|
On November 11 2011 04:44 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:37 Risen wrote: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.
All this based purely off allegations? You're harsh man.
|
They need to clean that whole house. Anyone that has been there at least several years needs to get thrown out. Give the program a death penalty for the rest of the season.
|
On November 11 2011 04:51 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:44 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 04:37 Risen wrote: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. All this based purely off allegations? You're harsh man.
Allegations of sexual misconduct of a minor. Jibba is basically echoing my sentiment. Joe was big enough that he could have broke this in 2002. He decided to turn a blind eye while implicitly protecting the Football Program's re. That's a moral wrong
|
An argument about the moral ground Joe did or did not hold can definitely be made. Joe is definitely in the gray area on that.
This is why we have shit like, oh I dunno, the law; to sort it out so peoples opinions on what extent people are required to step beyond the obligations of their daily lives to prevent "bad" stuff from happening.
edit: @stokes: Sure he might have turned a blind eye, but in no way do I think he did so to protect the football teams rep. It simply wasn't big enough (from his interpretation of the witness testemony) for him to really give a shit about.
|
On November 11 2011 04:11 CamTSU wrote:
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. :\
McQueary did inform him. He give a testimony that said he told him everything he saw, including a 'rhythmic slapping sound coming from the showers'. Joe countered and said it was 'very vague' and that there was no details besides some fooling around and groping or something or other.
there's several reasons for calling for joe's head:
Whatever McQueary said, it was enough to kick it to higher ups and start an investigation.
Assuming that it wasn't a cover up and nothing came of the investigation because it was false... why's McQueary still an employee to this day??
If it wasn't a cover up, why the hell did JoePa make sure Sandursky never stepped foot on his field again? Why did JoePa continue to support Second Mile and Sandursky??
Legally, maybe he covered his ass. But anyone with a brain can clearly see something was way fucked there and he had to go
|
On November 11 2011 04:43 tronix wrote:
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.
He should have reported explicitly what the graduate assistant told him instead of using ambiguous phrases like "something of a sexual nature". Horsing around/wrestling aren't given the same concern as "rhythmic, slapping sounds" and the sodomy of a minor within a university's facilities.
|
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus.
|
On November 11 2011 04:44 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:37 Risen wrote: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.
Joe Paterno does not have that authority.
Paterno was almost forced to resign back then, so his power might not be as great as you assume.
Also yesterday shows quite clearly how little power he has since he was just fired.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 11 2011 04:51 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:44 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 04:37 Risen wrote: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. All this based purely off allegations? You're harsh man.
He was forced to retire in 1999 after being accused of molesting a boy and criminal charges were almost brought upon him.
3 years later a trusted grad student (who would soon be promoted and eventually end up as recruiting coordinator) tells JoePa in no uncertain terms (according to his grand jury testimony) that he saw Sandusky raping a boy in the shower. You really don't think JoePa was aware of Sandusky's nature at this point?
|
On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote:
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus.
What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing.
|
Well if I were to put my Joe Pa hat on for a second, I see my friend of 30 years get booted from his office, keys taken away, and him barred from entering the facility. Here I wonder, "hmm, why is this?" I go to my friend Mr. Sandusky, "Hey man, how come they took your keys and your office?" You think Sandusky replies, "Oh, they caught me fucking around with little kids"?
Or how about I go to my AD and say, "Hey how come this man's privs were taken away?" The AD being his superior and obviously covering up the incident, none of your fucking business Joe.
I'm just curious as to where you think Joe Pa received his PI license from. This was a cover up on a much higher level then the football program, as evident by the article linked earlier which could potentially link Sandusky to a pimping ring and a cover up by the entire university. Just because Joe Pa is bigger then the school doesn't mean he needs to be the fall guy
|
On November 11 2011 04:58 Piggiez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:43 tronix wrote:
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. He should have reported explicitly what the graduate assistant told him instead of using ambiguous phrases like "something of a sexual nature". Horsing around/wrestling aren't given the same concern as "rhythmic, slapping sounds" and the sodomy of a minor within a university's facilities.
I'm confused. Every account from before the grand jury's start says that the GA only told JoePa and company about horsing around and touching. Nowhere does it say the GA told them he was witness to an actual rape of a 10 year old.
|
On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote:
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus.
