|
Post by olinedude on Dec 1, 2015 13:01:04 GMT -6
Nope, but we aren't lawyers. Coaches don't sentence kids for crimes, but we do teach kids that dumb decisions have consequences.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 1, 2015 13:13:58 GMT -6
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Arrested and charged doesn't prove guilt. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards Heck no. THEY WERE ARRESTED AND CHARGED!!
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 1, 2015 13:15:41 GMT -6
So, what exactly is the moral difference in this state between this situation detailed in the article and a Sr with his Fr girlfriend that you just let play? The arresting?
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Dec 1, 2015 13:49:35 GMT -6
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Arrested and charged doesn't prove guilt. What does that have to do with playing football? Innocent until proven guilty is about criminal law and whether or not you go to jail. It's not even the standard in Civil court, much less what we're talking about. It is a totally irrelevant concept when talking about a kid stepping out on the field representing their community/school/team. Yeah, most of your players do stupid sh*t. Heck, I'm sure we all did stupid sh*t. And, we also knew that getting caught doing said stupid sh*t would have cost us playing a sport. It's called accountability. It's something that you're supposed to be teaching as part of coaching HS students. Even if this arrest was wrong place/wrong time (which it wasn't since they admitted to it), that still doesn't excuse it. Don't friggin be in the wrong place at the wrong time if you want to play Friday night. I guess it comes down to where you want to set the bar for your program, and what behaviors you will tolerate/condone/encourage, which is all pretty much the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Dec 1, 2015 14:54:55 GMT -6
So, what exactly is the moral difference in this state between this situation detailed in the article and a Sr with his Fr girlfriend that you just let play? The arresting? Yes. For me it is the fact the kids were charged and arrested. I'll be straightforward and say that is the only thing that changes the situation for me is that the degree of the relationship which is not less than 2 years which is the law in Louisiana concerning the age of minors. No matter what, each person in the community will ultimately fall into 1 of 2 groups. The 1st group thinks that sex in this situation is acceptable and that the law is dumb. The 2nd group thinks that sex shouldn't occur in this situation (or many others) and that the law is reasonable. Again, I'm going to play politician and assume it is much easier to have the 1st group pissed off at me than the 2nd group. In almost every community I've coached in, that 2nd group is the majority and is also much more likely to already be involved in their students lives as either volunteers at school events or perhaps even as school board members or as fellow teachers/coaches.
|
|
|
Post by kcbazooka on Dec 1, 2015 15:15:24 GMT -6
Ive said on this thread before that I wouldn't play them and am surprised at the number of coaches that don't say that. If you're rationalizing that you play them because the age difference wasn't bad enough in your eyes then aren't you setting yourself up as judge in every instance? They were arrested and they admitted to breaking the law.
If you want to rationalize you could get to the point - "he may have hit her a little but nothing too serious" or "he stole stuff from the gas station but hasn't everybody done that" or "it wasn't really sexual assault because the girl asked for it"
I think some of the coaches are trying to excuse their behavior and that can lead to a slippery slope.
They got arrested - and admitted to breaking the law. They don't play.
I also wonder how many of the coaches who say its OK for the kids to play have daughters and would this change their outlook...
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 1, 2015 15:37:43 GMT -6
Ive said on this thread before that I wouldn't play them and am surprised at the number of coaches that don't say that. If you're rationalizing that you play them because the age difference wasn't bad enough in your eyes then aren't you setting yourself up as judge in every instance? They were arrested and they admitted to breaking the law. If you want to rationalize you could get to the point - "he may have hit her a little but nothing too serious" or "he stole stuff from the gas station but hasn't everybody done that" or "it wasn't really sexual assault because the girl asked for it" I think some of the coaches are trying to excuse their behavior and that can lead to a slippery slope. They got arrested - and admitted to breaking the law. They don't play. I also wonder how many of the coaches who say its OK for the kids to play have daughters and would this change their outlook... the difference is, in EVERY one of those situations there was an unwilling party - the person who was hit, robbed, or assulted. this, from all accounts ive seen, doesnt have that. there was no unwilling party.
|
|
|
Post by kcbazooka on Dec 1, 2015 16:11:34 GMT -6
The players were a couple of months away from it being a felony! If you had a 14 year old freshman daughter and two senior boys have sex with her, consensual or not, you might not have the same sympathy. It was against the law!
No unwilling party - with that rationale it would be OK if the players sold drugs and/or paid engaged in prostitution.
