, we live in an age where it’s getting easier for the average person to create altered or fake videos that can be quite convincing.
Also news outlets want to avoid being sued for libel.
The Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office confirmed to ABC News on Wednesday that they have authorized two charges against the defendant in the case – assault with intent to do great bodily harm by strangulation, as well as assault and battery, a misdemeanor. No additional details in the case were released.
Worth noting that many jurisdictions have begun separating out attempted strangulation from regular battery/assault, because the statistics on attempted strangulation are incredibly harrowing. A victim who has been strangled by someone is 750% more likely to be murdered by that person within a year. Strangulation is a really really strong indicator of future murder. To the point that if you find out your partner has strangled someone in the past, you should strongly consider planning your escape.
There may be some correlation ≠ causation here, but it’s also interesting to theorize about why it may be so strongly correlated. Is it because murderers are naturally predisposed to strangling victims? Is it because people who strangle are more likely to ”accidentally” kill their victim during an altercation, as compared to someone who simply uses their fists? Is it because murderers tend to fantasize about or fixate on strangulation? Regardless of the reason, the stats are… Not great. This former coach has no business being anywhere near a school.
I suspect it’s s matter of intent, conscious or subconscious. If a person strangles a victim, they are deliberately targeting a vulnerable part that has a high likelihood of killing if severely damaged. Even if they only intend harm and not death, it even if they’re so blind mad that they’re running on instinct, that’s an attempt to cause potentially lethal harm. A punch is far less likely to do so - even some gunshot wounds can be more survivable than strangulation. So yeah, it really should be up there in the same category as adult with deadly force.
I don’t know how many people would be accidentally strangled by their abusers - from what I understand, it takes a fair few minutes and bit of effort to strangle someone to death.
what the fuck is with all the double speak in this article? “allegedly”. “the aleged “Assault”…” Like. Dude. the coach is on camera. Choking out a student. You can argue that maybe it was some how consensual, maybe? At which point you need to ask can a minor actually consent to that? (Nope.)
also. No charges filed? are you fucking kidding me?
Any news article reporting on such an event must use the qualifier “allegedly” until the perpetrator is convicted of a crime. This is just literally correct as until they’re convicted they’re only alleged to have committed a crime. Media complies with this because even if they have a video maybe the case goes south and the guy in the video ducks the charge. Then he could bring legal action against anyone who definitively said he did something as opposed to using allegedly.
The article is scarce on details but it sounds like police and public prosecutors have woken up to the case and are investigating avenues of prosecution. Definitely not a lawyer, don’t believe anything I say at face value.
That covers half of it. Read the article. They really are couching it in media-speak.
Almost as if they like the guy.
Watch the video. It’s pretty clear an assault took place, yet that too is “alleged”. The implication there is that the attack never happened- when it very clearly did.
Yeah, not sure if we read the same article. It definitely uses media safe terms like allegedly, but only on actions that would be legal definitions of crimes. After that it refers to it as “the incident” (and not as “the alleged incident”). They never hedge around whether the attack happened, and the rest of the article even strongly takes the side of the family. I see nothing that makes it seem like the news agency likes or is siding with the ex-coach.
I guess maybe taking all of the “allegedly” and “appears to” at face value you could get the impression of them being dodgy, but it’s just how they have to report it until facts are discovered in a trial. Actually, they even later quote the family’s attorney calling it a “horrific assault and battery”, no “allegedly” in sight, because it was a quote referencing what was being investigated.
they literally put scare quotes around “assault” like it’s a dubious statement that an assault took place. Even if you want to try and somehow argue that the school got the wrong guy, that it really wasn’t the coach, there’s enough evidence to say that an assault took place.
(this is a screen grab from the linked article above.)Yes. Assault is a legal term. Even if it is on video, if there is an open case in court about this incident they need to phrase it that way. The quotation marks aren’t scare quotes, this is part of what the family’s attorney, Jordan Vahdat, said. Probably deconstructed from a sentence like “and we are seeking to file for assault charges against the formerly trusted coach”, because trusted coach was also in quotes.
The assault absolutely took place, and the article never infers that it didn’t.
If they can’t verify the authenticity of the video, it too is alleged.
They have an interview with the victims mother.
They know the coach got fired immediately.
They have the video and a statement from the school acknowledging that an assault took place.
The video is just icing on the evidentiary cake.
The victim’s mother and the school were not party to the assault, so that’s hearsay.
Yeah….
Lemme guess next you’re going to say that the security tapes, which were provided by the school, were deep fakes.
… the mother got it from the kid and everyone else saw it happen on the tapes.
They can at the very least state that the kid was assaulted (with a deadly weapon, at that.) nobody is denying that much.
It’s possible. There was another case recently of someone faking a phone call to make it sound like this guy was going off on a racist tirade. But, after investigation, it was found to be fake.
Thus, alleged.
And all of that can be presented as evidence to obtain a conviction, but until he’s convicted it’s all just allegations
The presumption of innocence is a very important part of protecting civil liberties of the accused
It is not a statement of fact. You don’t get convicted and suddenly become guilty. The jury finds that you have always been guilty, based on the evidence shown at trial. And that doesn’t even necessarily mean you’re truly guilty or not.
And while I get they’re trying to avoid lawsuits, but they’re taking it to pedantic extremes. The school found sufficient evidence to immediately terminate his employment, they throw the “allegedly” qualifier on there and scare quotes on “assault” at least once even though it’s patently obvious that an assault did happen.
No, no. You’re right maybe it was staged. Maybe the kid that got choked out asked for it…
So open your own newspaper and type it up how you want.
They’re not a court. They can’t call anyone a criminal. Doing so is a criminal offense in itself.
Criminal offense?
No. It most certainly is not a criminal offense.
At worst, it’d be defamation, which is a civil tort. And only then, if a) it was in fact a false statement, b) fault amounting to negligence or worse (ie they didn’t do due diligence in fact checking, or it was intentionally false.) and c) some harm occurred.
If it’s reasonably true, it’s not defamation.
“allegedly” … “caught on surveillance video”. huh?
That’s ethics. It has to be proven in court before the press can report on it as fact. Until then, it’s libel to say anything but alleged.
Not just ethics; until found guilty they could be held civil liable if they didn’t say “allegedly”.
Hence my reference to libel.
How was this scumbag not arrested immediately?
He’s greased up
wtf?!
Middle school? In that image, the kid looks bigger than the teacher.
Some people have an early growth spurt and people get held back a year sometimes to repeat a grade. The size of the child isn’t relevant here, it is still wrong to choke anybody.
