|
On November 11 2011 03:14 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:05 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:59 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote:
Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that?? Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy. Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor. If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that. It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge. Everything else here isn't speculation: Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote:
Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that?? Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy. Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that. It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
O hey we made the same point ! well played sir
yea, action being taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky really really makes it look like a cover up.
|
On November 11 2011 03:14 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 02:55 Risen wrote:
I see nothing wrong with allowing people accused and subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing allowed to live their lives as if they were never accused. No. He wasn't cleared ffs dude, the accusation was pushed under the fucking rug in the name of a football program.
PROVE THAT. And then PROVE that Paterno knew about it. It's so fucking depressing that you're passing off speculation as fact, and you don't even know it.
|
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:52 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 02:41 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:38 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 02:35 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:29 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 02:26 Risen wrote:
[quote]
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here. Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job) His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault. For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter. Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible. He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god. Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it. You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome. I don't think that's what should happen, though. No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful. Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are. There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal. I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that? I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it. Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that? And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened. The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police. That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact. How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact. You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up. While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it. He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
|
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:52 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 02:41 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:38 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 02:35 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:29 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault. For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter. Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible. He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god. Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it. You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome. I don't think that's what should happen, though. No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful. Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are. There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal. I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that? I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it. Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that? And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened. The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police. That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact. How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact. You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up. While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it. He took the easy way out here. He should have done more. Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Fondling, Touching, and Horsing around with a child in a shower are all felony offenses. So if he were punished as much as he can be for horsing around, he would have been arrested. So... no he wasn't. He lost his keys so the next time he raped a kid it was off campus away from the Football Program.
EDIT: Joe should have called the police. The real police.
|
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:52 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 02:41 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:38 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 02:35 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:29 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault. For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter. Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible. He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god. Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it. You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome. I don't think that's what should happen, though. No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful. Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are. There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal. I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that? I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it. Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that? And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened. The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police. That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact. How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact. You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up. While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it. He took the easy way out here. He should have done more. Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Rofl, what? Punished enough for horsing around... Horsing around like that is still a felony offense. Sandusky didn't even make it on the sex offender list.
|
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done.
Edit: How fucking self-righteous are you people. He should have called the "real" police? Lol. How does Joe know they're not already informed after he's told the "fake" police (why they're fake is beyond me, I guess in your fairyland they're fake so I'll call them fake too).
YOU. DON'T. KNOW. SHIT. You know NOTHING. You are GUESSING about what happened. I'm asking you to stop GUESSING about what happened, and reserve judgement for when all the FACTS come out.
|
On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done.
No dood, there was the wrestling coach that saw him rolling on the floor with a boy
There was the janitor that saw him raping a boy
There was the mother who reported him to campus police
There was the GA who saw him raping a boy in the shower
What is occurring now is as much as can be done. Charging Sandusky with 40 felonies is all that can be done.
The evidence has not changed from 2002. So how can more be done now than then if all that could be done was done then?
|
On November 11 2011 03:28 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done. No dood, there was the wrestling coach that saw him rolling on the floor with a boy There was the janitor that saw him raping a boy There was the mother who reported him to campus police There was the GA who saw him raping a boy in the shower What is occurring now is as much as can be done. Charging Sandusky with 40 felonies is all that can be done. The evidence has not changed from 2002. So how can more be done now than then if all that could be done was done then?
Are you fuckin' KIDDING ME? Go read the document you scanned again. Then come back and edit your post.
Edit: Earlier I stated that Sandusky was merely a volunteer for Second Mile. I was correct, but wrong at the same time. Sandusky created the Second Mile foundation in 1977. Wanted to post that in the interest of full disclosure so as not to mislead anyone. That doesn't change my stance.
|
On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done.
Edit: How fucking self-righteous are you people. He should have called the "real" police? Lol. How does Joe know they're not already informed after he's told the "fake" police (why they're fake is beyond me, I guess in your fairyland they're fake so I'll call them fake too).
YOU. DON'T. KNOW. SHIT. You know NOTHING. You are GUESSING about what happened. I'm asking you to stop GUESSING about what happened, and reserve judgement for when all the FACTS come out.
He knows they are not informed because the case never resolved itself, it was swept under the rug. How is this being lost on you? McQuerey got promoted and Sandusky lost his keys to the facilities. If Sandusky really did rape someone and the police really were called then what is happening now would have happened then. If McQuerey lied about a revered member of the PSU community fooling around with a boy in the shower he would not be getting job promotions. Having neither of these occur makes it look like there was a cover up.
|
On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done.
Edit: How fucking self-righteous are you people. He should have called the "real" police? Lol. How does Joe know they're not already informed after he's told the "fake" police (why they're fake is beyond me, I guess in your fairyland they're fake so I'll call them fake too).
YOU. DON'T. KNOW. SHIT. You know NOTHING. You are GUESSING about what happened. I'm asking you to stop GUESSING about what happened, and reserve judgement for when all the FACTS come out.
