Eugene Evans (of Evans v. Berkeley) arrested for molesting Sea Scouts

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

When Douglas S. Smith Jr was arrested for possession of child porn, bsalegal.org removed references to him from their web site. I don't think they can do that with the namesake of one of their major lawsuits:

 

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_7635617?nclick_check=1

 

BERKELEY -- Berkeley police on Tuesday arrested a 64-year-old Sea Scout leader on six felony counts of sexual assault on boys ages 13 to 17 who are members of the maritime youth group.

 

Eugene Evans of Kensington, who has been the skipper of the Berkeley group's boat for 35 years, was booked into the Berkeley police jail. Police served search warrants at his home and "several other locations," according to a police statement.

 

The group maintains its boat, the Farallon, at the Berkeley Marina.

 

Police said charges could include lewd and lascivious acts against a minor younger than 14, oral copulation with a minor younger than 16, and penetration with a foreign object of a minor younger than 14. The alleged crimes occurred over "several years," the statement said.

Police said they "have yet to determine definitively how long Evans may have been molesting youth," and they believe there may be more victims.

 

Evans is a retired teacher from Encinal High School in the city of Alameda, according to the statement.

 

The Sea Scouts lost a Supreme Court Ruling against the city of Berkeley in 2006 over gay rights issues. The group sued the city for revoking its city funded berth at the marina because the group refused to disavow the Boy Scouts of America's exclusion of gays and atheists.

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, it saddens me. And angers me. Seems like I see one of these a week on my news feed. Scout leader accused. I always feel torn between sadness, and da risks of false accusations, and wantin' to spend a few minutes alone with the guy, just me and my shotgun.

 

One or three a week would still be a pretty small percentage of scout leaders. Better than da number of coaches. Way better than the number of parents who commit abuse each week.

 

But one is too many.

 

My prayers tonight for da kids and their families.

 

And shame on anyone who would take such a tragedy and use it for personal political ends or a special interest agenda.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Yes, just like the people who say gays should be excluded to keep all the pedophiles out, when their own Youth Protection Task Force National Director was busted for possession of child porn, the Teton Council is being sued for knowingly allowing a pedophile to work at their camp for years, and now Evans, shows how the BSA's exclusion of gays only allows people to pretend that the problem is being addressed. But every time something like this crops up, people keep bleating how gays have to be kept out.

[evmori 11]

And people will still bleat to keep gays out! Learn to live with it!

[Beavah 205]

Yeh know, Merlyn, if yeh name any organization in the country that works with kids, I can point to cases like this.

 

Unfortunately it comes with the territory.

 

Form National Atheist Youth Association, and there will be cases of abuse within it.

 

And they'd be tragic. And sad. And it'd be right to be Angry at the men or women who perpetrated it or any who knowingly allowed it.

 

But such cases should not be the fodder for blatherin' debates about unrelated organizational policy. Just cheap it is, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah, you'd also have to find a youth organization that:

1) tries to seal molestation cases to conceal how a known pedophile was allowed to continue molesting minors;

2) sets up a committee to review their child protection practices, but refuses to give even their own committee their internal data on how many volunteers have been removed for molestation and similar reasons (and which is only brought to light by lawsuits over (1) above);

3) has supporters who equate gays with pedophiles, which only creates a false sense of security when gays are barred;

4) has, as one of its largest supporters and advocates of excluding gays an organization which has criminally shielded known pedophiles.

 

Yes, I know it's impossible to eliminate 100% of the child abuse. But why did the BSA try to keep the molestation in Idaho secret by sealing the files? Why didn't they give their OWN COMMITTEE reviewing their child protection policies THEIR data on abuse cases?? I'd also like to know if the two-deep requirement was followed for the Berkeley Sea Scouts.

[Beavah 205]

1) tries to seal molestation cases to conceal how a known pedophile was allowed to continue molesting minors;

2) sets up a committee to review their child protection practices, but refuses to give even their own committee their internal data on how many volunteers have been removed for molestation and similar reasons (and which is only brought to light by lawsuits over (1) above);

 

And it is right to be Angry about this, eh?

 

But it has nuthin' to do with the fact we take kids into the woods, or promote citizenship and fitness, or have a merit badge for Disability Awareness, or don't admit avowed homosexuals as registered leaders.

 

And claimin' it does is the worst sort of public advocacy. Usin' a tragedy to advance a personal political agenda.

 

Beavah

 

[John-in-KC 311]

I do not live in the San Francisco Bay Area.

 

I no longer live in California.

 

I am still a Scouter.

 

I will let the criminal justice system work its ways with Mr Evans. I will cry for the young people abused by this man, assuming he's found guilty. As Beavah said, there are moments where I'd love to have two minutes... just me and my weapon, with him.

