Claimant Discussion and Impacts on individuals/BSA

[ThenNow 1373]

On 4/14/2021 at 11:51 PM, yknot said:

A scout is trustworthy but that lesson starts with the adults who are there to guide him or her and teach them what that means.  If a child who believes in Santa Claus encounters an adult Santa who abuses him or her, what reaction would we expect? Mute incomprehension and confusion would probably be the first reactions, followed by fear, shame, terror, horror... I don't see any actionable requirements on the kids here. They trust the adults around them to keep them safe, or at least that's what we tell them. If victimized, they would expect the adults in their lives to save them. And we failed. 

This may be a ‘dead’ topic with so much having happened since it was being actively discussed, but I’ve been thinking a lot about it since these posts. As someone who was abused, and reacted with “Mute incomprehension and confusion...followed by fear, shame, terror, horror,” maybe I can offer some then/now perspective. 

When I consider how I/we viewed adults, particularly men, in the early and mid-1970’s and how young people view and behave toward adults now it is WILDLY different. The level of contempt and disrespect today is extraordinary to the point of being staggering. I realize some of it is deserved in isolated cases, by not with the utter defiance and disdain portrayed in pop culture and percolated down to everyday life. Whether my “anointed” word was rejected or not, I/we revered our Scouting leaders and most men in general. I don’t think I was alone in that.

As boys, we wanted to be men and were actively looking for someone to emulate. I know that’s true today, but not coupled with the level of respect, deference and benefit of the doubt we invested then. My opinion of course. When we latched on to someone, silently confident they could be that mentor, then had that trust violated in the most perverse way, it created such conflict you will never understand it unless/until you experience it. Hopefully never. As I’ve said before, the one thought that came into my 11 year old mind when I only ONCE considered telling my dad was, “He’ll kill him (my SM).” That would have been disaster for our family. Dad had three jobs and 6 kids. My mom was a homemaker taking care of us, her young brother in law, living with my grandfather and caring for her ill mother in law. The death of our Troop also crossed my mind and I didn’t want that either. Case closed.

PS - I was no Santa Klaus believer either before or after that violation. 

[qwazse 4342]

16 hours ago, ThenNow said:

... As I’ve said before, the one thought that came into my 11 year old mind when I only ONCE considered telling my dad was, “He’ll kill him (my SM).” That would have been disaster for our family. Dad had three jobs and 6 kids. My mom was a homemaker taking care of us, her young brother in law, living with my grandfather and caring for her ill mother in law. The death of our Troop also crossed my mind and I didn’t want that either. Case closed.

PS - I was no Santa Klaus believer either before or after that violation. 

@ThenNow, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone would beat your dad to the punch. But think on this: if you didn’t want your corrupted troop to die then, why would you want the many wholesome troops to dissolve now?

ETA: To be clear ... this is not an attack. This is an attempt to understand how what happened before influences the negotiations now.

Edited April 20, 2021 by qwazse

[jr56 92]

Also curious, if the horrible person's behavior was not reported by the victims, how was the BSA supposed to have known what was going on?  Is passing the abuse forward, by depriving present and future scouts of a scouting program, really the way these folks want to go?   The people who committed the crimes are the ones who should be punished.

[elitts 464]

22 minutes ago, jr56 said:

Also curious, if the horrible person's behavior was not reported by the victims, how was the BSA supposed to have known what was going on?  Is passing the abuse forward, by depriving present and future scouts of a scouting program, really the way these folks want to go?   The people who committed the crimes are the ones who should be punished.

While I disagree with them, there are a couple main arguments put forward by those pursuing these cases (huge generalization, I realize, but I couldn't think of another way to phrase it). 

• The first is that since the BSA had information from almost the beginning of the program that pedophiles were attempting to access boys though the program, they should have done more to screen them out in advance rather than banning them after the fact.  Basically they are arguing that "risk of sexual abuse" was a known danger to participants that needed to be mitigated rather than treating each pedophile as an unknowable and unpreventable danger.  This is a hugely dangerous notion of course, because if you follow that line of thinking, every organization dealing with youth becomes liable for every act of bullying or violence committed between the youth by virtue of the fact that "everyone knows kids bully each other and can be emotionally unstable".
• The BSA was somehow "covering up the problem" because in some instances they left the choice of reporting to the police up to the victims and their families rather than reporting accusations themselves. (before mandatory reporting laws)
• And finally, the BSA is liable because they hid the extent of the problem and didn't warning parents to "watch out for pedophiles".

[ThenNow 1373]

11 hours ago, qwazse said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone would beat your dad to the punch. But think on this: if you didn’t want your corrupted troop to die then, why would you want the many wholesome troops to dissolve now?

My dad is long dead, so anyone who punches anyone or anything will beat him to it. 

Never once said I did or do. Then, these were my friends and I wanted badly to be a Scout and earn Eagle. I couldn’t think past that or contemplate that our SM would end up abusing many boys after me. That may have been the single thing that could’ve made me act, but I was after all 11. In fact, I buried the thought after it once appeared and it stayed that way for some 30 odd years.

