Reuben Riley fired from Wyoming coaching job for being "too physical"
Not sure if anyone saw this, but I think this absolutely sucks for Ruben. A Michigan guy just doing his job and some disrespectful student goes off and possibly ruins a great guy's career. Hopefully, there are some good MGO Lawyers out there to help Ruben get his job back. This just makes me sick.
January 29th, 2016 at 1:56 PM ^
This will come down to whether the use of force was "reasonable" given the threat posed buy the student.
MCL Section 380.1312
Act 451 of 1976
380.1312 “Corporal punishment” defined; infliction of corporal punishment by employee, volunteer, or contractor; exercise of necessary reasonable physical force; liability; violation; deference given to reasonable good-faith judgments; development, implementation, and enforcement of code of student conduct; model list of alternatives to use of corporal punishment; authority permitting corporal punishment void.
Sec. 1312.
(1) As used in this section, “corporal punishment” means the deliberate infliction of physical pain by hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any other physical force used as a means of discipline.
(2) Corporal punishment does not include physical pain caused by reasonable physical activities associated with athletic training.
(3) A person employed by or engaged as a volunteer or contractor by a local or intermediate school board or public school academy shall not inflict or cause to be inflicted corporal punishment upon any pupil under any circumstances.
(4) A person employed by or engaged as a volunteer or contractor by a local or intermediate school board or public school academy may use reasonable physical force upon a pupil as necessary to maintain order and control in a school or school-related setting for the purpose of providing an environment conducive to safety and learning. In maintaining that order and control, the person may use physical force upon a pupil as may be necessary for 1 or more of the following:
(a) To restrain or remove a pupil whose behavior is interfering with the orderly exercise and performance of school district or public school academy functions within a school or at a school-related activity, if that pupil has refused to comply with a request to refrain from further disruptive acts.
MCL 780.951
Act 311 of 2006
780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.
Sec. 1.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:
(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.
(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).
January 29th, 2016 at 3:23 PM ^
in school, grabbing a kid by the arm and getting him out of the class when he's being abusive is reasonable.
when the kid starts to swing or kick at you though, the teacher is under no obligation to be a punching bag. and if he tossed the kid down and there appear to be no injuries to the miscreant, then that too is quite reasonable.
don't start any trouble, won't be any trouble.
January 29th, 2016 at 4:29 PM ^
What if the school has a policy, which it enforces, which states that you shall not retaliate against violence committed by a student? I think that (potentially) makes a difference, though it makes for an interesting legal discussion regarding whether an employer CAN even institute and/or enforce such a policy; if they can't, and Riley was fired for cause because of his failure to abide by the policy, it would seem that the employer fired him illegally.
January 29th, 2016 at 8:32 PM ^
so labor law would be trumped by criminal law. they're teachers, not martial artists.
January 29th, 2016 at 10:53 PM ^
Criminal law defines when someone commits a crime. Labor or employment law defines what an employee may or may not do at work. They exist in two entirely different spheres. Just because something is legal does not mean you can keep your job if you do it. It may be legal for me to carry a concealed handgun, but my employer may not allow it.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I don't know whether Riley was in the right or the wrong in this particular instance.
January 30th, 2016 at 12:21 PM ^
one with the other. nobody, and i mean nobody, can be required to be a punching bag. terminate someone for that and the lawsuit will follow swiftly. its against public policy. what's next, can't say 'no' to rape? how do you differentiate from one type of assault to another?
January 29th, 2016 at 5:56 PM ^
this generation is pussified, as another poster stated. back in my day (ya i went there), if a teacher so much as looked at us wrong, there was hell to be paid by our parents. that goes for most of the kids.
nowadays, if a teacher looks at a kid wrong, the parents show up and condemn the teacher. kids are way more disrepectful now and too many parents don't give a sh*t. and teachers have no power to do anything anymore. i guess they can tell a 15 year old kid "timeout". ya, that'll work.
January 29th, 2016 at 2:45 PM ^
January 29th, 2016 at 1:38 PM ^
The fact that kids these days have no respect for others, and feel they can do whatever they want without repercussions, makes me sick.
January 29th, 2016 at 1:51 PM ^
Unfortunately, what this kid just learned is that he can behave any way he wants, throw a punch at an authority figure, and nothing can be done to him. It's going to make the lessons he learns in the real world much more harsh. My parents would have had me apologize to the teacher.
January 29th, 2016 at 3:52 PM ^
January 29th, 2016 at 4:37 PM ^
Let's flip it: If your subordinate punches you at work, do you just take it and walk away? What if he keeps punching you? Do you subdue him, defend yourself, run away (if possible)? What if you can't escape?
