A Mercer County official of the Civil Air Patrol has been charged with corrupting a 15-year-old girl member of the group by offering to buy her a sexually explicit movie and telling her she has a sexually transmitted disease, Hermitage police said.
http://m.sharonherald.com/sharonherald/db_291245/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=9fyyecVO (http://m.sharonherald.com/sharonherald/db_291245/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=9fyyecVO)
Hmmm, sad either way.
Also, unfortunate, but I wonder how much more CPPT national will now require?
Quote from: LSThiker on December 16, 2013, 05:55:18 AM
Hmmm, sad either way.
Also, unfortunate, but I wonder how much more CPPT national will now require?
If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with. Allegedly.
Quote from: Panache on December 16, 2013, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 16, 2013, 05:55:18 AM
Hmmm, sad either way.
Also, unfortunate, but I wonder how much more CPPT national will now require?
If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with. Allegedly.
Ditto. These issues are already covered in the current CPPT.
Quote from: Brad on December 16, 2013, 07:25:10 PM
Quote from: Panache on December 16, 2013, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 16, 2013, 05:55:18 AM
Hmmm, sad either way.
Also, unfortunate, but I wonder how much more CPPT national will now require?
If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with. Allegedly.
Ditto. These issues are already covered in the current CPPT.
+1.
If going by facts presented, not assuming this man is a predator, but did in fact meet the cadet outside of CAP business in a local restaurant "because she missed a meeting", that right there was Cringe-worthy based on CPP. Oh, and the fact that he knew info about her sexual activities...as a SM, even if it was the cadet who started the conversation, I would have a need to remove myself from it. I'm 23, and I wouldn't discuss that with my 15 year old sister, and especially with a non relative.
What I found interesting is that he is a Squadron Commander, a Major and was PAO of the year for 2010. So I am guessing he has been around for awhile.
Quote from: Private Investigator on December 16, 2013, 08:41:43 PM
What I found interesting is that he is a Squadron Commander, a Major and was PAO of the year for 2010. So I am guessing he has been around for awhile.
In the "should have known better" club, certainly.
Okay, I hate to be Mr devil's advocate, but let's think about this one for a second. What we have here is a series of allegations printed in the newspaper. Did he actually meet her at the restaurant? unknown. She says he did. Maybe he did not. There are a number of other circumstances and statements in that article which could be entirely untrue.
Think about it, you have someone who decides they didn't get what they thought they should get from the program, and you're the commander. Next thing you know, your Q's of meeting with someone, suggesting pretty unusual things, and offering something. How does he get to refute these charges? Surveillance video to prove he was never at the restaurant? I mean if someone said that I tried to give them a porno movie, how can I refute that?? Without some kind of evidence it says I did not have that, it would be my word against the accuser. And it looks creepy when you're 67 and the accuser is 15. You can follow all the CPP rules you want, but that doesn't mean that somebody can't start making things up.
We had a circumstance in the high school here earlier this year where a female student claimed that another student threatened her with a firearm in the school. they lock the school down and sent in a SWAT team. Rousted the kid out and questioned him for hours. Come to find out the female student made the whole thing up. Out of whole cloth.
It happens. I would be careful to put that much weight in only one side of the story just yet without corroborating evidence.
Quote from: NIN on December 16, 2013, 09:56:47 PM
Okay, I hate to be Mr devil's advocate, but let's think about this one for a second. What we have here is a series of allegations printed in the newspaper. Did he actually meet her at the restaurant? unknown. She says he did. Maybe he did not. There are a number of other circumstances and statements in that article which could be entirely untrue.
Think about it, you have someone who decides they didn't get what they thought they should get from the program, and you're the commander. Next thing you know, your Q's of meeting with someone, suggesting pretty unusual things, and offering something. How does he get to refute these charges? Surveillance video to prove he was never at the restaurant? I mean if someone said that I tried to give them a porno movie, how can I refute that?? Without some kind of evidence it says I did not have that, it would be my word against the accuser. And it looks creepy when you're 67 and the accuser is 15. You can follow all the CPP rules you want, but that doesn't mean that somebody can't start making things up.
We had a circumstance in the high school here earlier this year where a female student claimed that another student threatened her with a firearm in the school. they lock the school down and sent in a SWAT team. Rousted the kid out and questioned him for hours. Come to find out the female student made the whole thing up. Out of whole cloth.
It happens. I would be careful to put that much weight in only one side of the story just yet without corroborating evidence.
Glad I'm not the IO on this one, eek!
Thats what those crisis communication plans are for....
Agreed. On a number of fronts. What's suspicious is that he was questioned over a month before the arrest. Sounds like investigation and ISP data request time. He also knows a little TMI on the cadet overall.
Quote from: NIN on December 16, 2013, 09:56:47 PM
Okay, I hate to be Mr devil's advocate, but let's think about this one for a second. What we have here is a series of allegations printed in the newspaper. Did he actually meet her at the restaurant? unknown. She says he did. Maybe he did not. There are a number of other circumstances and statements in that article which could be entirely untrue.
