|
On November 11 2011 04:08 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:06 meadbert wrote:On November 11 2011 03:58 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:55 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:53 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:44 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:43 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:14 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:05 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:59 Hawk wrote:
[quote]
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: 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? I thought I had, oh wait I did. On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
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. Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point. Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page. On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end. Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close. Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault. So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police. No, the campus police would not respond to 911. Campus police are more analogous to mall security than the actual police. They are employees of the university, not the Police force.
You.
On November 11 2011 04:09 FryktSkyene wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:06 meadbert wrote:On November 11 2011 03:58 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:55 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:53 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:44 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:43 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:14 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:05 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:59 Hawk wrote:
[quote]
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: 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? I thought I had, oh wait I did. On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
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. Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point. Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page. On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end. Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close. Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault. So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police. You've clearly never been to a unversity have you... Campus police are like mall cops. There rent-a-cops so to speak.
And You.
Both of you have NEVER had to deal with the campus police force. I can tell, or you wouldn't hold such illusions about them being mall cops.
|
That's a pretty valid point. Joe did not even know if the allegations were true, if someone makes an allegation, about ANYTHING, you don't hold a fucking press conference and alert the media that some random person alleges something against you or one of your staff. You alert the AD, which he did, and it needed to be the AD's responsibility to hold an investigation into the validity of the situation.
The only way it would become more of a MORAL obligation, is the eye witness that supposedly informed Joe of what he saw.
Once again, we don't know what exactly was said at the time, but if Joe was told by a trusted source that he was an eye witness to sandusky assaulting a kid, then there is just no way Joe gets out of this one with a good name. :\
|
On November 11 2011 04:08 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:58 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:55 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:53 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:44 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:43 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:14 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:05 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:59 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
[quote]
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: 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? I thought I had, oh wait I did. On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point. Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page. On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end. Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close. Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault. If you say so, my experience says otherwise.. I'll expand it. I think informing the Athletic Director and the head of the fairy police as enough. You and many others don't. Then end. As to them being fairy police. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_policehttp://blog.odmp.org/2010/11/yes-campus-police-are-real-cops-too.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/11/penn_state_scandal_should_campus_cops_have_reported_the_allegations_of_abuse_.htmlI think you and many others need to take a look at whether "fairy" police are real police. They are. The officers at Penn State are armed and according to state law, these have both the power and the duty "to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner." Taken from the last link. So you and many others saying campus police aren't "real"... Well ya know that's just like, uhh, your opinion, man.
Hmm, that last article is very interesting. I did not realize public universities could have sworn officers, i attend a private uni in PA where our police officers are unarmed mall cops. If that is the case, then that does really change things from my perspective.
http://www.br.psu.edu/Documents/Campus_Police_Powers_and_Duties.pdf This clearly states that the officers do in fact have the same duties as the officers of the municipality have.
While I still think Joe should have done more, I will concede that reporting to university police seems to be basically analogous to reporting to municipal authorities. Since this is the case I do also hold the campus police chief as morally responsible as I hold Joe.
|
On November 11 2011 04:11 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:08 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 04:06 meadbert wrote:On November 11 2011 03:58 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:55 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:53 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:44 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:43 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:14 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:05 Risen wrote:
[quote]
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: On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
[quote]
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? I thought I had, oh wait I did. On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
[quote]
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. Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point. Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page. On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end. Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close. Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault. So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police. No, the campus police would not respond to 911. Campus police are more analogous to mall security than the actual police. They are employees of the university, not the Police force. You. Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:09 FryktSkyene wrote:On November 11 2011 04:06 meadbert wrote:On November 11 2011 03:58 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:55 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:53 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:44 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:43 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:14 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:05 Risen wrote:
[quote]
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: On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
[quote]
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? I thought I had, oh wait I did. On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
[quote]
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. Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point. Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page. On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end. Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close. Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault. So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police. You've clearly never been to a unversity have you... Campus police are like mall cops. There rent-a-cops so to speak. And You. Both of you have NEVER had to deal with the campus police force. I can tell, or you wouldn't hold such illusions about them being mall cops.
yes i did not realize Public Universities can hire sworn in officers, Private universities cannot do this.
My apologies
|
On November 11 2011 04:09 Battleaxe wrote:
I went to a public school, all of my campus police officers were state cops with the power to arrest, carry firearms, all that good stuff. Perhaps it speaks to a larger issue that other public universities should stop hiring bullshit rent a cops and get a real police force so they have the power to do something. Also, campus police would still have the power to do some sort of investigation and turn the findings over to the "actual" police.
