Alaska border patrol officer pulls handgun on scout, confiscates camera, detains group.

[CalicoPenn]

It's unlikely we'll hear anything more about this unless someone decides to sue. The Council likely wants it to go away, the Media likely feel that they've been hoodwinked by the Scoutmaster, the Border Patrol likely convinced the local Congresscritter that the videos are conclusive enough that the story doesn't hold water in an election year, and the Congresscritter likely doesn't want to go out on the limb the Scoutmaster is on given the apparent public sentiment (based, admittedly, on the comments section of the media stories) that something doesn't smell right about the Scout's stories in an election year.

 

Plus, the Iowa State Fair has just started so there are a lot of stories to tell about butter queens, butter cows, real cows, food on sticks and other fair news.

[NJCubScouter]

Plus' date=' the Iowa State Fair has just started so there are a lot of stories to tell about butter queens, butter cows, real cows, food on sticks and other fair news.[/quote']

 

Good point. Even here in suburban New Jersey, the County Fair (actually its a 4-H fair, so it's a little more low-key) is going on right now, though it's tough for me to to get there since it's only for three weekdays. There are still some farms here, but not many. And I believe all the animals at the fair are real.

 

And in general, it seems summertime distractions are putting a damper on discussions of many issues, though national politics and international wars are still proceeding along in their usual noisy way. Even the discussions here in Issues and Politics (except for this thread) seem to be mostly on summer vacation.

[RememberSchiff]

I am becoming skeptical that the public will learn the truth of this matter. I wonder if the Freedom of Information Act can be used to release the Customs videos?

 

Maybe Congress will drop the photo restrictions, which started this incident, as they are silly (Customs posts port of entry videos on Youtube), unnecessary, and unenforceable (smart phones, Google glasses, etc.)

 

My $0.02

[packsaddle]

You may be correct but I'd give it some more time. Those boys know the truth. It's just a matter of opening up and that may take a while.

As for the photo nonsense, I completely agree. It's another case of technology moving faster than policy.

[packsaddle]

I'm not sure why this interview hasn't been publicized more broadly, but for me it always helps to hear the words unedited, straight from the persons involved and this is Jim Fox telling it like he saw it. The interview takes over 30 minutes but it's worth a listen in order to get a better feeling for tone, inflection, mood, and I think it will add to our ability to make personal opinions about this incident. If you think you've heard the 'essence' of the incident after the first 6 or 7 minutes, listen on...there are some other interesting insights as well.

 

I continue to hope that the video will be released but after listening to the interview, I kind of like the guy.

[RememberSchiff]

I'm not sure why this interview hasn't been publicized more broadly, but for me it always helps to hear the words unedited, straight from the persons involved and this is Jim Fox telling it like he saw it. The interview takes over 30 minutes but it's worth a listen in order to get a better feeling for tone, inflection, mood, and I think it will add to our ability to make personal opinions about this incident. If you think you've heard the 'essence' of the incident after the first 6 or 7 minutes, listen on...there are some other interesting insights as well.

 

I continue to hope that the video will be released but after listening to the interview, I kind of like the guy.

 

Wow, thanks for posting that interview. I disagree with Sm Fox initial lone wolf response but I am glad he now has legal counsel. Not sure his scouts have learned any citizenship lessons. Maybe they need to watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

 

My advice, it is time to play offense Hawkeyes.

 

Both sides agree the border camera incident occurred and most scouts and their families cannot understand why it was illegal at a port of entry, You have your Senator Grassley on your side, why not propose to Senator Grassley that he sponsor a bill. Call it the Scout Border Camera Bill or the Say Cheese at Our Border Bill. Help lobby support and observe the legislative action in progress . I bet even with the most Do-Nothing Congress ever, this bill will receive bipartisan support.

 

A lesson in active, involved citizenship.

 

Another $0.02,

[NJCubScouter]

...this is Jim Fox telling it like he saw it.

