|
United States22883 Posts
On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:10 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:05 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:01 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:58 Jibba wrote:
Nothing had been found, but the disturbed GA who saw the rape occur was soon promoted and it was left at that.
At what point, in your opinion, does it become JoePa's moral responsibility to find out what's happening? Is the GA lying? Or is it ok for Sandusky, as long as he's only a molester and not a rapist (which fits with JoePa's statement) to hang around the program?
If McQueary lightened what he saw for JoePa, but JoePa still believes what he was told and passes it on, then JoePa would still believe that Sandusky was molesting a boy in the shower room. So we're at the point where JoePa believes Sandusky was molesting (not raping) a boy in the shower room. Nothing comes of it from the AD, so JoePa drops it? And still allows him access to his buildings? On November 11 2011 05:59 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
I can't stay away ahh!!
No dood it doesn't show that. If there was an investigation and nothing was found.... why the fuck would you promote McQuerey to head of recruiting after making such a heinous baseless claim? It shows that McQuerey was really good at recruiting. Why else would McQuerey stay knowing the man he had accused was still around? Edit: I am not naive, I have stated that I believe in my gut that JoePa knew more or didn't do everything in his power to stop the actions of Sandusky. I am reserving judgement until something confirms my gut feelings, though. Which is what I expect everyone else to do. Some people disagree with this. Ok so if the accuser and the one being accused both still work at the university. That means the case was not resolved. Because either McQuerey lied, or Snadusky raped a kid. One of those must be true, and failing to determine which is true, by sweeping the whole thing under the rug is a cover up. Joe saw this going on, and turned a blind eye. Idn how many more times i need to say it He should have done more You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement. Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed? The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey. it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing. And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job? the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it? No, actually, that's exactly what you do in most states. Upon suspicion, you immediately call the police or child protective services. Slander and defamation had nothing to do with it.
And again, Curly set up the meeting with Schultz and Paterno. Paterno didn't go to the campus police himself. Like I said before, it's legally fine in Pennsylvania but not most places, which is exactly why it's a moral failing.
This belief that Paterno is just a coach is astounding. He let the case rest and still allowed a child molester into his facilities?
|
On November 11 2011 06:34 kainzero wrote:
so if mcquerey never told paterno, would you still fire paterno?
Morally- no if Paterno never knew anything at all he would not be morally responsible.
Business- yea you probably still fire him, you need a fresh start, this scandal is baddddddd
|
On November 11 2011 03:33 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:31 Tippany wrote:On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done.
Edit: How fucking self-righteous are you people. He should have called the "real" police? Lol. How does Joe know they're not already informed after he's told the "fake" police (why they're fake is beyond me, I guess in your fairyland they're fake so I'll call them fake too).
YOU. DON'T. KNOW. SHIT. You know NOTHING. You are GUESSING about what happened. I'm asking you to stop GUESSING about what happened, and reserve judgement for when all the FACTS come out. Just an FYI...Anyone who resorts to cursing and caps lock on an internet forum generally won't have much credibility behind their post. Just an FYI, those who blind themselves to discourse because of bad words or implied shouting are worthless to the discussion anyways.
I like how you think you're being clever but anyone with a semi-functioning brain can see that your posts are just filled with non-valid garbage, and your argument is flawed at best, and not even worth considering an argument at worse.
Grand Jury report clearly states what happened.
Paterno was clearly informed of sexual misconduct. What SHOULD of happened at this point is him demanding a full investigation by the campus, and informing the police (as is required by law) of the possibility of children being sexually abused.
He did not do that. He turned the blind eye (which is what you're doing to every valid point made in this thread, see what I did there), and thus he is morally guilty (if not also legally guilty) of facilitating the rape of children.
Seriously just stop posting your bullshit, I really wouldn't want to have to tear you apart and make you look more retarded than you already did yourself.
Edit: Also upon reading your further posts saying that the GA testimony to them says he didn't see anal rape, you need to get your glasses checked and possibly have laser surgery, or go back to reading school. Probably all three based on the content of most of your posts. Peace kid no re.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:10 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:05 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:01 Risen wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
It shows that McQuerey was really good at recruiting. Why else would McQuerey stay knowing the man he had accused was still around?
