Nobody is Watching

[skeptic]

This article is on point and also, in my view, suggests how skewed the BSA lawsuit and its fall is.  While BSA, that has huge levels of supervision and is in some states almost unable to meet all the restrictions, this is going on with little or no serious attention.  And, it is not new, nor is it only in California.  The article notes that few states have any real supervision over these types of programs, and that most government entities seem to NOT want to take responsibility.  It does not excuse the BSA mistakes, it only points out that BSA is not the likely worst player, just has become the whipping group.  Take a look.  https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/06/19/a-daughters-death-at-day-camp-spurs-drive-for-licensing-laws-in-california/  

This is simply sad and frightening, yet has been under our noses for decades.  The likely only reason there has not been the clamor that has overwhelmed BSA is that these operations are not National, nor do they have any deep pockets.  The black feathered legal opportunists do not see profit or they are so diverse that it would require serious effort to make their financial killing.  JMO of course.

Edited June 21, 2022 by skeptic

[Tron]

Article doesn't apply to BSA. BSA requires that every camp have a Program Director and a Camp Director and both have to be NCAP certified. BSA requires that every every camp have a designated first aid provider who is current in CPR, AED, and First Aid. BSA requires all stations have at least 1 registered adult leader; with that there are the YPT and background check requirements. 

[skeptic]

10 minutes ago, Tron said:

Article doesn't apply to BSA. BSA requires that every camp have a Program Director and a Camp Director and both have to be NCAP certified. BSA requires that every every camp have a designated first aid provider who is current in CPR, AED, and First Aid. BSA requires all stations have at least 1 registered adult leader; with that there are the YPT and background check requirements. 

The whole point of sharing is that this is happening with no where near the turmoil as BSA has, even though they have far safer camps at far higher usage.  So, not sure why the down vote, as it does relate as you noted, in comparison.

 

[yknot]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

The whole point of sharing is that this is happening with no where near the turmoil as BSA has, even though they have far safer camps at far higher usage.  So, not sure why the down vote, as it does relate as you noted, in comparison.

 

I'm not understanding what you're trying to show.  This article is talking about accidents and deaths, not abuse. There are also relatively few boy scout camps compared to other private or commercial camps so I don't think you can draw any useful comparisons. the state of California alone has almost twice as many camps on its own than boy scouts has in the entire United States.  

[skeptic]

Let me try one more time.  The point is that the lack of safeguards in most of these camps is a far larger problem than the BSA due to the apparent lack of reasonable oversight.  So, and the article hints at it, abuse is one of the things that the camps are open to and in a far greater way due to the lack of oversight.  Note also the comment that no body wants to take that oversight responsibility.  IF BSA is held to the grindstone when it has verifiably some the safest camps around due to their program requirements and training, and it is still the target of public disdain and legal attacks, even though they are safer, then what is wrong with this picture.  Note also that while this is a California story, they note that few states have any real oversight of all these small camps and pseudo day care camps.  

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, skeptic said:

IF BSA is held to the grindstone when it has verifiably some the safest camps around due to their program requirements and training, and it is still the target of public disdain and legal attacks, even though they are safer, then what is wrong with this picture.

There is one thing "wrong," but not with the "picture," rather the photographer. He's focusing on the wrong subject. The other camps are not the assignment and are out of the frame. BSA is in the frame, like it, love it, hate it, don't give a rip, and so forth and so on. Our legal system works on multiple principles, one of which is commonly known as "test case" litigation. A court is presented with a fact pattern that is one of many and the attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) sometimes select "low hanging fruit" upon which to build both their case and those of future plaintiffs. (I say sometimes because many test cases, just like in the CSA context, are brought because they are righteous actions, NOT because a victim or attorney is trying to get rich or bring down the Man.) Once established, the test case theories of liability can then be rolled out and superimposed on other closely related fact patterns of negligence, etc. Think stare decisis and case law precedent.  The RCC and BSA CSA cases were test cases for historical institutional liability. BSA is turning out to be a serious test case for complex bankruptcy releases. Anywho, the legally established negligence of BSA and other entities is being used as an example and to further evolve precedent. As I said many time back in the day, BSA painted the target on its own back. No one is to blame for that. If there were "no there there," we would not be sitting here chewing our nails waiting for JLSS to get back from the shore. Jk. I know you hate it, but there are other countries with different systems of jurisprudence that allow applications for residence, he said with a smirk. That is my left-handed way to say we have the best system going, so we deal with it, warts and all. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by ThenNow

[skeptic]

Thank you for another perspective.  I agree we need to deal with our own issue in BSA.  I just wish the field would widen to deal with what seems a really larger concern, one that "nobody is watching".  Those places could even include some of the individuals NOT able to get involved with BSA due to their efforts to do some kind of prevention, and those prevention  methods improving.  It is a societal problem, as well as one related to the worst parts of humanity.  But we also do not want to see another disaster like the McMartin case.  

 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Thank you for another perspective.

You're welcome and I appreciate that. 

[SiouxRanger]

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Think stare decisis and case law precedent. 

My favorite legal doctrine.

"Stare decisis" = "we've made this mistake before and feel compelled thereby to make it ever hence."

[elitts]

On 6/23/2022 at 8:06 AM, ThenNow said:

There is one thing "wrong," but not with the "picture," rather the photographer. He's focusing on the wrong subject. The other camps are not the assignment and are out of the frame. BSA is in the frame, like it, love it, hate it, don't give a rip, and so forth and so on. Our legal system works on multiple principles, one of which is commonly known as "test case" litigation. A court is presented with a fact pattern that is one of many and the attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) sometimes select "low hanging fruit" upon which to build both their case and those of future plaintiffs. (I say sometimes because many test cases, just like in the CSA context, are brought because they are righteous actions, NOT because a victim or attorney is trying to get rich or bring down the Man.) Once established, the test case theories of liability can then be rolled out and superimposed on other closely related fact patterns of negligence, etc. Think stare decisis and case law precedent.  The RCC and BSA CSA cases were test cases for historical institutional liability. BSA is turning out to be a serious test case for complex bankruptcy releases. Anywho, the legally established negligence of BSA and other entities is being used as an example and to further evolve precedent. As I said many time back in the day, BSA painted the target on its own back. No one is to blame for that. If there were "no there there," we would not be sitting here chewing our nails waiting for JLSS to get back from the shore. Jk. I know you hate it, but there are other countries with different systems of jurisprudence that allow applications for residence, he said with a smirk. That is my left-handed way to say we have the best system going, so we deal with it, warts and all. 

Thank-you for the clear explanation and reasoning behind the way that stuff is handled over on Legal Street.  Not to say I love the system, but I do appreciate the explanation.