County Commissioner Sues Bsa

[CalicoPenn]

I consider questioning the timing to be the same as questioning the motivation.  Why now is very much a direct question about someone's motivation.  Why now and Why at all leads directly into Whats in it for him.

[Gone]

I consider questioning the timing to be the same as questioning the motivation.  Why now is very much a direct question about someone's motivation.  Why now and Why at all leads directly into Whats in it for him.

 

What is in it for him is clear: Money. So no one is questioning why he's in it. That's pretty darn obvious. I would also suspect some closure is in it for him; perhaps even some retribution for him at BSA if he's at all bitter about any potential BSA mishandling of of the situation.

 

Again, many are just questioning the timing. Maybe it take this long to put together his case. Maybe it doesn't, hence the question. It just seems odd that since many victims want closure -- and justice for themselves and punishment for their abusers -- that he'd wait until after his abuser is dead. Perhaps that is explained by it taking a while to build the case. Perhaps it doesn't. We simply don't know.

 

But no one is questioning his motives, in fact many are acknowledging and even supporting them. Good for him! Get the money. If he has a case then he deserves to get whatever the law allows.

[chrisking0997]

Ive tried to type out several replies, and find myself uncomfortable with every one.  I truly do not wish ill for this man...if his claims are true then he has my sympathy.  I dont mean to question his motives, but rather what a sastisfactory outcome would be.  He doesnt seem to just be in this for the money, as far as I can tell from the article.  If his claims are true then I hope he gets what he wants as thats whats really important here.

[Scouter99]

"...McDonough said the abuse, which happened from when he was 12 to 16..."

"...charge of indecent liberties with another teenage boy..."

 

One more gay guy, and many more to come.

 

No wife. http://www.robertsfamilyfh.com/obituary/124755/Leland-Opalinski//

 

 

What does not appear to be clear is if this was actually ever brought to the council's attention way back then.  And, as noted, very convenient that the alleged abuser died prior to the claim.  Was this dredged up by a lawyer from the "files"?

The lawyer is one who has made a career suing BSA, I'm sure he digs up plenty, and (vice versa) I'm sure when someone decides to sue their Googling leads them to him. 

 

The man made it clear that he's over this—"McDonough said that he no longer gives much thought to Opalinski."— so, sure, what's his motivation if he doesn't even think about it anymore?  He says he's "angry at BSA." 

BSA cannot stop predators if they don't know they're predators.  In 1968, there was no national database, and there was no state database.  Offenders were given slaps on the wrist by the justice system that this guy would have been depending on back then. The issue came to light, BSA removed the guy, and barred him from membership by placing him in the ONLY national database in existence at that time: its own, which it developed of its own volition in the 1920s precisely because it cares about boys and stopping predators.  "Why didn't BSA search for more victims?" BSA is not an investigative body.  That's the police's job in 1960 and in 2015.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Scouter99

[MrBob]

And now we know why it costs $24/year.

Edited June 27, 2015 by MrBob

[Gone]

And now we know why it costs $24/year.

Soccer and other sports cost WAY more than $24...but do THEY have national databases on predators? Nope. They do the same background checks as BSA...if you're lucky. So the relationship of cost to security from abusers is not there. More money spent does not equal greater security from predators.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[Scouter99]

Soccer and other sports cost WAY more than $24...but do THEY have national databases on predators? Nope. They do the same background checks as BSA...if you're lucky. So the relationship of cost to security from abusers is not there. More money spent does not equal greater security from predators.

And with that point, it is important to point out that a boy in Scouting when this man was (1970s) was 35-70 times more likely to be abused by a family member or other caregiver (teacher, doctor, etc.), as pointed out by an FBI consultant/policymaker on child abuse in the Warren Report:

"The existence of the I.V. files confirms that there are some men who access youthâ€serving organizations in order to establish sexual contact with youth, often of a particular desired age. However, when compared to methodologically sound prevalence rates of sexual abuse of children during the 1970s (NISâ€I), registration numbers from the BSA suggest that children were safer in their Scouting activities and less likely to experience inappropriate sexual behavior when involved in these activities than in the family and during other community activities supervised by formal caregivers of the child. The prevalence estimates for Scouting were 1.4 to 2.1 of youth per 100,000 as compared to 70 per 100,000 identified by the NISâ€I study. This difference in estimated prevalence is of such magnitude as to inverse the question of risk and to argue instead that the BSA served a significant protective function in their programming for youth."