Think about it, you have someone who decides they didn't get what they thought they should get from the program, and you're the commander. Next thing you know, your Q's of meeting with someone, suggesting pretty unusual things, and offering something. How does he get to refute these charges? Surveillance video to prove he was never at the restaurant? I mean if someone said that I tried to give them a porno movie, how can I refute that?? Without some kind of evidence it says I did not have that, it would be my word against the accuser. And it looks creepy when you're 67 and the accuser is 15. You can follow all the CPP rules you want, but that doesn't mean that somebody can't start making things up.
We had a circumstance in the high school here earlier this year where a female student claimed that another student threatened her with a firearm in the school. they lock the school down and sent in a SWAT team. Rousted the kid out and questioned him for hours. Come to find out the female student made the whole thing up. Out of whole cloth.
It happens. I would be careful to put that much weight in only one side of the story just yet without corroborating evidence.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think there might be TMI here, but spend 39 minutes around cadets and you know pretty quick who's doing what to whom. Just cuz he knows doesn't necessarily mean he's a creeper. It means he overheard some one bragging. If you know your troops and they trust you, hard not to overhear things like that.
And crisis communication plan? How about member protection from false allegations and a trial in the court of public opinion?
Never gonna happen. We put CPP above SMs.
Quote from: NIN on December 16, 2013, 10:26:05 PM
Oh don't get me wrong, I think there might be TMI here, but spend 39 minutes around cadets and you know pretty quick who's doing what to whom. Just cuz he knows doesn't necessarily mean he's a creeper. It means he overheard some one bragging. If you know your troops and they trust you, hard not to overhear things like that.
And crisis communication plan? How about member protection from false allegations and a trial in the court of public opinion?
Several years back I drove a CAP van back from an activity one evening loaded with 2 other Senior members (one of them female) and a bunch of cadets. The entire trip 2 of the female cadets sitting behind me had a very descriptive discussion of the contents of their underwear drawers. And there's always that one female cadet in the wing who knows exactly who's doing what with whom in the cadet world and will tell EVERYONE whether you wanna know or not.
Back in the early 90's I had transferred to the dark side. About a year into my senior member career there was a CPPT complaint lodged against me. Supposedly i'd grabbed and shoved 2 cadets at the same time at a local public activity. I was forbidden from any contact with cadets for about a month while it was investigated by our Wing IG. While i was fully cleared I found out that the 2 cadets who lodged the complaint were coached by older cadets who wanted me and a couple other seniors out of CAP.
Neither the cadets who lodged the false complaint, nor the ones who put them up to it, saw any sanction.
The only way I'd believe this man did this is with corroborating witnesses and video.
Quote from: NIN on December 16, 2013, 10:26:05 PM
How about member protection from false allegations and a trial in the court of public opinion?
Great question.
Let's start with noting that the only reason that this has become public ("trial in the court of public opinion") is because of a newspaper article based on a press release by local police, who were initially notified by CPS. All of these procedures are external to CAP, and CAP cannot - and probably should not - affect or interfere with them in any way. Ultimately the police and courts will process this case like every other allegation of alleged sexual misconduct involving a minor. Of which, I think we can all agree, there are too many.
In court, the burden will be on the prosecution to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt to an impartial jury selected from the community. Unless and until each one of the jurors unanimously agree that the defendant is guilty, he is entitled to an acquittal. That is the presumption of innocence that protects each of us.
As it turns out, within CAP members enjoy substantial protections against false accusations. First, of course, is that we handle such allegations confidentially. We do not put out press releases about allegations. Any investigations are conducted only by trained personnel, and results provided to the responsible commanders and legal officers. If discipline or termination is recommended, members have substantial due process rights, including hearings and at least two rounds of appeal if termination is recommended. And of course, it is improper to make a false allegation, and members who do so are subject to discipline and termination.
There a couple of practical problems that can occur in CAP- related cases. First, although our policy requires confidentiality, people are people and sometimes members and non members gossip and share things that should not be shared. To a certain extent we can remind members about our rules, but we (obviously) have no control over non members' speech and conduct. I don't think there is really a fix to that.
Second, it is inherent in the nature of these allegations that -- on occasion -- no amount of investigation will ever be able to establish that the allegations are either true or false. Sometimes, no matter how thorough or diligent the investigation, we will simply never know for sure.
Lastly, as a guy who presides over a lot of trials involving charges of sexual misconduct, I am well aware of the "arrest on page one; exoneration on page 10" problem. It happens all the time, and has been happening since newspapers were invented. I've never seen a good solution that fully restores an accused's reputation in the community. It's a problem all right.
But not one unique to CAP. The whole point of CPP is to protect cadets and the seniors who work with them by minimizing situations that might result in abuse (and false accusations thereof.). The new CPP draft reg is in final coordination with the CSAG who are providing additional advice and feedback, similar to what was provided here on CAPTalk.
Ned Lee
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on December 16, 2013, 11:23:07 PM
Back in the early 90's I had transferred to the dark side. About a year into my senior member career there was a CPPT complaint lodged against me. Supposedly i'd grabbed and shoved 2 cadets at the same time at a local public activity. I was forbidden from any contact with cadets for about a month while it was investigated by our Wing IG. While i was fully cleared I found out that the 2 cadets who lodged the complaint were coached by older cadets who wanted me and a couple other seniors out of CAP.
