Like I said above, the first sentence of your link has this link in it.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Bullied-Boy-Lies-in-a-Coma-192156541.html

The link given has this in the second paragraph

" As his family continues to hope for a recovery, they also want the school bullies accused of attacking Bailey brought to justice."

With no data to back this claim up . That the two other boys are the "school bullies". Is ths enough to put this in the headline? Personally, I think not, but if everyone thinks it is then that's alright.
My point in all of this is that , in my opinion, Internet news has become a competition to who can get the most clicks, not which gives the most thorough coverage. This was just one example.
As to this specific case, it appears, that the police are investigating the situation. Kids get into scuffles all the time. It might be that this might have had worse consequences then the other boys intended. Could be the dead boy had some say into it. I say, "could be". It also could be that these other two boys really did mean to inflict serious bodily harm. No information about this I've found, but I haven't looked at the further developments this morning.

It's common practice for schools to suspend all parties of a fight if the individuals throw a punch. But the consequences of this situation far exceed a scuffle. But at the time it might not have appeared so.

Dave

The boys had a fight. One of them later died. The dead boy's parents allege his death was a result of the fight ("bullying"); the police say that the cause is undetermined pending an autopsy. Counselors have been sent to the school to help students deal with the tragedy.

Given that sequence of facts, what part of the headline:

"Students Consoled After Boys Alleged "Bullying" Death" do you find inaccurate or sensational?