[ThenNow 1373]

10 hours ago, jr56 said:

Also curious, if the horrible person's behavior was not reported by the victims, how was the BSA supposed to have known what was going on?  Is passing the abuse forward, by depriving present and future scouts of a scouting program, really the way these folks want to go?   The people who committed the crimes are the ones who should be punished.

I’ve addressed this to the point my face is blue. (Ask one of the other old guys what that means.)

[David CO 1783]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I’ve addressed this to the point my face is blue. (Ask one of the other old guys what that means.)

It means he has gone on ancestry.com and determined that he is part Smurf.

 

[David CO 1783]

11 hours ago, jr56 said:

Is passing the abuse forward, by depriving present and future scouts of a scouting program, really the way these folks want to go?  

Yes, it is the way these folks want to go.  I agree with having lawsuits.  There must be a legal way to hold people and organizations accountable.  But I do find it somewhat disingenuous of them to sue the BSA and then state that they don't intend to deprive future kids of scouting opportunities in BSA.  Of course they do.  They understand cause and effect.  They shouldn't pretend that they don't understand the likely effect of the lawsuits.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by David CO

[yknot 1338]

We are fortunate that ThenNow has been willing to engage on this site and be so open about his personal situation. I've learned a lot from his perspective and I hope others feel that way too. Doing so, however, has left him open to jabs from newcomers who don't have history here and don't know what he has already explained, as well as even from regulars who are still struggling with trying to come to grips with the tragedy of what BSA is facing. Whatever it is, it is not ThenNow's fault. He's been trying to explain the unexplainable to us. It's clear BSA never protected him or kids like him, and despite pretty words now, it's also clear they really would rather he and his brethren would just go away. I feel like those of us on this forum who have listened to him over these past months are his scouting brother and sister hood and owe him at the very least a safe place to speak his piece.  We may not always like what he reveals but we have to respect his bravery and honesty in doing so. 

 

[T2Eagle 902]

11 hours ago, jr56 said:

Also curious, if the horrible person's behavior was not reported by the victims, how was the BSA supposed to have known what was going on?  Is passing the abuse forward, by depriving present and future scouts of a scouting program, really the way these folks want to go?   The people who committed the crimes are the ones who should be punished.

One distinction you and others may be missng is that in our legal system criminal and civil actions have very different purposes.  Criminal actions are where we look for punishment, but civil actions are focused on compensating injured parties.  That's why you cannot insure away your criminal liability, but you can virtually eliminate any cost to yourself of your negligence through insurance.  

These cases aren't about finding someone to punish, they're about trying to compensate people who have been injured.  And this cannot be said enough, no scout is today is having anything taken away that they own or are entitled to.  Neither they, nor likely we, bought or built much if any of the camps and endowments that may be given over to people who were children when the worst offense we can think of short of murder was committed against them.

If we think scouts today should have strong camps after these victims are partially, slightly, compensated than we need to go out and rebuild those camps and endowments for those scouts.

[David CO 1783]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I couldn’t think past that or contemplate that our SM would end up abusing many boys after me. 

That doesn't sound entirely true.  Didn't you state in an earlier post that you prevented your younger brothers from joining the troop?  Didn't you contemplate the possibility that your SM might sexually abuse your brothers?

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by David CO

[David CO 1783]

26 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

One distinction you and others may be missng is that in our legal system criminal and civil actions have very different purposes.  Criminal actions are where we look for punishment, but civil actions are focused on compensating injured parties. 

That's partly true.  But civil actions can also result in punitive damages.  

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by David CO

[ThenNow 1373]

10 hours ago, David CO said:

That doesn't sound entirely true.  Didn't you state in an earlier post that you prevented your younger brothers from joining the troop?  Didn't you contemplate the possibility that your SM might sexually abuse your brothers?

Years later and I was nearly adult by then. They’re much younger than I am. I would be surprised if I didn’t point that out when I shared this history back when.

Are you just trying to poke holes in my logic, catch me in a lie or point out what you believe are inconsistencies? What are you getting at? I feel like part of what some - not necessarily you - are doing is trying to trip me up. I was always fairly decent at obstacle courses and speed jump rope so I’m happy to play.

Edited April 21, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow 1373]

10 hours ago, David CO said:

It means he has gone on ancestry.com and determined that he is part Smurf.

Touché, sir. Touché.

[ThenNow 1373]

22 hours ago, jr56 said:

Is passing the abuse forward, by depriving present and future scouts of a scouting program, really the way these folks want to go?

This has been addressed a number of times by me and others, but I understand and respect that folks come on the forum at various stages of the discussion.

Do you really mean to say “THE abuse” is being passed forward in the form of depriving Scouts of the program? I don’t think Scouting is going away in its entirety, but there will undoubtedly be reductions. Whichever it is, I invite you to create a list of deprivations resulting from fewer camps or HAB’s or more restrictive YPT and compare them with 50 years of wreckage from repeated sexual abuse by an adult Scout leader while a Boy Scout. Then, multiply the latter list by 84,000 lives.  If you really believe this is an apples to apples equation of “abuse,” I can’t help you understand or further answer this question.