West Brook's Flanigan Placed on Administrative Leave

[Peppermint Patty]

3 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Siiigh....  so there's a difference...  last I seen, recording half naked teenagers, any sex was a no no. glad to know there's different parameters...

You record/monitor who goes in and out of the locker room. Not what is going on inside of it. 

It was wrong, it should be addressed, and reprimands should be adjudicated.

IF there is a group that wants him fired, they have a "bullet for the gun" so to speak. It can be seen both ways.

[BMTSoulja1]

And for a coach that everyone looks up to, for him to knowing my go against the grain just tells me everything I need to know...  he's a 'cowboy vigilante', ala Zimmerman.....

[BMTSoulja1]

8 minutes ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

You record/monitor who goes in and out of the locker room. Not what is going on inside of it. 

It was wrong, it should be addressed, and reprimands should be adjudicated.

IF there is a group that wants him fired, they have a "bullet for the gun" so to speak. It can be seen both ways.

Thank You!

[L-Train11]

28 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Siiigh....  so there's a difference...  last I seen, recording half naked teenagers, any sex was a no no. glad to know there's different parameters...

He wasn't recording half naked teenagers.  He was recording a thief, and caught one. That's the difference.

 

And don't act like there aren't already different parameters. I played football, and were the coaches told to leave whenever players were getting undressed and showering? The answer is no! Were male coaches allowed in locker rooms when girls were changing? Well of course not because that's wrong. There is a difference.

So yes, in this situation there could be different parameters. A male coach putting up videos cameras in a female locker room for any reason is not necessary. A female coach doing that (with the intent of catching a thief) in my mind is the same  as a man putting cameras in a male locker room (with the intent of catching a thief).

My question to you, if you really think he was "recording half naked teenagers", then why would he be allowed to walk in the same locker room with those kids. If that's the case then he needs to be fired immediately... But I, and hopefully you, don't think that's the case.

[L-Train11]

32 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Intent don't matter is what I'm saying.  suppose part of that video was taken and it leaked online?  

And I know everyone has a right to their opinion, and I'm cool with that.  I'm just in awe with parents that try to make sure their kids are safe and in the safest situation (our job as parents) ,but will be ok with our kids being SECRETLY recorded.  It just baffles me and in no way would I be cool with this at all..  

He don't need to be 'crucified' but he needs to be reprimanded...

Just reprimanded? Not fired, and locked up? Did the thought ever cross your mind that the reason he did it SECRETLY was because he was trying to catch a thief??

[Peppermint Patty]

2 minutes ago, L-Train11 said:

He wasn't recording half naked teenagers.  He was recording a thief, and caught one. That's the difference.

 

And don't act like there aren't already different parameters. I played football, and were the coaches told to leave whenever players were getting undressed and showering? The answer is no! Were male coaches allowed in locker rooms when girls were changing? Well of course not because that's wrong. There is a difference.

So yes, in this situation there could be different parameters. A male coach putting up videos cameras in a female locker room for any reason is not necessary. A female coach doing that (with the intent of catching a thief) in my mind is the same  as a man putting cameras in a male locker room (with the intent of catching a thief).

My question to you, if you really think he was "recording half naked teenagers", then why would he be allowed to walk in the same locker room with those kids. If that's the case then he needs to be fired immediately... But I, and hopefully you, don't think that's the case.

It's not really about what he was or was not doing. You cannot have a video camera in a locker-room.

Texas Penal Code

Sec. 21.15. INVASIVE VISUAL RECORDING. (a) In this section:

(1) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola.

(2) "Intimate area" means the naked or clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast of a person.

(3) "Changing room" means a room or portioned area provided for or primarily used for the changing of clothing and includes dressing rooms, locker rooms, and swimwear changing areas.

(4) "Promote" has the meaning assigned by Section

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

(b) A person commits an offense if, without the other person's consent and with intent to invade the privacy of the other person, the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of an intimate area of another person if the other person has a reasonable expectation that the intimate area is not subject to public view;

(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another in a bathroom or changing room; or

(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).

(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person's consent under that subdivision.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 458, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 500, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 306 (H.B.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 955 (S.B.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

), Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2015.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 955 (S.B.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

), Sec. 2, eff. June 18, 2015.

[WOSgrad]

6 minutes ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

It's not really about what he was or was not doing. You cannot have a video camera in a locker-room.

Texas Penal Code

Sec. 21.15. INVASIVE VISUAL RECORDING. (a) In this section:

(1) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola.

(2) "Intimate area" means the naked or clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast of a person.

(3) "Changing room" means a room or portioned area provided for or primarily used for the changing of clothing and includes dressing rooms, locker rooms, and swimwear changing areas.

(4) "Promote" has the meaning assigned by Section

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

(b) A person commits an offense if, without the other person's consent and with intent to invade the privacy of the other person, the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of an intimate area of another person if the other person has a reasonable expectation that the intimate area is not subject to public view;

(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another in a bathroom or changing room; or

(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).

(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person's consent under that subdivision.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 458, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 500, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 306 (H.B.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 955 (S.B.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

), Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2015.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 955 (S.B.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

), Sec. 2, eff. June 18, 2015.

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.

[Peppermint Patty]

2 minutes ago, 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.

