Alleged hazing incident at summer camp

[xlpanel]

Alot matters. I am looking at this from a perspective the defense lawyer would. It may not be 'ethical' or 'moral' according to you what he does, but this is how it is going to work:

 

1. If there was no test of the bottles, the lawyer can say it was just juice or colored water, and they were just going to scare the kid. He will pull on the jury's hearts to not ruin the rest of the life of three kids over apple juice. It will work especially well if he gets old guys who have fond memories of pulling stuff like this themselves as kids. I could see this clearing the defendants entirely.

 

2. Even if it was urine, the lawyer can still argue the intent of the kids. It won't work as well as it would with just juice, but it still will have some effect. No one, other than the defendants, knew their intent.

 

Finally, remember "innocent until proven guilty". Also, the defendants cannot be guilty of making him drink urine, as they never did make him drink it. All the prosecuter can claim is intent, and lets face it, no one knows the intent the boys had. All the defense has to do is convince the jury of no-intent and they get off.

 

 

Just like the myspace mom who got her case thrown out. You think you have all the evidence in the world and a strong case, the media is on your side until both sides of the story, AND THE ACTUAL LAW are looked at.

 

 

 

And now we start jumping on me for defending another kid again? If you had read my last post on the subject and understood it, you would see that I did not want the kid to bring it to campouts for the sake of the other kids, but would not punish him for it. A nice, "please don't" would be enough for me. If he was the only kid on a campout, all by himself, in a place where he would not subject other scouts to stuff they did not want to see, I would have no problems with him browsing it.

 

Also, what he does in his own time too is no concern to me.

 

Finally, I understand that there is a law on that subject. BUT, would you turn him in for it? If no, you are an accomplice in his law breaking. Also, if you speed you are breaking the law.

 

Also, the under18/no possess law could be deemed old and silly from some viewpoints, same as the law that states that taking 3 sips from your beer can without standing/sitting seems to you. I Hate to bring this all up again, and definately on a different thread, but you can thank evmori for pulling it up out of the grave.

 

I'd make a pretty good teacher, actually insisting on listening to BOTH SIDES of a dispute before making a decision.

 

Remember, the prosecution always carries the burden of proof. They have to PROVE Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, that they were actually going to make him drink the urine. Not just show they had urine, but PROVE they were going to force him to drink. There is no way to prove this, as only the defendants know the true intent. And they certainly won't be saying anything that will incriminate them.(This message has been edited by xlpanel)

[John-in-KC]

Cell phone video coverage is pretty damning evidence.

 

Of course, since maybe one or two of us are in the potential jury pool, it's a moot point. The Court will convict or acquit based on the evidence and the law, not on anything we say here.

[xlpanel]

nldscout states that in the actual police reports, "3. There is no mention of cell phone pictures, the report does not mention it, only pictures the deputies took"

 

And all the cell phone could prove is that they had the kid. Im not denying that. I am saying they will not successfully be able to prosecute as they cannot prove the intent of the scouts to actually make him drink vs the intent to scare the kid.

[tonys]

The 12-year-old notified scout leaders who immediately called the Putnam County Sheriffs Office. The boys were all taken into custody and deputies said they found duct tape and two bottles of urine at the site where the boy said he was assaulted. Deputies also confiscated a cell phone on which they said is a recording of the entire attack.

 

In addition to Reid, 16-year-old Harrison Reid, 15-year-old Kyler Brower and 16-year-old Nicholas Larsen were also arrested. All four have been charged with Kidnapping a child under 13 and committing aggravated child abuse. The teenagers have been turned over to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.

 

seems to me the liquid could be what ever but kidnapping is kidnapping it might be called boys being boys by some parents horse play by others . in this case it involves pretty serious charges. especially for the adult involved.

doubt if this incident pleads to community service but that is up th the DA.

tony

[xlpanel]

Thats a quote from a media article. Now, when have we known the media before to report stories that don't contain the true facts?

 

Today actually. The Local TV station was warning people not to mow their grass in the middle of the afternoon, as they might overheat and catch hypothermia.

 

I would trust the police report, which is what I have my quote pulled from. The police report does not mention a cell phone video.

