Pranks

[John-in-KC]

OK, it's time, my two cents:

 

1) WORDS HAVE MEANING, and the word hazing, as Counselor Beavah said, has specific meaning in the law.

 

2) EVEN SO, the word is a so-what, who cares. THE ACTIONS of young people are what need addressing.

 

3) THE FIRST YOUTH who needs consequences to happen is the Scout who offered the drink.

 

4) THE SECOND YOUTHS who need consequences are the Scouts who planned this.

 

5) What I think reasonable:

 

- SPL/SM huddle and agree: This is worth all four Scouts being dismissed from the event, immediately. Parents come and get them, now.

 

- Scoutmaster conferences are in order: FRIENDLY/KIND are the watchwords of the day. These are not friendly SM conferences, these are "These are the consequences of your actions" conferences. SM needs to visit with parents too, though I think that should be separate from the SM conference.

 

- The SM and the CC need to have each others' back on this. The consequences should be pretty well settled on before the BOR begins.

 

- COR needs to be informed as a matter of course.

 

- Non-Advancement Boards of Review are in order: They will mete out the final determination. The SPL should not sit the BOR, but he should be invited to give his thoughts to the BOR.

 

I think this is the path Beavah, SMT224, Barry and Lisa are looking.

[Scoutfish]

 

 

Atually, I completely agree with you. There is am implied, and sometimes spoken conversation that if the younger guy follows through with the older guy's plan, then the younger guy will find acceptance, friendship and "coolness" alot faster by going along with the plan.

 

Considereing that the older boys are leadership and "supposed" to be more mature , as well as experienced in the acceptable behaviors of the troop - then they should be held to higher accountability.

 

Now, as far as calling the cops, pressing charges or even seeing what a DA will do, where do you stop? Simple childhood fighting? Teasing? Larceny of the last cookie in the cookie jar? Name calling?

 

This was NOT hazing! It was a prank. A stupid tactless and completely gone too far prank, but that is all. A prank that was totally stupid and senseless. But we are talking about teenagers afterall, not parents, leaders, or even civil judges. Just young boys.

 

Matter of fact, our laws have already made the dertimination that these boys cannot be counted on to make reasonable and sound juydgement on a constant basis - thats why legal ages for things are 18, 19, and 21. You can't vote, you can't drink, you can't buy a handgun, or join the military because legally, you are not recognized as being able to make solid decisions.

 

 

The boys who came up with this scheme probably are guilty of what I was many mnay times as a youth:

 

Not following through with considering the consequences or realinzing the total outcome.

 

Those boys ( in their minds) PROBABLY saw a kid take a sip, make a face and spit out the urine. Then maybe get mad, but later in the week , share in the laugh and join the cycle by joining in on the next "victem"

 

Those older boys probably didn't totally think their actions out. Guilty as charged too many times myself. Hind sight is a Godsend...unfortuneatly, it only happens after the fact, not before.

 

Remember, these boys are not you , nor are they me. They do not have the maturity that you and I have ( and that is still argueable too! )

 

To kick them out will only show that we are not willing to bother trying to teach, it will only show that we have zero tolerance and no patience.

 

Following that line of thought, why not go ahead fail a kid the first time he doesn't know an answer in school?

 

I'd definantly punish the older boys. Maybe extra duties, extra site clan up/ garbage duty. Not sure what the correct term is.

 

I wouldn't delay any BOR or EBOR or any other boards. I would continue as normal in that respect, but point out the incident in question as a reason as to why ADVANCEMENT was delayed or postponed.

[zippyboro]

I do not understand the total hesitancy and resistance to call this an act of hazing. I am not trying to define it as such in a legal sense, nor am I in any way implying that the incident should be reported to authorities outside of scouting. But this is beyond a simple prank and became so the second the older scouts abused their power/level of influence over a younger scout to get them to do what they wanted to do. It would be a prank if they did it themselves, but they made the conscious decision to involve a subordinate, so to speak. They knew that the younger boy would probably go along with the plan in order to be accepted by them.... and that is the "initiation process" that pushes it beyond the realm of a repulsive practical joke. The reluctancy in this thread to see this act for the abuse of power that it was is rather disconcerting...

[Lisabob]

I think a lot of people react to the word "hazing," just as a lot of people react to other hot-button words (dare I mention "feminism" as an example?), even while agreeing with much or all of the substance behind the word. I mean, seriously, who isn't for equal rights for people regardless of gender (if you aren't, don't tell me - I don't want to know), but mention "feminism" and pretty soon you start hearing some seriously outrageous claims about "downfall of society" and "undermining traditional values" and "femi-Nazis" and worse, right? Same thing, in my experience, with words like "hazing."

