NY Post: BSA lawyer blames 12-year-old rape victim

[evmori]

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?

 

No that's not what I am saying OGE. What this man (and i mean in gender only) did was reprehensible and he is criminally culpable.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Fuzzy Bear]

"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." Beavah

 

The more I thought about this statement the more I disagreed. My question is how can anyone make themselves aware of a crime when there is nobody speaking and it is being done on the sly? The BSA, short of wiretapping or spying on their leaders, would never know until it was too late. Since this method is illegal and the background check is the best that the BSA can do, then they must rely on past events. If the individual has never been jailed for child molestation, then there is no other way of knowing. There isn't a test that would give the perpetrator away. With 2 million, or whatever the number was/is of Scouts and or leaders, it would be impossible to follow this group around to find out what they are doing. Where is the BSA's responsibility here except for supplying "deep pockets" for a lawyer that needs to blame anyone other than the person that did this horrendous act? Blaming the person responsible would mean there wouldn't be money for finding guilt which means, only receiving the lawyer's fees and that would only allow for a lawyer to live modestly which would be the real crime here.

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah says:

 

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.

 

Beavah, I don't think that's (excuse me for typing correctly) the legal doctrine applicable to this case. The BSA (national or council) is not necessarily liable for every wrongful act committed by a unit volunteer in the course of a unit activity. A superior or supervisor is not necessarily liable for the actions of a subordinate; it depends on the circumstances. In addition, the legal doctrine that sometimes makes an employer liable for the acts of an employee, does not necessarily apply to the BSA's relationship with a unit volunteer.

[Beavah]

Hi NJ,

 

Da CO (an Episcopal Church) would be the superior. The BSA is probably the insurer, though I'm sure the BSA is also named in the suit, eh? There was apparently a prior complaint to da BSA in this case.

 

I'm thinkin' that requirin' notification / filing a complaint only applies to workplace harassment or peer-on-peer student harassment at school. Otherwise, fair or not, it's da responsibility of the organization to supervise its volunteers.

 

The suit I believe is for $150M, which goes back to CO's needin' insurance on top of the BSA coverage limits sometimes.

 

 

 

[ohadam]

My understanding, which Im willing to have corrected, is that the BSA self-insures for $1 million and purchases insurance for amounts over that. Since this case is for $150 million, its the insurer on the hook. That means the insurer gets to hire the lawyer and decide what legal defense to put on. I'm not sure, therefore, that the title of this thread is correct insofar as it calls the lawyer a "BSA lawyer." BSA has its own lawyers. Is this guy one of them? Let's find out.

 

I work in a court in Los Angeles. I see a few cases like this a year, and work just down the hall from where the Catholic scandal litigation is going on. In that litigation, Cardinal Mahoney generally wants to conduct the defense along certain ethical lines. He is being repeatedly overruled by the insurer. Theres even an appellate decision reversing a settlement to which the Church agreed but the insurer didnt.

 

Merlyn, theres probably not much the BSA can, or should, do about its defense. The BSA, which in the policy agreed to cooperate with the defense, gets little say in the content of legal papers, and any public statements it makes would not only be unwise, but would have to be vague. (All this is assuming BSA wants to stay insured today and to be insurable tomorrow.)

 

Beavah, we require that charitable organizations take only reasonable steps. We indict them only for their own failings, not for the unforeseeable crimes of their volunteers. On the current facts, I see virtually no possiblity for BSA liability here.

 

Ed, I love you, man, but you gotta calm down if you want to be effective.

[evmori]

Adam,

 

I am passionate about certain things! And I will not temper my passion!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[ohadam]

Heh. I advise you to pretend to, then, boyo.

 

There are two curtains in debate: Passion and Effectiveness. You cannot go through both.

[Beavah]

Beavah, we require that charitable organizations take only reasonable steps. We indict them only for their own failings, not for the unforeseeable crimes of their volunteers. On the current facts, I see virtually no possiblity for BSA liability here.

 

Lots of differences between states on this, eh? Some states offer immunity to NFP's, others may limit exposure as you suggest, others do not, some have not addressed the matter. Dangerous to comment across state lines.

 

For a discussion of the matter from a New York-based firm, see

 

http://www.nonprofitrisk.org/nwsltr/archive/volunteer05001998-p.htm

 

[ohadam]

(I'm glad to finally get into an area I know something about, not like cubmastering.)

 

Scenario: Organization hires individual and takes reasonable steps to screen, train and supervise him (but not unreasonable steps). These reasonable steps raise no red flags about the individual. Individual commits a crime the organization could not reasonably have foreseen. Victim sues organization.

 

Result: Victim loses lawsuit.

 

As far as I know, the result would be the same in every state.

[Beavah]

Result: Victim loses lawsuit.

 

As far as I know, the result would be the same in every state.

 

Yah, from your lips to God's ear, eh?

 

"Reasonable" is a question of fact. And juries do the darndest things interpretin' fact when confronted with a juvenile victim. And ya gotta admit, there's fairly little required BSA trainin' compared to most other youth services, and precious little real supervision.

 

But if ya look back, supervision wasn't a condition of the original question to which I was respondin'. He just thought absence of notification was sufficient to prevent liability.

 

[evmori]

Heh. I advise you to pretend to, then, boyo.

 

There are two curtains in debate: Passion and Effectiveness. You cannot go through both.

 

Boyo??????

 

And I'm not debating!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Regarding training programs available for its' membership and the BSA, the BSA not only compares with any other organization but surpasses most if not all. Generally, the problem is with the indivdual volunteer refusing to partake of that which is offered and refusing to follow the program that they were trained on. The next link is the non-existent quality control and then lack of follow-up and lack of use of the Executive to police the problem once it is recognized. This doesn't take into account CO's that know nothing about birthin' and supporting that which they have delivered. The big problems do get attention but all of the rest is swept away with the wind. FB