Based on this story.
Two teenagers played a prank in their town: they placed a deer decoy at the top of a hill, on a curve, to watch as motorists panicked and swerved to avoid the decoy. The prank drove a motorist off the road, injuring two. During their trial, the judge decided the two pranksters (aged 16 and 17) could finish the football season before doing their 60-day
I was just about to start a thread on this myself, but in The Pit.
I feel this is a total injustice and these two punks should be serving their time in the middle of the football on purpose. It might give the punishment a little extra meaning to them. I think the harassment of their siblings is out of line, but that their parents deserve it.
…60 days in juvenile detention. (Oops.)
On the one hand, some believe this shows football players get preferential treatment; on the other, some argue that being on a football team will keep them out of trouble.
I am torn on this issue, but I lean toward harsher punishment. Being on a football team certainly didn’t keep them out of trouble the first time, so I don’t have high hopes that sending them back to football will help these two kids particularly. Also, using the football team as motivation to make kids behave is something that should have begun before they signed up — because failing to punish these kids like any other sends the message to the other football players that whatever you do, your football won’t be taken away.
Yes, the sentence of “play out the football season, then finish your sentence” has become a common one for pro players. It shouldn’t be there, either. The law is the law.
What say you?
Of course, if their coach was any kind of teacher at all, they might prefer to spend the season in detention. I remember when my high school water polo coach would find out that a player had done something stupid. “Extra conditioning” then became their life. A good coach would have those two running grass drills an extra 3 hours a day in the name of “rehabilitation.”
If the debate topic is “Will playing football keep wayward youth out of trouble?”, I have not seen convincing evidence that this is so.
Exhibit A: The current edition of the Cincinnati Bengals.
There was an article in the Cincy paper yesterday about receiver Chris Henry, who is receiving the “emotional support” of his teammates to make up for his “bad choices”. Those recent “bad choices” include a marijuana bust, DUI arrest, charges for supplying booze to three underage girls and an arrest for carrying a concealed weapon. The trial for the CCW charge begins 8/21 and Henry is expected to miss several practices. Could it be argued that he will be a better citizen if he’s allowed to keep playing football without interruption? :dubious:
I would be willing to debate that topic. Hell, I think football aggravates pre-existing conditions and attitudes and makes “wayward youth” even more likely to misbehave, lash out and otherwise become societal problems.
You can debate that angle if you want, I guess. I was trying to stick to the simple topic of “should their punishment have been deferred as it was?” and let people bring to the table whatever arguments they wanted in support of that.
I happen to agree that treating [insert sport] players as gods when they’re poor, 15-year-old students won’t teach them to obey the laws as rich, 25-year-old superstars. Part of why we have schools, and school activities, is to prepare kids for adulthood.
It’s sad that not punishing right away them really does prepare them for the NFL, because the NFL guys don’t get punished right away either, or sometimes at all. Most of those kids won’t make it to the professional, or even to the college level, so they’re not being taught the right things for their futures — they’ll end up selling cars or running a restaurant or doing landscaping or building houses, and does deferred punishment teach them how?
Put me in the camp of those who think the judges decision is very wrong. For one thing, I think the punishment they are going to receive is very minimal considering one of the victims of their “prank” is said to have brain damage, and another has had multiple surgeries. I think way too much emphasis is placed on sports in schools, and this kind of decision just shows the “jocks” that they can expect perferential treatment for having a skill at a sport.
[hijack]
A little league team from my area has made it to the “Little League World Series”. I think that is wonderful and all that, but what idiot scheduled the season so that the finals would be held after school started?
[/hijack]
Same here. When I read the article I was more concerned about the 60 days then the deferment, although the deferment is a very stupid idea. These kids are getting off way too easy.
I’m not happy with this Judge. Had it been up to me, I’d have had the little bastards hauled off to juvy immediately. After they did the time there, they could begin the several hundred hours of community service I’d include in the sentence. Prolly woulda ordered daily paddlings, too, if I thought I could get away with it. When I was done with them, they’d have no energy left for football anyway.
Not really any happier with the coach, if he allows these kids to play. I’d boot their sorry asses off the team. Participation in extra-curricular activities is a privilege offered to those who are otherwise in good standing with the school/community. Punks maiming innocent motorists with stupid “pranks” do not fall into that category. They don’t deserve the recognition, or any of the other perks that come with being an athlete.
Unforunately, hitting a deer can cause severe damage to a vehicle which often results in serious injuries to the occupants.
That is an excellent point. Any decent athletic program would suspend athletes convicted of such crimes. Thanks for bringing it up.
Drivers need to brake but stay in their lanes. It’s better to hit the deer than to swerve. Swerving leads to loss of control of the vehicle, striking oncoming vehicles, rolling the vehicle, going off the road, etc. Hitting the deer is no fun, but it’s less likely to kill you. I think statistically it’s much much less likely to kill you, but I’m not certain of that.
I doubt that decision would be up to the coach.
Sorry, I was responding to this comment –
Unless you can establish that swerving for deer is always the wrong tactic, I must insist that it be left up to the individual driver. At any rate, total fatalities is only one way to judge danger.
I have no idea whether hitting a deer is less likely to be fatal than not hitting one, but I suspect you will be hard pressed to find statistics to validate such a claim.
Let me be more precise. Sometimes it is a good idea to swerve if a deer is in your path while you are driving in your car. Can we agree on that?
Who do you think makes the decision about who plays and who doesn’t?
In a town like that? The Principal, the School Board, the parents…
Any coach worth the name would park those two on the bench for life +20. Which means this one will be fired the day after he even thinks something like that.
The same people that made the decision they should keep playing.
The parents of the other players, who don’t want to see their son’s potential free college ride and professional career go away because of a bad season caused by a roster shakeup.
The town lawyers - the ones that work for the school that don’t want to defend against the lawsuits brought by the above parents for overruling a court decision, and the rest in the town that will be begging those parents to sue.
The town movers and shakers - businessmen and politicians that graduated from the school and want to “give it every chance to go all the way to the state championship this year,” and who donate sports equipment and other goodies to the school.
College recruiters that have their eye on a player or two and “want them to be able to do their best.”
I’m sure there are others as well. What, me cynical?
From everything I’ve ever heard, the fatalities from accidents involving deer are almost always a result of swerving to miss the deer. Not swerving is simply the safer option. I’ll stand behind what I said. Don’t swerve for deer. Hit the brakes. Stay in your lane. You can find an exception, just as you can find exceptions where people were saved by not wearing their seatbelts.
And the stats are probably available, if I knew where to look for them.
Do you really think the head coach runs the cut list by the school board? Can you provide any support for your claim other than your assertion?
20 years of teaching in a football-happy town gives me a bit of insight, yes. The coach doesn’t run anything by anybody. But the Friday night those two don’t start, the coach’s days are numbered. He will be in the Principal’s office by 8am Monday defending his decision, while the Principal answers phone calls from the school board, the mayor, and every other bigshot in town. If the kids don’t play, that coach will be teaching Sophomore PE so fast you won’t believe it.