I understand. I am just pointing out what people will stand on in a situation like this.

I do not know the man, but I feel 100% certain that he was doing what he thought was right. I would support him from that standpoint. I just know that he has exposed himself to things that have nothing to do with catching a crook.

[WOSgrad]

13 minutes ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

I do not know the man, but I feel 100% certain that he was doing what he thought was right. I would support him from that standpoint. I just know that he has exposed himself to things that have nothing to do with catching a crook.

What was exposed rests on what that video actually showed and your thought of what is on it, as well as mine, is nothing but pure speculation.  As vital as the footage of that tape is, only a few, Coach Flanigan, select officials from BISD administration, a few detectives with Beaumont PD and a Jefferson County Assistant DA, have seen it and KNOW what is on that videotape.

[Peppermint Patty]

5 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

What was exposed rests on what that video actually showed and your thought of what is on it, as well as mine, is nothing but pure speculation.  As vital as the footage of that tape is, only a few, Coach Flanigan, select officials from BISD administration, a few detectives with Beaumont PD and a Jefferson County Assistant DA, have seen it and KNOW what is on that videotape.

No. He put a camera in a locker-room. That's the "exposure" I am talking about. The content of the video is not relevant.

[WOSgrad]

1 minute ago, Bandwagon Ranger said:

No. He put a camera in a locker-room. That's the "exposure" I am talking about. The content of the video is not relevant.

Actually, under the provisions of the very Penal Code section you quoted, the content of the video is VERY relevant.

[oldschool2]

What happened to just giving kids locks for their lockers?

[JustUs]

Ignorance of a law excuses noone respectively. One who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating a law merely because he or she was unaware. Imo BISD BOM is on the hook Civilly and liable. I think they will throw him under the bus jmo....Sad but true...

[WOSgrad]

Don't get me wrong, Coach Flanigan's decision to install cameras in the locker room, especially without notification was not a smart move.  But appears that the justification any action against him kind of hinges on whether he violated the above Penal Code provision.  If it is found he did not, then somebody needs to quote me some BISD human resources policy that Coach Flanigan violated before advocating any action, even a reprimand, against him.

[WOSgrad]

10 minutes ago, JustUs said:

Ignorance of a law excuses noone respectively. One who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating a law merely because he or she was unaware. Imo BISD BOM is on the hook Civilly and liable. I think they will throw him under the bus jmo....Sad but true...

I'm kinda confused, ignorance of what law?

[CardinalBacker]

56 minutes ago, 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.

Thank you.  It's subtle, but it's there.  Intent is absolutely a requesite key.  If the coach didn't have intent to violate another's privacy, no wrong has been done.

 

[AthleticSupporter - Jock]

1 hour ago, oldschool2 said:

I'm with you old school. 

[JustUs]

1 hour ago, WOSgrad said:

I'm kinda confused, ignorance of what law?

Invasive Visual Recording: Is a State Jail Felony

Criminal- Recklessness : A lesser charge Class B Misdemeanor

A person knows and foresees the risk involved in a particular act. They consciously decide to disregard the risks associated with the action and do the action anyway.

[AdvoSETexas]

On 11/26/2016 at 2:19 PM, BMTSoulja1 said:

Did you think the intelligible player a couple of months ago was BS too?

Are you mad just because Central has not beaten Nederland since Toby Foreman was named the head football coach?

 

[WOSgrad]

2 minutes ago, JustUs said:

Invasive Visual Recording: Is a State Jail Felony

Criminal- Recklessness : A lesser charge Class B Misdemeanor

A person knows and foresees the risk involved in a particular act. They consciously decide to disregard the risks associated with the action and do the action anyway.

Only if there is intent to invade the privacy of the person being recorded.  Read the penal code provision.

[AdvoSETexas]

1 hour ago, JustUs said:

Ignorance of a law excuses noone respectively. One who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating a law merely because he or she was unaware. Imo BISD BOM is on the hook Civilly and liable. I think they will throw him under the bus jmo....Sad but true...

That depends on who you are. Hillary Clinton got away with breaking the laws and claimed ignorance.

 

[fanny]

51 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

Only if there is intent to invade the privacy of the person being recorded.  Read the penal code provision.

TEA law is different.  For example in a DAEP setting you can video/ audio BUT must be signage to warn.  This September TEA said the LEA  could video/audio Spec Ed rooms.

 

so according to TEA 1. Signage when surveillance 

.                                 2. No way in a locker room, restroom setting. Privacy issue.

So it is against TEA rules and he knows that.  I know him some, good guy BUT emotional move promise he knew at a minimum the AD should have signed off.

Very unfortunate for him.

[Peppermint Patty]

3 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

Actually, under the provisions of the very Penal Code section you quoted, the content of the video is VERY relevant.

43.21

b

2

[BMTSoulja1]

1 hour ago, AdvoSETexas said:

That depends on who you are. Hillary Clinton got away with breaking the laws and claimed ignorance.

 

So did Donald, grabbing by the...  well, you know...

[BMTSoulja1]

1 hour ago, AdvoSETexas said:

Are you mad just because Central has not beaten Nederland since Toby Foreman was named the head football coach?

 

I can care less...  while we went to the playoffs, y'all, well, you know what y'all were doing....  *wink*