West Brook's Flanigan Placed on Administrative Leave

[Raider24]

8 minutes ago, outanup said:

Fall of 1978, Ronnie Thompson's first season as head coach at TJ.We had the honor system, no locks on  lockers cause we are family and a Team. During after school practice things are coming up missing in mainly the varsity locker room.. So....one of our smaller managers is left in the equipment room and placed in a cabinet with a hole drilled so he has a Birdseye view of what's going on. Suspects are identified that day and told to report to the coachs office first thing the following morning. Coach informs the team at the end of practice and stresses that culprits will be in his office at said time. Next morning before school starts the culprits are addressed by coach then funneled out a door and into the arms of the varsity football team..... problem solved.

Awesome, but cannot do this today! Imagine the can of worms this would open up also!

[robanadana]

45 minutes ago, outanup said:

Fall of 1978, Ronnie Thompson's first season as head coach at TJ.We had the honor system, no locks on  lockers cause we are family and a Team. During after school practice things are coming up missing in mainly the varsity locker room.. So....one of our smaller managers is left in the equipment room and placed in a cabinet with a hole drilled so he has a Birdseye view of what's going on. Suspects are identified that day and told to report to the coachs office first thing the following morning. Coach informs the team at the end of practice and stresses that culprits will be in his office at said time. Next morning before school starts the culprits are addressed by coach then funneled out a door and into the arms of the varsity football team..... problem solved.

Thompson was that way when he coached at Vidor as well. Great motivator!

[CCRed]

52 minutes ago, Raider24 said:

Awesome, but cannot do this today! Imagine the can of worms this would open up also!

Nope can't do it today.  Someone would call them all "Cowboy Vigilantes".

[L-Train11]

19 minutes ago, CCRed said:

Nope can't do it today.  Someone would call them all "Cowboy Vigilantes".

Lol this is hilarious!

[mytwocents-28]

7 hours ago, robanadana said:

I work for a large corporation. If I go to my boss, or for that matter if any employee of that boss does, with an ALLEGED impropriety and my boss doesn't act on it that makes the boss just as liable as the guilty party. If Flanigan went to BISD about this issue and they didn't act then I'm pretty sure they are as liable as Flanigan. Coach made a mistake that he tried to justify because his superiors didn't act upon the theft allegation. Both are at fault.

Gotta love how this comment was ignored.

[Hagar]

10 minutes ago, Vpirate02 said:

Gotta love how this comment was ignored.

The BISD admin culpability has been mentioned several times, and to my knowledge, no one has refuted it.  So in the absence of defense, I guess most agree.  And that makes me wonder why there isn't more outrage directed at them.  Had they done their job, this is a non event.

[tvc184]

On 11/26/2016 at 4:17 PM, AHUDDLESTON said:

They can in Texas. I just read the law. 37 total states allow it.

Can you cite that law?

[tvc184]

On 11/29/2016 at 2:07 PM, WOSgrad said:

I think you glossed over some very important language in the above provision as an "intent to invade the privacy of the other person" is a listed element to this crime. (Texas Penal Code Sec. 21.15 (b)).  If I am Coach Flanigan's attorney, I would argue (and I think pretty darned successfully) that Coach Flanigan's number of reports to BISD of a theft problem prior to the installation of this camera, as well as the fact that the only footage obtained was that of the proported thief in action, would negate that element of intent.

Of course you would. Lawyers are paid to argue. 

However and for the sake of discussion........

There are many laws in this category that say things like with intent to arouse sexual gratification of any person. In other words merely committing an act in itself might be no crime. This law carries no such element and only requires that intent to invade privacy in an area where privacy is expected.

I have no clue as to the facts of this case (but read tons of speculation) but recording in a locker room fits the law as to location and it also appears to fit the invasion of privacy. There is no other intent in the law except that privacy intended to be invaded. I can only assume that the "intent to invade" is an issue like a coach has a camera in his office in order to secure it and a person opens the door and in the background you can see a locker room. I believe such as case would be hard to prove intent to invade privacy. Much like many stores have huge camera systems and if one of them happens to catch an open door to a restroom or locker room, it is not likely a crime as there was no intent that could be proven to record that background glimpse. That does not appear to be the if a person actually planted a camera in the locker room and with it focused on lockers and where people undress.

Note that this very law mentions no defense to prosecution that there was a sign saying it was being recorded. While a sign is not in question in this case, a store putting up a sign in a dressing room that this area is being recorded is still a crime. This also appears to fly in the face of an earlier comment by someone else that it is legal to catch people stealing by placing a camera in a locker room. The state seems to negate that claim in this very law. 

For further discussion .......

There is what is commonly called wiretapping. This is the TX law on that and it includes "oral communication". 

