Unpleasant Story

[eisely]

For youth protection to work, parents need to know about it. This will be an interesting story to follow.

 

This story is pasted in from a gay publication called Planet Out. Associated Press is also carrying the story.

__________

 

Boy Scout leader accused of molestation

Mon Dec 2, 7:10 PM ET Add Community - Planet Out to My Yahoo!

 

 

Christopher Lisotta, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network

 

SUMMARY: A Boy Scout leader in Brevard County, Fla., has been charged with molesting three pre-teens from his Titusville troop.

 

 

 

A Boy Scout leader in Brevard County, Fla., has been charged with molesting three pre-teens from his Titusville troop.

 

 

Robert King, 50, is being held on $75,000 bail after the Titusville Police picked him up on Sunday for exposing himself and showing the boys gay pornography.

 

 

King, who is married, invited at least five boys to his home on Friday, telling them they were going to build a Christmas float. That evening one of the boy's parents contacted police about King.

 

 

According to Titusville police spokesman John Lau, King admitted to authorities he exposed himself to the boys and showed them pornography.

 

 

King was arrested on Saturday and appeared in court on Sunday, where he was charged with lewd and lascivious molestation and exposure of sexual organs. While the exposure charge is a misdemeanor, the molestation charge is a first-degree felony in Florida, and has a maximum sentence of 30 years and up to a $10,000 fine.

 

 

Besides the criminal case, the Central Boy Scouts Council, which serves Brevard County, is also launching its own investigation of the case.

 

 

Just days before King's arrest, Boy Scouts of America (BSA) spokesman Gregg Shields announced the group will require all new adult volunteers to undergo a criminal background check.

 

 

"We have as our highest goal to protect the children involved in Boy Scouting," Shields said to the Associated Press. "To date, it's been difficult to do such a background check because all of the data is not in one spot."

 

 

Potential volunteers would be prohibited from working with the BSA if the checks turn up convictions for sex crimes, crimes of violence or drug offenses. The new program would not have made a difference in the King incident, since it is not scheduled to include checks for current volunteers. But Shields noted before the incident in Brevard County that background checks could be required of all volunteers currently working with the BSA.

 

 

Brevard County officials have not released information about King's prior record.

 

The Boy Scouts, which bans both atheists and gay men from working or volunteering with the organization, has stuck to its position despite protests from outside groups and protestors within the organization.

 

"The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices," the organization said in a February 2002 statement.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you'd like to know more, you can find stories related to Boy Scout leader accused of molestation.

[SR540Beaver]

Hey Eisley, congrats!!! You just hit your 1,000th post! (This message has been edited by kwc57)

[eisely]

I really wasn't looking at the number of posts. Although others have passed me in number of posts, I do claim the distinction of being the first "senior member" of the forum (I think).

[OldGreyEagle]

Eisely, you were here when I started

[evmori]

eisley,

Where do you find this stuff?????

 

I know you were here before me.

 

Sounds like they got the goods on this guy and hopefully in time before anyone got hurt.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[sctmom]

The article doesn't answer an important question. Would the background check have caught this guy?

 

I'm all for the background checks to weed out anyone with sex crimes in the past. This guy needs to be kept away from children and needs some serious help. Can people who commit sex crimes ever really be "cured"?

 

I think other threads have addressed the issues of what about the person with a drug or violence conviction 20 years ago and nothing else on their record. A friend was telling me about her sister's new boyfriend (40-ish year old man). The man has a past history of domestic violence and served some time for some other crime. Yet, during his prison stay he learned about controlling his anger and how to control his life. He served his time and now is a calm person who holds down a steady job and shows no signs of domestic violence. I think we may all know people like this. The ones who really did learn from their mistake and turn their life around. Are we going to lose good volunteers because of this?

 

Also, someone else mentioned than even accusations can show up on your background check. If your neighbor gets mad at you, then can report you to Children Services and say you abuse your children. That can show up on background checks for jobs. If Children Services contacts you, they will probably explain the situation they are investigating but I've heard they don't have to. They do NOT tell you who called them. I've heard of some people never knowing there was a report until it shows up on a job background check.

 

My son decided one time that he could get attention by telling the school counselor that his father made him go to bed without supper the night before. I got a visit from Children Services, even though we were divorced at the time. The report was on both of us. Finally pieced things back together. The boy had eaten supper that night. Children Services dropped the whole thing as a misunderstanding. My son learned that he could get attention by saying "dad didn't feed me". Finally got him to understand "dad didn't feed me" and "I refused to eat what dad fixed" were two different things! And being fed something you don't like is NOT child abuse!

 

 

[acco40]

Background checks are not the answer. Following the youth protection guidelines is the answer. To make sure the guidelines are followed, all parents and youth should be aware of the major points, for example two deep leadership. With two deep leadership the chances of molestation and exposure go way way down.

 

I agree 100% with eisley's comments, for youth protection to work parents (and scouts) need to know about it.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[OldGreyEagle]

Background checks are not supposed to be a panacea, they will not prevent these types of incidents.

 

Background checks are to find out that the new assistant scoutmaster applicant who just moved to town was convicted of child molestation in the state five over from you.

 

Background checks will be part of the Youth Proctection Program, it's not supposed to be the entire program.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

I think the problem with this story is that it takes a very simple and tragic event -- the (alleged) molestation of Scouts by a Scouter -- and relates it to 2 things that it does not necessarily have any relationship to.

