evmori Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Do I think this is an unethical defense? Since I don't know all the facts I really can't answer that question. The only info I have read about this suit is what you posted from an editorial. My question is what is the difference between this defense & the defense the ACLU has used to attack the BSA in their cases? Nothing. Both are attacking styles. Sorta like your style, Merlyn! Attack & pay no attention to the facts! Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted May 12, 2006 Author Share Posted May 12, 2006 Well Ed, if you think the BSA's blaming the victim is the same as the ACLU pointing out that public schools can't charter discriminatory units is "the same", I'm certainly not going to bother explaining how one is reprehensible and the other is supporting the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CA_Scouter Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 I'm with Eamonn. This is truly a sad case, and I feel horribly for the young man. I truly help something good comes out of this, so that he can get the proper treatment and counseling. I'm a little troubled by the apparant 'glee' the original poster seems to show here. It would seem he is exploiting this sad case solely to cast dispersions on the BSA, and imply that the BSA uses this tactic ( or similar tactics ) in all cases. I do agree, however, that the lawyer acting on behalf of the BSA is behaving badly ( I don't want to get into a war of words here... unethical, immoral, acting like a slimy little pig, whatever, you choose... ). I'm also upset that the local/national council would permit such a tactic. Bad choice. I've seen several instances lately where lawyers use the 'blame the victim' defense - its not limited to the BSA. The Duke lacrosse team incident comes to mind... the ongoing problem with some priests, etc.. where's the outrage there? I also question the posters motives here.. its obviously not to convince us to quit the BSA, he knows that won't happen, its seems more of an attempt to provoke a response... kinda a 'nyah, nyah' thing. I am willing to debate all manner of topics concerning the BSA, but this kind of thing just doesn't merit debate. Its bad. Period. I think I need to take a shower now... :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 This case, suing the BSA, as well as the original case against the referenced Scoutmaster is all new to me. Also, I'm definitely no law expert. However, if the boy did have consensual sex with the Scoutmaster, I think the BSA is saying how could they, as an organization, have helped prevent it? I don't think they are claiming, as the NY Post states, that the victim is to blame. Look at it this way. I have the legal authority and responsibility to protect my minor children. However, if my minor child has consensual sex with one of his high school teachers, at school, is the parent to blame? Is the child? Is the teacher? Is the school? My view for legal blame would be no (parent), no (child), yes (teacher), and yes (school). In the New York case, the BSA is sort of in the role of the parent. Now, for an off the wall question, how can the CO be both a church and a synogogue? (I interpreted "based" as in Troop 666, a group based in a church and synagogue on the Upper East Side as meaning the Charter Organization is a church and synagogue.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 I would see the role of the BSA as more of the role of the school. The parents are the parents. However, similar to the BSA, unless the school and it's leadership is made aware of the situation, how can they be held responsible? As long as they did their normal background checks and due diligence on a teacher,(or in the case of the BSA, Scoutmaster), unless brought to their attention, neither the BSA or the school is in a position to take action if they are not made aware of the situation. I suspect the BSA lawyer has simply pointed out the poor boy said nothing at the time. If he had they would have done something about it. The editorial author took that arguement and extrapolated a blame the victim argument out of it. Without seeing the actual court papers it's difficult to tell. I'd be suprised if the lawyer made the arguments as described in the editorial, because it's such a stupid argument, it wouldn't do much for defending his client. BTW, The facility our unit meets in is both a Synagog and a Church. On saturday mornings it is used as a Jewish Temple, on Sundays a Methodist Church. Two separate congregations using the same facilities. I believe it's owned by the Methodist Church and is leased for specific periods by the Jewish congregation. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted May 12, 2006 Author Share Posted May 12, 2006 I'm hardly pointing this out with "glee", I'm pointing out how bad the BSA has become. Have you looked at the Grand Teton council and the lawsuits they're now facing? This is more of the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Well Ed, if you think the BSA's blaming the victim is the same as the ACLU pointing out that public schools can't charter discriminatory units is "the same", I'm certainly not going to bother explaining how one is reprehensible and the other is supporting the constitution. Not what I said at all. The ACLU attacks the BSA anyway it can. They are still ticked off they lost the Dale case! And there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a public school from chartering a BSA unit! I'm hardly pointing this out with "glee", I'm pointing out how bad the BSA has become. Have you looked at the Grand Teton council and the lawsuits they're now facing? This is more of the same. What you posted was an editorial. Do you know all the facts in this case, Merlyn? Was the sex consensual? Regardless, it's sick at best & I am not defending this mans actions. The point I am trying to make is you are posting this as 100% fact & you don't have all the facts! Sorta like your list of public schools that wasn't accurate. The purpose of you posting this here was to attack the BSA. Nothing else. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Was the sex consensual? The sex could not be consensual. Da victim had not reached the age of consent. However, similar to the BSA, unless the school and it's leadership is made aware of the situation, how can they be held responsible? As long as they did their normal background checks and due diligence on a teacher,(or in the case of the BSA, Scoutmaster), unless brought to their attention, neither the BSA or the school is in a position to take action if they are not made aware of the situation. Because da "supervisor" or "superior" is responsible for supervision, eh? They shouldn't need to be "made aware," they should be makin' themselves aware. Dat's the legal doctrine. What's unclear here is whether this is da scouts or the insurer. Often an insurer will take an aggressive line for its client that the client may not like, in an effort to reduce the settlement. But if you tell da insurer to take a hike, the insurance goes with it, eh? Puts even ethical organizations in very tough spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted May 12, 2006 Author Share Posted May 12, 2006 Ed, 12-year-olds can't legally give consent. That's what "statutory rape" refers to. And no, I'm not going to try to explain to you yet again why a public school can't own & operate a private club with religious requirements for membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CA_Scouter Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 "...I'm pointing out how bad the BSA has become" OK, so that implies that at some point in the past, you were ok with the BSA. When was that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 He might not be legally old enough to give consent but that doesn't mean he wasn't a willing participant. You have no facts to base your opinion, Merlyn! But that has never stopped you before. You're good at making a mess from nothing. You won't explain it again because you can't! The Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech & the freedom of religion. It also guarantees the government will not establish a religion. Sponsoring a BSA Troop or Pack is in no way establishing a religion! The ruling is completely flawed. How do you feel about the Presidents active support of the National Day of Prayer, Merlyn? Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Ed, I know Merlyn is the burr that gets under your saddle like no one else, but really, reread your last post "He might not be legally old enough to give consent but that doesn't mean he wasn't a willing participant..." Are you really saying that a 12 year old can willing participate in sex and in giving the willing participation that the adult is not criminally culpable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nldscout Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 The issue here is has anyone actually seen the document? NO. All we have is the edetorial that says it exist. Its not on file at the court where the suit is taking place. Its not docketed in the public records, so I don't think it really exists. Someone show it to me or be quiet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted May 12, 2006 Author Share Posted May 12, 2006 CA_Scouter writes: OK, so that implies that at some point in the past, you were ok with the BSA. When was that? Before they were claiming to be a private, discriminatory, religious organization (while at the same time having public schools as their largest charter partner). Back before they were throwing out atheists and gays. nldscout, if you think the NY Post has deliberately defamed the BSA by making up a case that doesn't exist, let's see if the BSA demands a retraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herms Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Consider the source, Ha!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now