Sec. 16.02. UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication. 

 

Here we can see that merely intercepting oral communication is a crime. Again, I do not know what happened but if there is also audio and at least one person in a conversation did know that it was being recorded (a defense to prosecution), it appears to be wiretapping. 

Unlike the video/photography issue in the locker room, the wiretapping law requires no other intent that I can see other than the intent to intercept the conversation.

I know that any lawyer could argue a case (but might not take a case).  At the very least it appears that making a video and/or audio in a dressing room for video or conversation anywhere if not a crime, is right up to the threshold of one. In fact it might be close enough to require your argument in court. 

To restate, I have no clue what evidence anyone has, if any at all and if any does exist, whether it rises to the level of a crime. The laws listed are interesting on whether you can record audio, video or photographs in a private location no matter any sexual intent or while trying to catch a crook. I am sure that you know that even law enforcement cannot do either without a wiretapping warrant. 

In my opinion. 

[Gabe]

You know I find all this so funny. It seems a good group of people talking on this thread don't seem to have a problem with the stealing of the items as much as they do with what Flanigan did. Same folks who also don't mind their stadium still has the name Carroll Thomas in big letters. Change it to Jerry Levias!!!

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Of course you would. Lawyers are paid to argue. 

However and for the sake of discussion........

There are many laws in this category that say things like with intent to arouse sexual gratification of any person. In other words merely committing an act in itself might be no crime. This law carries no such element and only requires that intent to invade privacy in an area where privacy is expected.

I have no clue as to the facts of this case (but read tons of speculation) but recording in a locker room fits the law as to location and it also appears to fit the invasion of privacy. There is no other intent in the law except that privacy intended to be invaded. I can only assume that the "intent to invade" is an issue like a coach has a camera in his office in order to secure it and a person opens the door and in the background you can see a locker room. I believe such as case would be hard to prove intent to invade privacy. Much like many stores have huge camera systems and if one of them happens to catch an open door to a restroom or locker room, it is not likely a crime as there was no intent that could be proven to record that background glimpse. That does not appear to be the if a person actually planted a camera in the locker room and with it focused on lockers and where people undress.

Note that this very law mentions no defense to prosecution that there was a sign saying it was being recorded. While a sign is not in question in this case, a store putting up a sign in a dressing room that this area is being recorded is still a crime. This also appears to fly in the face of an earlier comment by someone else that it is legal to catch people stealing by placing a camera in a locker room. The state seems to negate that claim in this very law. 

For further discussion .......

There is what is commonly called wiretapping. This is the TX law on that and it includes "oral communication". 

Sec. 16.02. UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication. 

 

Here we can see that merely intercepting oral communication is a crime. Again, I do not know what happened but if there is also audio and at least one person in a conversation did know that it was being recorded (a defense to prosecution), it appears to be wiretapping. 

Unlike the video/photography issue in the locker room, the wiretapping law requires no other intent that I can see other than the intent to intercept the conversation.

I know that any lawyer could argue a case (but might not take a case).  At the very least it appears that making a video and/or audio in a dressing room for video or conversation anywhere if not a crime, is right up to the threshold of one. In fact it might be close enough to require your argument in court. 

To restate, I have no clue what evidence anyone has, if any at all and if any does exist, whether it rises to the level of a crime. The laws listed are interesting on whether you can record audio, video or photographs in a private location no matter any sexual intent or while trying to catch a crook. I am sure that you know that even law enforcement cannot do either without a wiretapping warrant. 

In my opinion. 

In short... I know of a Dollar Store manager that set up a camera in the ladies room... he did time. There is currently the story of the Playboy "model" that snapped a pic of an older, out-of-shape woman in the locker room at the gym and posted it on instagram. The gym instance wasn't sexual, but it was an obvious violation of the other lady's privacy. Both of instances were of someone filming in a restroom or locker room, and both appear to be intentionally done to invade the privacy of the victim(s).  

In this case at WB, it seems clear that the coach's intent was to catch the known thief, not to film his players changing. 

Does anybody know if any kids were actually filmed while undressed? Or are we just wanting to destroy the coach for what he might have captured, but didn't actually? 

The camera was a bad idea, but I believe it's very defensible from a criminal standpoint. Keeping his job might be another story. 

[BMTSoulja1]

5 minutes ago, Gabe said:

You know I find all this so funny. It seems a good group of people talking on this thread don't seem to have a problem with the stealing of the items as much as they do with what Flanigan did. Same folks who also don't mind their stadium still has the name Carroll Thomas in big letters. Change it to Jerry Levias!!!

Now you're throwing his name into it?  You're going off the deep end, man, and fast...

[Gabe]

40 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Now you're throwing his name into it?  You're going off the deep end, man, and fast...

