Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

demmiblue

(39,957 posts)
12. This is what gets me:
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 03:59 PM
Sep 2014

1) he was still allowed on the football team after the assault on the security guard (and subsequent incarceration), and

2) he wasn't expelled from Cass per state law:

If a pupil enrolled in grade 6 or above commits a physical assault at school against a person employed by or engaged as a volunteer or contractor by the school board and the physical assault is reported to the school board, school district superintendent, or building principal by the victim or, if the victim is unable to report the assault, by another person on the victim's behalf, then the school board, or the designee of the school board as described in section 1311(1) on behalf of the school board, shall expel the pupil from the school district permanently, subject to possible reinstatement under subsection (5). A district superintendent or building principal who receives a report described in this subsection shall forward the report to the school board.


There was also this event that happened last year (he punched an opposing player in the handshake line) that got him suspended from the first game of this season:




The school, and the 'responsible' adults, helped create this mess. Football culture run amok.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»WTF! High school football...»Reply #12