bullying incident

[yaworski]

"they tell inappropriate jokes without checking for a potentially appreciative audience (my husband still does this, but I hope to break him of it before Social Security checks begin)"

 

This may constitute sexual harassment. You husband should seek professional help.

 

 

[evmori]

Excellent posts OGE.

 

Still never got my questions answered if the younger Scout provoked the older Scout's response.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Twocubdad]

(Inadvertent double post)(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Bob White]

Ed,

I am curious as to what bearing any provocation on the victims part has in this case. The offending scout was keeping the victims property. If someone stole your wallet and you demanded it back in the strongest of terms, at what point does that you make you the criminal? Also at what point does your your opinion of the offender relinquish them of their responsibility to behave in a an appropriate manner.

 

Had the the older scout not taken property that wasn't his, or had he returned it when asked would this event have even taken place?

 

What could the younger scout have possibly said that could have robbed the older boy of his free will. He chose the assaulting words and actions, no one put them in his mouth and made him say them. Anything beyond "thanks for letting me use your chair" was a bad choice...HIS bad choice.

 

Or am I missing somthing that would exonerate this boy?

[Rooster7]

I doubt if Ed is looking to completely exonerate the boy of guilt. Every good judge looks at extenuating circumstances. Provocation is not an excuse for bad behavior, but it should be considered when one is pondering a consequence for the said offender (i.e., the difference between first and second degree murder).

[Bob White]

Rooster7,

I believe that courts long ago stopped giving weight to the "but he(she) asked for it" defense. Can you imagine a mugger saying to a judge "I didn't mean to steal her purse but she provoked me." Even second degree murder by definition does not base its charge on provocation. Here is a definition from a law lexicon.

In order for someone to be found guilty of second degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.

so you see provocation by the victim is not even mentioned.

 

Can you image this defense? "It was self-defense Your Honor. The boy tried to take back his chair that I took." "All I wanted was to keep his property but he provoked me!"

 

Anyway you cut it the owner of the chair was the victim. Any action he took was caused by the older boy taking and refusing to return the scouts property. Is it any wonder that boys are hesitant to talk t adults if we are going to look for guilt within the victim.

 

Bob White

[Twocubdad]

Except in Texas where "He needed killin'" is an affirmative, legal defense.

 

(A joke, just a joke. Please, no angry pro-Texas posts.)

[Bob White]

2funny2cubdad

[Rooster7]

Bob White,

 

Are you saying there's no difference between these two scenarios?

 

Scenario #1: A boy is done an injustice of some kind. He loses his temper and strikes out at the perceived perpetrator.

 

Scenario #2: A boy notices the vulnerability of another. He gleefully exploits it and strikes out at the said boy for his mere amusement.

 

Both scenarios happen everyday. However, there is no question in my mind that there is a distinction to be drawn between the two. Almost any boy is capable of striking out given scenario #1. In scenario #2, few boys exercise this kind of cruelty, but alas it happens all too often. If in maai's situation, the said boy acted without any provocation and was tormenting the boy to satisfy his own depraved desire to see another person suffer, I would deal with it harshly. If the boy was provoked by some previous incident, then I think his reaction needs to be weighed against that backdrop. It doesn't excuse the behavior. Yet, one should consider the boy's state of mind and his motive.

 

The courts do consider provocation and motive. A premeditated murder committed out of greed is not treated the same as a spontaneous murder committed out of passion. Our law recognizes that we are human beings, and as such sometimes we fall prey to our emotions and circumstance. Judges have sentencing guidelines because they are allowed to weigh such factors. I'm suggesting that a troop's leadership should be mindful of the same.

 

[Bob White]

But rooster7

 

If someone steals your property and you strike out against him then he is the provoker not you.

 

If someone pulls a knife and threatens you, Is there anyhting you can do or say that after he stabbed you he could turn to a judge and say "well he provoked me!"

 

I would hope you would agree that offender created the situation. From that point on he alone is responsible for the outcome.

 

Bob White

[Rooster7]

By all accounts, I agree that the older boy is guilty of taking property without permission, and later he was obviously trying to intimidate the younger boy. These two events are givens. The question posed by Ed and others was, "Is it possible that the first boy did something preceding either of those events to provoke the older boy?" You've made a natural assumption. If something pertinent occurred before the property was taken or just prior to the older boy behaving as he did, one would expect/assume maai would have presented that information in his first post. It may well be true that this assumption is valid. Nevertheless, it's still an assumption. All of your statements presume that there is nothing more to this story than what's been presented. In the end, you may be right. But, before a troop or anyone else recommends that a boy's membership be revoked, I think it's fair and responsible to ask these questions. A troop should be prudent and make sure they have the complete story. I don't think that's unreasonable.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Bob White]

rooster7,

 

I do not disagree at all that the scout may have said or done something at any point to his offender. What I strongly disagree with is the the use of the term or the idea of "provocation".

 

The offending boy of his own choice and free will took property that was not his, kept property that was not his and made lewd and sexual comments and forced lewd action on another person. You cannot be provoked to do that. You either CHOOSE or choose not to do that. The offender chose his actions. Whatever his reasoning for choosing them does not legitimize them.

 

If the victim did anything unscoutlike then that is to his own personal detriment and reflects only to his own behaviour, but it does not reduce the inappropriate behaviour of the offending boy.

 

Bob

[Rooster7]

Bob White,

 

I never said that "provocation" would legitimize the behavior of the older boy. That was never implied by anyone.

 

No one disagrees that the behavior was inappropriate. Yet, I do not agree that the "same" misbehavior should always be treated the same. In my examples below, both boys took the same action. Both boys lashed out at someone else. Would you treat these boys the same? Your previous comments suggest that you would.

 

Scenario #1: A boy is done an injustice of some kind. He loses his temper and strikes out at the perceived perpetrator.

 

Scenario #2: A boy notices the vulnerability of another. He gleefully exploits it and strikes out at the said boy for his mere amusement.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[OldGreyEagle]

We cannot say what occurred between the two boys, but if the older boy had been provoked, even just a little, wouldnt he have said so when the adults talked to him that night? From the account given the older boy was pretty free with his information on what happened. He said he was messing with the younger kids mind, and admitted all the acussed behavior, nothing close to, "well, he made me!!!"

 

If the younger one did anything unscoutlike, that should be dealt with as well, but given what we have to go on, I dont think he did.

[Bob White]

I never said that "provocation" would legitimize the behavior of the older boy. That was never implied by anyone

 

Your right Rooster. What has been implied though is that provocation would lessen the punishment of the the offending boy.

 

My point is that his actions were totally his own, provoked or not, and must stand on there own. He did what he did and his punishment need only be based on that.

 

How can you provoke someone to steal your chair? How can you provoke someone someone to to say the things this scout said. What could any one have done to make him choose the phrases and actions he chose. The older boy had the other scouts property that is the provoking action, not the younger scout demanding it back in whatever terms he chose to use. It was his property he has a right to defend it. How can provocation be done by the offended party?

 

It has been implied that the younger scout asked for it. How does one ask to have his property taken? "I dare you to not give it back to me?"

 

If the younger scout did anything or sais anything that was unscoutlike to get his property returned you might have an argument that his was provoked by the theft. But how does the guy who took it get to blame the scout?

 

To say "we still don't know if the younger scout did anything to provoke the situation." harkens back to the days when men who molested women would say, "but look how she dresse, she asked for it" Provocative behavior is not related to the crime. The person makes the choice to ignore the provocation or take an action. This older boy took action and his offense is his alone. The actions of the scout are immaterial.

 

Bob