Me? You compared the coach to George Zimmerman. No matter guilty or not, he shot and killed someone. A person died in that situation and you compared it to this. 

[Peppermint Patty]

Do we know when a final decision will be made on this matter?

[BMTSoulja1]

52 minutes ago, Gabe said:

Me? You compared the coach to George Zimmerman. No matter guilty or not, he shot and killed someone. A person died in that situation and you compared it to this. 

...and you conveniently omitted the point I was making with that comparison?  

[ST413]

I have skimmed the last several pages of this thread.  One comment was that the theft was more or less being overlooked with the focus just on the coaches actions. I applaud him for taking matters into his own hands since the administration wouldn't do anything.  And if the crook was connected I can see him wanting actual photos.  Now if his cameras were illegal being in the locker room, then he is just as guilty of a crime as the crook so neither should get a pass.  And even if these cameras weren't illegal he should have been prepared for backlash just based on parents and kids knowing cameras were there where they could be photographed nude, whether they were on or not.

[TXFBfan]

14 hours ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Ok...  And that a the problem in people's eyes...  this is EXACTLY how fools like Sandusky was able to do what he did for so long...  YOUR mentality.  

Well, while you hold them different, I'll continued to see it for what it is...  girls OR boys can be equally violated.

Can be, but you must admit more care must be used when girls are involved.

[BMTSoulja1]

7 minutes ago, TXFBfan said:

Can be, but you must admit more care must be used when girls are involved.

And it shouldn't be like that...

[ST413]

17 minutes ago, TXFBfan said:

Can be, but you must admit more care must be used when girls are involved.

I am a parent of one child a female, but I don't feel that should be true at all.  Granted I want maximum care for my daughter but I feel that should be the case far any juvenile.

[BMTSoulja1]

1 hour ago, ST413 said:

I am a parent of one child a female, but I don't feel that should be true at all.  Granted I want maximum care for my daughter but I feel that should be the case far any juvenile.

AMEN!!

[TXFBfan]

7 hours ago, ST413 said:

I am a parent of one child a female, but I don't feel that should be true at all.  Granted I want maximum care for my daughter but I feel that should be the case far any juvenile.

Bare chested boys/men are not considered indecent.  I still say of course we have to use more care for girls.  Privacy is important, and blatant violations are the same for both.   I don't see that here.

I have one son and two daughters.  

[CardinalBacker]

My kid got in trouble for jousting in the laundry carts using brooms for lances while wearing nothing but football helmets. I'm sure he'd just be glad if his iPhone remained his.

Things have changed. Statistically speaking, something like 90% of those WB players (like the rest of American kids) have sent somebody a pic of their junk. The grown ups are a lot more disturbed by this than the kids. 

[fireinthehole]

If the camera is started when all the kids have left to got to the practice field, then no one is being recorded. There should be no one in the locker room, unless a crook goes in there to steal. Once practice is over, the coach goes to the locker room before anyone else , to make sure no one is recorded while changing and turns off the camera. Therefore, the only thing being recorded are aluminum lockers, unless a crook showed up to steal, and since that crook does not have legal permission to be in there, his/her privacy should not be assumed. 

 When the locker room is locked up and no one is in there " is it still a locker room" because 'no one should be in there? It is locked and checked before the coaches leave. 

[Peppermint Patty]

7 minutes ago, fireinthehole said:

If the camera is started when all the kids have left to got to the practice field, then no one is being recorded. There should be no one in the locker room, unless a crook goes in there to steal. Once practice is over, the coach goes to the locker room before anyone else , to make sure no one is recorded while changing and turns off the camera. Therefore, the only thing being recorded are aluminum lockers, unless a crook showed up to steal, and since that crook does not have legal permission to be in there, his/her privacy should not be assumed. 

 When the locker room is locked up and no one is in there " is it still a locker room" because 'no one should be in there? It is locked and checked before the coaches leave. 

You can not have a video camera in a locker-room. Period.

[BMTSoulja1]

3 minutes ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

You can not have a video camera in a locker-room. Period.

And BINGO was his name-O...

[Sambrown]

18 minutes ago, fireinthehole said:

If the camera is started when all the kids have left to got to the practice field, then no one is being recorded. There should be no one in the locker room, unless a crook goes in there to steal. Once practice is over, the coach goes to the locker room before anyone else , to make sure no one is recorded while changing and turns off the camera. Therefore, the only thing being recorded are aluminum lockers, unless a crook showed up to steal, and since that crook does not have legal permission to be in there, his/her privacy should not be assumed. 

 When the locker room is locked up and no one is in there " is it still a locker room" because 'no one should be in there? It is locked and checked before the coaches leave. 

Why don't the coaching staff just lock the locker room doors after everyone is out then open it when practice is complete?