TAHAWK

As i agreed repeatedly, the likely result is that you get away with the theft.

Cool. "Larceny," generally, was once defined in Ohio as a taking of property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. So the Legislature knows how to say it. (As they apparently do in illinois.) However, that narrow definition went away decades ago years ago and persists only in the definition of the crime of "Larceny" under the Ohio Code of Military Justice, which provides, in pertinent part-: Ohio Rev. Code § 5924.121 Larceny - wrongful appropriation. (A) Any person subject to this code who wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds, by any means, from the possession of the owner or of any other person any money, personal property, or article of value of any kind:(1) With intent permanently to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or to appropriate it to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner, steals that property and is guilty of larceny; . . . (B) Any person found guilty of larceny or wrongful appropriation shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." Effective Date: 10-10-1961 Ohio amended it's general Larceny statute to a new "Theft" statute several decades ago and broadened the mens rea requirement. The changes in the mens rea requirement were discussed in this more-or-less contemporary law review article as follows: B. The Culpable Mental State According to the traditional concepts of criminal law, there is usually no crime unless an act is coupled with a specified mental state. Making no great change from the present law, the Proposed Code [CURRENT STATUTE] adopts this premise in the theft offense: "No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either. .. ." Fortunately, all of the operative terms of this mens rea requirement are carefully defined. [?!] One acts purposely "when it is his specific intention to cause a certain result. " In this section, the result which must be specifically intended by the actor is to "deprive" another of property or services which means to: (1) Withhold property of another permanently, or for such period as to appropriate a substantial portion of its value or use, or with purpose to restore it only upon payment of a reward or other consideration; (2) Dispose of property so as to make it unlikely that the owner will recover it; (3) Accept, use, or appropriate money, property, or services, with purpose not to give proper consideration in return therefor. It is not required that the actor intend that the owner never recover his property, or that the owner receive no consideration for his property or services. Rather, a flexible standard is established which sets a more reasonable understanding of deprivation from the perspective of the victim of the theft. The burden is upon the prosecution, however, to demonstrate that the act of obtaining or exerting control was concurrent with a purpose to deprive as defined above [e.g. as in subsection (3)]. Michael 1. Kuhinan, "COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REVISION OF THEFT AND DECEPTION OFFENSES IN OHIO," OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL, Vol 33 (1972), at p. 475. So what does it mean to "appropriate property" when the current statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.02, criminalizes conduct described as "to appropriate ... property, with purpose not to give proper consideration in return therefor"? We are not talking of paying the owner, right?. Allowing him to stay at camp? Worth a try. Words in Ohio statures are to be given their "common usage" - unless defined otherwise, of course. Ohio Revised Code § 1.42. Ohio's statutes do not define "appropriate" in this context (as opposes to eminent domain). Merriam-Webster define the verb "appropriate" as follows: transitive verb 1: to take exclusive possession of : ANNEX [e.g.] No one should appropriate a common benefit. 2: to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use. [ e.g.] appropriate money for a research program 3: to take or make use of without authority or right [e.g.] natural habitats that have been appropriated for human use." [emphasis added]. So unless he or she who seizes the "device" is sharing it thereafter with the owner or were to have a legal right to possession .... Then we have forty-nine other states. In some, if one dumps property before leaving a store, no theft charge may be brought, in other states, taking possession without intent to pay is theft, whether you "dump" or not. Your life. By all means, don't worry. All is well. And none of this relates to civil liability for "conversion." Not that anyone get sued these days.

In front of witnesses: "Please voluntarily turn over you device because its very presence violates my/our/the camp's rules. No? Leave camp." The best you can do when you - someone - have decided it's a Big Deal. This is about understanding and reducing risk.

Wishful thinking. We live in the world that actually exists. You have liability insurance, right? Then you know better.

Because you cannot argue exigent circumstances in mitigation over a device vs. a firearm. Indeed.

