data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9178a/9178a8080e440b5b3c2780b00fc44bc146d81143" alt="Subscribe to Syndicate"
Exonerated Coach Dismissed
Story here. Excerpt:
'Hoffner was charged with possession of child pornography in August after school officials found videos of his naked children on his work-issued cellphone, which he had turned in to be repaired. A judge cleared him in November, ruling that the short videos of his children acting silly after a bath were not child porn and showed nothing illegal.
After the criminal case was dismissed, university officials removed Hoffner as head football coach, reassigned him to an administrative role, as assistant athletic director for facilities development, and suspended him for 20 days for an unspecified reason. He tried to fight his reassignment and suspension though his union, the Inter Faculty Organization, which represents faculty in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system.
...
The MnSCU system has a policy prohibiting the use of university-issued cellphones or mobile devices for personal business.
On Friday, the judge ruled that the investigative file in his criminal case should remain sealed, citing his family's right to privacy. Some news organizations had sought access to the file. But Blue Earth County District Judge Krista Jass wrote that because she had already found insufficient evidence of any harm to the family, their right to privacy outweighed the rights of the media to see the material.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Cleared by child protective services
What's particularly disturbing about this is that during the course of the investigation, child protective services found absolutely NOTHING wrong with what he did. This coach is paying for the sin of being a man and being involved in male college team sports.
Male = Guilty even when proven innocent
An allegation/suspicion is sufficient, that's all. If he had been female, no one ever would have mentioned it.
"The phone is for work use only," is an excuse. Again, if he'd snapped a pic of a tree, would that have also gotten him sacked?
One of my sibs didn't like clothes when she was a small child. So she was known for taking off all her clothes and running around in the yard. This isn't unusual. Small kids (3-5 years old) are notorious for doing things like this; their inhibitions have yet to be "installed". My mom took pictures of us all playing in our yard; some included my sister running around naked (at least until my mom got her in and collected up her clothes and made her put them back on!).
By the standards back then, that was known as typical kids carrying on innocently and a parent capturing memories with a camera. By today's standards, it's... making child porn.
Well it would be if it was my dad taking the pics instead of my mom, right?