Natural law, and this country's law, and the law dating back to before this country even was a country (Britain), says you have every right to stand your ground and fight back once you've been hit and the attacker is still a threat or still hitting you. And that's the way it should be.
Your mention of the tort system is a red herring. The instigator-- your subordinate (or, in Riley's case, the kid)-- is the one who has committed tortious conduct; proportionate self-defense is not only not tortious, it's vital to natural law (which our law grew out of). A man or woman has every right to inhabit his body and personal space without being battered, and has every right to respond to and neutralize the threat of the person committing battery in proportion to the threat (and by proportion, I mean you can't shoot someone just for flicking your ear; I dare say you CAN body slam someone who is repeatedly punching you. I know I'd defend that case at trial with the expectation of winning).
Do you want to live in a world where people can punch you in the face, but you lose all of your rights to sue (and put yourself in jeopardy of jail time) if you do anything but run away? What about if you're in a confined space? Should you just "take it"? Of course not. The right to self-defense is one of the most fundamental rights a person has.
January 29th, 2016 at 4:53 PM ^
Let's flip it: If your subordinate punches you at work, do you just take it and walk away?
I don't "just take it". I do walk away. I let management, law enforcement, and the courts deal with the assault.
What if he keeps punching you? Do you subdue him, defend yourself, run away (if possible)?
I run away if possible.
What if you can't escape?
Then I use the minimum objectively reasonable and necessary force to end the situation. If at any point the opportunity to escape presents itself - I take it.
Under Michigan law you have a duty to retreat unless you “honestly and reasonably” believe you or another person are being threatened with death, severe injury or rape.
January 29th, 2016 at 7:38 PM ^
January 29th, 2016 at 5:58 PM ^
there is a near zero chance this kid gets suspended. the school will bow down to that kid and his mother. i guarantee it.
January 29th, 2016 at 7:32 PM ^
January 29th, 2016 at 2:31 PM ^
Sounds like humanity since the very beginning of time.
January 29th, 2016 at 2:46 PM ^
Yeah, I don't think so. There used to be a time when younger people respected authority. Right now, it seems like the cool thing to do is disrect it at every turn. I'm sure there has been some of that in hostry as well, however, there were consequences before and there doesn't really seem to be any right now.
January 29th, 2016 at 2:59 PM ^
I don't know about the whole "respecting authority" thing. Kids have disrespected authority since time immemorial.
What HAS changed, however, is that they used to be held accountable for that disrespect (when caught). That is no long true.
January 29th, 2016 at 5:31 PM ^
I think the opposite is true. The punishments inflicted on children these days are much more severe than they have been historically. Kids who misbehave in school are more quickly suspended and expelled than at any time in the past, and their misbehaviors are much more likely to result in arrest and incarceration. The "school-to-prison pipeline" is a thing nowadays. It hasn't always been.
January 29th, 2016 at 4:01 PM ^
Most kids these days are respectful and I am sure they know the reprecussions of there actions. That fact that kids get thrown into jail now rather than punished at the lowest level possible is a problem. You here about kids doing stupid shit you would never have heard about in those days. This is a tired opinion that every generation gets and gives. Back in my day when people were more readily racists, beat there kids and wives were way better except if you were a kid, a minority or a drunks wife.
January 29th, 2016 at 1:56 PM ^
in these situations--so assuming that the adult was right and the kid was not is in fact the rational approach, absent any other evidence
January 29th, 2016 at 2:01 PM ^
And your rush to defend the "victim" makes me sick.
January 29th, 2016 at 2:10 PM ^
Thing is... they can BOTH be wrong and BOTH have violated the law/rules of school/employment.
I suspect that the student attempted to assault Riley.
I suspect Riley overreacted and engaged in a level of force beyond that which is legally allowed to "remove or restrain" a student.
The former does not excuse the latter, and the latter doesn't excuse the former. Both should be punished for whatever rules/laws they violated.
January 29th, 2016 at 3:25 PM ^
and restrain' to basic self defense and it is reasonable to push the kid to the ground. a lot better than most other responses.
January 29th, 2016 at 4:02 PM ^
January 29th, 2016 at 4:09 PM ^
Yes - and the rule that is used for basic self defense is:
Was the action objectively reasonable and necessary to end the imminent threat?
January 29th, 2016 at 4:36 PM ^
the law in michigan is that was the use of force reasonable to the person who used it, in light of what they knew at that time. it does not require a perfect level of knowledge by the person who was threatened and they can even be totally mistaken about the need for the use of force. nor does it require the perfect, most costom-tailored response, only that the amount of force was reasonable under the cirucmstance and that means that you can't generally use deadly force to repel an attack that did not present danger of death or great bodily harm.
take it from someone who has tried many of these cases, and as a younger person was a scrapper, played hockey at michigan, and bounced my way through grad school.
