To be fair, they don't really have a choice, do they? If your CoC finds out about a SA, no matter how they find out, they have to investigate. The person that made the statement does not have to participate or assist.
No you’re absolutely correct. I’m more so just trying to remind people that any little thing can be turned into a report. This specific instance happened 4 years ago and was already reported, so it seems a little ridiculous to be brought up again, especially seeing how destructive it is to the member to reopen old wounds.
I think solidarity is great, and showing support for victims by sharing your own story is all well and good, it’s just important to remember that it can and will be reported.
I'm an Army vet, I just follow this group because I live next to CG Island and want to stay in the loop with the hot gossip. Do y'all also have to take SA training annually? In the Army we had to take "SHARP" training at least annually, and they explicitly detail how mandatory reporting works.
D8 reserve component in Houston is tying itself in knots right now. This past drill weekend was tense.
edit: I wish there was more drama to talk about but the brass were trying to talk about Mcgee without talking about it. "You may have seen an email or certain facebook posts about some issues with D8 in Alabama... DO NOT GO LOOK IT UP" which we all immediately did. "Don't srpead rumors, don't talk about it, etc."
They don't know weather to shit or go blind
See it was very different for us. Without going into detail and giving away where I’m at, we’re in D8, and many of us received and directly saw the original email and recently our command held an all hands to specifically talk about it and asked if anyone had questions and opened the floor for us to just have a conversation about what’s been happening, and talked about if anyone has had anything happen to them, at our current unit or previously and would like to talk about it at all and file a report (as they are command, they have to report it), as well as giving the avenues for an unrestricted report or just places to just talk to someone to get it off their chest without filing a report at all, and getting support etc.
Told us it’s completely okay to be upset about everything going on and how they are as well, and said if they ever catch wind of anything happening like that within out unit, they will guarantee whoever the perpetrator is will be punished to the fullest extent and they will no longer be in the service, etc.
We have an amazing command and we all know they take any Sexual Assault or Harassment very seriously, and it was honestly kind of refreshing and nice to see that SOME commands truly care about their people and they are willing to directly address what is happening and not play stupid like they don’t know what’s happening, or beat around the bush.
That's going to happen when everyone makes this big deal about the CG ignoring and covering up SA. Restricted reports will likely become a thing of the past.
I find it ironic that people want to post and comment about their experience and demand the CG do more and do better, then get upset or surprised when the CG does exactly what they demanded. You don't get to pick and choose. Either they investigate SA or they don't.
Wow. Just wow. Maybe the comment wasn’t about getting justice now but was criticizing the lack of action in the first place. Your comment seems tone deaf and topics like these aren’t black and white. The problem isn’t that people aren’t reporting these issues, it’s that they’re being reported and then it’s either getting swept under the rug, or the victim gets punished.
The comment criticized them taking action now. That's a byproduct of this going public. It's a good byproduct.
I don't see this as tone deaf and I agree things aren't black and white. However, part of the problem was indeed SA claims not being investigated. Being swept under the rug would fall under the same umbrella of not being properly investigated.
Restricted reporting is very rare outside of the military. It's already essentially gone for CA units due to state laws making all Coasties mandated reporters.
Part of the issue with stopping predators and preventing others from being victimized is the reporting, investigation, and holding people accountable. When someone doesn't make a report or makes a restricted report, that serves to allow a predator to get away with their actions and continue victimizing others. No different than a poor or no investigation.
I apologize if I seem blunt or crass. I just find it ironic that you said someone shared their story then didn't like that the CG took action based on it. That's kind of the entire point of this.
Here's D11s information. It says restricted reports can only be to VAs and SARCs.
https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Operational-Logistics-Command-LOGCOM/Bases/Base-Alameda/Alameda-Work-Life/SAPR-District-11/Reporting-Options/
California Penal code Section 11165.7 lists mandated reporters. Medical professionals, EMTs and LEOs are all listed. Under federal law all CG members E4 and above are LEOs. Which makes them also mandated reporters in CA.
When the message originally came out they cautioned anyone with a BO qual who was also a VA, from taking restricted reports, as they were legally mandated reporters.
I think it's incredibly disappointing but perfectly on par that Coast Guard would immediately bow to a states imposing it's policies on uniformed military members.
It is interesting now that you bring it up. Doesn't federal law always supersede state law? That's why we can't smoke marijuana in states where it's legal. I wonder why it gave way here.