 

In the meantime, I'll serve the youth I can, follow two-deep and no 1/1 environments rules, and make a difference where I can.

 

In a way, Merlyn's digging up the mud is useful: We can never be complacent about serving our youth well.

 

B, thanks for the PM conversation. It applies here as readily as it did in discussing WB.

 

YIS.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

So far I haven't seen anyone here saying the BSA's way of handling things should be changed. The BSA sought to seal the molestation cases in Idaho - why isn't there any outrage over that? Why isn't there any outrage when the BSA doesn't give their own information on child abuse to their own committee on assessing their child protection policies? Oh, but there's plenty of time for BSA supporters to defending keeping gays out, because that protects scouts from pedophiles. No, it doesn't. What WOULD help is eliminating harmful acts like the two I just mentioned -- sealing court records and not giving child abuse data to their own committee, both of which seem to have been done only to try and prevent bad PR, which is the same road the catholic church went down and is now facing bankruptcy-inducing penalties.

[Eagledad 2777]

>>But every time something like this crops up, people keep bleating how gays have to be kept out.

[LongHaul 10]

Meryln,

Why must you continually equate pedophilia with child molestation? All child molesters are not pedophiles and all pedophiles are not child molesters. You object strongly to the equating of homosexuality with pedophilia even though they are both sexual preferences which by current belief are genetic in nature and beyond the control of the person in question. You hear pedophile and you think child molester but rebuke those that hear homosexual Scout leader and think POSSIBLE child molester.

You list 4 things seemingly specific to BSA in reference to child molestation cases within the organization. In the first you use the term pedophile for its shock value even though those facts are not in evidence. You state as fact that the reason the BSA sought to seal the records was to protect the molester again facts not in evidence. In point 2 you claim that numbers and details are important in an examination of practice. Before I can examine whether a program is working I must first determine exactly how many failures there have been? Not providing numbers and details to a group or examiners should not stop them from examining. Should the conclusion be that everything is fine and those cases of failure are still kept secret then there would be room to question the purpose of the original investigation but determining motive? In Point 3 you talk about equating one group necessarily with another yet you are guilty of this same practice as I have pointed out. In Point 4 you demonstrate the equating one group with another for shock value by using the word pedophile where child molester would be appropriate.

Physician heal thyself. Look at your prejudices before you attack others for theirs.

At least try not to seem as though having something to trash BSA with is the important part of this issue even though you show no concern for the youth involved here.

LH

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

LongHaul writes:

Why must you continually equate "pedophilia" with "child molestation"?

 

Where am I doing that? I'm using both terms, but I'm not saying they're equivalent.

 

You object strongly to the equating of homosexuality with pedophilia even though they are both sexual preferences which by current belief are "genetic" in nature and beyond the control of the person in question.

 

You know, "heterosexual" is a sexual preference, but I would object to equating heterosexual to pedophile, too (and I don't think pedophile is classified as a sexual preference).

 

You hear "pedophile" and you think "child molester" but rebuke those that hear "homosexual Scout leader" and think POSSIBLE "child molester"

 

Well, if people hear "human being" and think "POSSIBLE child molester", I can't really argue against that, but that's no reason to bar all human beings from scouting, either.

 

You list 4 things seemingly specific to BSA in reference to child molestation cases within the organization. In the first you use the term pedophile for it's shock value even though those facts are not in evidence.

 

I use the term because the Post-Register, which exposed the BSA's complicity and attempt to seal the court records, used the term 'pedophile'.

 

In point 2 you claim that numbers and details are important in an examination of practice. Before I can examine whether a program is working I must first determine exactly how many failures there have been?

 

If you're trying to improve current policies, yes, you DO need to know how well the OLD policies worked in order to measure if the NEW policies make the situation worse, better, or the same. Old data would also be useful for other kinds of analysis, like whether there are specific councils that are especially bad (or good). You know, having INFORMATION on a problem REALLY HELPS.

 

In Point 3 you talk about equating one group necessarily with another yet you are guilty of this same practice as I have pointed out.

 

I say I haven't, as I say above. But even if I did, that does not make equating one group with another a valid method of argumentation.

 

In Point 4 you demonstrate the equating one group with another for shock value by using the word pedophile where child molester would be appropriate.

 

Actually, I should have pointed out that the catholic church criminally shielded BOTH pedophiles and child molesters; thanks for the correction.

 

Physician heal thyself.

 

Ah, I see. It's much more important that I make "proper" arguments than to address the molestation problems of the BSA. Glad you got your priorities straight.

 

At least try not to seem as though having something to trash BSA with is the important part of this issue even though you show no concern for the youth involved here.

 

So far, I'm the only one taking the BSA to task for my points 1, 2, and 4. You've shown no interest in anything except getting back at me.

