It has to do with the murder of Brandon Short’s daughter.
I don't believe it was anyone involved in testimony.Brandon Short filed a complaint regarding coaches who testified for the defense of the guy who murdered his daughter. He asked for their resignation/removal.
I don't believe it was anyone involved in testimony.
I believe it was at the sentencing hearing - where individuals will often speak to the court wrt the convicted individual, and their thoughts wrt "fair sentence".
One (or more) of the individuals who spoke wrt "leniency" (for lack of a better term) in the sentencing was a member of the McKeesport coaching staff. Someone can check.
In any event, it has since devolved into tumult regarding the McKeesport football program. In a small western PA town, with not much else going on, the football program becomes quite the center of attention. Obviously.
Concur. Every situation is different, but in this one I think you’re spot on.I can't blame Brandon Short, or any parent, feeling betrayed when school officials speak on behalf of someone who killed their child. Misplaced sympathy like that disgusts me. It is best to let the system work and have the criminals pay the fulll price for their awful actions.
I believe that is essentially correct - but at the sentencing hearing (not the trial). But I would have to double-check to be sure.Pittsburgh media reported the coaches appeared as character witnesses for the murderer.
The type of thing someone would say when they feel the #1 priority of the school district (and the community) is "football". And, wrt McKeesport, that may be accurate.““We needed some fresh blood, just like the Pittsburgh Steelers did," board member Mark Holtzman said Wednesday night.“
That just sounds so stupid.
I can't blame Brandon Short, or any parent, feeling betrayed when school officials speak on behalf of someone who killed their child. Misplaced sympathy like that disgusts me. It is best to let the system work and have the criminals pay the fulll price for their awful actions.
That is the system working. Someone who is convicted of a crime is entitled to have people speak on their behalf at sentencing.Concur. Every situation is different, but in this one I think you’re spot on.
Being a character witness for a convicted murderer is bizarre to me. "Your honor, he's a good man when he's not killing people".I can't blame Brandon Short, or any parent, feeling betrayed when school officials speak on behalf of someone who killed their child. Misplaced sympathy like that disgusts me. It is best to let the system work and have the criminals pay the fulll price for their awful actions.
Don't know about that, but if they testified at the trial, they were subpoenaed and had no choice.According to the Mon Valley Independent, the coaches testified at the trial.
Maybe, but that's not what a character witness is asked.Being a character witness for a convicted murderer is bizarre to me. "Your honor, he's a good man when he's not killing people".
Would not be the first time Short comes up short.According to Short. Miller failed to control his subordinates and failed to hold them accountable.
Being a character witness for a convicted murderer is bizarre to me. "Your honor, he's a good man when he's not killing people".
That is the system working. Someone who is convicted of a crime is entitled to have people speak on their behalf at sentencing.
One of those mentioned is not a "school official" and the other is an assistant coach. Is it the school district's place to prevent them from speaking? One might understand Short's sense of "betrayal" if he ever showed up in McKeesport for anything else.
I have no idea what a character witness is asked. But the fact they're appearing as a character witness implies they're sympathetic toward him.Maybe, but that's not what a character witness is asked.
Or what about a "convicted murderer" for who the decision is later overturned on the discovery of exculpating evidence?
Sure. But this is first degree murder. Same thing with pedophile priests. If someone asked me to be a character witness for a murderer my first reaction would be, “It’s evident I didn’t know the guy the way I thought I did.” There’s always a line, and ymmv but this particular line I wouldn’t cross.That is the system working. Someone who is convicted of a crime is entitled to have people speak on their behalf at sentencing.
Not saying it is right or wrong, but another issue that has been mentioned is the head coach’s dad has been the leader (for decades) of a church that some who had left have described as cult-like. Here is an older article about the church:So the head coach was forced out because an assistant was a character witness?
His fund is not directed specifically at athletes, but rather students affected directly or indirectly by gun violence. Noble cause, but not the same as showing up in McKeesport on a regular basis.Short started a scholarship fund for local athletes to pursue higher education. He also has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for athletes to pursue higher education.
That's fine, your decision. But someone convicted of a crime is entitled to have character witnesses, and it's not the place of employers of potential character witnesses to prevent them from making statements, or the families of victims to exact retribution..Sure. But this is first degree murder. Same thing with pedophile priests. If someone asked me to be a character witness for a murderer my first reaction would be, “It’s evident I didn’t know the guy the way I thought I did.” There’s always a line, and ymmv but this particular line I wouldn’t cross.
Of course it’s not the school’s place to prevent them from speaking. On the other hand, it is the school’s prerogative to fire them.That is the system working. Someone who is convicted of a crime is entitled to have people speak on their behalf at sentencing.
One of those mentioned is not a "school official" and the other is an assistant coach. Is it the school district's place to prevent them from speaking? One might understand Short's sense of "betrayal" if he ever showed up in McKeesport for anything else.
That’s not necessarily true. Witnesses testify without being subpoenaed all the time.Don't know about that, but if they testified at the trial, they were subpoenaed and had no choice.
His fund is not directed specifically at athletes, but rather students affected directly or indirectly by gun violence. Noble cause, but not the same as showing up in McKeesport on a regular basis.
I read:How do you know he doesn't?
See my other post. The families of the victim have the same right to exact retribution as the persons who choose to be character witnesses for the murderer.That's fine, your decision. But someone convicted of a crime is entitled to have character witnesses, and it's not the place of employers of potential character witnesses to prevent them from making statements, or the families of victims to exact retribution..
So what the hell does how frequently Short comes to McKeesport have to do with his generosity?
Did I say anything about his generosity?So what the hell does how frequently Short comes to McKeesport have to do with his generosity?
And if a witness is called by either side and refuses to show up, what normally happens?That’s not necessarily true. Witnesses testify without being subpoenaed all the time.
Must be okay to muck around with the criminal justice system if one doesn't like the way it operates.See my other post. The families of the victim have the same right to exact retribution as the persons who choose to be character witnesses for the murderer.
"Needed" and "warranted" by whom?Short has returned as needed or warranted. I don't think you read very well.
Then they get subpoenaed. Not much gets by you huh? Geez.And if a witness is called by either side and refuses to show up, what normally happens?