Neither the cadets who lodged the false complaint, nor the ones who put them up to it, saw any sanction.
The only way I'd believe this man did this is with corroborating witnesses and video.
I'm with you here, brother.
Back in the mid-aughts, I was the commandant of cadets at an encampment.
There was a senior assigned to the tactical officer staff who was pretty well known for "doing his own thing" and being pretty chummy with the cadets. I kept an eye on him, but there really wasn't anything I could hang my hat on, just "him being him."
Middle of the week, the XO wanders into the headshed quarters about 2245 and says "Hey, NIN, you know there's a coffee klatch going on over in the cadet staff barracks?"
I'm over there in about 14 seconds, walk into the day room to find most of my "squadron and higher" staff smoking and joking. And this tactical officer guy sitting on the couch awfully close with a female cadet (Spidey Sense says "Huh. Whats up with that?"). I disperse the cadets, sending them off to their bunks and barracks with the admonition that we'll be having a nice discussion the next day.The XO and I do a quick barracks walk thru to make sure nobody else is getting the mid-week lights out blues (strange that after 11pm at night, you find a hot iron in a dark barracks...)
So the next day I gather the cadet staff, and read them (very quietly, mind you) the riot act. Their lights out is now the same as the basic cadet's. They don't get to keep their MP3 players. And the squadron & wing staffs are standing Friday Morning Inspection with everybody else.
The tac officer from the night before is outside the room I have this meeting in, and as the cadets leave he is hand picking some of the more distraught (you know, the ones who are pissed that they have to turn their iPod in as contraband for 2 more nights) and telling them "You should write a statement that Lt Col Ninness hazed you in there."
By that evening, the statement writing was in full swing. At least one of the squadron commanders was claiming I had yelled and sworn at the cadet staff in the meeting.
(anybody who knows me knows that I am fully capable of being that guy, but in this particular instance, I was absolutely not, and in fact, got everybody's attention even more because I was not) There is nearly open revolt in the cadet staff because that one squadron commander thinks its OK to order flight commanders and flight sergeants to make things up about what went on in that meeting.
When presented with the statements, the encampment commander evaluated all of them and came to the conclusion that: a) I'd had a conversation with the cadet staff the day before; b) that not only did I
not violate the Cadet Protection Policy during that discussion, but that I had showed enormous restraint in doing so; and c) someone was being a total tool.
There were three seniors in the room when I spoke to the cadet staff. The XO (a longtime friend) and another Lt Col
(who happened to be checking his email on the ONE public Internet computer we had available to us when I decided to invade that room with the cadet staff). Both their statements and the statements of other cadets who refused to be led down the primrose path by this other senior member corroborated my version of the meeting, and proved that absolutely zero "hazing" had occurred. (unless by "hazing" you mean "holding people to a higher standard and requiring them to do something they didn't think they should")
Strangely, while we were going from barracks to barracks for Friday Morning Inspection, the senior member who orchestrated the bogus statements was seen loading up his car with his gear as he "unexpectedly" had to leave encampment early due to an "emergency."
He later was found to be inappropriately involved with not only the female cadet I spotted him near, but others in his unit.
8 years later, he's gone. I'm still here. Why? Because I believe in the CPP and doing things the right way. If I hadn't had the forethought to have the XO in that meeting, it may have come out very differently (although I doubt it: there were far more cadets who wrote accurate statements than there were cadets who made things up. The XO and other SM Lt Col's statements as to what they saw were merely icing on the cake). If you're doing things above board, you *shouldn't* have much to fear. In a room of 25+ cadets, when 16 or 18 saw things one way, and 4-5 saw it another, its not hard to figure out whats right.
Quote from: Panache on December 16, 2013, 07:03:01 PM
If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with. Allegedly.
I think I was misunderstood. What I was referring to is the knee-jerk reaction seen plenty of times. From my experience in the Army, when a person in your Division or Brigade does something, you spend a significant amount of time performing "additional training". For example, have a soldier get a DUI and you spend the next month or two discussing defensive driving, designated drivers, and alcohol abuse. Then you get the complaint of diversity. So you spend the next few months discussing sexual harassment, minority training, etc.
Over my time in CAP, I have seen commands perform a few knee-jerk reactions. Something happens and then we spend the next month discussing that accident, collision, etc.
Quote from: LSThiker on December 17, 2013, 02:35:29 AM
Quote from: Panache on December 16, 2013, 07:03:01 PM
If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with. Allegedly.
I think I was misunderstood. What I was referring to is the knee-jerk reaction seen plenty of times. From my experience in the Army, when a person in your Division or Brigade does something, you spend a significant amount of time performing "additional training". For example, have a soldier get a DUI and you spend the next month or two discussing defensive driving, designated drivers, and alcohol abuse. Then you get the complaint of diversity. So you spend the next few months discussing sexual harassment, minority training, etc.