 

I see no one has (virtually speaking) clapped these boys on the shoulder and shared a good guffaw. Everyone agrees this was an inappropriate thing to do. Most agree it was an abuse of power and influence on the older boys' parts. I think all agreed that the older boys deserve to be held responsible in more meaningful ways than the original poster described.

 

There is disagreement about how to hold these boys responsible, which I guess does not surprise me. Many of us are probably, in our mind's eye, imagining some "likely suspects" from our own troops pulling this stunt. So we color our responses based on thoughts about those imagined likely suspects, since we do not actually know the boys in the troop where this happened, and depending on how we feel about the imagined suspects, that will color our hypothetical responses to this situation. I know for me, the boys I could imagine doing something like this are also boys who have habits and histories of attempting to bully, manipulate, or degrade others - and so my response would be the more swift and serious because of that.

 

So yes, words definitely have meanings, but let's not get so hung up on what to call this, that people lose sight of the general agreement on taking a stronger line in response - which everyone here seems to be advocating, to one degree or another.

[asm1429]

I really want to thank all of you for your input. As a new ASM (1 yr.) this is still a learning process for me, your options and solutions have been insightful.

 

Here's my two cents worth based comments here. I don't not consider this hazing and based on the Scout not taking a drink, do not believe expulsion would be the way to go. However, if the Scout had taken a drink I may be in favor of it then, I know, doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's because of potential legal issues involved, if the Scout had taken a drink, I believe the parents could have pressed some type of charge against the juveniles i.e. child endangerment/abuse.

 

I consider it fortunate it wasnt ninety five degrees and the victim thirsty. We would have had a whole new ball game, a truly egregious one.

 

Open communication is a key here, but how much? The entire Troop? Yes. Every parent? No. All involved should have some type of consequence. Community service? No, youd have to restrict it from any requirements!!! Yeah..I gave that boy a bottle of pee, but I got my community service hours It is funny, but not really. Troop chores might be the way to go, doing dishes for all Patrols for a set number of campouts might work. They would never forget it, and all Scouts would be reminded of what went on and the consequence. Suspension from a set number of activities? Maybe.

 

More importantly SMC with all Boy Leadership/Perp. Parents present? Yes. Boys individually before the Board, YES. If the Scout did not carry out any of these Cheerfully he probably is not needed in the Troop. I want to stress, if the Scout had taken a drink, whole new ball game in my opinion. Bear in mind, my opinion doesnt account for much, just ask my ex-wife, insert happy smiley face here.

 

SMT224 hit the nail on the head

We do the best we can to run our Troop within the Scout Law. The prank described was far outside of the Scout Law, and must be dealt with swiftly and accordingly. Scouting should be a safe place, and no Scout should ever be subject to such a humiliating and disgusting "prank".

 

Artjrk sentiment on a boy led Troop

The older scouts should also be held to the same degree of reprimand, possibly more.

 

Perdidochas sentiment on a boy led Troop

However, I think the two older boys should be punished much more harshly than that.

 

John-in-KC How True Merit Badge Awarded

The SM and the CC need to have each others' back on this. The consequences should be pretty well settled on before the BOR begins.

 

I believe that we all would agree on a swift, cant stress that enough, and a coordinated result to this conflict, or any other which may occur on an outing. I have observed that Things can happen often on trips. If consequence is delved as often, this would serve to lessen its overall affect on a Troop. If it is not, you have a runaway train in the making.

 

The thin line is The last cookie in the jar. Herein lies one of the Grey areas in Scouting. Of which I was once told there were none! What do we police? We dont need to answer this here, but it all comes back to the ol Oath and Law.

 

Many thanks to all.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, asm1429, glad yeh got the help yeh needed.

 

Brian85, whether participation is voluntarily is irrelevant in the definition of the crime of hazing as it is formulated in most of da states that have such a law on the books. The law specifically applies even if participation was voluntary and had informed consent. Remember, hazing laws generally came into existence because of deaths from fraternity initiations, eh? In a fraternity initiation, participation is voluntary.

 

So "an OA ordeal is voluntary" is not a defense. It is still an initiation, and da process of initiation forces participation in the ordeal. It's far closer to da definition of hazing than this incident, and certainly meets zippyboro's broader definition from da advocacy organization. That's da problem with broad definitions, eh? When yeh cry for more regulation and broader definitions, yeh end up prohibiting a lot of good things along with da bad.