[LongHaul 10]

Merlyn,

I use the term because the Post-Register, which exposed the BSA's complicity and attempt to seal the court records, used the term 'pedophile'.

 

OH! So if I find a reference in print that equates atheism with what ever action or trait specified further use of that reference is totally justified because hey it was in print.

 

If you're trying to improve current policies, yes, you DO need to know how well the OLD policies worked in order to measure if the NEW policies make the situation worse, better, or the same. Old data would also be useful for other kinds of analysis, like whether there are specific councils that are especially bad (or good). You know, having INFORMATION on a problem REALLY HELPS.

 

Yes data helps but it should not be essential to completion of the task. YOU ASSUME that information on how well the old policies worked was not given to the committee because the BSA refuses to give even their own committee their internal data. I do not need to tell you who, what, where and when to have you tell me where the system broke down. When I approach the PLC and tell them to examine their provision for checks and balance in signing off requirements I should not have to tell them which scouts performance precipitated this request. I should not have to sight example and designate individual patrols to address an issue. You seem to be suggesting that the committee asked to review BSA child molestation practices was kept unaware of the fact that child molestation had already occurred within BSA.

 

Well, if people hear "human being" and think "POSSIBLE child molester", I can't really argue against that, but that's no reason to bar all human beings from scouting, either.

 

Yet you defend you use of pedophile as just what I read. Unless you declare yourself an atheist how can anyone declare you to be an atheist? Unless a person declares their sexual preference how can anyone declare it for them? I can ASSUME what ever I want based on my own prejudice and how I allow that prejudice to affect my interpretation of someone elses actions but it does not change the facts. When I said you equate pedophile with child molester you say you did not but add But even if I did, that does not make equating one group with another a valid method of argumentation. However the failure to correct such a connection between words in your references is a valid method of argumentation?

 

Actually, I should have pointed out that the catholic church criminally shielded BOTH pedophiles and child molesters; thanks for the correction.

 

Again I ask where is it documented that any defendant declared themselves to be a pedophile? You want to talk about specifics and yet knowingly use terms inaccurately for shock value. Charging a person with a crime, convicting a person of a crime and that person actually committing a crime are three separate things.

 

Ah, I see. It's much more important that I make "proper" arguments than to address the molestation problems of the BSA.

 

That is exactly the point you are not addressing the molestation problems you are addressing the BSAs handling of these problems. You focus is on the BSA and not on the molestation.

 

So far, I'm the only one taking the BSA to task for my points 1, 2, and 4. You've shown no interest in anything except getting back at me.

 

And you have shown no interest in anything except to get back at BSA for excluding you. Point 1 is your assumption as what BSA did and why. Point 2 again is an assumption on your part as to what was provided the committee and what was not. And point 4 is simply an attempt at guilt by association. Why should your opinion interest me when mine does not interest you?

LH

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

LongHaul writes:

OH! So if I find a reference in print that equates atheism with what ever action or trait specified further use of that reference is totally justified because hey it was in print.

 

If I see a newspaper report what court filings say, and it uses the term "pedophile", that's enough for me to use the term "pedophile" when describing the situation.

 

Again I ask where is it documented that any defendant declared themselves to be a pedophile?

 

Father Oliver O'Grady is an admitted pedophile who was shielded by the RCC. There's one.

 

That is exactly the point you are not addressing the molestation problems you are addressing the BSA's handling of these problems. You focus is on the BSA and not on the molestation.

 

Eh? The BSA is the organization that's isn't addressing abuse properly. In the case of the grand teton council, they sought to hide the molestation. THAT'S the kind of thing that makes things worse. Of course I'll criticize them for that. I don't know what you expect me to do directly about molestations within the BSA.

 

And you have shown no interest in anything except to get back at BSA for excluding you.

 

What? I've never been excluded by the BSA, I was a member when I was about 9, before it was taken over by people with the current mindset.

 

The secretiveness displayed by the BSA in handling abuse cases shoots up a red flag for me; you can ignore it if you like.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

By the way, here's an article that touches on point 2:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003849260_boyscouts23m.html

...

"You can look at those files two ways," Rothschild said. "They were

making a conscientious effort to identify offenders, and the Boy

Scouts of America could be commended for that. Or in my case, there

was a lack of awareness or sophistication about warning signs about

people that may be a danger."

 

The secrecy of the files has also meant that the Boy Scouts have kept

them from their own sex-abuse advisers, a group of respected experts

first convened in the late 1980s to help craft a youth-protection

program.

 

During the past 15 years, the group repeatedly suggested that the Boy

Scouts study the files to see whether their prevention measures were

working, said one adviser, David Finkelhor, who heads the Crimes

Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire.

But the Scouts' lawyers rebuffed the recommendation, Finkelhor said.

...