Well, saw PART of it, and heard about part of it.  And it's the part he only heard about - the gun-pulling part - that has people the most outraged.  If not for that part, I doubt any of us would have ever heard about this incident.  (I agree with you and RS that it sounds like the laws/regulations about picture-taking need to be straightened out.  It is still not clear whether these agents were enforcing rules that really exist, or not.  If there do need to be some limited restrictions on picture-taking, fine, make them as narrow as possible, enforce them equally at all entry points, and POST BIG SIGNS before the entrance to the restricted area, so everybody knows exactly what the rules are ahead of time.) But on the gun-pulling thing... I do not have time right now to do a minute by minute analysis of what he said, but it runs from about 3:30 to 5:00 on the video.  He is basing what he says on what two Scouts supposedly told him later - and lets not forget that he tried to prevent these (and the other) Scouts from talking to the investigators, because he decided that he would speak for everybody.  (Which is not how an investigation works, by the way.  An investigator interviews multiple witnesses if possible, and eyewitnesses are preferred over hearsay witnesses, which is what Mr. Fox is on the gun-pulling part.) We don't actually know whether he succeeded in preventing the interviews, because these statements were made before the investigators arrived, and there do not seem to have been any articles written after they left. As for seeing the videos of the incident, Mr. Fox says that the media and others have already made FOIA requests, which I am sure is true.  But let's also remember that after he gave this interview, Mr. Fox did see the video, as did the council SE.  According to articles posted previously, both of them said the video shows no gun-pulling, but that one agent walked out of camera range for 13 seconds.  I am sure that if the video did show a gun being pulled, Mr. Fox would have said so.

[IM_Kathy]

I really wish I was able to go to this months roundtable to see if he comes and what he has to say, but I have a conflict and with everything going on I doubt he'll be there.

[RememberSchiff]

Update 8/13/2014

 

The probe by the Inspector General Office has ended.

 

According to Des Moines Register article (link below)

- Nobody  not other Scouts, not the adult chaperones, not Border Patrol agents and not video recordings of the time  saw a gun drawn and held on Scouts.

- Only two 15 year old Scouts claimed they saw the handgun. And those Scouts, at the advice of Scout leader Jim Fox of Grimes, declined to speak

- The interaction took about 50 minutes and was recorded by four different video camera angles. The Scouts, their chaperones and the Border Patrol agents were in frame for the entire video  except for a 13-second moment in which one Border Patrol agent was out of frame. SM Fox believes that is the moment the gun was drawn and pointed. He said he stands by his Scouts' statements.

- Officials have declined to make the videos public citing national security.

- The Inspector General Office has not issued a final report yet.

 

My understanding, the IGO only investigated the gun drawing.

 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...ends/14040877/

[duckfoot]

~~ And those Scouts, at the advice of Scout leader Jim Fox of Grimes, declined to speak with investigators from Border Patrol and the U.S. Office of the Inspector General earlier this month. Very odd of him.

 

~~He said he stands by his Scouts' statements. Which we haven't heard because he won't let them be heard.

 

~~This is being swept under the rug. Yea it is, by HIM. He won't let the very people who know anything speak.

 

I'm not sure what his agenda is, but it is not getting to the bottom this and any sort of resolution.

 

[RememberSchiff]

Good points.

 

For awhile, I thought Fox might be taking the heat for either the scouts or their parents. Back in the presence of the scouts' parents, it is not his decision whether the scouts come forward.

 

I don't buy the national security issue with the videos either.

[CalicoPenn]

So you really can't think of a national security reason, any reason at all, why it might not be a good idea to post videos of border crossings in action or videos/photos of the customs agents working those borders. I'm willing to accept the Scout Executive as proxy in viewing the videos - and it seems he is backing up what the investigators have said about the incident.

 

Fox says the 13 seconds when the agent was off screen must have been when he pulled the gun - I have a couple of issues with that - the first is since he didn't witness it, how can he possibly identify the agent that was off screen as the agent that allegedly pointed the gun? The only people that can identify the agent have refused to cooperate based on Fox's advice. The second is that the reporting seems to indicate that everyone was in view of at least one camera 100% of the time during the time period except one agent - wouldn't the video indicate that those two Scouts were looking at someone offscreen as they were raising their hands or doing whatever it is someone does when a gun is pointed at them? I don't see anyone making that claim about the videos.

 

So the Scouts refused to talk to the investigators about their claims on the advice of their Scoutmaster - do you think those Scouts will remember their Scoutmaster and the advice he gave them the next time they cross an international border and are stopped for extra scrutiny on the way back in because their name has appeared on the warning list?

 

With no cooperation from the accusers, do we really need the official IG report to know what's going to be said? Is there any doubt that the report will come back with a "claim unsubstantiated" ruling specifically stating that the accusers were uncooperative and likely were lying about the incident?