Edit: I am not naive, I have stated that I believe in my gut that JoePa knew more or didn't do everything in his power to stop the actions of Sandusky. I am reserving judgement until something confirms my gut feelings, though. Which is what I expect everyone else to do. Some people disagree with this. Ok so if the accuser and the one being accused both still work at the university. That means the case was not resolved. Because either McQuerey lied, or Snadusky raped a kid. One of those must be true, and failing to determine which is true, by sweeping the whole thing under the rug is a cover up. Joe saw this going on, and turned a blind eye. Idn how many more times i need to say it He should have done more You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement. Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed? The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey. it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing. And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job? the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it? How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean? Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim.
....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
|
On November 11 2011 06:30 InvincibleRice wrote:http://thatlawyerdude.blogspot.com/2011/11/strong-defense-of-joe-paterno-why.htmlPaterno reported the incident to someone who was essentially (according to state statute that gives campus police the same authority as SC municipal police officers) the commissioner of a several-hundred strong police force; he didn't just "pass off the shit to the AD," he gave it to the highest ranking police officer in the area, who called in the actual witness and spoke to him. It sucks, hindsight is 20/20, etc, etc, but JoePa is not the monster that the media made him out to be.
OMG thats not even close to being enough. When he sees Sandusky again and again over the next 9 years at PSU with children in his company. He never once asks whats going on? He never looks into it again? He never demands to know if the wheels of justice are turning on this? Worst yet he never looks Sandusky in the face, calls him a sick fuck, and tells him to get the fuck off his football field? No instead he does children's charities events for this guy. Are you fucking kidding me? He lucky he not in jail forget losing his job.
|
On November 11 2011 06:39 JinNJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:10 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:05 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
Ok so if the accuser and the one being accused both still work at the university. That means the case was not resolved. Because either McQuerey lied, or Snadusky raped a kid. One of those must be true, and failing to determine which is true, by sweeping the whole thing under the rug is a cover up.
Joe saw this going on, and turned a blind eye. Idn how many more times i need to say it
He should have done more
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement. Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed? The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey. it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing. And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job? the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it? How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean? Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim. ....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
Good lord. This eclipses every other dumb thing said in this thread.
Reporting someone you suspect to be fucking little kids to child services is not slander or libel. My fucking brain ughhhhhhhhghghghghasdfsa
|
On November 11 2011 06:39 JinNJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:10 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:05 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
Ok so if the accuser and the one being accused both still work at the university. That means the case was not resolved. Because either McQuerey lied, or Snadusky raped a kid. One of those must be true, and failing to determine which is true, by sweeping the whole thing under the rug is a cover up.
Joe saw this going on, and turned a blind eye. Idn how many more times i need to say it
He should have done more
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement. Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed? The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey. it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing. And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job? the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it? How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean? Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim. ....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
No it wouldn't. Spoken word can be published if it becomes public record. If he went on TV and said something that would be publishing spoken word. Political rhetoric at a rally is publishing spoken word.
Calling child services to report possible sexual misconduct between an old man and young boy would never, ever,EVER , be considered publishing a claim. It would be difficult to even say that calling child services to investigate possible sexual misconduct is even making a claim, let alone publishing it.
Even if the call was recorded for internal review, and private record, it would never be considered as publishing a claim
|
On November 11 2011 06:41 InToTheWannaB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:30 InvincibleRice wrote:http://thatlawyerdude.blogspot.com/2011/11/strong-defense-of-joe-paterno-why.htmlPaterno reported the incident to someone who was essentially (according to state statute that gives campus police the same authority as SC municipal police officers) the commissioner of a several-hundred strong police force; he didn't just "pass off the shit to the AD," he gave it to the highest ranking police officer in the area, who called in the actual witness and spoke to him. It sucks, hindsight is 20/20, etc, etc, but JoePa is not the monster that the media made him out to be. OMG thats not even close to being enough. When he sees Sandusky again and again over the next 9 years at PSU with children in his company. He never once asks whats going on? He never looks into it again? He never demands to know if the wheels of justice are turning on this? Worst yet he never looks Sandusky in the face, calls him a sick fuck, and tells him to get the fuck off his football field? No instead he does children's charities events for this guy. Are you fucking kidding me? He lucky he not in jail forget losing his job.