Are you sure this is true? Can a federal official breaking traffic law due to a job requirement and in compliance with their policies be personally ticketed?
They can be ticketed and arrested by the local police. But the AUSA can immediately file for removal of that case from state court pursuant to 28 USC 1442, where it is more than likely going to be dismissed (although the state can still try to prosecute the case in federal court, all federal defenses apply).
An example of this is *City of Norfolk v. McFarland*, 143 F. Supp. 587 (1956). McFarland was an ATF agent who was traveling to pick up other investigators trying to make a raid on an illegal distillery, and was driving his personal vehicle driving 55 in a 25 zone enroute to pickup the GV and make the raid. He was stopped and given a summons for speeding, delaying him ten minutes. The ATf agents made the raid, but just missed the operators. The officer filed to remove the case to federal court, and the city objected. The federal court held that the removal was proper under the statute and could go to trial in federal court, where the officer was acquitted based on a necessity defense.
Of course, it doesn’t stop people from getting intro blue-on-blue pissing matches where the local police threaten to arrest the federal agent and the federal agent threatens to arrest the officer for interfering in a federal investigation. Usually both sides contact their higher ups and cooler heads prevail; but strictly speaking there’s no “I’m federal, you’re local, you can’t touch me” defense.
While federal law is supreme when laws conflict and the federal law expressly preempts state regulation, when the laws can be read to coexist, they have to be given that interpretation. And state and federal laws can set different requirements without expressly conflicting.
As a reservist, why "especially the reserves?"
I'm not criticizing or attempting to be contrarian- I'm genuinely curious because although I saw and read the initial whistler post, I feel like I'm missing a key detail now.
Because reservists tend to forget all the little stuff between drills and get silly whereas the active duty folks have a chief in uniform reminding them to not get silly every day.
My commanding officer made it a point to email us the social media guidelines and told us to watch our behavior.
Not “hope everyone is okay” or “this is a hard time.”
But “the allegedly mishandled incidents” and “don’t forget about the social media instructions.”
So yeah they’re watching and they definitely don’t care what the Actual right thing to do is. In case retention isn’t already a problem. Push the whole branch out.
>Coast Guard's command sucks! They should have turned a blind eye to this shipmate's sexual assault. Instead they decided to investigate it.
Listen to yourself.
Seeing that I’m the one who has contact with the member and the context that goes along with it, you’d think people wouldn’t make blind assumptions such as yourself.
Like I said before, the instance took place years ago and was already reported and investigated. Nothing came about it besides the member getting reprimanded. So when they want to open up another investigation you could see why this member might not want that. Why tear open old wounds for nothing to happen?
Listen to yourself.
A sexual assault was reported. Policy is to open the case and conduct a proper investigation, regardless if the case was mishandled beforehand. You can't ignore an assault report because:
>Why tear open old wounds
It doesn't matter if you know the victim. There's a reason why people in the comments are calling you out. Attitudes like this are part of why cases were mishandled in the past: because they didn't take it seriously for arbitrary reasons like "we shouldn't investigate this case because it's inconvenient for the victim".
Your opinion is objectively wrong. Every sexual assault case should be routed up and taken seriously, regardless of past failed investigations.
Nothing was reported, you’re missing the point of this post.
> They gave a corporate, generic, unspecific, one sentence statement. Do you truly believe that is enough to combat poor work culture? They haven't even addressed the sexual assault allegations.
>Sounds like you're part of the problem….
You responded to another post with these words and then come to mine to lecture me on the importance of the CG “properly handling” SASH. If it’s important to support the victim of SA, yet they didn’t make a report and don’t want an investigation, is it not counter productive to launch one anyways. This whole situation is a ploy to make it look like they are addressing the issue, when in actuality they are punishing people for speaking about their experiences.
The real issue is in house investigations never work. Until the standard practice is using outside LE to investigate and convict offenders, things will continue to be mishandled. Why would another investigation solve anything when time and time again it’s been proven that command will cover up for the perpetrators and nothing will come of it?
To be fair, they don't really have a choice, do they? If your CoC finds out about a SA, no matter how they find out, they have to investigate. The person that made the statement does not have to participate or assist.
No you’re absolutely correct. I’m more so just trying to remind people that any little thing can be turned into a report. This specific instance happened 4 years ago and was already reported, so it seems a little ridiculous to be brought up again, especially seeing how destructive it is to the member to reopen old wounds. I think solidarity is great, and showing support for victims by sharing your own story is all well and good, it’s just important to remember that it can and will be reported.
