|
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.
That's not how CPS works. You call CPS, report a claim, and they investigate it. In fact, the majority of claims to CPS are dismissed or considered unfounded.
|
On November 11 2011 06:52 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
He did not. He waited two days. One and a half if you want to be chronologically correct.
|
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.
If those accusations turned out to be false, then i wouldn't lose my reputation. And stop being an idiot, going to authorities about it isn't like you're publishing it in a newspaper for everyone to see. God the amount of bullshit in this thread is amazing.
|
On November 11 2011 06:48 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:46 Battleaxe wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Conceded. We're on the same page that it would be a claim made by someone though right?
|
On November 11 2011 06:44 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:41 InToTheWannaB wrote: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.
He can't assume there, not with kids lives at stake. He has a moral obligation to follow up and make sure those kids are protected. He didn't do that. He washed his hands of it and shame on him for the rest of his life for that.
|
On November 11 2011 06:54 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:52 stokes17 wrote: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. He did not. He waited two days. One and a half if you want to be chronologically correct.
Incorrect, stop arguing with facts please:
pg 7 of the grand jury report paragraph 2 - Paraphrase(too hard to quote off of pda) Friday at 9:30 PM- GA saw rape- left locker room- called father- father told him to call Joe. Saturday the GA called Joe and then went to his house to report what he saw. That's not even 24 hours brah.
Find me a conflicting report or stop arguing over facts please.
|
On November 11 2011 06:55 Battleaxe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:48 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 06:46 Battleaxe wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Conceded. We're on the same page that it would be a claim made by someone though right?
Yes, but an unpublished claim can never be slander
|
On November 11 2011 06:57 InToTheWannaB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:44 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:41 InToTheWannaB wrote: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. He can't assume there, not with kids lives at stake. He has a moral obligation to follow up and make sure those kids are protected. He didn't do that. He washed his hands of it and shame on him for the rest of his life for that.
Shame on you for being judgemental as fuck. He saw an investigation take place, then he saw no real actions taken as a result of said investigation. How do you know he didn't follow up? How do you know whether or not he asked about it and was told they had found nothing? You DON'T. And that's all I've been trying to point out. Nobody knows jack shit right now. Reserve judgement for when you do. After all the statements have been given.
|
http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZXRXMOp7L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
Jerry Sandusky retired as defensive coordinator of the Penn State University football team following the 1999 season. He spent 32 years at Penn State, all as an assistant to legendary head coach Joe Paterno, including the last 23 as defensive coordinator. Sandusky is the founder of The Second Mile, a charitable foundations that has touched the lives of more than 100,000 children. He is the author of a previous book, Developing Linebackers the Penn State Way. He and his wife Dottie are the parents of six children.
|
On November 11 2011 06:59 RCMDVA wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575Jerry Sandusky retired as defensive coordinator of the Penn State University football team following the 1999 season. He spent 32 years at Penn State, all as an assistant to legendary head coach Joe Paterno, including the last 23 as defensive coordinator. Sandusky is the founder of The Second Mile, a charitable foundations that has touched the lives of more than 100,000 children. He is the author of a previous book, Developing Linebackers the Penn State Way. He and his wife Dottie are the parents of six children.
Yea, I threw up in my mouth
|
On November 11 2011 06:55 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:48 JinNJuice wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If those accusations turned out to be false, then i wouldn't lose my reputation. And stop being an idiot, going to authorities about it isn't like you're publishing it in a newspaper for everyone to see. God the amount of bullshit in this thread is amazing.
And if I said I had an eyewitness who saw it happen? And then they charge you with sexual assault based on that eyewitness? And then the eyewitness recants their testimony? I had skipped a few steps but I'll spell it out for you if you want. Paterno had no idea to know if McQuerey's accusations were true or not. He simply had the word of a graduate assistant versus the word of a 30-year old friend. He reported what he was told and let the "investigation" play out. I don't understand how calling child services would've made a lick of difference.
|
On November 11 2011 06:47 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:39 gayfius173 wrote: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.
I like how you, when faced with something you can't refute, and being unable to find a flaw in anything I posted, resort to bringing my username up in an attempt to discredit the validity of what I posted. Sorry little boy, you got smashed, go home and stop trying.