The campus police DID investigate following a mom reporting an incident, and they decided to "advise him not to shower with young boys anymore." This gives credence to the theory that what was actually reported by the witness was some vague ass shit. I highly doubt the campus police were in on some university coverup scandal.
|
On November 11 2011 04:15 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:08 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:58 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:55 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:53 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:44 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:43 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:14 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:05 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:59 Hawk wrote:
[quote]
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: 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? I thought I had, oh wait I did. On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
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. Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point. Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page. On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end. Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close. Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault. If you say so, my experience says otherwise.. I'll expand it. I think informing the Athletic Director and the head of the fairy police as enough. You and many others don't. Then end. As to them being fairy police. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_policehttp://blog.odmp.org/2010/11/yes-campus-police-are-real-cops-too.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/11/penn_state_scandal_should_campus_cops_have_reported_the_allegations_of_abuse_.htmlI think you and many others need to take a look at whether "fairy" police are real police. They are. The officers at Penn State are armed and according to state law, these have both the power and the duty "to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner." Taken from the last link. So you and many others saying campus police aren't "real"... Well ya know that's just like, uhh, your opinion, man. Hmm, that last article is very interesting. I did not realize public universities could have sworn officers, i attend a private uni in PA where our police officers are unarmed mall cops. If that is the case, then that does really change things from my perspective. http://www.br.psu.edu/Documents/Campus_Police_Powers_and_Duties.pdf This clearly states that the officers do in fact have the same duties as the officers of the municipality have. While I still think Joe should have done more, I will concede that reporting to university police seems to be basically analogous to reporting to municipal authorities. Since this is the case I do also hold the campus police chief as morally responsible as I hold Joe.
Thank you so much for that concession. I went to a private university once and you are correct, they're glorified mall cops. I've since attended a public university with sworn officers and can attest to the fact that they are the real deal.
Edit: To be clear, I hold the campus police chief and the Athletic Director at both moral and legal fault.
|
On November 11 2011 04:17 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:15 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 04:08 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:58 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:55 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:53 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:44 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:43 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:14 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 03:05 Risen wrote:
[quote]
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: On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
[quote]
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? I thought I had, oh wait I did. On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
[quote]
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. Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point. Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page. On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end. Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close. Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault. If you say so, my experience says otherwise.. I'll expand it. I think informing the Athletic Director and the head of the fairy police as enough. You and many others don't. Then end. As to them being fairy police. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_policehttp://blog.odmp.org/2010/11/yes-campus-police-are-real-cops-too.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/11/penn_state_scandal_should_campus_cops_have_reported_the_allegations_of_abuse_.htmlI think you and many others need to take a look at whether "fairy" police are real police. They are. The officers at Penn State are armed and according to state law, these have both the power and the duty "to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner." Taken from the last link. So you and many others saying campus police aren't "real"... Well ya know that's just like, uhh, your opinion, man. Hmm, that last article is very interesting. I did not realize public universities could have sworn officers, i attend a private uni in PA where our police officers are unarmed mall cops. If that is the case, then that does really change things from my perspective. http://www.br.psu.edu/Documents/Campus_Police_Powers_and_Duties.pdf This clearly states that the officers do in fact have the same duties as the officers of the municipality have. While I still think Joe should have done more, I will concede that reporting to university police seems to be basically analogous to reporting to municipal authorities. Since this is the case I do also hold the campus police chief as morally responsible as I hold Joe. Thank you so much for that concession. I went to a private university once and you are correct, they're glorified mall cops. I've since attended a public university with sworn officers and can attest to the fact that they are the real deal.
And I can attest that Penn State's campus police are the real deal from personal experience.. when they gave me a Public Drunkeness citation this last New Year's............
|
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
|
|
|
On November 11 2011 04:09 FryktSkyene wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:06 meadbert wrote:
So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police. You've clearly never been to a unversity have you... Campus police are like mall cops. There rent-a-cops so to speak.
I have never been to an unversity, but I have been to many universities including Penn State, for the American Regions Math League (National High School Match Champsionship.)