I guess I as a coach I don't want to judge which laws are OK and which are not.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 1, 2015 19:27:37 GMT -6
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Arrested and charged doesn't prove guilt. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards Heck no. THEY WERE ARRESTED AND CHARGED!! Keep in mind, "ARRESTED AND CHARGED" was a comment used to demonstrate your error when you said "why is it [the coach's] place to say the kids were in the wrong and can't play" It was to point out that the coach wasn't the one saying they were in the wrong but rather the local law enforcement. Regarding "innocent until proven guilty", while I understand that concept, I do think it is somewhat bizarre that football coaches would bring up that legal standard as a reason to let kids play after being arrested, but I don't think anyone here would blink twice if someone said they sat a kid because he told a coach to go F himself at practice.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Dec 2, 2015 8:07:24 GMT -6
Ive said on this thread before that I wouldn't play them and am surprised at the number of coaches that don't say that. If you're rationalizing that you play them because the age difference wasn't bad enough in your eyes then aren't you setting yourself up as judge in every instance? They were arrested and they admitted to breaking the law. If you want to rationalize you could get to the point - "he may have hit her a little but nothing too serious" or "he stole stuff from the gas station but hasn't everybody done that" or "it wasn't really sexual assault because the girl asked for it" I think some of the coaches are trying to excuse their behavior and that can lead to a slippery slope. They got arrested - and admitted to breaking the law. They don't play. I also wonder how many of the coaches who say its OK for the kids to play have daughters and would this change their outlook... No, that is not what I'm saying. It's not a big deal because if these two did it, I will be willing to bet there's another 10 players on your team that have done it, but they didn't get caught. So really all you're punishing these kids for is getting caught. I think some of you that think this kind of thing is a unique situation have no idea what your players are up to. And I have a daughter. She's 10 and 5th grade.
|
|
|
Post by olinedude on Dec 2, 2015 9:59:44 GMT -6
But they did get caught. Thats how life goes, if you get caught you pay the price. They got caught, they don't play.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 2, 2015 10:02:58 GMT -6
But they did get caught. Thats how life goes, if you get caught you pay the price. They got caught, they don't play. so we are teaching them the valuable lesson of - if you dont get caught its not a crime.
|
|
|
Post by olinedude on Dec 2, 2015 10:05:20 GMT -6
Nope, you're teaching them not to do stupid stuff so they don't have to worry about getting in trouble.
From that perspective, what are you teaching your kids if you let them play? It seems like your communicating- you can do whatever you want.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Dec 2, 2015 10:11:24 GMT -6
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Arrested and charged doesn't prove guilt. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards What if they were arrested for murder instead? Still play them?
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 2, 2015 10:16:47 GMT -6
Nope, you're teaching them not to do stupid stuff so they don't have to worry about getting in trouble. From that perspective, what are you teaching your kids if you let them play? It seems like your communicating- you can do whatever you want. I think whats being taught is that people make "mistakes" are made (i still debate this - no crime other then arbitrary age limits of kids set by lawyers) , and that whatever happens in the court room happens...but it doesnt have to effect the team in THIS situation. now, if they were staring down the barrel of a felony charge...yea sure i get it, immediate dismissal and public statement..yadada C.Y.A. but this is not that...
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 2, 2015 10:18:57 GMT -6
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Arrested and charged doesn't prove guilt. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards What if they were arrested for murder instead? Still play them? murder is so far out of scope - how about another misdemeanor - like....Minor in possession of alcohol. if a kid gets an MIP the night before the game because someone got beer at a party, does he still play?
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Dec 2, 2015 10:30:08 GMT -6
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Arrested and charged doesn't prove guilt. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards What if they were arrested for murder instead? Still play them? I know you're joking, but what school would even allow a student arrested of murder on campus? The reason this decision is so debated is because the school has not responded in any way. That's why my decision would be to go about things as normal until the AD or Principal talks to me about it.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 2, 2015 10:39:51 GMT -6
be sure to have Cris Carter speak to your team before next season starts.
This is a good example of why you need to define your AD/District protocols for these situations at Day 1 so you shouldn't be left wondering what the right thing to do is when it happens. Kid gets arrested? Gotta self report that (player tells coach, coach informs AD, etc) or you won't have any choice in the matter and the kid gets suspended.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Dec 2, 2015 10:54:59 GMT -6
What if they were arrested for murder instead? Still play them? murder is so far out of scope - how about another misdemeanor - like....Minor in possession of alcohol. if a kid gets an MIP the night before the game because someone got beer at a party, does he still play? I'm simply using the murder argument in the context of 'innocent until proven guilty' statement
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2015 11:09:27 GMT -6
So it is alright as long as it isn't a serious crime? ?
|
|
|
Post by olinedude on Dec 2, 2015 11:16:13 GMT -6
What if they were arrested for murder instead? Still play them? murder is so far out of scope - how about another misdemeanor - like....Minor in possession of alcohol. if a kid gets an MIP the night before the game because someone got beer at a party, does he still play? If a kid gets an MIP he's suspended for 2 weeks. And this is a public statement, CYA, etc situation. The kids were arrested on charges of a sexual crime, they absolutely don't play. You would really stand up in front of your school and defend the decision to play them to the school board?
