Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced - Part 2 (after the big slow)


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

In this moment, we are not in the realm of cultural or societal theory. 

I agree.  This is not theory.  You were failed by church, schools, law enforcement, family, society, medical profession, etc.  This stuff wasn't unknown.  It's not about a theoretical failure.  

If you apply a measure of distance (interaction with the people), who's actually to blame.    The "volunteer" SM committed the offense.  He's the direct responsible person.  The other "volunteer" leaders in the unit are the 2nd level.  The church that sponsored your unit is then the next level.  You physically met there.  Their "employees" probably had a closer connection.  Parents who suspected and dropped their own kids off.  Local law enforcement.  etc.  

This is not theory.  Guilt is far and wide on this.  Pretending BSA is uniquely at fault is shameful.  

I have a friend who's dad was as medical doctor.  When someone got injured on the sports field, the last thing he wanted was for his son to point out his dad was a doctor because it created liability.  

That's what's happening with BSA.  Huge holes throughout society.  BSA tried to put protections in place and it is coming back to haunt them.  BSA tried to do drive a mission that has a massively huge good is now erased because society has never handled abuse like this well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'll do my best to explain what I have seen in this thread, so hopefully I don't misconstrue the message.  The one thing I would say about @ThenNow is that it does seem that he cares about the BSA and

You've nailed the attitude that I think is so counterproductive to ever resolving youth protection issues in scouting. There are too many who want to rationalize away the situation because they someho

I think you've jumped in the deep end of victim blaming and then failed to tread water. Blaming a child victim of sexual molestation or rape and saying the antidote is to keep them out of the program

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, David CO said:

That's fine.  It's always good to have a balancing opinion.  

I don't agree with either position.  I don't think the program is either safe or unsafe.  It's the kids who are either safe or unsafe.  Some kids enter the program with certain vulnerabilities.  Others don't.  The only way to make BSA completely safe would be to identify the vulnerable kids and exclude them from the program.  I don't think anyone seriously intends to do that.

BSA is in trouble because it deliberately markets its program to vulnerable kids, and then does little to identify their vulnerabilities or protect them from abuse.  We need to better at screening these kids as they come in.  It's not enough to screen the adults.  We also need to screen the kids.

.

I think you've jumped in the deep end of victim blaming and then failed to tread water. Blaming a child victim of sexual molestation or rape and saying the antidote is to keep them out of the program instead of fixing the environment is a non-starter across the board, at least for me.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

If you apply a measure of distance (interaction with the people), who's actually to blame.    The "volunteer" SM committed the offense.  He's the direct responsible person.  The other "volunteer" leaders in the unit are the 2nd level.  The church that sponsored your unit is then the next level.  You physically met there.  Their "employees" probably had a closer connection.  Parents who suspected and dropped their own kids off.  Local law enforcement.  etc.  

A few things:

1) Again, if you've read all my posts (and I fault no one who hasn't bc there are many), I had nothing to do with any of this but pursuing my SM in 2002-2003ish. I advised the Sheriff's Dept about the other leaders. Our CO's "employees" had ZERO interaction. We unlocked, set up, cleaned up, served the community and nothing reciprocal. Is that my fault? As I've said 3 times, I knew nothing about other parents alleged knowledge (third hand hearsay) until 40 years later;

2) On February 18, 2020, the whole mess came roaring back into my life and settled over me like a vicious storm. I had previously settled it with the BSA and won't go into greater detail about what that involved. I was presented to submit a claim and did so. Who would not?; and

3) I've never NOT been proud to be a Scout, Eagle, and etc. One of these posts I'll show some "evidence," which in retrospect perhaps I should've at the outset. 20-20 and all that. Suffice it to say, I still wear my Eagle pin, NESA pin and Eagle cufflinks. Might be meaningless to you, but it is HUGE to me.

24 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Pretending BSA is uniquely at fault is shameful.  

Show me one post where I "pretended BSA is uniquely at fault." Please. In my case, they are. It may be shameful, but you cannot put that on me.

24 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

BSA tried to do drive a mission that has a massively huge good is now erased because society has never handled abuse like this well. 

As to the "massive good," see above. See my other posts. Talk to some who've interacted with me on DM. So, the "massive good" and societal deficit is the absolution and exoneration of the BSA? The tiny "blip" of bad is vastly outweighed by the good, both results and intentions? If it's exoneration, stop trying to make it better and let the chips, er abuse, fall where it may.