Aaah. The old "somebody messes up, the entire unit gets
punishedretrained" routine. Yes, I know it well.
I use it plenty of times at my paying job, when one of my staff does something they're not supposed to, I'll spend a significant amount of my time drafting and making sure everybody receives "retraining" or "refreshers" on the indiscretion at hand. It irks me to no end. Unfortunately, I have been told by the Powers That Be that they don't want me "targeting" subpar employees because, and I
wish I was making them up, it would "ruin their morale and team spirit." So everybody gets the "retraining".
I call it the Shotgun Protocol.
Yup. Same thing with the formation when a person is late. Battalion formation is at 1300. BC wants his soldiers there at 1240. Company commanders want their soldiers there at 1220. PL/PSG wants their soldiers there at 1200. SL wants their soldiers there at 1140. So all the soldiers stand around for over an 1 hour just because that one person is late. Although, even with that it always seemed like someone would still show up at 1300.
Quote from: LSThiker on December 17, 2013, 05:08:26 AM
Yup. Same thing with the formation when a person is late. Battalion formation is at 1300. BC wants his soldiers there at 1240. Company commanders want their soldiers there at 1220. PL/PSG wants their soldiers there at 1200. SL wants their soldiers there at 1140. So all the soldiers stand around for over an 1 hour just because that one person is late. Although, even with that it always seemed like someone would still show up at 1300.
"Best" story of this kind of thing was told to me by an es-signal man in the Army. His whole Battalion formed up and waited for three hours, only to find out that somewhere in the chain, the date was moved up by one whole day! 8)
Quote from: LSThiker on December 17, 2013, 02:35:29 AM
Quote from: Panache on December 16, 2013, 07:03:01 PM
If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with. Allegedly.
I think I was misunderstood. What I was referring to is the knee-jerk reaction seen plenty of times. From my experience in the Army, when a person in your Division or Brigade does something, you spend a significant amount of time performing "additional training". For example, have a soldier get a DUI and you spend the next month or two discussing defensive driving, designated drivers, and alcohol abuse. Then you get the complaint of diversity. So you spend the next few months discussing sexual harassment, minority training, etc.
Over my time in CAP, I have seen commands perform a few knee-jerk reactions. Something happens and then we spend the next month discussing that accident, collision, etc.
Refresher Training. The latest draft of the new CAPR 52-10 that I've seen has members doing CPPT refresher training every 3(?) years. Right now, we don't do refresher training at all, so some of us last took CPPT in 1990 or whenever that was. Personally, I like the idea of refresher training, so long as the interval is reasonable.
Two Deep Leadership. The individual is accused of meeting with a cadet in a restaurant, 1 on 1, and also giving the cadet rides, presumably to and from CAP and also presumably in a 1 on 1 setting. Again, those are the accusations according to the news story.
Right now, 1 on 1 stuff like that is not against the CPP. CAPR 52-10 encourages two deep leadership but does not require it. You can do 1 on 1 stuff in CAP and outside of CAP under the current rules. On an overnight activity, right now you need 2 seniors, but that doesn't prohibit 1 on 1 contact during that overnight activity.
From what I understand, the whole point of redoing the CPP is to mandate "two deep" leadership in 98% of settings and make 1 on 1 contact a very rare thing that's permitted only in special settings like glider flying.
A lot of us follow two deep principles already because it just makes good sense. If you use two deep leadership, the chances of you being (falsely) accused go way down, and even more importantly, the chances of a cadet being abused go down.
Two deep is the way to go. A couple of times we had parents come late to pick up the last cadet. Two SMs stay just to CYA. If I'm the only SM around, I make sure there are at least 3+ cadets and not 1 on 1. Heck, we had 20 year old cadet teaching FLM to a female cadet, and I went and got them from the secluded area to within earshot of where I was just to CYA him. Cadets dont think in those terms, so sometimes they too need that help.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 17, 2013, 07:21:23 PM
Two deep is the way to go. A couple of times we had parents come late to pick up the last cadet. Two SMs stay just to CYA. If I'm the only SM around, I make sure there are at least 3+ cadets and not 1 on 1. Heck, we had 20 year old cadet teaching FLM to a female cadet, and I went and got them from the secluded area to within earshot of where I was just to CYA him. Cadets dont think in those terms, so sometimes they too need that help.
Two deep matters not when one of the parties claims you met them someplace (where you did not).
But then if you're ALWAYS following the rules, claims to the contrary will be seen as what they are: false.
Quote from: NIN on December 17, 2013, 07:40:42 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 17, 2013, 07:21:23 PM
Two deep is the way to go. A couple of times we had parents come late to pick up the last cadet. Two SMs stay just to CYA. If I'm the only SM around, I make sure there are at least 3+ cadets and not 1 on 1. Heck, we had 20 year old cadet teaching FLM to a female cadet, and I went and got them from the secluded area to within earshot of where I was just to CYA him. Cadets dont think in those terms, so sometimes they too need that help.
Two deep matters not when one of the parties claims you met them someplace (where you did not).
But then if you're ALWAYS following the rules, claims to the contrary will be seen as what they are: false.
Fair enough. As Ned posted, the burden of proof will be on the accuser.
Quote from: NIN on December 17, 2013, 07:40:42 PM
Two deep matters not when one of the parties claims you met them someplace (where you did not).
But then if you're ALWAYS following the rules, claims to the contrary will be seen as what they are: false.
Eventually seen for what they are, but in some instances it takes a long time, thus damaging the organization and those accused lives...
A case I am familiar with just to the north of me...
A senior member, who was a retired USN officer, was accused of inappropriate actions by two female Cadet members of the local school squadron. The girls claimed he meet them at a field party (very rural area BTW, so limited "security camera footage" to refute any claims) and offered them money for "favors", touched them inappropriately and gave them alcohol plus a number of other things.
The girls reported this up the chain of command at the local squadron who immediately called the county sheriff. The sheriff department took statements from the girls (with parents present) and arrested the Senior Member on multiple charges later that same day.
Really long story short, his wife left him over it, taking his teenage children with her and filed for divorce and a restraining order after he made bond. The USN caught wind of his charges and halted his retirement checks, lost his job teaching at the school and was destitute within a couple weeks of the arrest.
It was all "she said he said" because of the lack of any physical evidence (IE Security Camera footage, text or phone messages ext). Everyone just simply believed the girls because "they were kids" and "why would they lie about something like that".
About 2 weeks before the trial, one of the girls had a mental breakdown in the middle of the night. She attempted suicide but was stopped by the local PD before she could carry it out. She recanted the whole story later that night at the mental health center. The girls made it all up.
They had become unhappy that this Senior Member had started to make the squadron follow the rules, actually earn Cadet promotions and not allow the Cadets to use CAP class as an excuse for skipping class and homework.
The girls were later charged with "filing a false police report" a misdemeanor and received slaps on the wrist due to being minors. To this day, that SM is still picking up his life from the millions of little shards it became. He no longer is a CAP member.
Every accusation should be looked into and thoroughly looked into, but I take EVERYTHING someone says with a grain of salt. Everyone (even our wonderful Cadets) have their own agenda and ideas on how things should be.
That's a pretty extreme case...
Quote from: SamFranklin on December 17, 2013, 06:42:51 PM
Refresher Training. [/b] The latest draft of the new CAPR 52-10 that I've seen has members doing CPPT refresher training every 3(?) years. Right now, we don't do refresher training at all, so some of us last took CPPT in 1990 or whenever that was. Personally, I like the idea of refresher training, so long as the interval is reasonable.
Oh refresher training is good, just not when it becomes the sole training item on the agenda.
Quote
From what I understand, the whole point of redoing the CPP is to mandate "two deep" leadership in 98% of settings and make 1 on 1 contact a very rare thing that's permitted only in special settings like glider flying.
A lot of us follow two deep principles already because it just makes good sense. If you use two deep leadership, the chances of you being (falsely) accused go way down, and even more importantly, the chances of a cadet being abused go down.
All of this I agree with. Having three people is better than two. However, in certain circumstances it is not possible or otherwise practical. I am not talking of the glider or O-flights or chaplain visits (which are already discussed by NHQ). I am talking about what happens when you have 1 cadet still waiting for a parent at the end of an activity or meeting. Do you make him/her stand out in the cold or rain until their parents arrive? Do you make another cadet and his/her family wait until the other parent arrives? What happens when you have a SM Operations Officer and a cadet operations officer at an encampment working in the same "office". If you always need three, would it be easier to just eliminate the cadet support staff at an encampment so that way the senior staff are more flexible? (Not saying this is a good idea.)
In an ideal world and for good common sense, you should always have 3 people in a group. Sure there are "solutions" to all of these questions, but how far outside of practical do we want to go?
The far-reaching thread of CPP is to always reach for the most transparent, bright-line behavior, and make any exceptions extremely rare.
I guarantee that everyone reading this can think of at least one senior member who likes to be "buds" with their cadets, and
who you would be "less than surprised about" if something were to happen. The time to have those conversations and
to adjust the line spacing is before those things happen.
Members who tend to be lax about other important tenants of the program are also likely to be less then diligent in this regard as
well - whether that means their own behavior, or the monitoring of others.
As to refresher training, we do it annually. It's required for EO, and CPPT is a whole lot more important than EO.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 17, 2013, 08:25:05 PM
Fair enough. As Ned posted, the burden of proof will be on the accuser.
I replied earlier, phone ate it. <burp>
If only this were a deterrent, the burden of proof. Its sadly not. No offense to your average teenager, but they can't think far enough ahead for tomorrow's breakfast, you think they're considering the long reaching implications to themselves and those around them when they get all bent of shape that Lt Col Comm A. Nder decided to not sign off on their promotion due to lack of participation or similar?
Its not going to be until C/SSgt Heighspeed reads in the Volunteer about terminations & disciplinary proceedings leveled at members who make these kinds of accusations falsely that the incidence will drop off.
Sadly, the disruption in the lives of good, long term members will be incredible in the face of C/SrA Sally's assertion that she was inappropriately touched during an encounter someplace "off the reservation" where nobody can prove anything (thanks NCRBlues, for that... you basically echoed what I was writing and lost), least of all the accused.
Its one thing to have affirmative evidence (text messages, etc). Its quite another to have your legs cut out from under you by a baseless allegation, even if subsequently found to be completely untrue.
If you're an upright member, it *might* work that you're known for enforcing and living up to the CPP. It *might*.
Then again, someone goes "Wow, I never expected it to be him.." and you might as well have thrown the CPP out the window 10 minutes after you read it.
The sad thing is that right or wrong, innocent or guilty, this senior member is going to be drug head-first through the court of public opinion before the the issues of the case are aired and will forever be branded regardless of whether there was any merit to this case. It also puts another black eye on the CAP because people will believe rumors quicker than truths.
Having had my own unfortunate/interesting (sic) experiences with cadets, I personally wonder what this guy was thinking that he met with the cadet without witnesses.
Sad, I have Family from that County, long long ago. I havnt been in CAP but an Year, And I do not do Anything to put myself in a Situation. Ive only done one overnight with plently of SMs, I do not do any Overnights, because I dont want to be put in any situations. I stay far far away from any conversation that can lead to anything SM and Cadets Alike. I love CAP, but to hear horror stories about lies really makes me Paranoid.
Quote from: SamFranklin on December 17, 2013, 06:42:51 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 17, 2013, 02:35:29 AM
Quote from: Panache on December 16, 2013, 07:03:01 PM
If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with. Allegedly.
I think I was misunderstood. What I was referring to is the knee-jerk reaction seen plenty of times. From my experience in the Army, when a person in your Division or Brigade does something, you spend a significant amount of time performing "additional training". For example, have a soldier get a DUI and you spend the next month or two discussing defensive driving, designated drivers, and alcohol abuse. Then you get the complaint of diversity. So you spend the next few months discussing sexual harassment, minority training, etc.
Over my time in CAP, I have seen commands perform a few knee-jerk reactions. Something happens and then we spend the next month discussing that accident, collision, etc.
Refresher Training. The latest draft of the new CAPR 52-10 that I've seen has members doing CPPT refresher training every 3(?) years. Right now, we don't do refresher training at all, so some of us last took CPPT in 1990 or whenever that was. Personally, I like the idea of refresher training, so long as the interval is reasonable.
Two Deep Leadership. The individual is accused of meeting with a cadet in a restaurant, 1 on 1, and also giving the cadet rides, presumably to and from CAP and also presumably in a 1 on 1 setting. Again, those are the accusations according to the news story.
Right now, 1 on 1 stuff like that is not against the CPP. CAPR 52-10 encourages two deep leadership but does not require it. You can do 1 on 1 stuff in CAP and outside of CAP under the current rules. On an overnight activity, right now you need 2 seniors, but that doesn't prohibit 1 on 1 contact during that overnight activity.
From what I understand, the whole point of redoing the CPP is to mandate "two deep" leadership in 98% of settings and make 1 on 1 contact a very rare thing that's permitted only in special settings like glider flying.
A lot of us follow two deep principles already because it just makes good sense. If you use two deep leadership, the chances of you being (falsely) accused go way down, and even more importantly, the chances of a cadet being abused go down.
The CPPT refresher is a great ideal because I really do not remember 1990 very well. :clap:
Quote from: NCRblues on December 17, 2013, 08:36:29 PMA case I am familiar with just to the north of me...
So what would you have done? Follow the Catholic Church model, the Boy Scout model or you have another plan?
Having training in sex crime investigation I see things differently.
Everyone just simply believed the girls because "they were kids" and "why would they lie about something like that". Not to be harsh but I spend my day fixing lackluster investigations and reports, officers, who mean well, do not know how to do.
OTOH, of 100 rapes, only 40 is reported, 8 will be prosecuted and only three of 100 rapists will spend a day in jail. The only way we have heard about the services sexual abuse problem is because it is totally out of control. 8)
Personally, I'm a tad paranoid about CPPT. I live with the fear that, one day, some cadet will get mad at me and decide to ruin my life with a baseless allegation.
So not only do I follow CPPT without exception, I go above and beyond the requirements so that any accusation will be dismissed because it would be a physically impossibility.
Quote from: Panache on December 18, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
Personally, I'm a tad paranoid about CPPT. I live with the fear that, one day, some cadet will get mad at me and decide to ruin my life with a baseless allegation.
So not only do I follow CPPT without exception, I go above and beyond the requirements so that any accusation will be dismissed because it would be a physically impossibility.
So you transfered to a Senior squadron?
Quote from: Panache on December 18, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
Personally, I'm a tad paranoid about CPPT. I live with the fear that, one day, some cadet will get mad at me and decide to ruin my life with a baseless allegation.
So not only do I follow CPPT without exception, I go above and beyond the requirements so that any accusation will be dismissed because it would be a physically impossibility.
Must be sad to be so paranoid. :-\
I had a recent encounter with someone like that ..
Since I brought several cadets to an ES training day, and brought them back, one of the SMs from the unit we were visiting said something along the lines of "you couldn't pay me to do that", and started mumbling something about CPPT.
Your loss.. I'd rather help the cadets.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 18, 2013, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: Panache on December 18, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
Personally, I'm a tad paranoid about CPPT. I live with the fear that, one day, some cadet will get mad at me and decide to ruin my life with a baseless allegation.
So not only do I follow CPPT without exception, I go above and beyond the requirements so that any accusation will be dismissed because it would be a physically impossibility.
So you transfered to a Senior squadron?
I do what I can to keep the squadron running, but really just avoid contact with the cadets, really.
Quote from: Panache on December 19, 2013, 04:34:48 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 18, 2013, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: Panache on December 18, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
Personally, I'm a tad paranoid about CPPT. I live with the fear that, one day, some cadet will get mad at me and decide to ruin my life with a baseless allegation.
So not only do I follow CPPT without exception, I go above and beyond the requirements so that any accusation will be dismissed because it would be a physically impossibility.
So you transfered to a Senior squadron?
I do what I can to keep the squadron running, but really just avoid contact with the cadets, really.
There are cadets here. Careful, they might claim to talk to you via PM.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 19, 2013, 05:23:07 AM
There are cadets here. Careful, they might claim to talk to you via PM.
(http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/panic.gif)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 19, 2013, 05:23:07 AM
Quote from: Panache on December 19, 2013, 04:34:48 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 18, 2013, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: Panache on December 18, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
Personally, I'm a tad paranoid about CPPT. I live with the fear that, one day, some cadet will get mad at me and decide to ruin my life with a baseless allegation.
So not only do I follow CPPT without exception, I go above and beyond the requirements so that any accusation will be dismissed because it would be a physically impossibility.
So you transfered to a Senior squadron?
I do what I can to keep the squadron running, but really just avoid contact with the cadets, really.
There are cadets here. Careful, they might claim to talk to you via PM.
Easily proven (or disproven) via subpoena to the administrators of CAPTalk.
Quote from: Panache on December 19, 2013, 05:46:08 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 19, 2013, 05:23:07 AM
Quote from: Panache on December 19, 2013, 04:34:48 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 18, 2013, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: Panache on December 18, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
Personally, I'm a tad paranoid about CPPT. I live with the fear that, one day, some cadet will get mad at me and decide to ruin my life with a baseless allegation.
So not only do I follow CPPT without exception, I go above and beyond the requirements so that any accusation will be dismissed because it would be a physically impossibility.
So you transfered to a Senior squadron?
I do what I can to keep the squadron running, but really just avoid contact with the cadets, really.
There are cadets here. Careful, they might claim to talk to you via PM.
Easily proven (or disproven) via subpoena to the administrators of CAPTalk.
If you're this paranoid you probably need to leave CAP before you stress yourself out.
Quote from: PHall on December 19, 2013, 06:00:47 AM
If you're this paranoid you probably need to leave CAP before you stress yourself out.
This thread alone has several stories about false allegations from cadets, but I'm the one who's paranoid?
Quote from: Panache on December 19, 2013, 05:46:08 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 19, 2013, 05:23:07 AM
Quote from: Panache on December 19, 2013, 04:34:48 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 18, 2013, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: Panache on December 18, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
Personally, I'm a tad paranoid about CPPT. I live with the fear that, one day, some cadet will get mad at me and decide to ruin my life with a baseless allegation.
So not only do I follow CPPT without exception, I go above and beyond the requirements so that any accusation will be dismissed because it would be a physically impossibility.
So you transfered to a Senior squadron?
I do what I can to keep the squadron running, but really just avoid contact with the cadets, really.
There are cadets here. Careful, they might claim to talk to you via PM.
Easily proven (or disproven) via subpoena to the administrators of CAPTalk.
Deleted PMs. All the perverts are doing it. Sometimes they can be recovered, sometimes they can't.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 19, 2013, 06:32:04 AM
Deleted PMs. All the perverts are doing it. Sometimes they can be recovered, sometimes they can't.
Lies. LIES. You're just trying to trick me!
(http://ratedzed.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/paranoid.jpg)
I'm Paranoid, Ill admit it. I dont like the Idea that my Family, Job and Life can be ruined from an accusation. Also, Im paranoid because the Treeples keep watching me.
Panache-
Are you Ground Team or UDF qualified? MRO? FLM or FLS?
If so, what do you do when assigned cadets?
>:D
Flyer
^ None of those things require or should be assumed to only be cadets.
Quote from: Devil Doc on December 19, 2013, 12:58:38 PM
I'm Paranoid, Ill admit it. I dont like the Idea that my Family, Job and Life can be ruined from an accusation. Also, Im paranoid because the Treeples keep watching me.
I agree, it is like flying into a canyon, you should have a plan.
Accusations are just that. Look at 20/20 and every other month they have a story about somebody getting out of prison after 20 years for a killing they did not commit. 8)
I know.
Flyer
It is entirely possible for a senior member to be a member of a composite squadron and not have much interaction with cadets. Just because they don't want to work directly with cadets as a CP officer doesn't mean they should go elsewhere. I, for one, only work with them in an ES context. All other times I let the CP folks do their job because they do it a heck of a lot better than I would.
Maybe I handled this wrong, but it is an example of really erring on the side of caution.
Back in the '90s, my favourite grandniece expressed a slight interest in CAP. She was of age to be a cadet and I think she could have done well.
However, the squadron I was in at the time was over 30 miles away, and she would have had no way to get there but to ride with me.
I told her that, unfortunately, in the eyes of CAP, once the uniforms came on and we were on CAP time, I was no longer "Uncle." I was "Lieutenant," and she would be "Cadet," and that the rules forbade senior members to be alone with cadets, even if they were related, though I think there's an exception for parents.
I talked about it with my squadron CC, who was and is a great guy, and the best CC I have ever had. He is level-headed and rational, and not prone to over-emotionalism colouring his thinking.
He agreed with me. This meant that, because she had no transportation to the meetings, she did not join.
I have second-guessed myself about that ever since.
^ That's just wrong, for many reasons.
Quote from: CyBorg on December 20, 2013, 07:20:18 AM
I was "Lieutenant," and she would be "Cadet," and that the rules forbade senior members to be alone with cadets, even if they were related, though I think there's an exception for parents.
If I remember correctly, even in the 90s that was never the case. CPP never stated that seniors and cadets could not be one on one, although I think the basic intent was hidden in the training. A lot of people had always made the assumption that was true and that was written in CPPT. However, it was never put in writing. Even in the new rewrites, they make an exception for family (although I cannot remember if they list it as immediate or not).
Either way, it comes down to common sense and personal boundaries. If I had a nephew who I thought could potentially accuse me of anything inappropriate, chances are were not that close to begin with.
I've taken quick car rides with cadets from one side of the airport to the other. Never thought twice about it. Not much CYA, but hey, if life was all about CYA we'd be all extinct as the fear of being accused of rape would drive the birthrate to zero.
Quote from: CyBorg on December 20, 2013, 07:20:18 AMI have second-guessed myself about that ever since.
:(
Record keeping, communication. Never hurts. Make a note to mom, "we're leaving now, it's 18:00..." and sign in at the meeting, 18:45. Keep a mileage log in the car. "57,454/1850: departed O'Fallon", 57,487/1925: arrived Gateway Arch plaza". Slight simple stuff. Leave no time for impurities.
I tend to take photos at random places, with identifiable landmarks, with the phone when I want to mark time/place for record sake. The phone tags the photo with lat/long. Yes, I know they can be edited, so can the paper log. so can a lot of things. But if someone says "they picked me up and drove for 2 hours to a weird place in the woods.."
Second, does the meeting/activity begin at your door, or at the time of sign/in/out?
Third, the parents are on board with the whole thing. There's a bit more accountability there than just running a "taxi service".
Can you cover for everything? No. You might need to move into a missile silo in the desert.
Quote from: EMT-83 on December 20, 2013, 02:11:08 PM
^ That's just wrong, for many reasons.
Please do not rub it in. I know quite well I may have deprived a very bright young girl (who is now married, with children of her own) of a fulfilling experience due to my overcaution.
Quote from: LSThiker on December 20, 2013, 03:04:39 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on December 20, 2013, 07:20:18 AM
I was "Lieutenant," and she would be "Cadet," and that the rules forbade senior members to be alone with cadets, even if they were related, though I think there's an exception for parents.
If I remember correctly, even in the 90s that was never the case. CPP never stated that seniors and cadets could not be one on one, although I think the basic intent was hidden in the training. A lot of people had always made the assumption that was true and that was written in CPPT. However, it was never put in writing. Even in the new rewrites, they make an exception for family (although I cannot remember if they list it as immediate or not).
That is how it was presented to me in 1993, when I had my Level I. It may have been because some of the incidents which brought about the strengthened CPPT were still so relatively recent, but it was presented to me that just one false allegation, rumour, innuendo, etc., would bring about a swift kick out the door of CAP.
It was so new that we were still using the BSA video.
If the family exemptions were as you say, and I have no reason to doubt you, I do not believe they would consider "granduncle/grandniece" to be "immediate."
Quote from: CyBorg on December 21, 2013, 12:26:00 AM
That is how it was presented to me in 1993, when I had my Level I. It may have been because some of the incidents which brought about the strengthened CPPT were still so relatively recent, but it was presented to me that just one false allegation, rumour, innuendo, etc., would bring about a swift kick out the door of CAP.
It was so new that we were still using the BSA video.
If the family exemptions were as you say, and I have no reason to doubt you, I do not believe they would consider "granduncle/grandniece" to be "immediate."
It was presented to me in the same fashion as well. I am not sure where that rumor came from, but if I recall correctly was never in the regulations. It is a good personal policy and obviously your choice. Throughout the years, I have had arguments against people accusing me of breaking the regulation. However, when I would challenge them with the "show me where it says that", no one was able to present the passage.
Either way, if you stuck to your personal preference, more power to you. It obviously never hurts to have 3 people in a group.