Re: A question of supervision (WOSM)
Amick Robert (amick@SPOT.COLORADO.EDU)
Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:15:21 -0700
Seems to me that you did exactly the right thing in preventing a possibly
serious injury. Obviously, no appropriate supervision was present,
therefore any adult observing the situation certainly has an obvious "duty
to act" in preventing an accident.
If egos are bruised, perhaps due to a guilty conscience, that's
unfortunate, but far better that no injury occurred to a Scout! Those who
reacted unfavorably to your response should perhaps take a second look and
realize that you did them a BIG favor and perhaps express appreciation
rather than criticism. If "dad" was present and allowing the activity to
occur, he was apparently ignorant of the danger, and therefore, your
actions were even more important. Regrettably, some folks just "don't have
a clue" about hazardous situations and fail to act to prevent them
resulting in unnecessary and tragic accidents affecting children.
Bob Amick,EMT-B, Explorer Advisor, High Adventure Explorer Post 72,
Boulder, CO
On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, CHUCK BRAMLET wrote:
>
> At the committee meeting, I was criticized by the "acting" SM for
> interferring because the boy's father was right there. My point was
> that someone could still have been hurt, dad or no dad watching, and
> the Troop didn't need a trip to the emergency room with a Webelos with
> an axe cut to the foot or head.
>
> So, the question is, in a Troop/Pack camping situation, should a SM or
> an ASM "interfere" with the Pack kids when a father is "there";
> 1. In _no_ case?;
> 2. Only in matters of safety?; or
> 3. In matters of Troop or BSA policy, also?
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City |