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yknot said:

 

You've nailed the attitude that I think is so counterproductive to ever resolving youth protection issues in scouting. There are too many who want to rationalize away the situation because they somehow believe scouting is somehow the victim or that the good that it does is worth the cost of the damage. 

Don't discredit a valid argument.  The immediate actions were crimes.   The extending liability to the larger organization may or may not have have been established cased law.  Extending treating "volunteers" as legal agents of the larger organization is something relatively new too. 

More definitely, mandatory reporting laws did not exist back then.  When incidents happened, in almost every case I saw there were discussions on how it should be handled.  Many, many times involving the parents.  Often other volunteer leaders too.  If the parents knew ... why did they not call the police !   If other parents knew, why did they not call the police !    Other times, police or other groups were involved too and still nothing happened.   

So now we are blaming legally someone who was not legally responsible to escalate and ignoring multiple levels of those directly connected.  

I don't see anyone saying BSA should be proud.  I'm saying don't cast the stone unless you are free of guilt.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KublaiKen said:

I think you've jumped in the deep end of victim blaming and then failed to tread water. Blaming a child victim of sexual molestation or rape and saying the antidote is to keep them out of the program instead of fixing the environment is a non-starter across the board, at least for me.

I think there is a big difference between identifying vulnerable kids and blaming them.  I've never met a kid who consciously chose to be vulnerable.

Schools identify at-risk kids all the time.  We are trained to recognize them.  We have meetings about them.  We have counselors whose primary job is to work with them.  

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

I think you've jumped in the deep end of victim blaming and then failed to tread water. Blaming a child victim of sexual molestation or rape and saying the antidote is to keep them out of the program instead of fixing the environment is a non-starter across the board, at least for me.

Please reread what @David CO posted below. My take is he wants to screen kids to better protect them from predators, not exclude them.

45 minutes ago, David CO said:

BSA is in trouble because it deliberately markets its program to vulnerable kids, and then does little to identify their vulnerabilities or protect them from abuse.  We need to do better at screening these kids as they come in.  It's not enough to screen the adults.  We also need to screen the kids.

If the predators can easily identify the vulnerable kids, we should be able to do it too.

 

 

Edited by RememberSchiff
fix link
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

So, the "massive good" and societal deficit is the absolution and exoneration of the BSA?

It's the same argument we see all the time

  • Defund the police because of police abuse.  We improve oversight and promote cameras.
  • End football because of the number of players that die or are crippled for life.  Okay we get helmets, protection pads and concussion protocols.
  • Stop selling ibuprofen OTC because it can be used to make meth and meth destroys thousands of lives

We recognize the good that things do and at the same time work to improve putting structures in place to mitigate the problems.  

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

... pursuing my SM in 2002-2003ish. I advised the Sheriff's Dept about the other leaders. Our CO's "employees" had ZERO interaction. We unlocked, set up, cleaned up, served the community and nothing reciprocal. Is that my fault? As I've said 3 times, I knew nothing about other parents alleged knowledge (third hand hearsay) until 40 years later;

I think that's a great example ... So the CO employees gave your troop a key to go into their private building where they had direct ownership and insured it recognizing their liability for problems that happened there (fire, physicals injury, etc) ... but took no responsibility to keep you safe?  Even in the 1970s, if someone fell on my sidewalk because of ice, I'd be liable.  It's a direct connection.  

So law enforcement was called too.  Did anything result?  Was the person charged with a crime?  I suspect your experience was probably more successful than what others experienced in the 1970s / 1980s. 

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It's the same argument we see all the time

  • Defund the police because of police abuse.  We improve oversight and promote cameras.
  • End football because of the number of players that die or are crippled for life.  Okay we get helmets, protection pads and concussion protocols.
  • Stop selling ibuprofen OTC because it can be used to make meth and meth destroys thousands of lives

We recognize the good that things do and at the same time work to improve putting structures in place to mitigate the problems.  

Yes. I hear that. What I'm saying, at least as to this point, is it is a compelling cultural, political, philosophical and sociological discussion I am eager to have. As to this moment in time, the BSA is in Chapter 11. LCs and OCs are in the line of fire facing 84,000 men who were abused as boys while in that very BSA under the supervision - to one degree or another - of all those entities. This is a conversation for another time. It will not be part of the court proceedings.