 

Better just to respond to the bad behavior instead of makin' up definitions.

 

Beavah

 

[Eamonn]

I do agree that we shouldn't get caught up in "Titles"

Life for me isn't that hard. It's a lot easier to just go with what is acceptable behavior and what isn't.

Even then life isn't always that easy.

I was working with a group of African-American inmates. They were using the "N" word calling each other that name.

They were a little confused when I asked them not to use it.

They argued it was OK for them, but it wouldn't be OK for me.

I argued that I didn't like it and would prefer they not use it.

I seen the use of that word as just being wrong, no matter who used it.

As a young Scout I was a member of a Troop that had a very nasty initiation ceremony.

Of course the adults didn't participate, but they seemed willing to turn a blind eye and certainly knew it was happening.

If I'm reading what Barry posted right?

I do think that we the adults do set the tone for what goes on in the Troops we serve.

 

I enjoy a good joke and what might be called a prank.

Sadly most jokes and pranks do require a "Fall Guy" Or the need to put someone down.

Over the years I've done enough dumb stuff, that pals of mine have enough material that they can tell war stories around the campfire for a week. Very often these get a little embellished and at times larger than life.

I'm a big boy and can take it.

I also know that these guys are my friends and that no harm is intended, they also know that I'm not going to get upset.

 

Dealing with situations like the one posted here can be hard.

It seems clear to me that all the Lads involved failed to live up to the Scout Oath and Law.

I kinda think they all knew that from the get go.

I'll bet that they all thought it was a fine prank when they were going about setting it up.

Thankfully the intended victim didn't drink whatever was in the bottle.

Still those involved failed to think it all the way through.

This failure is common in young people.

Not ever acceptable, but common.

I really don't think we can ever have a set of rules or by-laws that could ever cover every situation.

Each and every situation is different and needs to be looked at as it stands.

I'm not sure I'd call 14 year olds "Older Scouts" I think if the guys who had planned this had been 16 or 17 things might be different for me.

I do agree that unacceptable behavior is just that unacceptable and everyone needs to know that it is unacceptable.

Which brings us to the consequences that are needed for the actions.

While we could dwell on what might have happened? I think it is worth remembering that nothing did happen. No one was harmed. The victim didn't drink whatever was in the bottle.

I do think that the 14 year olds having a little Lad do their dirty work for them shows a lacking of responsibility and any sort of real leadership.

If I were the SM I would have to think long and hard about asking them to step down from any POR that they might hold. Even if this meant not holding the POR slowed down their plans for advancement.

I'm not big on this "Write as essay" idea.

But I do think maybe the Troop through the PLC might want to look at the dangers that can come from bodily fluids and look at the dangers and harm that pranks and practical jokes can result in.

I'm not a big fan of suspensions or in most cases kicking Lads out as I believe that we can do more good working with a Lad who is around than when he isn't.

However there are some little toads who just don't get it and sadly there comes a time when the best thing for the Troop is to have the COR agree to let them go.

Eamonn.

 

 

[Exibar]

ok Picture this...

 

You just were handed a bottle of apple juice and your about to take a sip of it, all the boys are laughing and pointing at you. How do you feel?

 

Your towel was just taken away from you while in the shower (presumed all your clothes too), all the other scouts are laughing at you and pointing at you. How do you feel?

 

The salt cover was loosened and you just dumped the whole salt shaker on your breakfast and have to throw out your food. All the other scouts are laughing at you and pointing at you. How do you feel?

 

You woke up and put your shoes on to find frog's eggs or pond slime in them. All the other scouts are laughing at you and pointing at you. How do you feel?

 

All the other scouts are laughing at you and pointing at you. How do you feel?

 

Scouting should be a safe haven away from harassment of any kind. There simply is NO place for pranks of any kind. You don't know what's going through that boy's head, sure he could be laughing along with you, but he may truly be hurt inside. Things like this can, and has, lead to children killing themselves from being bullied (harassed) at school. Scouting should be a safe haven far and away from any forms of harassment from others.

Any forms of harassment should be dealt with swiftly and harshly. The punishment should fit the crime as well. Putting goo in someone's shoes perhaps washing dishes for a while. But, making someone (or attempting) drink urine should be dealt with much more harshly leading up to expulsion from the troop if those scouts don't shape up quickly.

Attempting to make someone drink urine is almost the same regardless if the victim drank it or not. The intention was there, those scouts would have let the victim drink it, this certainly is not following the scout law.