General belief, even sanctified by time, does not have the force of law. Law does IF you are "called" on a violation. Although, law changes in major ways. Most people drive over the speed limit because they can, not because they may. When the unusual happens and the flashing lights appear, don't bother telling the LEO or the judge/magistrate that "Everyone does it." You could try, "I was going the prevailing speed as that seemed safer." As for the gun (or adult oriented materials or alcohol or nuclear weapon or hypodermic needle with Class 1 drugs in it), that is well-played, buta classic red herring. We are discussing a common electronic device, so whatever exigent circumstances might be cited to excuse the seizure of a "gun" etc. are not applicable. I cited contract law because of the arguments that contract law allowed the seizure of another's property by council or charter organization fiat. It would help if we agreed never to try and justify theft by citing supposed agreements that stealing is legal. I cited on-line sales as part of discussing the "contract rationale" because those vendors - fewer and fewer - who don't understand the law are surprised on the occasions when they "sell" to minors and find they have, instead, sent a gift to the unscrupulous minor. So here. The minor or his parents can "agree" until "the cows come home," and the risk of criminal prosecution remain no less. The agreement was voidable or void ab initio. "Confiscating an item is typically an act where the Scout is told to hand it over to the adult. " Yes, arguably, as I pointed out, believe it or not, you have arguably described theft by intimidation. (Remember to say, "Please" in front of witnesses [half a dozen nuns would be good]) Now school employees and officials are quite different from Scouters in some states as, unlike Scouters, they are in loco parentis in those states. And while "The genius of the law is reasoning by false analogy," we don't get to argue against the law by false analogy. Well we can do so, and many have, but we lose once it comes down to court, which, I have repeatedly conceded, is a long shot.

In this case, being "pretty sure," "reasonable," and acting in absolute good faith is also being absolutely wrong in the eyes of the law. Ever wonder why all those on-line sites won't do business with minors?" ("You must be 18 ....") With a few exceptions in some states (for necessities like food and shelter), no one can enter into a binding contract with a minor without court permission as they are conclusively presumed to be incompetent to enter into a binding agreement. As I noted, you can contract WITH the parents but NOT on behalf of their child without court permission, and it's been that way longer- far longer - than any of us have been alive. You do have the probabilities in your favor when stealing the device, but the risk remains. (Sometimes reality is surprising and seems unreasonable compared to the good faith belief of even pundits. Ask Hillary.) But you have, wisely and correctly I think, solved the problem by recognizing that it is no more a problem than the axe, the knife, or the human voice. All can do harm unless the child is properly socialized. Hence, Scouting with "A Scout is ..." and "guide, enable" instead of "no, no, no." Our council camp has twelve rules that are hard to improve upon.

So back when I was Cubmaster, I saw the same at PWD, and the next year we had a separate Derby for the adults. I was not a 100% cure. It helped and resulted in more happy Cubs. We let Cubs move dens if they were unhappy where they were. Every den had an active Den Chief. No Den Leader got overwhelmed, but some wondered why the kids were voting with their feet.

And people intentionally eat Puffer Fish and Polk Weed. Your point, please? ("Officer, everyone was speeding." 😉) It would likely go well in sentencing if the stolen property were returned. Judges like that. Less drastic is to teach the kid to behave appropriately under the circumstances. He needs to develop that life skill. In pertinent part, it's why you're there. Failing that, you might ask him to put it away so he is playing by the same rules as everyone else. Wood Badge: ""Managing Conflict" You could sternly telling him to put it away, supported by the leaders (Scouts), although years have taught me telling is a poor second to convincing. I don't think it's a drastic situation, the rule-proponents do. Since it's drastic according to them and he just won't obey your rule, sending him home seems trivial. He's probably lost to Scouting at that point anyway. Or you can steal his device. He will remember that.

