The teen’s parents are calling for charges against the now-former coach.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    They have an interview with the victims mother.

    They know the coach got fired immediately.

    They have the video and a statement from the school acknowledging that an assault took place.

    The video is just icing on the evidentiary cake.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      The victim’s mother and the school were not party to the assault, so that’s hearsay.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah….

        Lemme guess next you’re going to say that the security tapes, which were provided by the school, were deep fakes.

        … the mother got it from the kid and everyone else saw it happen on the tapes.

        They can at the very least state that the kid was assaulted (with a deadly weapon, at that.) nobody is denying that much.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s possible. There was another case recently of someone faking a phone call to make it sound like this guy was going off on a racist tirade. But, after investigation, it was found to be fake.

          Thus, alleged.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yeah, faking a recording of a phone call that’s floating off in the nether is one thing.

            Faking recordings that can only come from one specific camera, and can be matched to that specific camera, pulled from a presumably secured dvr is not something even the best AI can do. Certainly it without extensive access to those systems.

            Every digital camera creates random and consistent artifacts in the video. Every police department in the nation has access to the necessary tools to do that analysis and it takes ten minutes.

            Not that there’s a reason to check, because again, the cops presumably watched the video get pulled from The DVR minutes after it happened.

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              As you said, that’s a presumption. That just further shows why they say “alleged”.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’re not a court. They can’t call anyone a criminal. Doing so is a criminal offense in itself.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Criminal offense?

        No. It most certainly is not a criminal offense.

        At worst, it’d be defamation, which is a civil tort. And only then, if a) it was in fact a false statement, b) fault amounting to negligence or worse (ie they didn’t do due diligence in fact checking, or it was intentionally false.) and c) some harm occurred.

        If it’s reasonably true, it’s not defamation.