Jump to content
FireStone

BSA Leader Slaps Backside of Reporter on Live TV

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMO, a closer relate would be scout Tommy slapped the butt of scout Jenny. Jenny called the police. 

OK Jenny slaps Tommys butt during a Venture crew meeting. I see no difference what the gender is.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TMSM said:

OK Jenny slaps Tommys butt during a Venture crew meeting. I see no difference what the gender is.

The legal outcome would likely show gender difference matters:

     Tommy slaps Jenny's butt. Jenny calls police. Tommy appears in court.

     Jenny slaps Tommy's butt, Tommy calls police. Prosecutor considers offense trivial and does not file charges.

I like to think with the BSA, gender would not matter and the disciplinary actions would be the same.

My $0.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

Should it matter? Does the so-called "accused" get to tell the victim that it is less offensive because it was above her belt instead of below and he used something other than his hand to hit her?

Maybe she just needs it mansplained to her.

 

 

I suppose that a pat on the back could subjectively be an "offensive contact," but that's not the headline: "BSA Leader Slaps Backside of Reporter on Live TV."    That headline is supported by one person's words and denied by the accused's words.  Unless you have another video that supports the headline, it is not shown "on live TV.."  I realize that "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer PC in some quarters, but even here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's reflect it onto something else in the news.  

     Look at the Survivor show: 4 weeks or so ago, they have footage of a guy who is all touchy feely.  He is approached and denies everything and then given another shot.  After that, they gang up on the accuser for over reacting. This week at the end of the show, they mention how he was kicked off the show.

     We have many years of blaming the accuser, "She dressed that way", ""She shouldn't have been there", "It's just lockeroom talk".

In this case there is video evidence of what happened.  People may or may not agree with the law, but the law is what it is.  And the action was inappropriate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, le Voyageur said:

plain as day ....  upon conviction he will have to register as a sex offender, thus his days in the Scouting program ends regardless of the position he holds...

 

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-6/16-6-22-1/

Sexual battery is a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction for sexual battery or a conviction for sexual battery against a child under the age of 16 is punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment.

(Ga. Code Ann. § § 16-6-1, 16-6-2, 16-6-22.1, 16-6-2.22.)

People in Georgia who are convicted of rape, sodomy, or aggravated sexual battery are required to register as sex offenders, as are people are convicted a second or subsequent time of sexual battery.

(Ga. Code Ann. § 42-1-12.)

You have misinterpreted this law.  Only a second "sexual battery" offense requires offender registration.   Aggravated sexual battery is a different charge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSM said:

Let's relate this to scouts - If scout A slapped the butt of scout B do you call the police? Call the 1-800 of YPT? Have a discussion with both and help them come to some conclusion.

I have stayed on the sidelines for this one, as this is a topic that is going to stir more passion than many we see here.  I has been debated on multiple scouting forums, and there is very little middle ground.  People either think he should be burned at the stake, or that this one (hopefully) lapse in judgement should not have lasting consequences.

I agree that every situation deserves an objective look, but this quote jumped out at me.  In the case of scouts clowning around and smacking each other on the rear, yes, we discuss what is appropriate and hopefully it can be a teaching moment.  I deal with elementary school children all day, five days a week, and it is not unusual to have someone brought to me for putting hands on another child.  Even my kindergarten and first graders understand that there are limits and consequences for passing those limits.

This was not a case of a child who does not know touching someone you do not know, (or even if you do know them, not without permission) is unacceptable.  Other than reading the first article, I have not followed this, so I do not know if there are any criminal charges pending.  If so, I would expect them to be pleaded down.  Regardless of anything that may or may not happen in the judicial system, I have to agree with BSA revoking membership.  Caught up in the moment or not, this showed a distinct lack of judgement.  I can only imagine the headlines if he were not removed should he get caught up in the moment and touch a scout, male or female, in the same manner.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

 

I suppose that a pat on the back could subjectively be an "offensive contact," but that's not the headline: "BSA Leader Slaps Backside of Reporter on Live TV."    That headline is supported by one person's words and denied by the accused's words.  Unless you have another video that supports the headline, it is not shown "on live TV.."  I realize that "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer PC in some quarters, but even here?