A "device" is not barred, as such, by the GTSS, so you observation, seems rather irrelevant. I am aware of the advice to seize devices "if" they may possibly have been used to take embarrassing photos. Your neck. Better be real sure. But that is not the case here. Here the rule is "No devices in camp." And I was giving general information on the legal implications of seizing the property of another to enforce such a rule. In any event and in all states, BSA cannot change the law of your state. So when BSA initially said under YPT we were required by BSA to only report child abuse to the council exec I pointed out that I would not obey that rule as I was duty-bound to report such evidence to law enforcement or Child Protection Services and would obey the law. I also suggested that they consider the PR implications of their rule when it became public. I was not thanked, but the YPT rules changed with stunning speed. The "ultimate responsibility" you posit also does not change state law. Have all the rules you want, just understand the criminal behavior involved in stealing to enforce an idiosyncratic rule. And how is stealing as an example? "Association with Adults – Scouts learn a great deal by watching how adults conduct themselves. Scout leaders can be positive role models for the members of their troops. In many cases a Scoutmaster who is willing to listen to the Scouts, encourage them, and take a sincere interest in them can make a profound difference in their lives." Only took it away temporarily? Only took the car to joy "ride"? Read the definition of "Theft above. Let's review: "No person, with purposes to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or otherwise exert control over property or services in any of the following ways: Without the consent of the owner, or the person authorized to give consent [by the court if the owner is a minor]..." Nothing about only taking it for awhile being OK, so the "hold to secure" argument is legally incompetent (ditto for, "I was only joy-riding.") The adult's lawyer may argue to the jury that the minor consented. And if he testifies that he was intimidated, the adult really needs a kid who is pretty big and mature-looking. Otherwise, you may be found to have deprived him of control over his device by "threat" or "intimidation" - also "Theft." The relevant "intent" (mens rea) is the intent ("purpose") to deprive the owner or lawful custodian of "control over [the] property." I forget a lot at my age. Here, I forgot nothing and neglected nothing. Want to argue our hypothetical adult did NOT have the statutory requisite intent when he took the kid's device? He was just clumsy? Again, thinking you are right is not a defense. This is the law. You cannot steal without risk of punishment just because you disagree with hundreds of years of law and feel righteous I am not sure if there are other countries where one could go and safely play the feudal lord in Scouting, with power of high and low justice. "Culture" can also be readily trumped by law, even where government cares little, one is never totally free of risk. Many steal and get away with it. for years (See "politician.") Then Mary Rose Oakar stole a piddling few $thousand more in postal stamps, got caught, and her sixteen-year career in Congress was over. Hike your own hike.

The State of Ohio can take possession of the motor vehicle they catch you driving without liability insurance and/or without a license only because the Legislature passed an act expressly authorizing such otherwise criminal seizures of private property. What is your authority in your state to seize a "device" because a kid broke YOUR rule (your "wrongly") by texting a buddy? Likely, zero, zip.,nada. No authorizing statute for you. (And, no, you are not "in loco parentis." You have no parental rights.) And no one can agree to the seizure by contract without official approval of the state court with jurisdiction over minors . Not the minor who is conclusively incompetent to enter into a contract without court approval in, IIRC, all states. And no, not even the parents who have no authority to contract on behalf of their children without court approval, in all states IIRC. Sure, in 99/100, one hopes, no criminal charge will be filed. When hope fails (hope being a questionable basis for assuming risk) and 100 rolls up, the cops will reluctantly take you to jail. NOT a nice place, jail. Unpleasant people; bad odors; loss of liberty. The sentence will probably be insignificant, unless it's not. You will probably get out with out posting cash or surety bond. The attorney's fees probably will be noticeable. The criminal record? Your future in Scouting? Media coverage (They are desperate, love bad stuff about Scout leaders, and "If it bleeds, it leads.")? Ohio Revised Code § 2913.02. [fairly typical] "No person, with purposes to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or otherwise exert control over property or services in any of the following ways: Without the consent of the owner, or the person authorized to give consent [by the court if the owner is a minor].. Beyond the scope of consent authorized by the owner or person authorized to give consent. By deception. By threat. By intimidation. Notice that wholesome motives or ignorance of the law is not a defense. "But" I'm a Scoutmaster and he broke my rule" is not worth the breath. So, if the "device" or "devices" are typical (looking at Amazon), there is, sorta', good news in Ohio: Theft of property valued under $1,000 is "only" a First Degree Misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 unforgettable days in jail and a fine of up to only $1000. But if the Ohio family really went all out, and the "device" or "devices" have a value of $1,000 - $7,000 (only $300 in Florida last time I looked) then - Why, Ted, tell the Scouter what's behind Door Number Two in Ohio: "If the value of the property or services stolen is at least $1,000 but less than $7,000, then a violation of this law is theft, a fifth degree felony." You face from six months to one year in jail or prison and/or a fine of not more than $2,500. And your homeowner's policy will not cover any liability from the follow-up civil action by the rapacious family because even if it has "off premises" coverage. ll. Liability for intentional wrongdoing is not insurable by law in all states, IIRC . The jury might be sympathetic when computing their verdict after the judge directs them that there is civil liability as a matter of law. Or not. Your lawyer will want to be paid. The parents can waive any right to sue in consideration of the troop agreeing that Jr. can come on the outing or to some other activity. But they can still sue on behalf of the child as "next friend" of the child - or get a court-appointed guardian ad litem, a partner at Gouge, Tear, and Rip, LLC, to bring a civil action. And if the little dear physically resists your theft? Get in a tussle, AKA "battery"? Not a great option. BSA would not approve. "Prohibited act." Just let them keep it , and send them home - if it's such a big deal to you. And why is it a big deal in 2019" BSA does not discourage "devices"in Scouting, as you have probably noticed. I mean, surely no one would sue McDonald's after spilling their Micky D's hot coffee on their own lap. No. Surely not. Never. The jury would laugh them out of court. It would NEVER award them $3,000,000 1992 Dollars in punitive damages. Right! Remember, Murphy was an optimist. If it could never go wrong, it still - on occasion - will go wrong.

