Woodville is open

[Setx fan]

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 

[89Falcon]

11 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

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

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. 

[Setx fan]

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? 

[89Falcon]

5 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

What statute? 

Texas 22.041

[Setx fan]

2 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Texas 22.041

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

[89Falcon]

7 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

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

1. Were the victims children?

2. Were they under the supervision of the coach?

3. Were they injured?

4. Was the activity introduced by the coach?

[wo-s#1]

12 news just posted a new article about it,kids were given an option as previously mentioned…either do this tik tok challenge or do a workout…wow 

[89Falcon]

6 minutes ago, wo-s#1 said:

12 news just posted a new article about it,kids were given an option as previously mentioned…either do this tik tok challenge or do a workout…wow 

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

[Setx fan]

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

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[wo-s#1]

2 hours ago, Setx fan said:

Pressured how? They were given 2 options. Its athletics

You clearly stated they were were given options to do it or not but that’s not the case…they were given an option to do the challenge OR a workout 

[wo-s#1]

21 hours ago, Setx fan said:

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. 

This ^^ was not the case evidently 

[89Falcon]

6 minutes ago, wo-s#1 said:

This ^^ was not the case evidently 

Exactly. 

[Setx fan]

2 hours ago, wo-s#1 said:

This ^^ was not the case evidently 

How not? 

[89Falcon]

12 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

How not? 

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.  

[wo-s#1]

5 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.  

Furthermore the 11 year olds these days would literally do anything thats being done on tik tok,I haven’t searched it but I’m curious what the actual challenge is. Bear crawls have been around for ever,is the challenge doing it on a hot track?

[Setx fan]

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. 

[AggiesAreWe]

1 minute ago, Setx fan said:

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. 

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?

[Setx fan]

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. 

[89Falcon]

4 hours ago, Setx fan said:

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. 

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. 

[Setx fan]

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 

[Goslin]

Texas 22.041(c)

(c) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.

Texas Penal Code 6.03(d)

A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

[89Falcon]

1 hour ago, Setx fan said:

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 

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. 

[2wedge]

This is just an unfortunate situation all around. When I was in JH, we were made to run 1.5 miles down a country road near the middle school once a week. It wasn't optional. Some kids were conditioned for it, some weren't. It wasn't uncommon to encounter dogs and all other types of things on these runs, but we rolled with it because we were kids and did what we were told. Had a kid passed out or had a run in with one of the dogs, could've been a similar situation to what we are seeing here, but it all worked out. It was the 90s so our parents probably would've just rolled with it since it was athletics, and we were supposed to be working out. 

[Setx fan]

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.