clemlaw

As others have pointed out, the McDonald's coffee case is a poor example if you want to show how the tort system has run amok. I don't recall the exact facts of the case, but the coffee that was served was too hot to drink, and it caused severe injury to the woman. I once had coffee spilled on my lap due to the gross negligence and reckless conduct of Northwest Airlines. (And the little brat in the seat in front of me who kept rocking his seat back and forth which caused it to spill.) But I didn't sue Northwest Airlines, and I didn't sue the little monster in the seat in front of me (the poster child for umbrella policies). The reason I didn't sue them is because Northwest Airlines apparently figured out that if you serve coffee on a moving airplane, there is a good chance that eventually, some coffee will get spilled. Therefore, they served it at a temperature that was hot enough to drink, but not enough to give people third degree burns in the genitals if it happens to land there. If you hand coffee out the window to people in a vehicle that's going to be moving, it's reasonable to expect that some of that coffee will wind up on top of someone's genitals. So it's not unreasonable to me that if you hand them near boiling liquid, you can expect to be sued when it gets spilled. In my case, since the coffee wasn't dangerously hot, no harm was done. If I weren't the good-natured person that I am, maybe I would have stormed up to the gate agent after the flight and demanded that they pay my dry cleaning bill. But since I was wearing jeans, I couldn't really even do that. I suppose I endured a small amount of embarassment as I walked through the airport looking like I had wet my own pants, but I probably couldn't have sued successfully for that trivial embarassment. But if I had gotten third-degree burns to my genitals, you can bet that I would have sued them into bankruptcy. But that's not what happened. It didn't happen because someone had enough sense to realize that it's not a good idea to hand cups of boiling liquid to people in a moving vehicle.

>>>>>>>BP, along with what you said, I would give a written statement outlining a non-all inclusive list of risks associated with any event or outing that the scouts may participate in and have a waiver of liability signed by the parents and notarized

>>>>I would not see a big problem with someone earning Eagle without Swimming MB -- they still have to pass the Second and First Class swimming requirements.

Why? Because occasionally, someone will tell you that you're doing a pretty good job. Oh, and some of the kids will probably turn out a little bit better due to your efforts. A while back, someone posted an oft-reprinted essay. It wasn't talking about a Scouter who had turned out the next Einstein. It was wondering what would have happened if Hitler had been in Scouting. Maybe he would have learned how to get along with people who were different from him, and inspired by his Painting MB counselor, gone on to earn a modest living selling his paintings. Nobody would have ever heard of him, and nobody would have bothered to thank his Scout leaders. By the way, it sounds like you're doing a pretty good job!

>>>>>Dying while on a hike (to use a recent event) is a life-altering (albeit ending) event. ... Personally, the only difference I see between Patrol Led and Adult Led is safety.

You should never utter the two words "no comment", especially if a camera is rolling in the general vicinity. Even if a camera is not rolling, it gets rendered by the reporter as "____ refused to comment on the air." But if you are seen uttering those two words on the air, the public generally interprets this as "I am guilty". If you really must, the words to politely utter are something like, "I really want to talk to you, but our lawyers said that any requests should go through them." Then, give them the lawyer's phone number. When asked follow up questions, politely repeat the same phrase, ad nauseum. They will, of course, pick the one where you sounded most nervous, but they'll only show you saying it once. When you say this, it really doesn't make good television, so they probably won't even air it. But if they do, it looks like you're the victim of those #@$#*# lawyers. If you just say "no comment", you wind up looking like Nixon, with something juicy to cover up. It makes great (but short) television. It's not quite as good as putting your hand over the camera lens, but it's close.

I don't know for sure, but to be on the safe side, I'd probably set it _near_ the fire for a few minutes before burying it in a bunch of hot coals or putting a bunch of hot charcoal on top of it. But it will probably be OK. Even in hot weather, you're probably changing the outside temperature by several hundred degrees, so an extra 50 degrees or whatever probably won't hurt. But still, right from the ice to the fire is probably a bad idea!

>>>>>So to say that people who were Scouts in the 70's "have little to no expereince on how the program was meant to be", I think is really not correct.

I was assuming that the trail head was within the fee area of a Park, where they would have interacted with a ranger at least to pay the fee. But even if the trailhead is unattended, I think that photo would be the most powerful thing to show the jury, since it probably looks like a rest area on the side of a public highway, with parking lot and signs, and probably trash cans and outhouse. (And the trailhead 20 miles away, where they must have had a car parked, probably looked the same.) Chances are, they met other people on the trail that day, and they were probably all just individuals not connected with any organized group. In short, they were probably just availing themselves of a recreational activity, the same way that other members of the public were doing. While this case was certainly tragic, it doesn't sound like the kind of thing that would call for a professional guide or someone with any high level of expertise. On the other hand, if the trail was absolutely empty of other people that day, that would be a pretty powerful thing to tell the jury, because it means those people had the sense to stay home.