 

Mike B

 

[evmori]

How do I feel? Can't wait to prank them back!

[Eamonn]

Soon after I made my First Confession in the R/C Church, I was told that having evil thoughts was a sin.

If this is really the case then I know I'm a lot case and that come what may I'm never going to be cold in the hereafter.

 

I might be running late for an appointment and might think that I need to speed and break the speed limit. But until I do?

No harm no foul.

A big part of jokes and pranks is in the knowing the person who is being joked or pranked.

Then there is how far it goes.

We have a co-worker who keeps a big bottle of what is either corn starch or talc in the bathroom at work. I tease him all the time that one day I'm going to add itching powder to it.

The idea of him scratching and itching is kinda funny to me.

Would I ever do it?

Of course not.

I'm not so sure about some of my other co-workers.

But I was the person who came up with the idea. Am I guilty?

As you can imagine working in a jail one thing we need to be very careful with is our keys. We keep them on our person at all times.

A co-worker accidentally left his keys on a desk. Our boss found them and didn't say anything he picked them up and took them into his office. The guy who lost them spent a few minutes frantically looking for them.

Not very funny, but the guy will be more careful with his keys in the future.

Sure a lot of jokes and pranks are at the expense of others.

But to go so far as to "Outlaw" all jokes and pranks is to my mind over the top.

I've seen some really great pranks which have been told and retold around campfires for years.

One was pulled on Old Pete Rice, a wonderful old Scouter.

Our council camp still has some of the old outhouses. A couple of Scouts climbed on the roof. Pete stopped in for a pee. One of the Scouts yelled down a pipe that went through the roof, "Help! I've fallen in!"

Poor old Pete was left looking down the hole asking if the Lad was OK and where he was.

Sure we can say that the Scouts ought not be climbing on the roofs of out-houses.

We can say that it wasn't very kind to set Pete up like this.

We could I suppose go so far as to say "What if?

What if he'd called 911?

What if he'd got the Ranger and they went down into the nasty hole?

But they didn't.

And bottom line is that it is funny and Pete took in as being funny. - Knowing Pete as I did I'll bet what he called these pranksters wasn't very Scout-like!

At Summer Camp, my son was the SPL for his Troop. One Scout who was born and breed in the next small town looks kinda Hispanic. When the DE came to do her weekly camp visit. OJ had this Lad wearing a big sombrero and a blanket, The Lad looked like something out of a spaghetti western.

The DE is and was one of my closest friends knew OJ well, but OJ introduced this Lad as a new Scout who had just moved from Mexico.

The DE of course tried to talk with this new "Mexican Scout" in Spanish, but found that it just wasn't working!

OJ, the DE along with the new "Mexican Scout toured the camp with the DE introducing the Lad as having just moved from Mexico.

When the DE found out. She was a little embarrassed and jokingly threatened OJ.

But she seen that she had been taken for a ride and thought it was funny.

Even at Wood Badge, my mentor, who is also my best friend and very proud of his Slovak heritage, seen the fun when one day for lunch we served him a big plate of cabbage and kielbasa and entertained him with the "Dancing babushka girls".

Maybe it wasn't PC, but everyone seen the fun and Mike was not in the least up set.

One thing I have tried to teach my son and the Scouts I have served is S.T.A.R.

Stop

Think

Act

Reflect.

Of course it doesn't always happen.

Some things are fun and funny to take them out of Scouting would be a big shame!

Eamonn.

[Exibar]

Eamon, point certainly taken. There are certainly times where a practical joke here and there can be done without harm. Like the times that you mentioned.

 

It can be a fine line between a malicious joke, and a funny joke, and that is something that is very difficult to gauge and has to be on a case by case basis.

 

short sheeting a bed, tapping someone on the left side and quickly moving to his right side, etc... But even harmless fun can turn into a nightmare for some if repeated to the same person over and over....

It's certainly worth thinking about, and I guess it just plain comes down to moral values and how well we as adult leaders set an example for the scouts and how well the kid's are raised.

 

The attempt of a crime, is a crime, I'm sure you see those guys every day being a D.O.C officer. Attempted rape, attempted murder, etc. But we're not talking about anything that heinous here...

 

we do have to draw the line somewhere.

 

Mike B

 

[Twocubdad]

One of the key elements left out of this discussion is a disparity in status between the instigator and victim.