I never had the chance to call police there, but at Duke University I know that if you call 911 to report a crime you are connected to campus police.
|
On November 11 2011 04:30 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired. Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
|
I think the point many of us backing Paterno are making here (and I apologize if I'm incorrectly speaking for anyone I've grouped into this) is that he made the correct moral decision based on the information he had. He received an allegation from a graduate assistant, he took that allegation to his superior and also to the campus police. At that point, what else would suggest he do? Assuming he had faith in the school officials and the campus police, and saw that neither of those parties did nothing, wouldn't it be fair to assume that the allegations were investigated and dismissed?
|
On November 11 2011 04:37 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:30 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired. Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment. You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong. Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
I think he was actually considered at-will because he was at one time asked to resign as head coach and he declined. If he was a contract employee the university would have fired him about 10 years ago
|
Minimum legal requirement? Explain to me the maximum legal requirement.
People who are holding the pitchforks and torches have yet to explain the physical steps he should have taken to be free from blame.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 11 2011 04:37 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:30 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired. Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment. You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong. Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
Taken away Sandusky's office, his keys to the program, barred him from entering the facility and follow up with police. This is in 2002 (or 1998.)
Battleaxe, he IS a school official. He has more connections and more power than the AD and most of the administrators. If he wanted to make it an issue, he could've.
|
On November 11 2011 04:37 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:30 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote:
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. All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired. Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment. You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong. Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
I'll say it. I would have wanted Joe Pa, and McQuerey, to have reported the incident to child services for an unbiased investigation by people who's sole concern is the well being of the children. I know that this is asking them to go beyond their legal requirement, and could have resulted in McQuerey losing his job.
But children need protecting, diffusion of responsibility led to at least 8 children being abused. I hold those in positions of responsibility to a higher standard, especially with regards to children, and super especially when you are the most influential man on campus.
Joe shrunk at the worst possible time.
|
On November 11 2011 04:40 Battleaxe wrote:
I think the point many of us backing Paterno are making here (and I apologize if I'm incorrectly speaking for anyone I've grouped into this) is that he made the correct moral decision based on the information he had. He received an allegation from a graduate assistant, he took that allegation to his superior and also to the campus police. At that point, what else would suggest he do? Assuming he had faith in the school officials and the campus police, and saw that neither of those parties did nothing, wouldn't it be fair to assume that the allegations were investigated and dismissed?
You might want to change "moral decision" with "legal decision".
|
It was said in the report that Sandusky was banned from bringing kids to the facilities; but also mentioned how this couldn't be enforced. I don't think you are implying JoePa should have stood guard and made sure he did not do such a thing. Follow up with the police? Imagine that:
"Hey just callin to see if you guys are doing your fucking job. Cause I'd really like hourly updates on the sting operation with cameras and shit you should be using to incriminate a friend (loosely used) and coworker of mine. Thanks kbai"
"Hey AD, whats up; we know if good ole Sandy is a pedo yet?"
edit: trying to illustrate that using the words "follow up" and the actual action of doing so are much different.
|
On November 11 2011 04:45 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:40 Battleaxe wrote:
I think the point many of us backing Paterno are making here (and I apologize if I'm incorrectly speaking for anyone I've grouped into this) is that he made the correct moral decision based on the information he had. He received an allegation from a graduate assistant, he took that allegation to his superior and also to the campus police. At that point, what else would suggest he do? Assuming he had faith in the school officials and the campus police, and saw that neither of those parties did nothing, wouldn't it be fair to assume that the allegations were investigated and dismissed?
You might want to change "moral decision" with "legal decision".
Moral is an every person is different sort of deal....
|
On November 11 2011 04:40 Battleaxe wrote:
I think the point many of us backing Paterno are making here (and I apologize if I'm incorrectly speaking for anyone I've grouped into this) is that he made the correct moral decision based on the information he had. He received an allegation from a graduate assistant, he took that allegation to his superior and also to the campus police. At that point, what else would suggest he do? Assuming he had faith in the school officials and the campus police, and saw that neither of those parties did nothing, wouldn't it be fair to assume that the allegations were investigated and dismissed?
Well the conclusion Joe saw was McQuerey got promoted and Sandusky lost his keys to the facilities.
If the allegations were true then steps beyond taking Sandusky's keys are necessary.
If they were false then McQuerey should have lost his job.
The fact is neither of these occurred. Because of this, one can argue, that Joe had a moral responsibility to pursue the issue, to prevent future children from being harmed
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