 

One of those things is the ban on "gay leaders", which of course is the common shorthand for what the "policy" REALLY is: A ban on OPENLY gay leaders. There is no suggestion in the story that this guy was openly gay, there are clues in the story that he probably is not, and I strongly suspect that if he was, the story would just say it. So this guy (if we accept that he is considered "gay" at all) did exactly what the BSA wanted him to do: He kept his predelictions secret, and I am sure was a great model for the value of heterosexuality that the BSA holds so dear. Until he molested these boys, that is. Way to go, BSA.

 

The second issue that should not be in this story is the one about criminal background checks. There is no suggestion whatsoever in the story that this guy has a criminal record, if you don't count the comment that the writer was unable to determine whether he did or not. If he never did this before, or never got reported before (probably more likely), a background check would not have helped. Sctmom, I do not think that mere reports will show up on the kind of background checks the BSA is talking about -- at least I hope they won't. I have had 2 experiences similar to yours with one of my children, and the "offhand comment" involved there was more serious than a lack of food.

 

I agree with eisely and the others who have said that Youth Protection is the key here. (And notice, that is NOT mentioned in the story, and should be.) Were the parents ever told what the YP policies are? When their son told them that he was going to the Scoutmaster's house, did the parent ask which TWO adults were going to be there? Interestingly, one of the concepts behind YP, no one-on-one, actually seems to have worked to some extent in this case, but unfortunately only to the extent of catching the bad guy after the fact, and not as a protective device as it is intended. While the story is somewhat sketchy, it appears that this guy did some things with boys in a group, which resulted in him being caught, and will provide verification so it is not one Scout's word against the leader. What I am unclear on is the charge of molestation; is the exposure and the pornography considered molestation, or was there some other act that is not specifically mentioned? And was that with one boy in the presence of others, or was he actually alone with one of the boys? This story would be a better "lesson" about YP if those questions were answered. Maybe the parents thought it would be "ok" because the boys were going in a group, and the answer to this mystery would shed light on why that assumption turned out to be incorrect.

 

(I guess I'm practicing, I recently took YP facilitator training and one of these days we are going to schedule a training session for the parents in our pack.)

[eisely]

Every time I see a story about this kind of situation, or about a scout getting hurt at an event, there are always unanswered questions. The reporters and editors are writing news stories and under the best of circumstances have to be brief. In my opening comment I was implicitly inferring that YP was not followed, but we really do not know.

[SR540Beaver]

NJCub,

 

Gay or not, he is a pedophile. We only know that he exposed himself to the boys which would lead some to believe he is a gay pedophile. He may have done the same thing to girls at a different setting or time and was just never called on it. Regardless of what his gender preference is, he is a pedophile.

 

The background checks are not any kind of guarantee and are not meant to be. They are just another tool to help in trying to prevent people like this from becoming BSA leaders. Many people who commit sexual crimes do so for years before they are caught. While he may have passed a background check with flying colors 2, 4, 6 or more years ago, he won't anymore. The background check will only help once he has actually been caught which unfortunately means that someone has to be a victim. But since none of us can see the future, it is the best we can do.

[evmori]

I know this is off the subject but I couldn't let it go. Not feeding your kid is not child abuse! Neither is spanking your kid for doing something wrong! Child abuse is beating your kid, delibertely burning your kid, locking your kid in a room for a week, etc. I think are turning child abuse into something it isn't!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[sctmom]

Ed,

I think most of us agree with you but some don't. Some people look for "little signs" such as the kid saying "I didn't eat supper" or "I didn't take a bath last night" or "daddy hit me" and blow it out of proportion. That is the problem with "zero tolerance" type rules in some cases. An accusation can be made by anyone and stay on your record even if you are not guilty. Your neighbor can get mad at you over something trivial and decide to report you as a child abuser because they heard your child screaming.

 

 

When my child was about 3 years old he starting crying in the mall. My husband and I were juggling packages and the ice creams we just bought, trying to calm him down and figure out what was suddenly wrong. A lady come up and started yelling at us, saying "did you hit that child? he sounds like you hit him!"

We really thought she was going to get the cops. Why was he crying? We said he wanted an ice cream, we got him one. He really wanted a milk shake, but he didn't know the words for it and his grandparents had been calling milk shakes "ice cream".

 

Things aren't always as they appear.

 

[evmori]

sctmom,

So what if you did hit your child? You are allowed as long as you don't take it too far. There are times a good crack on the butt in public is necessary! I know when I was a kid & I got out of line in public, my mom would give me a swift whack & I was back in line faster than you can say the Outdoor Code!

 

I would rather see parents give their kid a whack instead of letting them whine & cry & ruin everyone else's time!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[KoreaScouter]

My law enforcement experience goes back 26 years, and while criminal background checks will help on two levels (catching those with records and discouraging those with records from applying), it is definitely not a complete solution. I mentioned in another post that there are many personality and behavioral traits that would disqualify someone from being a Scout leader, that will not show up in a criminal background check.

 

Two points are underscored here, I think. For the SM and committee, know who's walking in your door. That gets more difficult all the time as we become a more mobile society, but more important, too. Second, try to get the CO to do their job, too. They have to sign all adult applications (except MB counselors). Does your COR actually meet applicants, for example? Leaders need to lead.

 

As an aside, there is a more or less ongoing debate about removing porn from overseas military exchanges. I don't know where the debate is right now, but the porn publishers were all saying their publications were an "outlet" that prevented assaults and incidents. If that's true, why does it seem that every pedophile arrested also has a houseful of kiddie porn? Maybe it's the other way around...

 

KS