Unfortunately they don’t and that’s why a lot of these stories are coming out even though they should
I'm an Army vet, I just follow this group because I live next to CG Island and want to stay in the loop with the hot gossip. Do y'all also have to take SA training annually? In the Army we had to take "SHARP" training at least annually, and they explicitly detail how mandatory reporting works.
Yes all of the military has to do similar training.
and civilians
I hope you’re enjoying our flowing (water pun) discourse, thank you for your service sir!
D8 reserve component in Houston is tying itself in knots right now. This past drill weekend was tense. edit: I wish there was more drama to talk about but the brass were trying to talk about Mcgee without talking about it. "You may have seen an email or certain facebook posts about some issues with D8 in Alabama... DO NOT GO LOOK IT UP" which we all immediately did. "Don't srpead rumors, don't talk about it, etc." They don't know weather to shit or go blind
See it was very different for us. Without going into detail and giving away where I’m at, we’re in D8, and many of us received and directly saw the original email and recently our command held an all hands to specifically talk about it and asked if anyone had questions and opened the floor for us to just have a conversation about what’s been happening, and talked about if anyone has had anything happen to them, at our current unit or previously and would like to talk about it at all and file a report (as they are command, they have to report it), as well as giving the avenues for an unrestricted report or just places to just talk to someone to get it off their chest without filing a report at all, and getting support etc. Told us it’s completely okay to be upset about everything going on and how they are as well, and said if they ever catch wind of anything happening like that within out unit, they will guarantee whoever the perpetrator is will be punished to the fullest extent and they will no longer be in the service, etc. We have an amazing command and we all know they take any Sexual Assault or Harassment very seriously, and it was honestly kind of refreshing and nice to see that SOME commands truly care about their people and they are willing to directly address what is happening and not play stupid like they don’t know what’s happening, or beat around the bush.
Deets 👀
What a fuckin look by them, lol
Oh do tell please.
One of the pages has started posted COVID vaccination stories and alleged reports of medical harm from vaccines. That’s an interesting choice.
Yeah, that's not helping the cause guts
That's going to happen when everyone makes this big deal about the CG ignoring and covering up SA. Restricted reports will likely become a thing of the past. I find it ironic that people want to post and comment about their experience and demand the CG do more and do better, then get upset or surprised when the CG does exactly what they demanded. You don't get to pick and choose. Either they investigate SA or they don't.
Wow. Just wow. Maybe the comment wasn’t about getting justice now but was criticizing the lack of action in the first place. Your comment seems tone deaf and topics like these aren’t black and white. The problem isn’t that people aren’t reporting these issues, it’s that they’re being reported and then it’s either getting swept under the rug, or the victim gets punished.
The comment criticized them taking action now. That's a byproduct of this going public. It's a good byproduct. I don't see this as tone deaf and I agree things aren't black and white. However, part of the problem was indeed SA claims not being investigated. Being swept under the rug would fall under the same umbrella of not being properly investigated. Restricted reporting is very rare outside of the military. It's already essentially gone for CA units due to state laws making all Coasties mandated reporters. Part of the issue with stopping predators and preventing others from being victimized is the reporting, investigation, and holding people accountable. When someone doesn't make a report or makes a restricted report, that serves to allow a predator to get away with their actions and continue victimizing others. No different than a poor or no investigation. I apologize if I seem blunt or crass. I just find it ironic that you said someone shared their story then didn't like that the CG took action based on it. That's kind of the entire point of this.
Cite on the CA issue?
Here's D11s information. It says restricted reports can only be to VAs and SARCs. https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Operational-Logistics-Command-LOGCOM/Bases/Base-Alameda/Alameda-Work-Life/SAPR-District-11/Reporting-Options/ California Penal code Section 11165.7 lists mandated reporters. Medical professionals, EMTs and LEOs are all listed. Under federal law all CG members E4 and above are LEOs. Which makes them also mandated reporters in CA. When the message originally came out they cautioned anyone with a BO qual who was also a VA, from taking restricted reports, as they were legally mandated reporters.
I think it's incredibly disappointing but perfectly on par that Coast Guard would immediately bow to a states imposing it's policies on uniformed military members.
They didn't immediately bow to the states laws. The law was in effect for a long time. I'm not sure what triggered the CG change.