And they need to learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff. THAT is a part of our objective, not, for example, botanical expertise. BSA literature should be subjected to the same standard as other sources: "Is it true?" For 25 years after the Virginia State Health Department almost shut down the 85 Jamboree for dangerous and illegal dish-washing practices, BSA failed to correct the Handbook's unhealthy instruction to (uselessly) put the chlorine in the hot first rinse - then after a few years of correct information, briefly went back to the wrong. Once the BSA cautioned in a publication not to drink water when thirsty, but to "suck on a pebble." Many more examples are out there if one cares to look. We are, none of us, perfect. Sure it's hard. If it were easy anyone could do it.

"Adult led and youth led" NOT SCOUTING AND SCOUTING.

Best source of information on nature, weather, cooking, skits, songs = the "device." "No, no, no" lists do not teach appropriate behavior,. Remember why we are doing this, even if some have forgotten. "A boy carries out suggestions more wholeheartedly when he understands their aim." "Correcting bad habits cannot be done by forbidding or punishment." "Trust should be the basis for all our moral training." "We never fail when we try to do our duty, we always fail when we neglect to do it." B-P

INCOMPETENCE WILL OUT.

BSA task groups operate in bubbles - apparently oblivious of the other bubbles or that there is a "business" to run with the primary objective being "youth served" ($$). There are dramatic contradictions within the same publication and between publications on the same topic.

The story goes that Bill was the unofficial quality/consistency control chief for BSA publications. But he's been gone from the office for over forty years and was not replaced - in fact, whatever the theory. So no one tells whoever did the online "Orientation for New Scout Parents" that this is horribly wrong: "Patrols are one component of what we call a youth-run or youth-led troop." Holy backwards, Batman!

By "leaders" you mean adults? If so, point out that adults have no vote in selecting leaders or selecting program per the Handbook and national policy, and get the PLC to call elections ASAP. (Do not refer to adults as "leaders." Words have power, They lead, but indirectly, and they are "Scouters," "adults," and/or "parents.") Scouts to be allowed to move between patrols. Patrols are to be largely self-selected. A troop is a collection of patrols, not a collection of Scouts. Patrols do not have to be "balanced" or meet some adult standard of neatness. Any kid without a couple of pals in his/her patrol will be inactive at best and likely will "vote with his or her feet." Teach, counsel and encourage patrols to have lots of independent activities. Require adults present to allow PLs to run patrol activities. Adults are there as safety monitors - not as leaders. Spend most of troop meeting time broken out as patrols. Lots of inter-patrol games and contests. Honor Patrol system - scoring set by PLC for desired behavior with some form of recognition/reward. Get the new PLC together on an outing to group-form the troop leadership team. The elected SPL needs to lead through the PLs to respect, acknowledge, and reinforce their authority - even more so when the adults relate with the leaders (Scouts). The patrols are the teams (everyone with a "position"). The troop is the league. Adults don't get to play, just "coach." Do not expect district , much less council, to help. Program generally is over their attention horizon. Stupid to so ignore the "product," but increasingly so for forty years with predictable results. You want citations of authority, just ask. They are handy as I am addressing a Commissioners' Conference on this crisis topic in a few weeks.