PS, no, your reading skills are not fine as you clearly did not read the grand jury report and what was indicated in it.
|
On November 11 2011 06:58 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:54 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:52 stokes17 wrote: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. He did not. He waited two days. One and a half if you want to be chronologically correct. Incorrect, stop arguing with facts please: pg 7 of the grand jury report paragraph 2 - Paraphrase(too hard to quote off of pda) Friday at 9:30 PM- GA saw rape- left locker room- called father- father told him to call Joe. Saturday the GA called Joe and then went to his house to report what he saw. That's not even 24 hours brah. Find me a conflicting report or stop arguing over facts please.
For some reason I have been reading Saturday as Sunday. I apologize for this error.
|
On November 11 2011 07:02 gayfius173 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:47 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 06:39 gayfius173 wrote: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. I like how you, when faced with something you can't refute, and being unable to find a flaw in anything I posted, resort to bringing my username up in an attempt to discredit the validity of what I posted. Sorry little boy, you got smashed, go home and stop trying. PS, no, your reading skills are not fine as you clearly did not read the grand jury report and what was indicated in it.
I am confused. Who are you? What argument did you bring up? What did I see that I couldn't refute? I saw speculation on your part, mind telling me what I'm missing? Fill it in for me, buddy.
Edit: Page 7, Paragraph 3. Paterno states that he was told only of fondling or something of a sexual nature.
Page 8. Paragraph 2. Curley states that he was only told by the GA of inappropriate activity. He denies the GA of telling them about anal sex.
Page 8, final paragraph. Schultz states that the GA only informed them of disturbing and inappropriate conduct.
|
On November 11 2011 07:02 JinNJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 06:55 darthfoley wrote:On November 11 2011 06:48 JinNJuice wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If those accusations turned out to be false, then i wouldn't lose my reputation. And stop being an idiot, going to authorities about it isn't like you're publishing it in a newspaper for everyone to see. God the amount of bullshit in this thread is amazing. And if I said I had an eyewitness who saw it happen? And then they charge you with sexual assault based on that eyewitness? And then the eyewitness recants their testimony? I had skipped a few steps but I'll spell it out for you if you want. Paterno had no idea to know if McQuerey's accusations were true or not. He simply had the word of a graduate assistant versus the word of a 30-year old friend. He reported what he was told and let the "investigation" play out. I don't understand how calling child services would've made a lick of difference.
a lick of difference? You don't see how calling in a 3rd party (who's #1 priority is not protecting PSU football) to investigate the claims made against Sandusky would have made a lick of difference? Seriously? Like seriously
I've held my tongue all day.... but this one completely deserves a
GTFO
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On November 11 2011 07:06 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:02 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:55 darthfoley wrote:On November 11 2011 06:48 JinNJuice wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If those accusations turned out to be false, then i wouldn't lose my reputation. And stop being an idiot, going to authorities about it isn't like you're publishing it in a newspaper for everyone to see. God the amount of bullshit in this thread is amazing. And if I said I had an eyewitness who saw it happen? And then they charge you with sexual assault based on that eyewitness? And then the eyewitness recants their testimony? I had skipped a few steps but I'll spell it out for you if you want. Paterno had no idea to know if McQuerey's accusations were true or not. He simply had the word of a graduate assistant versus the word of a 30-year old friend. He reported what he was told and let the "investigation" play out. I don't understand how calling child services would've made a lick of difference. a lick of difference? You don't see how calling in a 3rd party (who's #1 priority is not protecting PSU football) to investigate the claims made against Sandusky would have made a lick of difference? Seriously? Like seriouslyI've held my tongue all day.... but this one completely deserves a GTFO
Kids calm down and read my post on the previous page. School admins had a statutory obligation to report. Failure to report is a misdemeanor under state law. Reporters are given legal immunity from what you guys are yammering on about.
|
On November 11 2011 07:11 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:06 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 07:02 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:55 darthfoley wrote:On November 11 2011 06:48 JinNJuice wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If those accusations turned out to be false, then i wouldn't lose my reputation. And stop being an idiot, going to authorities about it isn't like you're publishing it in a newspaper for everyone to see. God the amount of bullshit in this thread is amazing. And if I said I had an eyewitness who saw it happen? And then they charge you with sexual assault based on that eyewitness? And then the eyewitness recants their testimony? I had skipped a few steps but I'll spell it out for you if you want. Paterno had no idea to know if McQuerey's accusations were true or not. He simply had the word of a graduate assistant versus the word of a 30-year old friend. He reported what he was told and let the "investigation" play out. I don't understand how calling child services would've made a lick of difference. a lick of difference? You don't see how calling in a 3rd party (who's #1 priority is not protecting PSU football) to investigate the claims made against Sandusky would have made a lick of difference? Seriously? Like seriouslyI've held my tongue all day.... but this one completely deserves a GTFO Kids calm down and read my post on the previous page. School admins had a statutory obligation to report. Failure to report is a misdemeanor under state law. Reporters are given legal immunity from what you guys are yammering on about.