 

nldscout also says "Other than the 21 yr old, the camp staff here committed several errors which are going to cause the DA a ton of problems trying to prosecute"

 

The police report neither confirms or denies that it was urine. If the police forgot to check, this leaves an almost guaranteeable outlet for the defendants. Plus, it seems that the camp staff have even made it harder to prosecutre through mistakes.

[evmori]

Are you actually condoning what these boys did xlpanel? It sure sounds like you are trying to justify it! What if this happened to your son? You really don't get it do you? This was an illegal act committed premeditated!

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmm...

 

Xlpanel, yeh strike me as a teenager who likes to argue. I understand that. Used to be one myself, back when my dad hunted woolly mammoths.

 

It's really hard to address anything yeh write, because your understandin' of matters of law and propriety and such seems pretty limited. No easy spot to begin, eh?

 

You're entirely right of course. Da media by and large doesn't do a great job. Adults aren't always right. There's always different perspectives and sides to any story.

 

Congratulations, you've made it half way to a mature understanding of the world! All da simplistic right and wrong stuff adults taught you when you were a little kid was just that - simplistic, and often wrong, at least in the details. Yeh have to rebel and argue against that stuff to grow up.

 

Second half of growin' up is to gain enough experience with da world that you begin to see the real patterns and trends that affect it, eh? Instead of spoutin' black and white, or arguin' against black and white, yeh begin to understand that there is at least light and dark. Da world is complimicated, and we don't always get it right, so we should be open-minded and prepared to adjust as we get new information. At the same time, that doesn't mean that there aren't good and bad choices, or that we shouldn't make any judgments at all. In fact, it's that quest for what's right, and for better ways of thinkin' and actin' that makes it fun.

 

At that point, a mature understanding lets us understand why we were taught simplistic black and white when we were young and that it really wasn't all wrong. And we understand where our rebellion and argumentiveness as a teenager had a sound basis but was also overblown and too simplistic and judgmental itself.

 

I wish yeh the best on da second half of your journey to intellectual maturity.

 

Beavah

 

[xlpanel]

What they did was wrong, but that still does not mean they will get convicted.

 

Its gonna be a long court fight for both sides, and right now it looks like the defense has the evidence leaning in their favor.

 

They might be wrong, but luckily they can plead the 5th, and not give the DA what he needs to get a conviciton.

 

What they did might have been the worst thing in the world, but you still cannot prove someone guilty without having better evidence. Innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the affirmative.

[tonys]

one of those kids will flip the others. most likely kids will sell the adult up river and it is still a kidnapping charge.

[eagle1977]

The simple problem here revolves around the Scout law. There is no ambiguity surrounding those 12 points., They are the things that we should as as adults as youth be striving to achieve. I am struggling, mightily, to figure where the ingestion of urine, or the mere suggestion of the same meets any of the points of the law. Aren't we supposed to be mentoring our boys that the Scout Oath and Law are the tenets that they should be measuring their lives by? These decisions should be ingrained in their thought processes (you know whether or not someone is looking) so that they are just second nature. Their decisions should not be couched in whether or not some wiley defense lawyer will be able to get them off the charges based on the concept of what they intended the "victim" to believe they intended to do to him.

 

If I am holding you against your will and I am older than you and out number you in force, and I am able to convince you the "victim" that I have two bottles of urine that you are going to be forced (against your will) to consume then it is urine. It does not matter at the time of the offense if it is pond water, apple juice, or urine. As the victim under the circumstances it IS URINE because you told me it IS URINE.

 

This was not a prank to the boy it happened to. This was not a game to the boy it happened to. Some boys will snap back rather quickly and some will not. Xlpanel are you qualified to to determine if the victim in this case is ok? What is your background? Are you qualified to counsel him and ensure that his mental health is ensured?

[Lisabob]

Well I'd say Beavah nailed it.

[evmori]

What they did was wrong, but that still does not mean they will get convicted.

 

Its gonna be a long court fight for both sides, and right now it looks like the defense has the evidence leaning in their favor.

 

They might be wrong, but luckily they can plead the 5th, and not give the DA what he needs to get a conviciton.

 

What they did might have been the worst thing in the world, but you still cannot prove someone guilty without having better evidence. Innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the affirmative.

 

The only positive part of this entire post is you admitting what they did was wrong! The rest is just trite commentary.