And, the bystanders are, equally GUILTY, of allowing this young boy get body-slammed into a vegetative, state too, but, they’re not, charged, are they? Nope! Off of the Front Page Sections, translated…
The seven-year-old young boy was taking judo lessons, got slammed by the coach, taking turns with the other older classmates a total of twenty-seven times, vomited at the dojo, and fell into a coma, after the surgeries, he was brain dead, the professionals of the legal realms questioned, that other than the coach, He being responsible for causing harm to this young boy, why didn’t the boy’s uncle who was watching, filming with his cell phone not gone up and done anything to stop the abuse, was he an active enabler of the abuse, a key person in the case.
The experts in the legal realms stated, that in the case of injuries in sports, in Germany, there’s no use of brute forces to resolve the matter, but using the promises of preventing harm, that the competitors should be knowledgeable on the harms that their behaviors can have on one another, and this promise is fitted to the cases of severe physical, bodily injuries.
In this case, from an objective angle, the coach, He is responsible for the negligence, but the problem rests in if his behaviors were, legally, binding, on the considerations of the legalities of the matter, as the boy was slammed, he’d told his coach that he wanted to stop getting thrown, but why didn’t He pay attention to his pupils, it’d clearly showed neglect, which caused the unfortunate events that followed, that he couldn’t keep the promises to the boys to prevent the illegal behaviors from occurring, and so, he’d, broken the laws based off of this interpretation, and this will be the key determinant of what happened in this case.
And, on the uncle’s part, why did he not stop the young boy’s getting thrown repeatedly, if he saw him in danger, instead, only filmed the process of the abuse with his cell phone, the district attorney should check the facts of what was happening during the time, to find if the uncle was an enabler, and if he was, he too, would be charged with negligence, because he has the responsibilities, to stop the abuse from happening.
The attorney, Wang stated, that Huang didn’t have the “ability to consent”, that if the coach didn’t do his duty in preventing the physical abuse from happening, then, he would be charged with manslaughter on the civil AND criminal fronts, and he would be made to pay in the civil courts too, “the injuries that occurred in sports, isn’t always nondelegable.” As for whether or not the actions constitutes as unlawful, illegal, there would need to be the “intents to break the laws” or “negligence” that’s proven.
And, the uncle who’s, a “bystander” would be guilty in the boy’s being in a vegetative state, because he was standing by, watching this young child, getting thrown, to the point that the boy became, unconscious, and, he’s the adult, just like the coach, who should’ve put an end to the body-slamming session of this boy, but didn’t, and they’re, equally guilty, for what happened to this young lad.