>>>>the scout law is developing character and every right decision a person makes requires some combination of those traits

>>>>>>They don't believe that advancement, skill, and character can develop when adults aren't teaching it.

Just out of curiousity, because I'm not able to view the video right now. Did this take place on an established trail that was marked and/or maintained by some agency such as the National Park Service or National Forest Service? That certainly wouldn't be the only factor, but it is something that I would consider as a juror, especially if they had checked in with a ranger or someone in charge before setting off. (Of course, if the ranger had said that it was too hot a day to be hiking on that trail, then that would be an even more relevant factor, IMHO.) Clearly, that's not the only factor. Obviously, a trail might be unsafe due to particular weather conditions, so it's not the same as walking around at the mall. But that would be a pretty big factor for me--these Scouts were members of the public out using a facility that is open to the general public, and were subject to the same risks as other members of the public.

The online training is actually pretty good for TDL. Interestingly, through a mixup on my part, I accidentally took the same course twice--once in person, and then again online. For me, with some experience in Scouting, I got more out of the in-person course, because the course didn't follow an outline too closely, and it mostly consisted of other leaders bouncing ideas off each other. But still, the online training was pretty good, and an absolute newbie probably would have learned a lot more from that format than from the live course I attended. I don't know if it's available on DVD, but I was thinking that when it comes time to train my replacement next year, the best way to handle it would be to sit down and watch that video with them, and then answer their questions. (Unfortunately, I don't know if that would qualify to get them officially trained, which would mean that they would have to watch the video a second time on their own computer.) A small book that covered that exact same material is a good idea, but I'm not aware of one. Also, the phonebook sized book isn't bound, so you can take out the pages for Tiger meetings and give those to the new leader in a binder. It looks a whole lot less intimidating that way.

>>>>I understand where you are coming from but my point is simply that the facts of the allegations don't matter to answer the question asked.

He probably expected an answer like, "fill out form 12333-Z in triplicate and mail it to Irving." Instead, he got a philosophical discussion of which levels of murder would be appropriate for filling out that form. I suspect no murder was involved in this particular case.

Oh, it sounds like he's doing a great job, and there are many ways to recruit. But I'm just suggesting that if you sent out a mailing to every Eagle Scout age 22-40 in a particular set of Zip codes, I bet a pretty high percentage of them would call back and say that they would be happy to do it. If I had gotten such a letter, there were a few occasions when I would have said that I was just too busy. But most of the time, I would have jumped at the chance to help out. Should I have done this myself without being asked? Yes. But I didn't, and I bet there are a lot of people in the same boat as me. It's definitely not the only way to do the job. But I suspect it would add a lot of names to the MBC list with very minimal work. And yes, you might get a couple of town drunks this way, but probably not many more than you would get using other methods. And presumably the BSA does have paid staff who make sure that the background checks get done to weed them out.

>>>>It's the District Advancement Chairman's job!!!

>>>>>That is what your District Advancement should do for you in organizing the MBC's.

>>>>>I am not a practicioner of "in-troop only" counseling; the kids learn our buttons. It's a better Adult Association process for them to meet a stranger, it will equip them for the job interview when they are 16.) So to me, it's COUNSEL what you enjoy, ENJOY what you counsel.

Honestly, the chances of a Scout leader's being called as a witness to testify as to a confession, while theoretically possible, are pretty close to zero. Realistically, the only way that it's going to happen is if the person hearing the confession approached the police or prosectutor. Again, it's a theoretical possibility, but as a practical matter, it ain't gonna happen. And even if it does happen, IMHO, it's just a natural consequence of the youth's behavior. If the scout takes responsibility for his actions and confesses, then it seems to me that he really ought to face the criminal consequences for his behavior. Yes, I am assuming that the Scout is guilty of the offense he is charged with, at least partially. If he's not, then it's an easy case. He just tells the SM and the EBOR that he is absolutely innocent of the charges against him. It was a case of mistaken identity: He didn't have a single drop to drink that night. If that's what happened, then the case is very easy. But if the Scout was drinking while under age, and/or he was driving after drinking any amount of alcohol, then he needs to face up to that behavior, __whether or not__ he was arrested or charged with it. While very unlikely, it's possible that taking responsibility for his behavior within Scouting might have a negative impact on his criminal case. If that is true, then he has to decide which is more important--making Eagle, or reducing the criminal penalties. That's the Scout's decision to make. If you were on the EBOR, which would you find more compelling: "I pleaded guilty because I was guilty", or "they weren't able to convict me, because I kept silent, as was my right, and my lawyer was able to show that the breathalyzer might not have been properly calibrated." Or, "I was drinking at the party, but I was acquitted, because I was slightly below the legal limit for DUI." I wouldn't take anything away from the Scout who was aquitted. But the Scout who pleaded guilty and took responsibility for his actions, I would probably be more inclined to believe that he learned from this experience and won't repeat it. The Scout who was acquitted, or who wasn't caught in the first place, will have more 'splaining to do about how he has gotten past this incident. (This message has been edited by clemlaw)

>>>>If the merit badge counselor list is not published how are Scoutmasters going to find you anyway? >No, he wasn't undercover.

