Making coaches criminals
A grand jury in Kentucky recently indicted a high school for reckless homocide for the death of one of his players from heat stroke. According to various reports, the coach refused to provide players with water. At first blush this appeared to be another attempt to hold someone criminally responsible for what is basically an accident. That may still be the case. However, as more facts come out, I can understand why the prosecutor decided to pursue this.
It appears the coach was forcing players to run until they could no longer do so. That is nothing out of the ordinary, and probably happens at some point everywhere - after all coaches must teach players to learn their limits, which is something you cannot do without being pushed. What is disturbing about this situation though is that before the young man, another player collapsed. When you combine that with the failure to provide water you have a situation that is out of the ordinary. In short, I can see why the prosecutor took action in this case.
I grew up in the day when we didn't about the need for hydration. It is was not something encouraged in my time. Instead of water, salt tablets were common - everyone believed they replaced the salt you were losing through sweat. We now know that is less than a great idea. We also know a lot more about what is necessary to avoid injury, especially heat stroke. This is not the first time something like this has happened, and you have to believe coaches are aware of it. Maybe the coach had a reason for what he did, but it seems to fly against conventional wisdom.
There is no doubt the school could be sued, and may well be. In the past, that has been how these type of issues were resolved. In fact, around the same time the widow of Minnesota Vikings player Korey Stringer settled a suit they had filed against the team. The 11th circuit also issued an opinion in a similar case filed against a school. In a 1983 suit, the court held the coaches were entitled to qualified immunity since the player voluntarily participated in the program. That would seem to effectively defeat any such suit, since almost all such programs are voluntary. I wonder whether the same facts would suuport a criminal prosecution.
Texas has the offense of criminally negligent homocide - the elements are that a person causes the death of another by criminal negligence. There is also an offense of manslaughter, which covers deaths resulting from recklessness. Criminal negilgence exists where a person "is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such nature and degree that its disregard 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 viewpoint."
So what does that long legal definition mean? Basically, the State must prove he either knew, or should have known that the player would die. Ultimately it will be up to a jury to determine that question. I can see both sides, which usually means it is they type of case that should be resolved by a jury of citizens.
Normally, I'm suspicious any time it appears someone is being charged just because something bad happened. Not every unfortunate occurence is a crime; we have a civil system designed to take care of those things that are simply reckless or negligence. Criminal prosecution should be reserved for the most serious cases; those that are the result of more than simple mistakes in judgement. Until we know all the facts, I don't know where this case comes out in that continuum. No doubt it is a tragic situation; not only for the student and his family, but also the coaches, the other players and the school. Hopefully its not made worse by dragging the coach through a criminal prosecution.