January 29th, 2016 at 4:41 PM ^
Cosign- this is an accurate reflection of the state of the law in Michigan. It varies a bit from state to state, but it's pretty much axiomatic across the U.S. that you have the right to proportionally respond to physical violence in order to defend your body from physical battery being perpetrated by the batterer.
January 29th, 2016 at 5:06 PM ^
The law in Michigan is does a judge/jury agree that the use of force reasonable to the person who used it, in light of what they knew at that time.
That is where the "objectively reasonable" comes in.
It also requires that a threat be "imminent".
It also has a duty to retreat unless you “honestly and reasonably” believe you or another person are being threatened with death, severe injury or rape.
January 29th, 2016 at 5:36 PM ^
Does the duty to retreat still exist when the person being attacked is a school official and the assailant is a disruptive student? That seems illogical to me. If a student is acting out in class and throwing punches, and there are other students and people around, I don't see how Riley can just run away and leave the student there--where he could potentially attack or injure other people at the school. I realize Riley isn't a police officer, but he is kind of acting in a pseudo police type role when he is responsible for assuring the safety of others at the school.
January 29th, 2016 at 3:59 PM ^
January 29th, 2016 at 1:34 PM ^
I was reading some of the comments on Facebook this morning (take them for what they are worth), but it sounds like the young man took a few swings at Ruben (they were blocked) until the big guy finally got fed up. The students of Wyoming are really backing Ruben in all this.
January 29th, 2016 at 1:54 PM ^
0% chance my dad wouldn't have beat my ass for taking a swing at a teacher. Certainly wouldn't have been on TV whining about how I was treated.
January 29th, 2016 at 4:04 PM ^
And your lesson for this would be taking a swing at teacher= getting your butt kicked by the teacher and then your Dad. This would pretty much assure you learned your lesson and you would NEVER do this again. Kind of simple if you think about it.
January 29th, 2016 at 4:08 PM ^
When iwas in High School long ago we had a wood shop teacher, it is always the wood shop teacher, that beat the shit out of a kid. Kid had it coming and was dismissed the, teacher was fired. It was not on tv or the news and damn sure no one on the other side of the country new about it, or gave two shits either way.
January 29th, 2016 at 5:35 PM ^
January 29th, 2016 at 1:25 PM ^
ruben riley.... on rye?
January 29th, 2016 at 2:19 PM ^
January 29th, 2016 at 1:26 PM ^
WTF you talking about you fucking weenie?
January 29th, 2016 at 1:26 PM ^
Fixed.... got a little trigger happy and hit send before posting article....sorry
January 29th, 2016 at 2:02 PM ^
username checks out.
January 29th, 2016 at 1:30 PM ^
Glad someone posted about this (even if the post is void of detail.)
Sounds like the guy was put in a no-win situation. Somehow the troubled kid becomes the "victim" and the guy who mentors kids, coaches, and carries himself as a role model in the community ends up in jail. The world in 2016.
January 29th, 2016 at 1:33 PM ^
Follow the money from the I am sure soon to be filed lawsuit.
January 29th, 2016 at 4:48 PM ^
Seriously, if I'm Riley, I AM the one thinking of suing, both the kid/parents (you can't sue a minor, to my knowledge, but you sue their guardian on behalf of the minor) and the school. He lost his job due to exercising his right to self-defense, something he never would have had to do if he wasn't tortiously and criminally assaulted and battered by the kid (by definition, if the kid was punching him, that's battery; assault and battery if Riley saw the punches coming). If the school has a rule that conflicts with the law and states, essentially, that an employee has to just take physical (criminal) abuse without protecting themselves, I feel like a strong argument can be made that such a policy is void as a matter of law, and any firing based on said policy was improper as well, thus opening the school up to liability. Or you can argue that the school's policy invites and encourages making its employees the victims of physical violence, which policy led to the kid being able to hit Riley with impunity, and (if true) the kid knew about said policy...so you could try to sue the school for the kid's violence in the first place by arguing that the school's imposition of this policy and the kid's knowledge of the policy were at least, in part, causes of the assault and battery itself. The school would argue that the kid's battery was a superseding intervening tortious act; Riley would argue that it was the foreseeable result of the school's policy.
January 29th, 2016 at 11:38 PM ^
January 29th, 2016 at 1:34 PM ^
Kid acts like asshole. Kid is asked to stop. Kid continues to act like an asshole, even after being asked again, this time by a gigantic former football player.
That "victim" has more balls than brains.
January 29th, 2016 at 1:34 PM ^
Sorry about the no link guys. My computer sucks and is about ready to be thrown against the wall.
January 29th, 2016 at 2:03 PM ^
Yes, blame the computer not the operator. 60% of the time, it works every time.