I noticed on scouting.org that the MB counselor training I took a few months ago showed up on my record, so I ought to send in a MB counselor application to the council. I don't want to spread myself too thin, so I'm wondering what MB's I should make myself available for. I looked through the requirements, and I'm competent to counsel a number of them. The actual list of counselors is not published, so I can't just browse through and see where they're lacking. For the next five years or so, my main involvement with Scouting will be as a Cub Scout leader, so I'm not connected with any particular troop. So my name would just be on the list for individual Scouts to call, which I understand is getting less and less common. (I was kind of surprised when I took the training that out of about 20 other people, I was the only one who wasn't there on behalf of a single troop.) Which of the following do you think there's a particular need for? American Heritage American Cultures My undergraduate degree is in History, so I suppose I ought to know something about these subjects. Electronics Radio I'm an amateur radio operator, so Radio is probably the one I would be most interested in counseling. However, one of our summer council camps offers this MB (with a broadcasting emphasis, rather than amateur radio). That strikes me as kind of a strange thing to be doing at summer camp, but it does mean that it's available to many Scouts in the council. Someone who works in the electronics industry would probably be a better counselor for Electronics, but everything the merit badge requires is well within my skill level. Law I'm a lawyer, although I'm not particularly excited about counseling it. I never got it as a youth--one of the parents in my troop was a lawyer, but before I got around to signing up for it, he got sent to federal prison. Actually, there's a pretty good chance that I'll tell the Scouts, "this law thing isn't all it's cracked up to be. Keep up your grades so that you can get into engineering school." But learning that bit of wisdom might be worth getting the badge. Scouting Heritage Even if I'm not the counselor, I can still be one of the former scouts over 50 that they need to interview. Coin Collecting Stamp Collecting I was quite the numismatist and philatelist in my younger day, and Coin Collecting was my first merit badge as a Tenderfoot, so it has a special spot for me. I really don't have much to do with either these days, although I still always go through the change in my pocket, and carefully inspect stamps on the mail I receive. In addition, by virtue of being a former Scout myself, I'm probably competent to counsel most of the required MB's (e.g., Citizenships), and most of the "Scoutcraft" MB's (Camping, Cooking, etc.) But I'm guessing that those are taken care of pretty well within the troops and at council camps. As a Scout, there were a couple of MB's that I might have been interested in, but wasn't able to get because there wasn't a counselor readily available. So I'm most interested in filling in any of those kinds of gaps. And unless there was some strong particular need, I'm not interested in conducting "classes" in any of these subjects. I'll probably ask around the council as well, but I'm wondering what thoughts you guys have.

Well, there are two things going on. First of all, he presumably engaged in a certain behavior, namely, drinking when he was under-aged, and then driving. Hypothetically, let's say that he showed up at his EBOR and announced, "I got drunk last night, drove home, and didn't get caught!" I think most of us agree that's something that should be taken into consideration (although you would have to give him extra credit for being trustworthy). The fact that he got caught and that there were criminal consequences is a separate issue. And I agree that the mere fact that he got caught and faces criminal charges really doesn't matter unless and until he is convicted. And even then, in my opinion, it's of secondary importance. But whether or not he is convicted, the fact of this behavior is something that can legitimately be considered. Again, I don't think it's a deal breaker, but it is something to be considered. One factor that I think is relevant is how this matter came to light. If the Scout came to his Scoutmaster or leader and 'fessed up out of the blue, then I think just doing that goes a long way to establish his integrity. Again, there are a thousand things like that that I would probably consider, so I doubt if we're going to come up with a definitive answer here on the internet.

I generally agree with the posts here saying that this should have an effect on whether or not the scout becomes Eagle. I really can't say exactly what that effect should be, because that is extremely fact-intensive, and I doubt if we can get enough facts to hash it out on the internet. But I did have one comment: >>>>One problem we have is they way people see DUI. People don't see DUI as a serious crime.

Well, the case of "I did it so I wouldn't get sued" was decided by a judge, but if there had been a jury, I bet they would have ruled the same way. Yes, there are many cases that could go either way, so perhaps drama is the deciding factor in some cases. But some cases are dramatic for a reason. If the defendant's negligence is of dramatic proportions, then you really can't blame the jury for being swayed by drama. And if the defendant is busy taking down tents when he should be heading for the hospital, you really can't blame the plaintiff's lawyer for making the jury aware of these dramatic facts. Jurors typically take their jobs seriously and do a good job. But when a reporter comes along and writes a hundred words implying that some particular jury did not do so, this is the one time when everyone forgets that they distrust The Media almost as much as they distrust lawyers, and they believe every last word that's written in the newspaper.