Setx fan

34 minutes ago, purpleeagle said:

We did not give up130 points. The score of the Daingerfield game is wrong. It was 41 to 21 not 62 to 28. Newton scored 165 points to 98. 

OK yall still gave up 100 plus and half the 165 was because EW barely even put a defense on the field 

21 minutes ago, purpleeagle said:

Maybe the Bears will not get shut out again. Maybe they can at least crawl there way across mid field.

Rather get shut out in state game than give up 130 plus first 3 rounds of playoffs. 

4 hours ago, purpleeagle said:

The odds for the Woodville Bears making state again is very dim. 

We'll see. Hopefully yalls secondary don't get torched all durring the playoffs again 

44 minutes ago, wo-s#1 said:

Damn dude is he your son or what? Or is he you? I mean you seem very protective of a guy who definitely made a horrible decision and maybe/probably broke some laws…

He's just a young guy who made a mistake and has allready paid for it more than some others in the past have. There was a coach in Alabama who had a simular issue a while back and he didn't even lose his job till he voluntarily resigned later. Much less get criminally charged. Like I said the kids hands will eventually heal. You can't erase what has allready happened but you can try to prevent it from happening again. And he won't be able to do it at WISD again because he's been fired. There's nothing else to be done at this point unless your gonna go charge all the teachers who have made kids do bear crawls previously. Hey let's charge the cheerleading instructors who allow little girls to do cartwheels and what not on the track Saturday evenings at this point. Like, what are we doing here? This stuff has to be fair across the board. Can't just have super severe punishment for certain people and let others get away scott-free.

10 minutes ago, purpleeagle said:

No I saw his record and he brought a bad team to a 5/2 district record and to the playoffs. Maybe Woodville found out he knew the bear crawl.

Yea I saw that and also saw he had losing seasons 2 out of 4 years going 0-10 one year. That's not enough consistency for me to be sure if he "brought" them to 5/2 or if he just arrived at a good time? Granted he'll probably have some good years at Woodville but if he turns out not to be that good of a head coach that could make our chances of making another state run a bit slimmer 

2 hours ago, purpleeagle said:

So Woodville hires the Elgin  head Coach who comes from a 5A2 school to a 3A2 school. Not saying that is bad but seems a little odd. Looks like a good hire. Welcome Heath Clawson.

So if a 6-30 guy comes from a 6A school to Newton you'd assume that's a good hire for Newton just because he comes from a 6A school? 

6 hours ago, purpleeagle said:

Causing body injury to a person is criminal and serious body injury is a felony.

Getting scrapes and blisters from bear crawls is not uncommon although nobody has ever been criminally charged for having kids do bear crawls before. And in this case the kids chose to do bear crawls so that would be some bs to criminally charge him for this in my opinion. He lost his job and although it's terrible this happened to the kids their hands will eventually heal. That should be enough 

15 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

If several of them seek medical treatment due to multiple degree burns on their hands it might indicate “negligence”. Most folks do not expect a group of kids to head to the ER after PE due to the day’s activity. 
 

I am fully aware that you have no concept of negligence even though another poster listed the legal definition.  

OK 

1 hour ago, 89Falcon said:

Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you understand what negligence and omission mean? 
 

In this case the kids were presented with do something that was supposedly fun from TikTok or something not fun. That is pressure. Allegedly, the coach also pressured them verbally after some were wanting to stop. 
 

This has nothing to do with me. Why are law enforcement and the DA investigating? With no potential for an offense?

BTW, you struggle with making up stuff on all of these threads. 

He gave the kids 2 options for 2 different workouts in an "athletic" class. That's not pressure. Having kids do a common exercise on a track is not negligence or omission. If he left them there unattended maybe it would be. Law enforcement is investigating because that's what they're supposed to do when something is presented to them by parents. 

4 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

Mr Falcon has done nothing more than address your questions. The question was asked previously was “what could he potentially be charged with”. The answer was “child endangerment”. You are somehow stuck on the fact that the incident is “unintentional”, intention is not required for child endangerment to be applied. 
 

There is a criminal investigation going and is not being conducted by “Mr Falcon” but instead by law enforcement and the DA. He may or may not face charges but myself and many others will not be surprised if he does. 

There has to be some knowledge of potential danger for kids getting injured during a common exercise to be considered child endangerment. You making "2 choices" out to be some type of "pressure applied" seems like a desperate attempt to build your own case to me 

2 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I think the question is why was doing bear crawls on a hot track one of the options? Need to have a little more sense.

If this was being done at the football stadium, then why weren't the bear crawls done on the field instead of the track?

I have no clue. I allready said that wasn't a good idea and I could understand why he would be fired and possibly never be able to coach again but Mr. Falcon is trying to build a criminal case against him as if he intentionally set out to cause harm to the kids. 