 

We teach our Scouts that there are two elements to harassing, bullying or hazing (and I use the three term interchangably, legal definitions notwithstanding): 1) that action is a zero-sum game; that is one person or group is gaining something (power, control, prestige or even a good laugh) at the expense of another person. Or more simply stated, in the end everyone -- victim included -- should have a good laugh. 2) if the joke/prank is 'based upon the perceived disparity between the size, age, ability, status or power between the instigator and the victim.

 

We teach this to the Scouts with skits. For example, we'll do one skit where my committee chairman and I josh around, calling each other Chrome Dome, and Biscuit (because I'm about two buscuits shy of 250 pounds). He pokes my belly and I rub his bald head. In the end, we both have a good laugh and walk off making plans for dinner. In another skit, we have one of the new ASM run from person to person looking for a left-handed smoke shifter or some other fools errand. Of course we ham up the new guy's newness and his embarassment in the end.

 

Our point is that guys (even the adults) enjoy joking around with their friends. It's what guys do. But it crosses the line when one guys is made a victim. If everyone shares in the joke somewhat equally (and equally could be spread over a series of jokes), it's fun. If someone ends up outcase and the butt of jokes, it's not. We don't ban practical jokes, but we do teach the scouts that it is very easy for them to get out of control and at their age it is very difficult for them to appreciate the unintended consequences when a joke goes bad. And don't discount the ability of middle-school aged boys to zero in on the percieved weaker kid. This spotlight doesn't shine equally on everyone. The goat of one joke is likely to get it piled on over and over.

 

In the situation in the OP, the two older scouts were clearly using their ages and positions to take advantage of both the younger "trigger man" and the ultimate victim. As older Scouts I would hold them to a higher standard. Having initiated the whole thing, they bear the most responsibility and should suffer the greatest consequence. The "trigger man" obviously bears some responsibility, but is somewhat mitigated by his age and the influence of the older Scouts.

 

All three Scouts should suffer some consequences if for no other reason than as a demonstration by the troop leadership that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated. All three should have been sent home from the activity immediately. I would have recommended to the SPL that they be removed from any leadership positions in the troop -- they clearly cannot be trusted in a position of responsibility over others. My recommendation to the troop committee would be for the younger Scout to be suspended from the troop for a month or two and the older two guys for two months or more. We may add essays on bullying, personal apologies, etc. All three would be on close probation for a period of time and strictly warned that similar behavior in the future would result in expulsion.

 

This sort of behavior isn't funny. It's disgusting. I am concerned by the lack of empathy some here are showing for the 11-year-old victim. The three knuckleheads would have been more than happy if the poor kid had taken a big swig. As far as they were concerned the whole thing was a big barrel of monkeys right up to the point where they got caught.

 

There is no place in my troop for this sort of behavior.

[Exibar]

 

 

Twocubdad you've hit it right on target, clearly and distinctly.

 

Mike B

[OldGreyEagle]

we are talking about ingesting urine here. It doesnt matter what its called, Hazing, a Prank, whatever, its disgusting behavior that cannot be ignored. So, what is the response, serve the perps fecal laced brownies? Is that ok?

 

If I bring a stick to a fist fight and you bring a knife to a stick fight and I bring a gun to a stick fight and you bring a bigger gun, where does it stop?

 

Either there is respect (a hot topic right now it seems) for each other and property or there is none

[Eamonn]

This thread reminds me of the old campfire skit, where someone asks someone else to hold a box.

The box has a wet spot.

The person holding the box needs to go so passes the box on to another person who asks "What's in it?" The reply is "I don't know."

The person taking the box notes that the box is wet and with a finger touches the wet spot then tastes it saying "It tastes kinds sweet."

The box changes hands several times with each person tasting the wet spot.

Some say it is sour, some say it is sweet.

But no one knows what is in the box.

When the original person returns to get his box. He sees the wet spot and says "Bad Puppy!"

While I'm sure some people might say that this is a "Gray Area" and that we ought not allow a skit like this.

I have never had a problem allowing it when I have been asked to plan a campfire.

 

I haven't seen the show or the movie,in fact I'm not even sure what it is called! I think it is something like Jackass??

OJ has seen it and has mentioned that this takes pranks to the extreme. I really can't comment about it, having never seen it.

I have seen a little bit of Punked, which isn't my cup of tea.

I have also while channel surfing seen bits of Americas Funniest Home Videos.

All of these shows show some poor person either being hurt or being made to look silly. (I have to close my eyes when Americas Home Video show is on.)

While of course what happened in what is described in this thread is clearly unacceptable behavior.

I do have to wonder what sort of impact shows like this on TV are having on our kids?

Eamonn.