Just an FYI...Anyone who resorts to cursing and caps lock on an internet forum generally won't have much credibility behind their post.
|
On November 11 2011 03:29 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:28 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done. No dood, there was the wrestling coach that saw him rolling on the floor with a boy There was the janitor that saw him raping a boy There was the mother who reported him to campus police There was the GA who saw him raping a boy in the shower What is occurring now is as much as can be done. Charging Sandusky with 40 felonies is all that can be done. The evidence has not changed from 2002. So how can more be done now than then if all that could be done was done then? Are you fuckin' KIDDING ME? Go read the document you scanned again. Then come back and edit your post.
What would you like me to edit? All those people caught Sandusky over the years and none of them took action. And the sum total of those people is in excess of one. So if one of them had acted and brought him to court the total number of witnesses for Sandusky's inappropriate sexual conduct would be greater than 1
|
On November 11 2011 03:31 Tippany wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done.
Edit: How fucking self-righteous are you people. He should have called the "real" police? Lol. How does Joe know they're not already informed after he's told the "fake" police (why they're fake is beyond me, I guess in your fairyland they're fake so I'll call them fake too).
YOU. DON'T. KNOW. SHIT. You know NOTHING. You are GUESSING about what happened. I'm asking you to stop GUESSING about what happened, and reserve judgement for when all the FACTS come out. Just an FYI...Anyone who resorts to cursing and caps lock on an internet forum generally won't have much credibility behind their post.
Just an FYI, those who blind themselves to discourse because of bad words or implied shouting are worthless to the discussion anyways.
|
|
|
On November 11 2011 03:33 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:31 Tippany wrote:On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done.
Edit: How fucking self-righteous are you people. He should have called the "real" police? Lol. How does Joe know they're not already informed after he's told the "fake" police (why they're fake is beyond me, I guess in your fairyland they're fake so I'll call them fake too).
YOU. DON'T. KNOW. SHIT. You know NOTHING. You are GUESSING about what happened. I'm asking you to stop GUESSING about what happened, and reserve judgement for when all the FACTS come out. Just an FYI...Anyone who resorts to cursing and caps lock on an internet forum generally won't have much credibility behind their post. Just an FYI, those who blind themselves to discourse because of bad words or implied shouting are worthless to the discussion anyways.
Yea that's fine you can caps and curse all you want idc, I'll still respond to your points. He is just pointing out that it makes you look bad, and when you are supporting a minority opinion looking bad is usually not optimal
|
On November 11 2011 03:32 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:29 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:28 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done. No dood, there was the wrestling coach that saw him rolling on the floor with a boy There was the janitor that saw him raping a boy There was the mother who reported him to campus police There was the GA who saw him raping a boy in the shower What is occurring now is as much as can be done. Charging Sandusky with 40 felonies is all that can be done. The evidence has not changed from 2002. So how can more be done now than then if all that could be done was done then? Are you fuckin' KIDDING ME? Go read the document you scanned again. Then come back and edit your post. What would you like me to edit? All those people caught Sandusky over the years and none of them took action. And the sum total of those people is in excess of one. So if one of them had acted and brought him to court the total number of witnesses for Sandusky's inappropriate sexual conduct would be greater than 1
I don't care about them. You responded to a post made by me referring to Joe Paterno. Joe Paterno knew about ONE witness. He didn't know about the janitor, the wrestling coach, or the mother. I don't give a shit how many real witnesses there are. There was ONE witness Paterno knew about. Additionally, all those witnesses had their event with Sandusky take place AFTER 2002 and AFTER he had been banned from being around children on the Penn State campus.
So now you're suggesting Paterno's at fault for not continually searching for witnesses that could back up the GA's testimony? What is he now, a detective? He's a head coach of a major college program. He had other shit to do in order to keep his job and maintain his lifestyle for his family.
|
O my god. My heart is breaking
|
On November 11 2011 03:31 Tippany wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done.
Edit: How fucking self-righteous are you people. He should have called the "real" police? Lol. How does Joe know they're not already informed after he's told the "fake" police (why they're fake is beyond me, I guess in your fairyland they're fake so I'll call them fake too).
YOU. DON'T. KNOW. SHIT. You know NOTHING. You are GUESSING about what happened. I'm asking you to stop GUESSING about what happened, and reserve judgement for when all the FACTS come out. Just an FYI...Anyone who resorts to cursing and caps lock on an internet forum generally won't have much credibility behind their post.
Using capital letters to show emphasis and level of voice through text is a bad thing? It's not like he's just caps lock spamming the whole way through his post.
Oh, bad words are bad too I guess...
|
To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
|
On November 11 2011 03:14 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:05 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:59 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote:
Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that?? Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy. Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor. If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that. It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge. Everything else here isn't speculation: Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote:
Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that?? Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy. Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that. It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
|
On November 11 2011 03:28 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done. No dood, there was the wrestling coach that saw him rolling on the floor with a boy There was the janitor that saw him raping a boy There was the mother who reported him to campus police There was the GA who saw him raping a boy in the shower What is occurring now is as much as can be done. Charging Sandusky with 40 felonies is all that can be done. The evidence has not changed from 2002. So how can more be done now than then if all that could be done was done then?
What I don't understand is why would you not physically stop that if you saw it happening? How do you just walk away after seeing that happen with your own eyes and live with yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
