Guest OldGreyEagle Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Ok, this is supposed to be a discussion on the Smith/BSA case. Merlyn/Ed leave that public school thing to a thread where it applies, no it doesnt apply here. Those of you discussing the book, "scouts Honor", I have never read it, but by the snide personal insults being hurled it appears many of you havent read or at the very least comprehend the scout handbook either. If you want to discuss the merits of the book, do a thread only on it. As long time forum readers may remember I was a victim of a cathoic priests abuse back in my youth. The recent scandal was painful, but last sunday, (easter) the church I attend was packed to the gills. This Smith business will pass. The American presidency, the congress, state goverments all have had their share of scandals and continue because the institutions are greater than any one person. Certainly the BSA can rise above this as well(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 You analogies make no sense & aren't even related to the topic. What are unrelated are Mr. Smiths crime and the operations of the BSA. I resent that some are trying to fabricate a relationship in order to try and damage the BSA. From what we know, this guy was using his home PC to commit his crimes. However, his work PC has been confiscated and we don't know what they have found on it. I really hope nothing inappropriate. Ed if you knew he was using e-mail for the crime wouldn't you look at any computer he had access too? Like I posted before, if this guy wasn't in the system, his background check would come up clean! And this can happen anywhere. It is only big news because he worked for the BSA national office AND was involved in youth protection! No one has has said this wasn't a juicy news story for the media. This is, if nothing else, bad press for the BSA & the fallout has yet to be seen. There could be lawsuits filed against the BSA because of this. Not necessarily valid ones since, but they could occur. So if it is nothing more than that ed then why are you making up possible wrong doing by the BSA when none has been suggested by the people who investigated the crime. Who might file those lawsuits Ed? If they are not valid ones then why do you give the possibillity so much validitY? And some are questioning if the BSA might have known about this guy & did nothing based on past history. And it is a valid question that needs to be asked, investigated & answered! Where is there a thread of evidence Ed that the BSA had prior knowledge? Who connected with Smith's personal crime has made any accusation or even suggestion of the BSA's involvement? If there is no accusation why would there be an investigation and who would be investigating it?. What knowledge of the facts gives validity to the question other than your fabrication of the question? Do you beileve that just because you have insinuated wrong doing by the BSA that there are now grounds to investigate that belief? If you pleading guilty to setting fire to your neighbors house should we investigate your employer's prior konowledge of your pyromania. Why is you want to distance yourself from this man's behavior, yet you want to connect the BSA to it? A Scout is Loyal BW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 As usual, Bob, you missed the point. If you pleading guilty to setting fire to your neighbors house should we investigate your employer's prior konowledge of your pyromania. Yes you should! Why wouldn't you? And considering the way the BSA has handled these type of situations in the past I would expect a complete investigation. I am not saying the BSA did anything wrong. And if they didn't, they should welcome an investigation. Oh for Pete's sake...EVERYBODY dragged their feet for decades in addressing child abuse! For centuries for that matter. Some people still do. So that makes it OK? I don't think so. I don't think the BSA is in anyway at fault here and I would be surprised if they were. All I am saying is there are questions that need investigated and answered. Clearing the air so to speak. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FScouter Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 "There could be lawsuits filed against the BSA because of this." Ed, you've made this comment 3 times now in this thread. You must have something more to say about this to support your position. Who or what victim might file a lawsuit, and what damage would they be suing over?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zahnada Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Bob, I think the point that some are trying to make is that there will be some sort of fallout against BSA for this incident. And this is regardless of any sort of culpability on BSA's part. As for lawsuits, I doubt anything will come of them, but I'll never underestimate people's desires to get rich quick through the court system. I'll leave it at that. But you can't deny that this reflects poorly on BSA even if the organization had absolutely nothing to do with it. This man was a representative of scouting. Let's look at your analogies. You use Clinton and Ted Kennedy. But didn't their actions lead some people to form opinions about the Democratic Party? Maybe these actions just contributed to opinions already formed. In any case, as representatives of the party (and perhaps liberals in general), their actions reflected poorly on their "employers." And as a result, some people developed a distrust for the party as a whole. As for OJ Simpson, you got me there. But my point still stands. This type of action from someone so high ranking, who helped initiate the youth protection program, will have negative consequences for scouting. BSA cannot disassociate themself from this guy no matter how innocent the organization is. The headlines speak for themselves: BOY SCOUT OFFICIAL charged with CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. Personally, I believe the whole thing will blow over, but this seed of doubt towards the scouting program has been planted in the minds of many. And this is on top of all the bad press we've been getting lately. This does make Boy Scouts look bad. But I do agree with you that unless there is some