I watched the video.  If you pause it as he goes by, I don't think there is any way his hand is at the level of her lower back.  She isn't that much shorter than him.  Her back should be mostly within the frame of the video and his hand is clearly below it.  We have no reason not to believe her.  We have several reasons to believe him (he is facing a year in jail for one).  We can discuss his guilt/innocence until we are blue in the face but that is for a court to decide. 

As for the BSA, they don't have to wait until he is proven guilty or not.  They can look at the video and decide.  They may also decide it doesn't matter as this guy clearly thought in the moment that there wasn't something wrong with unwanted contact with a stranger.  That would be enough for me if I was in charge.  

Now, lets reflect on how we are discussing this topic.  Would you react differently if this was your wife or your daughter? How would you react if this was one of your son's/daughter's leaders and they saw the video? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mds3d said:

...

Now, lets reflect on how we are discussing this topic.  Would you react differently if this was your wife or your daughter? How would you react if this was one of your son's/daughter's leaders and they saw the video? 

Valid point and a good reason why we are careful to try to pick objective jurors.

You are absolutely correct, BSA is not legally obligated to be objective.  We are all members at BSA'S pleasure - and ours.

An ancestor on my Mom's side was Sam Adams.

Edited by TAHAWK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Navybone said:

So you think the accused is being wrongfully accused?  Why?

nk

No.  I think he is innocent until proven guilty.  Until then he is "accused."   That was once a societal norm. - "ethical."   But societal norms change.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

Should it matter? Does the so-called "accused" get to tell the victim that it is less offensive because it was above her belt instead of below and he used something other than his hand to hit her?

Maybe she just needs it mansplained to her.

 

In  a court, a jury, selected from the rolls of voters, would be selected by a process that hopefully produces finders of fact who are not prejudiced.  The jury would decide  what contact occurred and if it was reasonable for the reporter to find the contact harmful or offensive ("battery").  Of course, none of that is required here, for you or any other member.  

Edited by TAHAWK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

Sure it was. He did this on live tv. Some behaviors are crimes against society and not just the individual. 

The entire theory of "crime" is that it is not an offense only against the victim but is, instead, an offense against the jurisdiction or other ruler.  Hence, "The Crown vs Defendant" or  "The State of X vs. Defendant."  More recently, some especially heinous crimes are said to be against humanity - genocide, use of weapons of mass destruction, wars of aggression.  I suppose humanity and the World are close enough to be substituted, one for the other.  The court typically asserting jurisdiction over such cases  these days is the International Criminal Court at the Hague.  However, most great powers, such as he United States,  do not recognize the jurisdiction of that court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TAHAWK said:

nk

No.  I think he is innocent until proven guilty.  Until then he is "accused."   That was once a societal norm. - "ethical."   But societal norms change.  

The justice system assumes innocence in the absence of contrary evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt.  That does not mean that we act as if the accused was actually innocent.  After all, they are accused of a crime and if we acted as if they were innocent no trial would be held.  

Society can make whatever judgement they feel is reasonable about this guy as we are not a jury of his peers or a judge dispensing justice.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...arrested Friday, Savannah police said. Tommy Callaway, 43, was charged with misdemeanor sexual battery, Bianca Johnson of the Savannah police department confirmed to CBS News. "

"Thomas Callaway, 43, was arrested after turning himself in, Savannah police confirmed to NBC News Saturday. He was released on $1,300 bail.

Online jail records show that he was charged with sexual battery, a misdemeanor in Georgia that is punishable by up to a year in jail."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tommy-callaway-man-accused-of-slapping-reporter-alex-bozarjian-bottom-on-live-television-is-charged-2019-12-13/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/runner-accused-groping-reporter-during-live-tv-broadcast-charged-sexual-n1102146

 

Edited by RememberSchiff
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×