WARNING: passionate feelings ahead.
On 11/5/2014 12:18 AM, Stefan li Rous wrote:
> At the same time, it doesn’t keep us from the loathing the SCA
> parents who wouldn’t or couldn’t watch their own children to keep
> them out of trouble and lazily handed off that responsibility to
> another. It’s just very unfortunate that that person happened to be
> an SCA local officer.
> I certainly hope those (now rich) parents are no longer playing. But,
> alas, as in many faulty product lawsuits, the facts and identities
> have been censored and hidden and we have no way of knowing.
Stefan, please allow me to correct your ignorance. (No: you
may not add this letter to your collection.)
These parents are not "rich". It is quite possible that the
children are significantly and permanently harmed by the
acts of Ben Shragger. Harmed, in the sense of perhaps
suicidal, unable to love or trust, degraded in self esteem,
confused as to sexuality. Perhaps less likely to be able
to earn a living, especially if the trauma interfered with
their schooling or has made it hard for the children to
function in society.
The money is small compensation for them, and their past, current
and future needs. Whether those needs are income, or
therapy, or other assistance.
The money may also be compensation for harms to the parents -
who, while caring for a highly compromised child, may have
had adverse impact on their work or home life. The stress
of raising a child who is highly traumatized can, in turn,
cause marital stresses, or psychological stresses on the
parent, or harm their income potential.
The sexual abuse of a child is, in every case, a horrid
tragedy to a family, which reverberates widely.
A lucky few recover, to a reasonable degree.
I have many friends, some of whom have entrusted me with
the knowledge that they were sexually abused as children
or as young adults. In general, even amongst the ones
that are successful, that knowledge goes a long way to
explaining things about them.
I also have close knowledge of a family whose child was
sexually abused (albeit not in the SCA). That child
is too young yet to predict the future, but frankly I
can't see this person recovering to anything like a
healthy and normal life.
Sexual abuse of a child is a life-long tragedy. You are cold
hearted to write about it as if it were some kind of
lottery ticket. Please revisit the parts of your heart
that allowed such feelings to escape into your writings.
Moving from the general thoughts about child abuse - to the
SCA, Shragger and so forth.
Around here, we know whose children they are. Some are still
in the SCA, most are not.
As for the SCA, and Shragger in particular. I've read, time and
again (I live in the East where this happened, and I lived
here when it happened) that nothing the SCA could have done
would have prevented this particular tragedy.
There is a kernel of truth in that. If the SCA had done
everything right, and Shragger had continued as he actually
did, he'd have slipped through the net.
BUT: we don't call a policeman a failure, if he fails to
stop every robbery every day. A policeman exists because
his existence, in general, helps reduce crime. Same with
a fireman - he's no failure if he has a quiet shift, or
if a fire starts. He or she stops fires, and that's the
The SCA did not have a responsibility to stop Shragger as
an individual. It had a responsibility to stop as many
child predators as it could, as often as it could, and
to minimize the number of child abuse situations if it
It didn't do that. That sort of prudence is considered standard
behavior in the business world, when adults care for children,
and the SCA didn't do its job. It created an environment where
child predators could feel safe to act, and that negligence
is what cost the SCA money.
I was once quoted a number, by a top-ranked SCA Officer or
Director (I'm obscuring a little) of HOW MANY CHILD PREDATORS
have been thrown out of the SCA.
That number made me sick. Because the SCA failed to act in
a prudent way to prevent child abuse, it failed to notify
parents and people who care for children that there was a
risk internal to the SCA, and it was absolutely negligent.
In this world, in the US: if you are negligent, and harm
arises, you pay money.
The SCA was negligent. Harm occurred. The only question that
remained (because of the way US Law is structured, and how
Judges operate under that law) is how much money.
Because those parents and children deserve COMPENSATION
for the harms they have suffered. And suffer they have.
The miracle here, is that the SCA got away with spending so
little money. Remember: if there had been a trial, that
trial would have been in Eastern PA, about the same time
the child abuse headlines around Penn State were making
We'd have been in the news, every night. And, in that climate,
we'd have paid every last farthing, groat and dollar we
have or could raise.
And you'd be ashamed to tell anyone you ever participated in
the SCA. Because that's how they'd know about your hobby.
Jobs could be lost, parental custody could be lost ,
reputations could be lost.
Can you imagine the impact on people's income, lives,
social standing in their non-SCA communities?
The SCA was negligent, children were harmed, there is a
relationship between the two, and the money was going to
be deservedly theirs, as an attempt to try and make up
to them for the damage done.
The people in the SCA who made that settlement are the best
damned people you know in the SCA, because not only did they
save the SCA, they saved YOU, personally, from belonging to a
nationally known organization of perverts and weirdos
that rape children. You, me, everyone you know.
Thank them, won't you?
 Lest you think I am nuts. My ex-wife, who fought for custody
of my child so she could move to a distant state, actually
accused me of belonging to an organization of sexually
perverted individuals. The Judge told her attorney that it
was not relevant. What it it had been? (And yes, those of
you that have known me for decades - my ex was a Laurel.)
Manage your subscription at http://listserv.unl.edu.
listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.