He didn't break the law, there's no reason he should be jail. You seem like you're willing to discuss, stop posting bullshit like this
|
On November 11 2011 06:41 InToTheWannaB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:30 InvincibleRice wrote:http://thatlawyerdude.blogspot.com/2011/11/strong-defense-of-joe-paterno-why.htmlPaterno reported the incident to someone who was essentially (according to state statute that gives campus police the same authority as SC municipal police officers) the commissioner of a several-hundred strong police force; he didn't just "pass off the shit to the AD," he gave it to the highest ranking police officer in the area, who called in the actual witness and spoke to him. It sucks, hindsight is 20/20, etc, etc, but JoePa is not the monster that the media made him out to be. OMG thats not even close to being enough. When he sees Sandusky again and again over the next 9 years at PSU with children in his company. He never once asks whats going on? He never looks into it again? He never demands to know if the wheels of justice are turning on this? Worst yet he never looks Sandusky in the face, calls him a sick fuck, and tells him to get the fuck off his football field? No instead he does children's charities events for this guy. Are you fucking kidding me? He lucky he not in jail forget losing his job.
Or maybe he assumed that the investigation had turned up nothing? Maybe he assumed that when called in some other act had happened, that McQuerey had not exactly lied but just been wrong and so was allowed to stay and advance through the ranks of the PSU staff? Maybe that happened? Can you tell me it didn't? No, you can not. You can sit there and speculate, though. You seem to be doing a fine job of it.
|
On November 11 2011 06:43 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:39 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:10 Risen wrote:
[quote]
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey. it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing. And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job? the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it? How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean? Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim. ....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded.... Good lord. This eclipses every other dumb thing said in this thread. Reporting someone you suspect to be fucking little kids to child services is not slander or libel. My fucking brain ughhhhhhhhghghghghasdfsa
yea pretty much, but maybe he's just misinformed. So I explained it for him.
|
You see someone sodomizing a child, and you tell your boss, not the police?? Mind boggling..
|
On November 11 2011 06:44 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:39 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:10 Risen wrote:
[quote]
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey. it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing. And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job? the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it? How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean? Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim. ....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded.... No it wouldn't. Spoken word can be published if it becomes public record. If he went on TV and said something that would be publishing spoken word. Political rhetoric at a rally is publishing spoken word. Calling child services to report possible sexual misconduct between an old man and young boy would never, ever, EVER , be considered publishing a claim. It would be difficult to even say that calling child services to investigate possible sexual misconduct is even making a claim, let alone publishing it. Even if the call was recorded for internal review, and private record, it would never be considered as publishing a claim
You are certainly making a claim if you say that someone is molesting and sodomizing young children based on something someone told you. I'll give you the publishing part though
|
On November 11 2011 06:39 gayfius173 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 03:33 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 03:31 Tippany wrote:On November 11 2011 03:23 Risen wrote:
You have one witness. Guess what happens when you go to court with your one witness? You lose the case. So yes, as much was done as could be done.
Edit: How fucking self-righteous are you people. He should have called the "real" police? Lol. How does Joe know they're not already informed after he's told the "fake" police (why they're fake is beyond me, I guess in your fairyland they're fake so I'll call them fake too).
