The teen’s parents are calling for charges against the now-former coach.
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 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.
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.
Slightly off topic but this is a perfect example of why school staff should not be carrying firearms.
I mean, American police can’t even handle firearms responsibly. How are teachers expected to?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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”.