Leadership Development was, until recently, a "Method," rather than as Aim, but leadership dovetails nicely with citizenship. The judgement I got from the national head of training in 2014 was that BSA had not changed policy on the Patrol Method's centrality, but that those in charge had "misplaced" the Patrol Method out of (my word) ignorance. ("don't know what it is") Seeing that explaining the PM was an advancement requirement for the newish Scout rank, I asked BSA last year what the correct answer would be. They could not say. Beyond embarrassing, were they but capable of that..

The democracy in our Scouting is not parliamentary. The Scouts in the troop elect the SPL, not the "MPs." So there are no votes of confidence in Scouting. The PLC may change the election cycle. If, as is supposed to be the case, a Scout spends the great bulk of his/her Scouting time in Patrol activities, missteps by the SPL are less critical.

The Safety Bubble speaks: "Adult Supervision Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings. There must be a registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over must be present for any activity involving female youth. Notwithstanding the minimum leader requirements, age- and program-appropriate supervision must always be provided." "at" "present" "supervision" "provided" Clear as mud.

BSA allows adults to ignore the methods of Scouting as Scouting is secondary to other things that concern BSA. Indeed, BSA does nothing material to either recognize those who follow the Patrol method - Scouting - or to discourage noncompliance. So it's up to the volunteer adults and their integrity. Safety and ethical issues aside, Scouting provides that the patrol is to plan its program, and the PLC is to plan troop program. As adults, we are to teach, council, mentor and encourage to the end that the youth learn, through their practice of good citizenship in their patrols, and to a lesser extent, in the troops formed to support those patrols. to be good citizens when they are no longer under our thumb .

The B.S.A. has not trained adults or youth in the Patrol Method in a remotely coherent way for decades. Yet, to earn "Scout,' a youth member must explain the Patrol Method. ("3a. Explain the patrol method [sic]. Describe the types of patrols that are used in your troop.") A troop is a collection of patrols, not a group of scouts and scouters. According to BSA back when it coherently defined the Patrol Method, a scout was to primarily spend his ("his" then) time in a patrol context. This hint is still there if one recognizes it: “Scouting happens in the context of a patrol.” B.S.A., Scoutmaster Position Specific Training, 2019 (current syllabus) Or this: "“Patrols will sometimes join with other patrols to learn skills and complete advancement requirements.” B.S.A., Scouting.org (2018)[emphasis added]. So the bulk of a troop meeting is to be devoted to patrol activity, such as learning Scoutcraft as patrols or preparing as patrols for future activities in the patrol, with other patrols, or in the troop - competitions, hikes, campouts. Do allow some time for "troop corners." The Patrol Method provides that a patrol is a team, with each member having a job, and that the patrol activities are planned democratically by the members of the patrol. There is no exception for members who do not plan to participate, but the benefits of compulsory participation in democracy are not obvious. One might ask why a member of a team is disinterested in having input into its activities - activities that are is supposed to constitute most of his (or her) time in Scouting. Have they figured out that it is time wasted? (Prize for mest new idea for ______ ?) The Patrol Method provides that troop activities are planned by the Patrol Leaders' Council, chaired by the Senior Patrol Leader and with the patrol leaders representing their respective patrol members. The Scoutmaster has no vote. He typically has influence. The objective - the Scouters' objective - is training the youth in citizenship and leadership by doing, not fantastic program. Safety aside, the youth will, and are allowed to, make what adults may think are mistakes and to learn from those mistakes. “Adults understand that their role is to create a safe place where boys can learn and grow and explore and play and take on responsibilities—and fail, and get up and try again. B.S.A., Orientation for New Scout Parents (2019) “Never do for a Scout what he can do for himself.” "To what standard?" "Why to a boy's standard." Bill Then there is this other thing going on.

My troop in 1954 had Bahai, Buddhists (i.e. atheists) , Jains, followers of varieties of Shinto, Muslims, and every variety of Christian I knew of - troop of military dependants for the most part. Look what our young service member brought home. B.S.A. is a big tent, and if there is no room for Wiccans, worshippers of Pele, Ra and Thor, then all B.S.A. has said for decades is hypocrisy. In those days, we had a uniform - one shirt SS/ one shirt LS/ one shorts/ one trousers. Everyone wore the troop neckerchief and the overseas cap. If in shorts, one wore OD knee socks and garters with green flashes. A uniform.