Jump to content

HelpfulTracks

Members
  • Content Count

    871
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Posts posted by HelpfulTracks

  1. 23 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:
    30 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

    That and the one set of dirty cloths they have rides on top of the vehicle. 

    I think that the words “These allegations represents reports of abuse between an alleged victim and an alleged abused” would all that would be necessary. 

    Again, not sure why you quoted me, particularly on joking comment about dirty cloths at camp.

    But to answer you.

    Hardly. 

    The CDC which has been referenced here and in yesterdays presser as good source on prevent CSA see Risqué jokes as inappropriate and harmful. 

    Accordingly, it is entirely plausible that that makes up some portion of the 50%. 

    In addition Vieth list items that are considered developmentally appropriate sexual behaviors in adolescence and teenagers, that would violate BSA policy and send some parents into a tizzy, like sexually explicit talk with peers, Obscenity/jokes, foreplay, even intercourse with consenting partner.

    I don't think you seriously believe all of those are on the same level, let alone on par with sexual assault. 

    Not to mention, what constitutes that 50%, what ages, age difference, locations and situations are involved would be required to determine how to prevent them in the future. 

     

    • Upvote 2
  2. WOW!! I go away for a couple meetings and lunch and the board explodes.

    Questioning what was meant by greater than 50% of reported cases is relevant, pertinent, even critical if we are to understand what constitutes abuse and how to prevent it. 

    I have gone back and read (quickly, want to read a couple more times at least) both Vieths paper and some of the CDC papers on child abuse. 

    Even they have conflicting information on what the threshold of appropriate, including some of the things that have been discussed here, like talking about sex, risque jokes etc. 

    I want to address some specific post directly, but a couple of notes. 

    I don't think flaming other posters and hyperbole does anything to help the discussion, in fact all it does is shut it down. If the goal is prevent CSA then discussion is needed, not trying to shut down those you disagree with. 

    As for releasing the data, again what data needs to be released needs to be defined. A bulk dump of data would be irresponsible. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    My abuse started in ‘72 and ended when I left in ‘79. I’m just looking for some of the lingo about CO role and responsibilities. I have some, but don’t want to misstate, misstep, misfire or misrepresent. 

    I did a few Google searches and did not come up with anything. Doesn't mean its not there, it could be, just buried in a minutia of metadata, particularly if it is a photo and not a searchable page or document. 

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  4. 12 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

    Thanks kindly.  That will help.  I still have all of the merit badge cards that were in my scrapbook, so I will go over it.

    One more thing. 

    NESA used to have a database that you could look up Eagle Scouts, it was being reworked before the layoffs. Unfortunately, they did not finish, so it has never come back online. 

    However, NESA prints annuals FREQUENTLY (fundraiser). It seems a I get a notice every year to update my info and by the latest version. 

    Usually, there are one or two around the lobby at the Scout Service Center, you could look it up there. I have also seen some older editions in some libraries. 

    It used to be you could call or email national for the details, but I think all the customer service people for volunteers have been laid off. 

  5. 3 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

    He became hostile to me on Wednesday night and I called him out on the abuse on Thursday of camp week, having never finished the work or final tests.  He signed my card early and told me not to come back.  I'm trying to find the Eagle requirements from 1973 so I can determine if I otherwise earned it.  My brag vest has 22 merit badges so I may have earned an extra.  If not, I don't justly own it.  Nor do I really care anymore.

    If BSA says you earned it, then you earned it. 

    But here is are the requirements as set in 1970 and 1972. Which you use is based on when you earned Life. 

    1970

    • Earn 21 merit badges, including the following 11:
      Camping
      Citizenship in the Community
      Citizenship in the Nation
      Conservation of Natural Resources
      Cooking
      First Aid
      Lifesaving
      Nature
      Personal Fitness
      Safety
      Swimming
    • While a Life Scout, serve actively for 6 months as a troop warrant officer [patrol leader, senior patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, junior assistant scoutmaster, instructor, scribe, quartermaster, librarian, den chief]
    • While a Life Scout, plan, develop, and carry out a service project helpful to your church or synagogue, school, or community
    • Take part in a Scoutmaster Conference (includes living up to Scout Promise, Law, Motto, and Slogan)

    1972

    • Be active as a Life Scout for at least 6 months
    • Show Scout spirit
    • Earn 24 merit badges, including the following 10:
      First Aid
      Citizenship in the Community
      Citizenship in the Nation
      Citizenship in the World
      Communications
      Safety
      Emergency Preparedness OR Lifesaving
      Environmental Science
      Personal Management
      Personal Fitness OR Swimming OR Sports
    • While a Life Scout, serve actively for 6 months in one of the following positions [patrol leader, junior assistant scoutmaster, scribe, den chief, quartermaster, librarian, member of the leadership corps, senior patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, or instructor]
    • While a Life Scout, plan, develop, and carry out a service project helpful to your religious institution, school, or town
    • Take part in a Personal Growth Agreement Conference (Scoutmaster Conference)
  6. 13 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

    I'm contemplating returning my Eagle to BSA, as one of my merit badges was "earned" from my abuser.  Struggling?  You think?