 

Fox may believe everything he is saying but if I were the Scout Exec, Fox would no longer be a member of the BSA, not because he still insists that the story is as he believes it to be, but because his advising two Scouts not to cooperate with an investigation into their own allegations shows he is not the kind of role model that should be part of Scouting.

[RememberSchiff]

So you really can't think of a national security reason' date=' any reason at all, why it might not be a good idea to post videos of border crossings in action or videos/photos of the customs agents working those borders. I'm willing to accept the Scout Executive as proxy in viewing the videos - and it seems he is backing up what the investigators have said about the incident.[/quote']

 

I cannot. How is their work and risk any different than Border Patrol, TSA, police who the public CAN and DO legally record? And why does Customs post videos of port of entry on Youtube? Recall Customs was not going to show the video to anyone. Perhaps the bad PR, or Senator Grassley, or as I like to think our Bob Gates "encouraged" Homeland Security to show the videos to the SE and SM,

 

Fox says the 13 seconds when the agent was off screen must have been when he pulled the gun - I have a couple of issues with that - the first is since he didn't witness it' date=' how can he possibly identify the agent that was off screen as the agent that allegedly pointed the gun? The only people that can identify the agent have refused to cooperate based on Fox's advice. The second is that the reporting seems to indicate that everyone was in view of at least one camera 100% of the time during the time period except one agent - wouldn't the video indicate that those two Scouts were looking at someone offscreen as they were raising their hands or doing whatever it is someone does when a gun is pointed at them? I don't see anyone making that claim about the videos.[/quote']

 

Agree on first point. You lost me with your second point. I do NOT recall reading comments to that affect from the SE or SM who viewed the videos. Sounds like good things to observe if and when the opportunity arises to view videos. Even Barney Fife could draw and holster a firearm in 13 seconds.

 

So the Scouts refused to talk to the investigators about their claims on the advice of their Scoutmaster - do you think those Scouts will remember their Scoutmaster and the advice he gave them the next time they cross an international border and are stopped for extra scrutiny on the way back in because their name has appeared on the warning list?

 

That is a very good question. What have his scouts learned from this? He may have taught them to be sheep not citizens. If his scouts made a mistake then step up and admit it. If his scouts did see a gun drawn, step up and give a statement. A scout is Brave. If the IGO investigators were prepared, they should have brought along items that could have been mistaken for a handgun - clipboard, flashlight, etc .for scouts to examine.

 

I wonder how many of his scouts will drop out this fall as a result.

 

Good point about their names being placed on a warning or watch list.

 

With no cooperation from the accusers' date=' do we really need the official IG report to know what's going to be said? Is there any doubt that the report will come back with a "claim unsubstantiated" ruling specifically stating that the accusers were uncooperative and likely were lying about the incident?[/quote']

 

No reason not to release it, even if we can likely predict the contents.

 

Fox may believe everything he is saying but if I were the Scout Exec' date=' Fox would no longer be a member of the BSA, not because he still insists that the story is as he believes it to be, but because his advising two Scouts not to cooperate with an investigation into their own allegations shows he is not the kind of role model that should be part of Scouting.[/quote']

 

I may end up agreeing with you. As far as I know, the scouts did not make any allegations rather just their SM, who was not a witness, and then he continued to advise them not cooperate when all returned back home with their parents. A lot of FAIL there. As the SE stated the Council will now move on with recruiting and program, I think Troop 111 should also. The IH and COR should tell the SM to take a break from the troop (step down as SM) while he pursues whatever legal course he may take against the government.

 

The SM sounds like a good scouter and even good scouters make mistakes. We all need to learn from these mistakes. National should follow-up with some border crossing guidelines.

[packsaddle]

Until those two boys either stand up for what they claimed happened, or else fess up for making a false claim, all we can do for now is chase our tails which is what we're doing right now. Time to sit back and wait for someone to open up.

Jim Fox is the only person who can make the best judgment about his actions and decisions. I wouldn't advise the boys to keep quiet if it were me but it's not me. I think Fox may be protecting something but at the base I still give him the benefit of the doubt for having good intentions. I'll wait until something substantive floats to the surface. Until then I'm going to stop trying to second-guess all these maneuvers.

[duckfoot]

Well said Pack...that's the point we're at now