Yea right he did report to the proper authorities, but when the proper authorities covered up the issue (promote McQuerey and tell Sandusky to rape kids elsewhere)
Joe was in the unique position, given his clout, to have pursued the issue out of concern for the well ware of future children. Instead he did nothing
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 11 2011 04:59 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:44 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 04:37 Risen wrote: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. Joe Paterno does not have that authority. Paterno was almost forced to resign back then, so his power might not be as great as you assume. Also yesterday shows quite clearly how little power he has since he was just fired.
Lol? Paterno wasn't forced to resign because he didn't want to. The drama 5 years ago between him and the Board is an example of how powerful the man is. They wanted him gone, and he told them he wouldn't leave.
|
On November 11 2011 05:01 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:58 Piggiez wrote:On November 11 2011 04:43 tronix wrote:
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. He should have reported explicitly what the graduate assistant told him instead of using ambiguous phrases like "something of a sexual nature". Horsing around/wrestling aren't given the same concern as "rhythmic, slapping sounds" and the sodomy of a minor within a university's facilities. I'm confused. Every account from before the grand jury's start says that the GA only told JoePa and company about horsing around and touching. Nowhere does it say the GA told them he was witness to an actual rape of a 10 year old.
Yeah, you're right. Im confusing this with what "Jim" had testified
|
On November 11 2011 05:00 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:51 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 04:44 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 04:37 Risen wrote: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. All this based purely off allegations? You're harsh man. He was forced to retire in 1999 after being accused of molesting a boy and criminal charges were almost brought upon him. 3 years later a trusted grad student (who would soon be promoted and eventually end up as recruiting coordinator) tells JoePa in no uncertain terms (according to his grand jury testimony) that he saw Sandusky raping a boy in the shower. You really don't think JoePa was aware of Sandusky's nature at this point?
That's not what the GA told him.
|
I feel so bad for JoePa. He is the best college football coach of all time. And he had to go out like this... Its quite sad that he was let go through the phone especially what he did for the University. At least the board of trustees should have met him at his door or called him up for a meeting. Jerry Sandusky is a disgusting piece of shit (Excuse my french) but Joe didn't deserve to go out like this. He didn't want to retire till it was time. Joe Paterno's coaching career will have a black cloud in it for a while and it is sad. Also the board of trustees are hypocrites because Mike McQuerey was the one that witnessed the whole thing happen and he will be coaching on the sideline or from the coaches box tomorrow and He did nothing about it other than tell Joe and call his dad. Mike Mcquerey should at least be fired also if the board of trustees were going to fire Joe for not calling the law enforcement. From my understanding Joe Paterno thought what Mike Mcquerey was saying was Dennis Sandusky was "fondling/horsing around" with little boys in the showers, and Joe told the activity director and that was that. Although I agree that joe should have done more, but the fact is Joe had no idea Mike McQuerey witnessed a rape.
This is just really sad for Joe Paterno and all he has done for the university and the football program.
|
On November 11 2011 05:00 Piggiez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote:
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus. What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing.
JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching.
Jibba how do you know JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go in 98? You don't. More speculation. Stop speculating if you want to sway anyone. Your red status gives you a level of credibility, but just because you say X happened doesn't mean I'll believe you just because of your status.
|
On November 11 2011 05:07 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 05:00 Piggiez wrote:On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote:
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus. What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing. JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching.
I'm gonna go with the dude that testified before a jury under the threat of prejury over JoePa saying nuhuh on that one
|
On November 11 2011 05:02 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 04:59 meadbert wrote:On November 11 2011 04:44 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 04:37 Risen wrote: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. Joe Paterno does not have that authority. Paterno was almost forced to resign back then, so his power might not be as great as you assume. Also yesterday shows quite clearly how little power he has since he was just fired. Lol? Paterno wasn't forced to resign because he didn't want to. The drama 5 years ago between him and the Board is an example of how powerful the man is. They wanted him gone, and he told them he wouldn't leave.
Once again, the Board's decision can't be so cut and clean as they wanted him gone and he said no. The Board's job is to take the University's best interests into account. Paterno's presence at the University was a massive recruiting bonus and has helped bring in countless students and massive amounts of money over Paterno's career at Penn State.
While some member's of the Board probably wanted Paterno gone for their own reasons, the cost of losing him obviously outweighed the benefits of having him gone. It's no so simple as they said, "We want you gone," and he said "Nope."
EDIT: added the quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