Perhaps we add an august body of theoretical experts and double the $150M that will be spent before August. The matter at hand and the topic is BSA Chapter 11: The Remix (Part 2). Yes? It can't be avoided or steered around by diverting into a discussion on the ills and failings of the legal, political, academic, medical, psychology or parental spheres of influence and governance.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fred8033 said:

I think that's a great example ... So the CO employees gave your troop a key to go into their private building where they had direct ownership and insured it recognizing their liability for problems that happened there (fire, physicals injury, etc) ... but took no responsibility to keep you safe?  Even in the 1970s, if someone fell on my sidewalk because of ice, I'd be liable.  It's a direct connection.  

So law enforcement was called too.  Did anything result?  Was the person charged with a crime?  I suspect your experience was probably more successful than what others experienced in the 1970s / 1980s.  

Assumption One: This WAS the 70's. (See my posts.) Who knows what the relationship was between the CO and the Troop. Regardless, they are a non-party part of this Chapter 11. A HUGE part. It's irrelevant, by definition.

Assumption Two (or I misunderstand what you're saying): I contacted them in the early 2000's after the SoL had run, both criminal and civil. I was 41-42. As to my experience being better or worse? Let's say I wish it on no one. If I had done it in the 70's, he'd have been in prison. Alas, I was weak and frail and unable...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It's the same argument we see all the time

  • Stop selling ibuprofen OTC because it can be used to make meth and meth destroys thousands of lives

I think you meant pseudoephedrine.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yes? It can't be avoided or steered around by diverting into a discussion on the ills and failings of the legal, political, academic, medical, psychology or parental spheres of influence and governance.  

Your right.  It can't be avoided.  It's shameful and disgusting, but it can't be avoided.  People want to blame someone for larger failures and the actions of a specific person.  ... My actual view is it's about deep pockets and lawyers going after dollars to fund their lifestyles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Please reread what @David CO posted below. My take is he wants to screen kids to better protect them from predators, not exclude them.

 

Upon rereading, I see that. I think what was confusing was the comparison with screening adults; in this context, the only screening we do for adults is to exclude them from the program. It is single sanction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It's the same argument we see all the time

  • Defund the police because of police abuse.  We improve oversight and promote cameras.
  • End football because of the number of players that die or are crippled for life.  Okay we get helmets, protection pads and concussion protocols.
  • Stop selling ibuprofen OTC because it can be used to make meth and meth destroys thousands of lives

We recognize the good that things do and at the same time work to improve putting structures in place to mitigate the problems.  

It's not the same argument because you've changed the topic. 

We're not talking about boy scout fatalities vs. say, youth football fatalities, we are talking about sexual abuse, but it's interesting that you brought it up. Fatalities are also another matrix apart from abuse where scouting also does not fare well in comparison. 

Youth football incidents have also been tracked since 1931 in reporting similar to BSA's IV files. The difference? Football data has been comparatively transparent, and used to foster ongoing conversations and program modifications.  We in BSA had no idea how many fatalities, let alone abuse cases, occurred in scouting each year, what the circumstances were, or what the recommended improvements were. 

In recent years, youth football has averaged about a dozen fatalities among 3-4 million participants. Other than headlines, since there is no standardized reporting, it is impossible to know how many scouts have died from scout related activities. As a point of comparison, though, with far fewer participants, 32 scouting lives were lost in the years 2005 to 2010 alone. The only information we get is the random appearance of some new "you may no longer do this" policy.

We have got to stop defending BSA's inherent incompetence and organizational flaws if we ever want to see scouting back on its feet post bankruptcy -- assuming any aspect of it survives. I understand the instinct to defend that which you love but myopia like this will be fatal not helpful in my opinion.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

My actual view is it's about deep pockets and lawyers going after dollars to fund their lifestyles.

Two points:

1) You asserted previously that vicarious liability - "deep pockets" - is a relatively new concept. Not so. It's ancient. We're talking surfs and lords, with modifications and mutations dating back to the Anglo-Normans in the 1300's forward; and

2) Very few attorneys can win a jury trial without a plaintiff and some measure of injury. Many of the BSA claims may be subject to great scrutiny. Some may not hold up. As one of my supervising law partners told me early on, "You can sue anyone anytime for anything. You might not win, but you can file." Absent injuries (abuse), these attorneys whether righteous or unscrupulous would be dead in the water. It simply can't be merely "about" or mostly about "lawyers going after dollars to fund their lifestyles." Maybe they should sue the BSA because they don't like the Boy Scout tan (socks to hem on the shorts), find neckerchiefs outmoded and a sign of colonialism or think burning wood is causing global warming?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...