YOU. DON'T. KNOW. SHIT. You know NOTHING. You are GUESSING about what happened. I'm asking you to stop GUESSING about what happened, and reserve judgement for when all the FACTS come out. Just an FYI...Anyone who resorts to cursing and caps lock on an internet forum generally won't have much credibility behind their post. Just an FYI, those who blind themselves to discourse because of bad words or implied shouting are worthless to the discussion anyways. I like how you think you're being clever but anyone with a semi-functioning brain can see that your posts are just filled with non-valid garbage, and your argument is flawed at best, and not even worth considering an argument at worse. Grand Jury report clearly states what happened. Paterno was clearly informed of sexual misconduct. What SHOULD of happened at this point is him demanding a full investigation by the campus, and informing the police (as is required by law) of the possibility of children being sexually abused. He did not do that. He turned the blind eye (which is what you're doing to every valid point made in this thread, see what I did there), and thus he is morally guilty (if not also legally guilty) of facilitating the rape of children. Seriously just stop posting your bullshit, I really wouldn't want to have to tear you apart and make you look more retarded than you already did yourself. Edit: Also upon reading your further posts saying that the GA testimony to them says he didn't see anal rape, you need to get your glasses checked and possibly have laser surgery, or go back to reading school. Probably all three based on the content of most of your posts. Peace kid no re.
Your chosen username inspires the greatest of confidence. You have written quite a lot there, and yet you have brought forth no facts. I have my glasses and I can see perfectly fine. According to JoePa, the athletic director, and the head of the police force, the testimony given by McQuerey was not what he eventually told the grand jury.
|
On November 11 2011 06:46 Battleaxe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:44 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:39 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it? How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean? Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim. ....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded.... No it wouldn't. Spoken word can be published if it becomes public record. If he went on TV and said something that would be publishing spoken word. Political rhetoric at a rally is publishing spoken word. Calling child services to report possible sexual misconduct between an old man and young boy would never, ever, EVER , be considered publishing a claim. It would be difficult to even say that calling child services to investigate possible sexual misconduct is even making a claim, let alone publishing it. Even if the call was recorded for internal review, and private record, it would never be considered as publishing a claim You are certainly making a claim if you say that someone is molesting and sodomizing young children based on something someone told you. I'll give you the publishing part though
Calling child services to investigate a claim made by one of your assistants in no way attaches you to that claim.
|
On November 11 2011 06:43 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:39 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:10 Risen wrote:
[quote]
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey. it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing. And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job? the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it? How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean? Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim. ....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded.... Good lord. This eclipses every other dumb thing said in this thread. Reporting someone you suspect to be fucking little kids to child services is not slander or libel. My fucking brain ughhhhhhhhghghghghasdfsa
So if I called child services and told them that YOU were molesting little kids, those accusations turned out to be false, you lose your job, your reputation, and your life due to this accusation, I'm pretty fucking sure you'd take me to the fucking bank for slander.
|
How the grand jury can view him as a credible witness when he only informed Paterno 2 days after the fact is beyond me. How they can still view him as credible after he has only benefited from subsequent actions is also beyond me.
|
On November 11 2011 06:48 JinNJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:43 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 06:39 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it? How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean? Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim. ....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded.... Good lord. This eclipses every other dumb thing said in this thread. Reporting someone you suspect to be fucking little kids to child services is not slander or libel. My fucking brain ughhhhhhhhghghghghasdfsa So if I called child services and told them that YOU were molesting little kids, those accusations turned out to be false, you lose your job, your reputation, and your life due to this accusation, I'm pretty fucking sure you'd take me to the fucking bank for slander.
Pretty sure you would sue the company in that case. Besides, if he has evidence (which they did) its not slander.
|
On November 11 2011 06:48 JinNJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:43 Hawk wrote:On November 11 2011 06:39 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it? How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean? Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim. ....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded.... Good lord. This eclipses every other dumb thing said in this thread. Reporting someone you suspect to be fucking little kids to child services is not slander or libel. My fucking brain ughhhhhhhhghghghghasdfsa So if I called child services and told them that YOU were molesting little kids, those accusations turned out to be false, you lose your job, your reputation, and your life due to this accusation, I'm pretty fucking sure you'd take me to the fucking bank for slander.
Dood, that's not what would happen. A child service rep would come check me out, see absolutely zero evidence to support your claims. And be pissed off that you wasted his/her time.