    Why let the #$%&! take any more from you. You did the work to earn the Eagle. 

    I guess I have more of the mind set to say "look #$%&!, even with all the horrible crap you did, I still earned it in spite of you." 

    Though I would likely have even more expletives. 

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 3
  7. 2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    So, having slept on it...

    Does Johnson's presser yesterday affect anyone's thoughts on remaining affiliated with BSA until more of these changes are manifested?

    Over the years, I have become more aware of how the BSA "professional" side operates, and have grown more and more uncomfortable with their modus operandi.  Johnson's revelations yesterday only confirmed my interpretations of negative experiences accumulated.

    I think my frog may be boiled, and, as we are nearing recharter time, I'm wondering if the thing to do is to decline renewing my BSA membership...

    Anyone else struggling with this?

    No, if anything, I have doubled down. 

    BSA has some serious issues and deficiencies. But they also have a great mission and a solid program. 

    I don't think a start up organization to replace BSA could be half of what we have now. 

    So, I am rolling up my sleeves for the hard work of rooting out the evil and preserving the program that achieves its mission, aims, methods, oath and law. 

    I think our youth need and deserve a program that lives up to the standards that were set forth back in 1910

    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 2
  8. 55 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

    It still doesn’t make sense. 
     

    DelMarVa’s website…

    The Council covers fourteen counties and is divided into 8 Scouting districts.”

    Actually, now that I read your reply I think I jumped the gun on DelMarVA, He did not mention Delaware, 

    It is likely National Capital Area - which has many districts including the Virgin Islands. 

    and BTW I have some of their beautiful patches from the 70's and 80's

  9. 1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

    I would think it would be for any murder since it could not be determined to be 1st or 2nd degree without charges. 

     

    59 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Depends on the state. Remember: some states have as much as "fourth degree murder", whereas another state would call that "involuntary manslaughter". The language matters from state to state.

    This  ^^^

    I think it is fairly standard across states that murder 1 requires premeditation. 

    After that it seems to be a hodge podge of murder classifications, felony classifications, special circumstances etc. 

    Some have no SOL on lesser classifications (or didn't) and some do. Same goes for various crimes, rape, sexual assault, even arson. 

  10. 32 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

    This is precisely the conundrum.

    On the one hand, careers of the innocent accused would likely be ruined.  One legitimate reason for keeping things quiet.  But, why all those cases were not referred to law enforcement-well, I can only conclude BSA did not want the publicity.  I fault BSA for that, and that policy is the prime cause of this mess. And had every case been so referred, to some degree, at least, BSA would have had developed a reputation as hostile to perpetrators and perhaps a fair measure of these incidents would have been avoided.  And, I'll say, such accusations, if false and publicized by BSA raise a distinct possibility that the falsely accused will sue for defamation.  (Damages measured by salary, times number of years left in the accused's work life, plus benefits, and perhaps punitive damages, if permitted.)

    How many cases are based on false accusations?  That children are able to report facts of which they would normally have no knowledge heavily favors their truthfulness.  As we have little data, we sit in the dark.

    On the other hand, if the names of the ineligible volunteers are not made public, then volunteers are not able to self-police their units, and AGAIN will have to rely on some opaque process that failed so miserably to this point.  We  will all have to trust that someone, somehow, vetted the new volunteer arriving at a unit meeting.

    Part of the problem, is that everyone presumes that a person is designated as ineligible due to CSA.  And that is likely the case for the vast majority, but there are political reasons also totally unrelated to CSA.

    I agree it is a conundrum. 

    At this point I believe most state laws require reporting of CSA. So the authorities should at least know, but if that gets prosecuted, or even charged is up to the legal system. So hopefully, that is how things are working now and going forward. One would think that investigations are not public until charges are filed, but I'm sure that is not always the case. 

    You are correct that everyone assumes IVF means CSA, it does not. I have heard estimates as high as 80% are not CSA. Based on my experience that sounds very plausible. 

