[ESPN] Mike Leach suspended after player complaint

According to the emails from former players/coaches, Leach was the one person in the organization that believed in the kid.

 

So? According to current players they are happy he's gone.

 

still sounds like leach should have done something. if we are to believe that the kid was on the team when no one recruited him and they sent him a tape late in recruiting and leach took a flyer on the kid, the kid should be thankful for the opportunity and work his ass off. it seems the kid wasnt that though, and was one of the laziest. i dont get how leach doesnt let him go after skipping lifts and lack of effort.

 

Maybe its just me, but kicking a player off of the team and pulling their scholarship seems like a harsher punishment than making him sit in a closet and walking around the field. I played football in highschool and from everything I've read, it doesn't sound like that big of a deal at all.

As for those saying there was false imprisonment or a violation of law, I'm only a law student but unless Leach forced him into the closet or locked it, there is really no case IMO. There has to be "no reasonable means of escape" for there to be false imprisonment, it doesn't sound like that was the case.

With that said, I firmly believe that TT/Leach already had a strained relationship and both were looking for a way out, that's why it escalated into such a huge deal.

 

I'm just saying that's why he may not have wanted to kick him off the team. Leach, of all people, wanted to believe the guy could contribute.

I don't see how it's a better option for James to be kicked off than to simply be punished. The kid has the option of being kicked off available to him at any time that he wants by simply walking away.

 

I don't see why it's so hard to see right and wrong and understand who is in a position of power here?

Just because the kid doesn't want to be kicked off the team doesn't mean it's better to be humiliated and stay on the team. If he's not doing what he's supposed to do, then kick him off the team, that's the RIGHT thing to do. Leach using his position of power to humiliate the kid thinking that he'll take it in lieu of being kicked off is abusing his power and the WRONG thing to do. If the kid deserved to be punished, punish him correctly.

And this is still ignoring the fact that he had a concussion and wasn't supposed to be practicing anyways. It seems like Leach was angry that he couldn't punish him with laps or whatever so he decided to humiliate him instead.

 

I'll go back to my earlier point: Much worse happens in college football. Humiliation is a staple of college and high school coaching, ESPECIALLY football. I don't agree with it but my opinion doesn't matter. Humiliation has been used by coaches to motivate college athletes forever. There's a ton of college football coaches that need to be fired if what we know about this case was the reason Leach was fired. It's obvious they were looking for a good excuse to get rid of him.

A tape of the chancellor of Tech was aired during UH's bowl game and he mentioned "insubordination" because Leach refused to acknowledge he did anything wrong.

For the sake of clarity, Tech needs to clearly state the rationale for Leach's firing. We might be surprised.

 

It will be interesting to see who they get to replace him
and
how well they do without him

Rocket River

 

Sucks to be a Tech student right now and a big fan of Mike Leach's system. Not that I feel bad for Adam James, I hope he has more than a shed to protect him from the fan base. As for the players standing up for him I am sure they are wusses who could not take getting disciplined. I don't see any seniors standing up for James. Tech's football team is about to become irrelevant very quickly. Personally it would not suprise me if Tech makes Ruffin their next head coach, he seems to baby all of his players and play as a father kind of figure. The day Gerald Myers and the board gets fired the better off Tech will be.

 

What's so humiliating about standing in a room? Is that worse than having to run sprints until you throw up? Or all the other crazy things college coaches do? Kids mess up all the time - by your standard, no team would be able to fill out a roster. Was what this kid really worse than DJ Monroe drinking and driving, for example?

I still don't see what was so terrible about this punishment in the context of what goes on every day in college football.

He wasn't punished for having a concussion or for not practicing. He was punished for having a bad attitude about it, from what I gather.

 

From the Texas Penal Code...

Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14 years of age;
(2) the actor was a relative of the child; and
(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the child.
(c) [amended 9/1/97] An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless:
(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14 years of age, in which event the offense is a Class A misdemeanor; or
(2) the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.
(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested.
Before 9/1/97 Sec. 20.02 was named "False Imprisionment" and (c) provided:
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.

The statue merely states that there has to be restraint. Nothing about locked doors or forced physically into the room. If he went into the room and a "guard" was put there to ensure he would not leave, that appears to satisfy the statute.

 

Unless I've missed something so far, the Texas penal code hasn't even been part of the discussion regarding Leach (except here). I don't understand the relevance. Let know when law enforcement becomes involved. That would add a huge new dynamic to this mess.

 

Read the e-mail exchange I posted a few pages back between the AD and some of the boosters regarding Leach - in that context it's not surprising at all that this was the straw that broke the cliche's back.

 

No. It is not being discussed. I bring it up merely to add perspective to what happened.

If a young DA wanted to make a name for themselves, they could launch an investigation to see if the statute was violated.

A lot of people say this is no big deal. If what Leach did were violative of the statute, it would be a big deal.

Not saying it does or does not. Just adding food for thought.

 

Based on that, in-school detention in high school would qualify as unlawful restraint.

 

It has nothing to do with a "young DA" wanting to "make a name for themselves". In this instance, it's basic math to determine if there is enough evidence to file charges. If no statute was violated, this really doesn't add perspective to what happened. It's just inflammatory rhetoric. We'll see what happens. Has the applicable district attorney commented on the case? A link would be nice.

If charges get filed against Leach, this goes to a different, explosive level from what it is now.

 

I read a little bit and will probably finish it late tonight. Tech might be forced to clean house big time.

 

Statutes are up for interpretation, that's why it is typically not the best binding authority, prior case law is. As Major posted, reading the statute so liberally means that in-school detention would qualify as false imprisonment. If you click on the "definitions" link right above it, you'll see that "restrain" means...

(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with his liberty, by moving him from one place to another or by confining him.

If there was a guard (or a lock), then I agree that it would constitute false imprisonment. However, there does not seem to be any indication that there was one. Reading from my textbook, "If physical barriers are utilitized to restrain the victim, the barriers to constitute false imprisonment must surround the victim in all directions so that no reasonable means of escape exists."

From everything I've read, it sounds like Leach told the kid to go and sit in the room in which he did. So unless he was physically forced in the room or there was a threat of immediate force, Adams entered into the room with consent. Furthermore, unless there was a lock or guard, there was not a substantial interference with his liability.

This is all besides the point, and like I said, I'm just a law student. But in my personal opinion, a cause of action for false imprisonment (based on the fact that I have read) would not hold up in a court of law.

 

WoW!
this discussion is intense

So If my son gets detention
then I should sue!!

Rocket River

 

One thing for sure is the next guy will be no where the Character leach is...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxBsXzvENpo&feature=related

and my favorite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQ6AvVpWcg&feature=related