22 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Because the "opt out" would include a "workout". Choices were 1. "Do the challenge" or 2. "Do a workout". The obvious inference is that to avoid the "workout" you have to "do the challenge". That is "applying pressure". Afterwards, many kids sought medical treatment. 

*** For reference: 6th graders are not routinely capable of rendering adult judgement as to what is in their best interest. The point that the "challenge was optional" is utterly irrelevant. The kids were under the care and influence of an adult caregiver.  

Thats not pressure. They allready knew they would be working out in a "pre-athletic" class anyway. Like I said they were given 2 choices and they chose the bear crawls. AND there were some who still sat out even after they chose the bear crawls. Yes, some kids might have felt the need to make a good impression but they still had options from what's been presented. 

2 hours ago, wo-s#1 said:

This ^^ was not the case evidently 

How not? 

8 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

So, they were pressured to do the challenge. That will make it worse.

Pressured how? They were given 2 options. Its athletics

2 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Texas 22.041

Doesn't fall under that category far as I can see 

13 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

We will soon find out. What will make the situation criminal is the statute and the DAs reconciliation of the facts with the statute.
 

We do know for certain that the coach came up with the drill and then instructed the kids and the kids went to the ER. Whether that fits the statute remains to be determined.
 

I am nearly 100% certain that the parents will be scoring a considerable law suit. 

What statute? 

15 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Got it, so this is a unique situation. Doesn’t look good for the coach. 
 

Pretty low hanging fruit for lawsuits as well. 

Every situation is unique. Not many times will you see 2 situations that are exactly the same. Still doesn't make him a criminal 

8 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

You saw incidents from a single 6th grade workout where several kids went to the ER? That is common? 
 

Never seen a workout where several 6th graders had to go to the ER but I've seen incidents where several probably should have. Back then you probably only went if you lost fingers or toes 

2 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Also, there are not many incidents where a single drill sends many 6th graders to the medical facility. 

I've seen many incidents happen with 6th graders during workouts, in the weight room etc. Theyre 6th graders so most of them don't know how to do things properly. Mix that with a first year coach and there's a real good chance for some accidents

30 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

“Negligence” and “omission” are also qualifiers. The big factor is that the coach instructed kids. Whether or not the 6th graders had an option to participate in the drill is irrelevant. The coach is in the position of authority and the kids are 6th graders. As a result of the drill that the Coach led there were multiple kids injured and had to seek medical treatment. 

There are multiple incidents where kids are injured during a drill initiated by a coach. Doesn't always result in criminal charges against the coach. This is a first year coach who's mentor left for another job. You have to consider there's a chance he might not have been aware of some things he probably should be aware of. A huge mistake doesn't necessarily make him a criminal. 

1 hour ago, 89Falcon said:

Who instructed the kids to do the activity? That will be key to the charges. Placing the child in a place of danger knowingly, through negligence or omission would qualify. I don’t have direct details and don’t want to try the case here.

Will have to let the officials determine the facts.

"Knowingly" is the key word there and from what I hear they were given 2 choices and they chose bear crawls. Some decided they didn't want to do the bear crawls and they weren't forced to do so. Those who said they wanted to complete the activity were encouraged to do so. Was it intelligent to encourage kids who wanted to bear crawl on a hot track? Absolutely not. But was it criminal? Only if he was aware of the harm it could do or was doing. I doubt he understood the severity of the situation. 

4 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

“Child Endangerment” would be one potential charge.

I think it would have to be intentional to be considered child endangerment. It's gone be hard to stick someone with child endangerment for allowing them to participate in an exercise that's been a part of school activities for decades. He could possibly lose his license or never be allowed to coach again just for being seen as unfit or unresponsible but I doubt they can stick him with child endangerment

46 minutes ago, pine curtain said:

this is from the news article: "It's a complete disregard for common sense," McCulley tells KFDM. "12 to 14 parents have raised complaints. These are burns. We'll try to determine the average temperature of the track. We're gathering facts, medical information, taking statements. We understand one coach objected to what was happening. We'd like to talk with both coaches. The information is coming in fast. We expect to meet with District Attorney Lucas Babin as early as Wednesday. He would decide whether to take it to a grand jury for possible criminal charges."

 

What exactly would they charge him with? 

3 minutes ago, wo-s#1 said:

How old the kids were is gonna be a big issue,if they were high school then I could see “opting out…not elementary kids 

They were 11-12 year olds. Not anywhere near adults yet but I would think old enough to forfeit an activity causing bodily harm. I would think they would have a better idea if the ground was burning the skin off their hand than he did. 

27 minutes ago, pine curtain said:

Saw where they are trying to file felony charges on him.

I don't see how that would go far if he didn't personally inflict injuries on them. From what I hear it was an optional workout and some kids opted out with no consequences.