    In todays technological world, it should not be difficult to collect identity information and when a IVF Scouter tries to register then they are rejected. Not sure how you handle it when they are "just parents" that show up at meetings but never go on over nights. Some of the CO's I know require registration for overnights, which I favor, though it has disproportionate impact on economically disadvantaged. 

  11. 6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    I’ve asked this before and will try again, since COs are implicated in all of this. Does anyone have a copy or substantive excerpts from the 1970’s agreements?

    Not likely to find that. Document retention requirements were not as robust back then, and even the current strongest requirements would not require maintaining a document that long. 

    But my understanding is that BSA started indemnifying CO's around '73 or '76 or so. 

  12. 2 minutes ago, NealOnWheels said:

    But it can help in the future.  The sooner this can happen the better.

    The principle of Ex Post Facto is so old and and entrenched I seriously doubt they will allow retroactive SOL changes for criminal law. That is a good thing because of broader implications. 

    But I am on board with extending SOL to longer time frames and making punishment for rape and child molestation right behind that for murder. 

    • Upvote 1
  13. 16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

     

     

    FYI: Interesting article I read about retroactive extension of statutes of limitations in civil matters. While the U.S. Supreme Court has said since Calder v. Bull (1798) that such things do not violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on states passing ex post facto laws (holding, in part, that the provision applies only to CRIMINAL law) state constitutionshave been read in such a way that such an attempt to extend civil statutes of limitations would be a violation of the defendants under the state constitution's due process and ex post facto provisions. 24 states have a per se rule against such statutes and two others (New York and Wisconsin) only allow it for "exceptional" circumstances.

    https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3446&context=vlr

    "Departing from the federal approach, twenty-four states have held that a retroactive extension to a statute of limitations that revives an otherwise time-barred claim is per se impermissible, meaning that it is absolutely invalid in any context.

    • Seven of the per se states depart from the federal approach because of specific prohibitions against retroactive legislation in their own state constitutions. (Alabama, Colorado, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas)
    • Eleven per se states (Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia) depart from the federal approach even further by holding that retroactive extensions of the statute of limitations are a direct infringement on a vested property right that is created under their state constitutions. In these states, once a claim has time-lapsed, the potential defendant enjoys a vested property right and no longer needs to defend against a particular claim. Under this type of constitutional interpretation, unlike the federal approach, any infringement on that right to be free from suit is considered a violation of substantive due process and invalid legislation.
    • Six states hold retroactive extensions of the statute of limitations to be invalid per se without relying on their state constitutions to support this position.
      • Five states embrace the per se invalid approach but do not cite any source in their constitution or general statutes that create a protected vested right. In these five states—Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Oregon, and Pennsylvania—the complete prohibition against revival of time barred claims is a rule of construction as opposed to a statutory or constitutional restriction.
      • Vermont’s prohibition on retroactive legislation is rooted in a state statutory provision, rather than any limitation imposed by the Vermont constitution."

    Interesting, I was unaware of Calder v. Bull (1798). I was aware some states barred the change.

    So a challenge may or may not make to SCOTUS. But even if it does, considering the court has flipped from liberal to conservative, a challenge to over turn the civil SOL changes would likely fail. 

    But in the end, if it gets to SCOTUS, who knows what will happen, its a roll of the dice for both sides. 

  14. 2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    A guy’s gotta have a dream. I may have to settle for all his assets, including his home, which I will bulldoze and replace with a monument and meditation garden dedicated to abused scouts. 

    I like it. Good luck. Your response is much more Scout like than mine would be. 

    Though I will admit making SOL retroactive even for civil cases makes me a bit queasy. Politicians are not know for writing laws very well, so I worry about expansion and abuse. 

  15. 1 minute ago, skeptic said:

    "I want to nail as many predators to the wall as we can".  That I would hope few if any here would have issue with.  Trouble is, it does not seem to be the main goal, as of course, most, if even alive, have little to take, other than their freedom. 

    That is not even an option for most as the SOL expansion laws are for civil laws only. The SCOTUS has held that retroactive SOL laws were unconstitutional for criminal laws. 

    I expect to see challenges to the civil laws as well, but given the current makeup of the court, they might stand. 

  16. 35 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    The majority of the IVF contains names of people who had no criminal complaints filed against them.  Some even admitted their guilt and there was no criminal complaint. 

    I am not exactly following what you are saying, but if you mean someone who has publicly admitted their guilt, but never had a complaint, plea deal or conviction, I would agree they need to be on the list. 

    I would also include those that lost civil complaints against them. 

    But if you mean anyone put on the list I disagree. There are certainly people their that are falsely accused but even worse, it would weaponize the process and make the list less valuable as a tool to prevent abuse.  

×
×
  • Create New...