Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
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.
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.
"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?!