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Dec 2, 2015 11:22:48 GMT -6
We have team rules and expectations. Our school has rules and expectations. The city,state,nation have rules and expectations. What i'm not going to do is try to punish someone for other peoples rules. That is their job to punish people for their rules. Having sex with a girl isn't against the rules laid out in the pre-season for our program. If the authorities who deal with this sort of thing have released him i'm having a talk, getting the story, letting him know my feelings, and putting him out there to do his job for his program.
|
|
|
Post by newhope on Dec 2, 2015 11:32:09 GMT -6
Ive said on this thread before that I wouldn't play them and am surprised at the number of coaches that don't say that. If you're rationalizing that you play them because the age difference wasn't bad enough in your eyes then aren't you setting yourself up as judge in every instance? They were arrested and they admitted to breaking the law. If you want to rationalize you could get to the point - "he may have hit her a little but nothing too serious" or "he stole stuff from the gas station but hasn't everybody done that" or "it wasn't really sexual assault because the girl asked for it" I think some of the coaches are trying to excuse their behavior and that can lead to a slippery slope. They got arrested - and admitted to breaking the law. They don't play. I also wonder how many of the coaches who say its OK for the kids to play have daughters and would this change their outlook... the difference is, in EVERY one of those situations there was an unwilling party - the person who was hit, robbed, or assulted. this, from all accounts ive seen, doesnt have that. there was no unwilling party. Actually, under the law--and the reason for this law in the first place--is that the minor is legally an unwilling participant. The law is put in place under the presumption that a minor is not capable of making the decision on whether or not to have sex and it is one of many areas in which minors are protected legally from poor decisions (contracts, for example). It seems that those of you who are in favor of playing them are forgetting that part of the scenario. How do you handle the kid busted for smoking weed on game day if you think it's ok to smoke it? Are you going to justify each and every arrest as to how it fits into your own moral code rather than that of society?
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 2, 2015 11:36:45 GMT -6
Easy to take the moral high ground in theory but reality tends to be less clear.
For those of you who would not play the offenders, make sure you have your administrators' support before you do so.
Have seen coaches do what they thought was right in situations like this get overruled by principal, Superintendent, or BOE, especially when pressured by parents.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 2, 2015 11:52:48 GMT -6
Actually, under the law--and the reason for this law in the first place--is that the minor is legally an unwilling participant. The law is put in place under the presumption that a minor is not capable of making the decision on whether or not to have sex and it is one of many areas in which minors are protected legally from poor decisions (contracts, for example). It seems that those of you who are in favor of playing them are forgetting that part of the scenario. How do you handle the kid busted for smoking weed on game day if you think it's ok to smoke it? Are you going to justify each and every arrest as to how it fits into your own moral code rather than that of society? but they are all minors! thats whats funny about this. if they are all minors, and none of them can consent, then who is at fault?!
|
|
|
Post by 3rdandlong on Dec 2, 2015 13:02:22 GMT -6
If we're talking gray areas and what's stupid and what isn't much like larrymoe has discussed, I will say that consensual sex between a 17 and 14 year old should not be a crime. But the article makes it seem as if 2 older kids wanted to coerce a younger girl into being gang-banged. That just seems flat out nasty to me and even sounds a little like force/non-consent. That's the part that really irks me about this situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2015 13:24:05 GMT -6
If we're talking gray areas and what's stupid and what isn't much like larrymoe has discussed, I will say that consensual sex between a 17 and 14 year old should not be a crime. But the article makes it seem as if 2 older kids wanted to coerce a younger girl into being gang-banged. That just seems flat out nasty to me and even sounds a little like force/non-consent. That's the part that really irks me about this situation. Does not matter how the media covers it. The two gentlemen and as a result, their community, school, and team in a negative spotlight. And for selfish reasons. How can anybody say they are in this to be a role model to young men, then turn and say let the kids play? Is not coaching to positively influence young men.
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Dec 2, 2015 13:33:45 GMT -6
Is the Principal outraged about it? Is the school board outraged about it? Is the sheriff, prosecutor, or Judge outraged about it? Let them handle it. I don't need to do their job.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 2, 2015 13:35:58 GMT -6
If we're talking gray areas and what's stupid and what isn't much like larrymoe has discussed, I will say that consensual sex between a 17 and 14 year old should not be a crime. But the article makes it seem as if 2 older kids wanted to coerce a younger girl into being gang-banged. That just seems flat out nasty to me and even sounds a little like force/non-consent. That's the part that really irks me about this situation. Does not matter how the media covers it. The two gentlemen and as a result, their community, school, and team in a negative spotlight. And for selfish reasons. How can anybody say they are in this to be a role model to young men, then turn and say let the kids play? Is not coaching to positively influence young men. do you make your players take a vow of chastity or something?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2015 13:46:10 GMT -6
Does not matter how the media covers it. The two gentlemen and as a result, their community, school, and team in a negative spotlight. And for selfish reasons. How can anybody say they are in this to be a role model to young men, then turn and say let the kids play? Is not coaching to positively influence young men. do you make your players take a vow of chastity or something? You condone their act of selfishness?
|
|