evidence to the contrary, BSA is not legally accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle90 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Of course there will be fallout from this. The vast majority of the public do not understand the BSA heirarchy. They hear Boy Scouts and Child pornography and abuse and they immediately think of a Scout leader and a young scout in a compromising position. They have no concept of a national HQ employee who supposedly has no contact with youth members. But the sensational headlines and comments will be there in full force. I heard one commentator today say "More news from the BSA - the cesspool of pedophilia" Not true, but that is what is being spouted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 You do not have to choose to be embarrassed, or accept attacks on the BSA based on what the uninformed or unintelligent make of this. And volunteer leaders should not open the gates for those people by fantasizing of charges and investigations that do not exist and have no cause to exist. (This message has been edited by Bob White) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backpacker Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 I agree that the BSA should not be held accountable legally, that being said with the current climate of legal sensationalism and the call for more morality/ethics, ie Terry Schaivo, Michael Jackson, it would not surprise me if some conniving attorney found a way to turn this into a negligence case against the BSA. I think the best thing the BSA can do is to distant themselves as far away from Mr. Smith as possible and let him be the sacrificial lamb for the media circus. I think that the courts will definitely make an example of Mr. Smith, and I hate to think what the prison inmates will do to him after he is convicted. In any case I agree that every scout and scouter should not feel embarrassed about being part of the BSA because of the actions of one sick and perverted individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Excuse me but doesn't someone have to hire the conniving lawyer? Doesn't that person have to be someone who could prove direct injury or loss due the BSA's active or passive participation in the crime committed by Mr. Smith? Just who is that person going to be? A parent of one of the children in the photos? Do you think that parent exists? How would they know unless they were involved in the making or distribution of the photo? You think the photographer is going to step forward? Who has grounds in this case against the BSA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 "Excuse me but doesn't someone have to hire the conniving lawyer?" Yes someone does have to hire a lawyer. "Doesn't that person have to be someone who could prove direct injury or loss due the BSA's active or passive participation in the crime committed by Mr. Smith?" This would be a civil trail, not criminal. Proof is different in civil cases. "Just who is that person going to be? A parent of one of the children in the photos?" Could be. "Do you think that parent exists?" Could be. "How would they know unless they were involved in the making or distribution of the photo?" Child porn can occur without the parents knowing. The parents might find them on the internet by accident! "You think the photographer is going to step forward?" I doubt it but then why would it even matter. "Who has grounds in this case against the BSA?" Anyone. There are a lot of crazies out there looking for a quick way to make a buck! Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 BARTENDER!! While I wait Ed , Explain to us how if the parent found the picture of their child on the internet, that they would have anyway of knowing that it was in Mr. Smiths e-mails and that the BSA was involved in the crime???? Your fantasies of how the BSA can be involved here bring on their own kind of damage to the program. "Who has grounds in this case against the BSA?" Anyone. There are a lot of crazies out there looking for a quick way to make a buck!" If being crazy were legal grounds for someone to win a judgement against the BSA I can think of a poster or two who would be bloody zillionaires by now. BW (This message has been edited by Bob White) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OldGreyEagle Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Ed, I am not sure what you are driving at. Its almost as though you want the BSA to be involved somehow. That you want complicity with the BSA to be proved. I am sure you don't mean to make that implication, but the more you post, the more I am not sure what you are saying. It is entirely possible the BSA didnt know anything about Mr Smith's past, strange things do happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 In fact the media is now quoting the district attorney as saying that all the e-mails and images were transmitted through Smith's home computer and that none were done through his work computer. He goes on to say that the there is no evidence of the BSA's knowledge or involvement in the case which has been under investigation since 2003 beginning with a raid of a home in Germany. So lets have an end to this witch hunt please. (This message has been edited by Bob White) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fgoodwin Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 BW, I appreciate your vigorous defense of BSA, but there is no witch hunt going on here. A few people are asking questions; asking a question about what BSA knew and when they knew it is not a witch hunt; it is not an accusation or even an implication of wrong-doing -- its just a question. And as more facts come out (like the ones you just reported), the amount of uncertainty goes down. I've read all six pages of posts so far, and the vast majority of folks take your position that nothing has been formally alleged (much less proved) against BSA. If the vast majority of posters agree with you, how does the minority comprise a witch hunt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 Maybe Mr. Smith will use the same defense that Pete Townsend, lead guitarist of the Who used, he was conducting research on child pornography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts