CAP Speculative Fiction

[Eclipse]

Lawsuits? I heard recently that back in the 90's, there was a question as to whether not the Cadet program would even continue due to insurance costs. I've also heard that 50% of my $65 annual dues goes strictly to paying for insurance. I heard this from a CAP LtCol who has something like 46+ years in CAP. Not sure if all of this is in fact true, but due to his extensive experience in CAP, I'm inclined to believe him until I hear otherwise.

I'd be inclined to throw a 70-foot BS flag on that.

CAP is self-insured, so the majority of the expense is for the plan administrator and actual benefits, not the insurance itself.
I don't know how that equates to any bonds or other instruments that might be required to guarantee payments (or
if those are even necessary), but there's no way 1/2 the dues is for insurance.

[antdetroitwallyball]

Cadets aren't "children", the expectation is higher, but they also aren't adults.

We expect them to act like adults, and that's fine. But if we have to administer CISM (extreme example, I know) to a cadet because of some situation we put them in, I think that means we took the whole "you're a 16 year old fully capable adult thing" too far. Adults have the wherewithall to say, "I'm a volunteer, and I don't feel like continuing my role in this ES mission is healthy for me." 16 year olds, by in large, just don't have that same ability. Not on a practical level, and not on a legal level.

In no way do I ascribe to any nonsense that properly trained and attuned cadets are an ES liability.
Some of the sharpest ES people I've worked with have been cadets.

The liability thing isn't really our call. That's the call of our "customer." And most standing SOP's of government agencies explictly say: "No one under 18." I live in MI. I've done a lot of work with local and state emergency managment/response entities. Maybe in your state, it's different.

I'd be inclined to throw a 70-foot BS flag on that.

CAP is self-insured, so the majority of the expense is for the plan administrator and actual benefits, not the insurance itself.
I don't know how that equates to any bonds or other instruments that might be required to guarantee payments (or
if those are even necessary), but there's no way 1/2 the dues is for insurance.

That's why I put the disclaimer in there.....

[Eclipse]

Pretty much agree.

[Ned]

From a legal and practical perspective:

Most of our cadets are minors; some are adults.

Most of our seniors are adults; some are minors.

None of our members should be exposed to unreasonable risks.  That's kinda the whole point of ORM and good leadership.

Membership category simply isn't a factor in that particular decision.

[lordmonar]

From a legal and practical perspective:

Most of our cadets are minors; some are adults.

Most of our seniors are adults; some are minors.

None of our members should be exposed to unreasonable risks.  That's kinda the whole point of ORM and good leadership.

Membership category simply isn't a factor in that particular decision.

Are there still jurisdictions where 18 year olds are considered minors?

[Ned]

Are there still jurisdictions where 18 year olds are considered minors?

Yes, several US states, including Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska.  Not to mention Puerto Rico.

Plus, 17 year-olds on active duty are cannot be cadets but are welcome as senior members.  (CAPR 39-2, para 3-2(B))

[lordmonar]

Are there still jurisdictions where 18 year olds are considered minors?

Yes, several US states, including Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska.  Not to mention Puerto Rico.

Plus, 17 year-olds on active duty are cannot be cadets but are welcome as senior members.  (CAPR 39-2, para 3-2(B))

Ahhh.......well the more you know! 

[antdetroitwallyball]

None of our members should be exposed to unreasonable risks.  That's kinda the whole point of ORM and good leadership.

Membership category simply isn't a factor in that particular decision.

While I agree with you in spirit here, it should be pointed out that the difference here between minors (most of the cadets) and adults (most of the SMs) is that it is not right to expect the minors to be able to always recognize when a risk in unreasonable. That's the adults job.

The structure of the cadet program seems to reflect this: the cadets command and pretty much run 100% if their own program, but the adult SMs still stay in the background just to make sure that cadet command is, in fact, making the appropriate decisions as it relates to safety and policy.

In society, it is expected that adults will recognize risk and deal with it accordingly. We cannot rightfully expect this universally from minors.

[Eclipse]

^ Rare is the squadron or activity where cadets run anything close to 100% of the program.

That might be the goal or premise, but reality is pretty far afield of that.

But I agree that the structure is such that proper adult supervision is supposed to keep things as safe as possible.

[Ned]

[While I agree with you in spirit here, it should be pointed out that the difference here between minors (most of the cadets) and adults (most of the SMs) is that it is not right to expect the minors to be able to always recognize when a risk in unreasonable. That's the adults job.

The structure of the cadet program seems to reflect this: the cadets command and pretty much run 100% if their own program, but the adult SMs still stay in the background just to make sure that cadet command is, in fact, making the appropriate decisions as it relates to safety and policy.

In society, it is expected that adults will recognize risk and deal with it accordingly. We cannot rightfully expect this universally from minors.

It does appear that we agree in spirit:  no member -- cadet or senior -- should be exposed to unreasonable risks while participating in CAP.

And I can only agree that cadets are always supervised by senior members whose job it is to ensure that cadets are not exposed to unreasonable risks.

But we don't rely on senior members to recognize risks alone.  That's the point of ORM.  Leaders perform ORM even for activities that only involve adult members, and place limits on member's actions to ensure safety.  Because members directly engaged in the activity may not be able to appreciate risks involved.  And cadet / senior status simply doesn't have much to do with that.

[Luis R. Ramos]

From Ant:

Not sure how many 17 year olds you have around you in your personal life (family members, cadets, etc), but very few, IMHO, act very much like adults. The distinction must be made between capabilities and mindset. They have the capabilities of adults, but they simply lack an life experience living as one (an adult), and it's that experience that by in large, acts as a mediator of our decisions.

11 years as a public school teacher, about half high school and half elementary plus 12 years in CAP. So yes, I would say plenty of 16, 17, and 18 year old.

Flyer

[antdetroitwallyball]

11 years as a public school teacher, about half high school and half elementary plus 12 years in CAP. So yes, I would say plenty of 16, 17, and 18 year old.

I understand that there are exceptions at every age level, but we have to draw the line somewhere. In this country, the line is pretty clearly drawn at 18. People under this age are children.

[Luis R. Ramos]

No.

In this country, they are minors. Not children. In this country and in every state of this country they are young adults. Not children.

You see everything as black or white.

Just because they are minors does not mean they are children.

Flyer

[PHall]

11 years as a public school teacher, about half high school and half elementary plus 12 years in CAP. So yes, I would say plenty of 16, 17, and 18 year old.

I understand that there are exceptions at every age level, but we have to draw the line somewhere. In this country, the line is pretty clearly drawn at 18. People under this age are children.

So you're saying that there are "children" serving in the US Military. Minimum age to enlist is 17 with parent/guardian consent.

[Eclipse]

Context is everything.

I know people in their 40's who are still children.

[antdetroitwallyball]

So you're saying that there are "children" serving in the US Military.

Yes. At least in the branch that I assist. If you're behavior is so unaccetably below the standard of that of an adult, such that your command recinds any weapons privilages, etc..............and by coincidence, you also happen to be the 17 years of age that your behavior suggests...........you are a child serving in the military. The military survives because of supervison. The branch I assist has the fewest people, and thus insufficient supervison. This is exceptionally apparent among the 20 and under personnel's behaviour and discipline stats. It correlates magnificantly with NJP and discharges.

We've met recruitment goals accross the board folks. For several years now. Might be time to raise the age of enlistment slightly. Or at least do some studies to see if this could help. You can always have a waiver process for the deserving exceptions. It costs so much money as it is (especially with the way the US Gov pays for things) to train an E1-E3 that if age could be correlated with maturity correlated with discharges, there might be some significant money to be saved. It will be different when we decide to go invade more countries again. ......but until then, let's not confuse building our militaries "Smart" with building them "BIG.".....

Minimum age to enlist is 17 with parent/guardian consent.

In the particular branch I assist, it is possible to become an NCO at 18 years of age with less than 9 months of service. In the cases I've observed, that tends to work out great.

Context is everything.

I know people in their 40's who are still children.

There is always exceptions. I'm discussing the majority. Let's look at stats. Young drivers have the same fatality/infraction rates as the very elderly who have legtimate cognitive/physical reasons for their poor driving. So yes, so some 16 year olds are better drivers than some 40 year olds. Statistically, however, this is unlikely. We generally make our driving laws around the majority, not the exception.

[The14th]

11 years as a public school teacher, about half high school and half elementary plus 12 years in CAP. So yes, I would say plenty of 16, 17, and 18 year old.

I understand that there are exceptions at every age level, but we have to draw the line somewhere. In this country, the line is pretty clearly drawn at 18. People under this age are children.

So you're saying that there are "children" serving in the US Military. Minimum age to enlist is 17 with parent/guardian consent.

I was one of those "children". Learning how to be an Infantryman at age 17, and in Iraq by 18.

[Luis R. Ramos]

...I know people in their 40's who are still children.

No argument there from me...



Flyer

[Storm Chaser]

Are there still jurisdictions where 18 year olds are considered minors?

Yes, several US states, including Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska.  Not to mention Puerto Rico. (emphasis mine)

Interesting, especially considering that the legal drinking age in Puerto Rico is 18, which is also the legal age to gamble and use tobacco products. I'm not sure I would call that being a minor.

[Ned]

As I've mentioned in other threads, age restrictions are a little like legal trivia.  One of my favorite games.

But the age of majority should not be confused with with gambling, tobacco, firearm , or even voting age restrictions.  Which, like the age of consent for sexual activity or the ability to become President of the United States are not the same thing as the age of majority.

The age of majority in Puerto Rico is 21 - the age at which an individual can make contracts, medical decisions, and is generally considered an adult.

Some states, like California, use the term "minor" differently depending on the context.  California's age of majority is 18, like most states, but we still will refer to a 19 year old caught with a beer in public as a "Minor in possession."