Now if you went on the local news and made that same claim, then you would be guilty of slander because i could lose my job and reputation over that.
Do you just not understand how child services is structured? Its not like a giant megaphone. Its a state run program who's purpose is to protect children from various forms of abuse.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
According to PA law, school offcials were required to report.
Professionals Required to Report
Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311
Persons required to report include, but are not limited to:
- Licensed physicians, osteopaths, medical examiners, coroners, funeral directors, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, podiatrists, interns, nurses, or hospital personnel
- Christian Science practitioners or members of the clergy
- School administrators, teachers, school nurses, social services workers, daycare center workers, or any other child care or foster care workers
- Mental health professionals
- Peace officers or law enforcement officials
Standards for Making a Report
Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311
A report is required when a person, who in the course of employment, occupation, or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children, has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical, professional, or other training and experience, that a child is a victim of child abuse.
Failure to Report
Cons. Stat. Ch. 23, § 6319
A mandatory reporter who willfully fails to report as required commits a misdemeanor of the third degree for the first violation and a misdemeanor of the second degree for a second or subsequent violation.
On November 11 2011 06:30 JinNJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:27 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:20 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:16 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:13 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:10 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:05 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:01 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:58 Jibba wrote:
Nothing had been found, but the disturbed GA who saw the rape occur was soon promoted and it was left at that.
At what point, in your opinion, does it become JoePa's moral responsibility to find out what's happening? Is the GA lying? Or is it ok for Sandusky, as long as he's only a molester and not a rapist (which fits with JoePa's statement) to hang around the program?
If McQueary lightened what he saw for JoePa, but JoePa still believes what he was told and passes it on, then JoePa would still believe that Sandusky was molesting a boy in the shower room. So we're at the point where JoePa believes Sandusky was molesting (not raping) a boy in the shower room. Nothing comes of it from the AD, so JoePa drops it? And still allows him access to his buildings? On November 11 2011 05:59 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
I can't stay away ahh!!
No dood it doesn't show that. If there was an investigation and nothing was found.... why the fuck would you promote McQuerey to head of recruiting after making such a heinous baseless claim? It shows that McQuerey was really good at recruiting. Why else would McQuerey stay knowing the man he had accused was still around? Edit: I am not naive, I have stated that I believe in my gut that JoePa knew more or didn't do everything in his power to stop the actions of Sandusky. I am reserving judgement until something confirms my gut feelings, though. Which is what I expect everyone else to do. Some people disagree with this. Ok so if the accuser and the one being accused both still work at the university. That means the case was not resolved. Because either McQuerey lied, or Snadusky raped a kid. One of those must be true, and failing to determine which is true, by sweeping the whole thing under the rug is a cover up. Joe saw this going on, and turned a blind eye. Idn how many more times i need to say it He should have done more You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement. Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed? The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey. it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing. And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job? the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey" And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup" Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked. But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation. I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation. How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did. I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job. If you are going to tell me Joe " had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid. Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
PA law gives immunity.
Citation: Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Ch. 23, § 6318 (LexisNexis through 7-11-08)
Statute:
A person, hospital, institution, school, facility, agency or agency employee that participates in good faith in making a report--whether required or not--cooperating with an investigation, testifying in a proceeding arising out of an instance of suspected child abuse, the taking of photographs or the removal or keeping of a child pursuant to § 6315 (relating to taking child into protective custody), and any official or employee of a county agency who refers a report of suspected abuse to law enforcement authorities or provides services under this chapter, shall have immunity from civil and criminal liability that might otherwise result by reason of those actions.
For the purpose of any civil or criminal proceeding, the good faith of a person required to report pursuant to § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse) and of any person required to make a referral to law enforcement officers under this chapter shall be presumed.
Source: childwelfare.gov
|
On November 11 2011 06:51 Risen wrote:
How the grand jury can view him as a credible witness when he only informed Paterno 2 days after the fact is beyond me. How they can still view him as credible after he has only benefited from subsequent actions is also beyond me.
He saw what he saw at 10pm. He called Joe the next morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