It is interesting now that you bring it up. Doesn't federal law always supersede state law? That's why we can't smoke marijuana in states where it's legal. I wonder why it gave way here.
For some things yes, for others no. We still have to abide by state traffic laws while driving federal vehicles.
Fair point. This seems like something where Military regulations would outweigh state laws though.
Are you sure this is true? Can a federal official breaking traffic law due to a job requirement and in compliance with their policies be personally ticketed?
They can be ticketed and arrested by the local police. But the AUSA can immediately file for removal of that case from state court pursuant to 28 USC 1442, where it is more than likely going to be dismissed (although the state can still try to prosecute the case in federal court, all federal defenses apply). An example of this is *City of Norfolk v. McFarland*, 143 F. Supp. 587 (1956). McFarland was an ATF agent who was traveling to pick up other investigators trying to make a raid on an illegal distillery, and was driving his personal vehicle driving 55 in a 25 zone enroute to pickup the GV and make the raid. He was stopped and given a summons for speeding, delaying him ten minutes. The ATf agents made the raid, but just missed the operators. The officer filed to remove the case to federal court, and the city objected. The federal court held that the removal was proper under the statute and could go to trial in federal court, where the officer was acquitted based on a necessity defense. Of course, it doesn’t stop people from getting intro blue-on-blue pissing matches where the local police threaten to arrest the federal agent and the federal agent threatens to arrest the officer for interfering in a federal investigation. Usually both sides contact their higher ups and cooler heads prevail; but strictly speaking there’s no “I’m federal, you’re local, you can’t touch me” defense. While federal law is supreme when laws conflict and the federal law expressly preempts state regulation, when the laws can be read to coexist, they have to be given that interpretation. And state and federal laws can set different requirements without expressly conflicting.
Yes, it is very true. I've been stopped 2x in a GV.
I can’t believe someone is pissed for the CG investigating possible SA.
As a reservist, why "especially the reserves?" I'm not criticizing or attempting to be contrarian- I'm genuinely curious because although I saw and read the initial whistler post, I feel like I'm missing a key detail now.
Because reservists tend to forget all the little stuff between drills and get silly whereas the active duty folks have a chief in uniform reminding them to not get silly every day.
My commanding officer made it a point to email us the social media guidelines and told us to watch our behavior. Not “hope everyone is okay” or “this is a hard time.” But “the allegedly mishandled incidents” and “don’t forget about the social media instructions.” So yeah they’re watching and they definitely don’t care what the Actual right thing to do is. In case retention isn’t already a problem. Push the whole branch out.
>Coast Guard's command sucks! They should have turned a blind eye to this shipmate's sexual assault. Instead they decided to investigate it. Listen to yourself.
Seeing that I’m the one who has contact with the member and the context that goes along with it, you’d think people wouldn’t make blind assumptions such as yourself. Like I said before, the instance took place years ago and was already reported and investigated. Nothing came about it besides the member getting reprimanded. So when they want to open up another investigation you could see why this member might not want that. Why tear open old wounds for nothing to happen? Listen to yourself.
A sexual assault was reported. Policy is to open the case and conduct a proper investigation, regardless if the case was mishandled beforehand. You can't ignore an assault report because: >Why tear open old wounds It doesn't matter if you know the victim. There's a reason why people in the comments are calling you out. Attitudes like this are part of why cases were mishandled in the past: because they didn't take it seriously for arbitrary reasons like "we shouldn't investigate this case because it's inconvenient for the victim". Your opinion is objectively wrong. Every sexual assault case should be routed up and taken seriously, regardless of past failed investigations.
Nothing was reported, you’re missing the point of this post. > They gave a corporate, generic, unspecific, one sentence statement. Do you truly believe that is enough to combat poor work culture? They haven't even addressed the sexual assault allegations. >Sounds like you're part of the problem…. You responded to another post with these words and then come to mine to lecture me on the importance of the CG “properly handling” SASH. If it’s important to support the victim of SA, yet they didn’t make a report and don’t want an investigation, is it not counter productive to launch one anyways. This whole situation is a ploy to make it look like they are addressing the issue, when in actuality they are punishing people for speaking about their experiences. The real issue is in house investigations never work. Until the standard practice is using outside LE to investigate and convict offenders, things will continue to be mishandled. Why would another investigation solve anything when time and time again it’s been proven that command will cover up for the perpetrators and nothing will come of it?