They have an obligation to report to their superiors under the law you linked... As Paterno received only reports from the GA and did not witness the event or receive the statement from the victim it is accepted that he only need pass on said information to his superior.
|
On November 11 2011 07:11 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:06 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 07:02 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:55 darthfoley wrote:On November 11 2011 06:48 JinNJuice wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If those accusations turned out to be false, then i wouldn't lose my reputation. And stop being an idiot, going to authorities about it isn't like you're publishing it in a newspaper for everyone to see. God the amount of bullshit in this thread is amazing. And if I said I had an eyewitness who saw it happen? And then they charge you with sexual assault based on that eyewitness? And then the eyewitness recants their testimony? I had skipped a few steps but I'll spell it out for you if you want. Paterno had no idea to know if McQuerey's accusations were true or not. He simply had the word of a graduate assistant versus the word of a 30-year old friend. He reported what he was told and let the "investigation" play out. I don't understand how calling child services would've made a lick of difference. a lick of difference? You don't see how calling in a 3rd party (who's #1 priority is not protecting PSU football) to investigate the claims made against Sandusky would have made a lick of difference? Seriously? Like seriouslyI've held my tongue all day.... but this one completely deserves a GTFO Kids calm down and read my post on the previous page. School admins had a statutory obligation to report. Failure to report is a misdemeanor under state law. Reporters are given legal immunity from what you guys are yammering on about.
yea i read what you said, it doesn't pertain to what i responded to at all???? Although it was overall very informative and nicely bold-ed
He is saying if Joe Paterno called CPS in 2002 it would not have made a "lick of difference." That is the opposite of a true statement. It would have ended this thing in 2002 and saved AT LEAST 6 additional victims. No one has said anything about reporters.....
|
On November 11 2011 07:06 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:02 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:55 darthfoley wrote:On November 11 2011 06:48 JinNJuice wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If those accusations turned out to be false, then i wouldn't lose my reputation. And stop being an idiot, going to authorities about it isn't like you're publishing it in a newspaper for everyone to see. God the amount of bullshit in this thread is amazing. And if I said I had an eyewitness who saw it happen? And then they charge you with sexual assault based on that eyewitness? And then the eyewitness recants their testimony? I had skipped a few steps but I'll spell it out for you if you want. Paterno had no idea to know if McQuerey's accusations were true or not. He simply had the word of a graduate assistant versus the word of a 30-year old friend. He reported what he was told and let the "investigation" play out. I don't understand how calling child services would've made a lick of difference. a lick of difference? You don't see how calling in a 3rd party (who's #1 priority is not protecting PSU football) to investigate the claims made against Sandusky would have made a lick of difference? Seriously? Like seriouslyI've held my tongue all day.... but this one completely deserves a GTFO
Lol....I don't know if you live in the real world or not, but you don't call in 3rd parties when you have internal processes/procedures for reporting this stuff. He reported it to the head of a state-recognized campus police force. That should have been enough on Paterno's end if the system worked. The system failed and now Paterno is PARTLY responsible because of that fact. Like we said, hindsight is 20/20, of course looking back we can say if he reported it to childs services it would've been looked at more closely and Sandusky would've been brought to justice....
lol....gtfo indeed.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On November 11 2011 07:12 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:11 itsjustatank wrote:On November 11 2011 07:06 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 07:02 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 06:55 darthfoley wrote:On November 11 2011 06:48 JinNJuice wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If those accusations turned out to be false, then i wouldn't lose my reputation. And stop being an idiot, going to authorities about it isn't like you're publishing it in a newspaper for everyone to see. God the amount of bullshit in this thread is amazing. And if I said I had an eyewitness who saw it happen? And then they charge you with sexual assault based on that eyewitness? And then the eyewitness recants their testimony? I had skipped a few steps but I'll spell it out for you if you want. Paterno had no idea to know if McQuerey's accusations were true or not. He simply had the word of a graduate assistant versus the word of a 30-year old friend. He reported what he was told and let the "investigation" play out. I don't understand how calling child services would've made a lick of difference. a lick of difference? You don't see how calling in a 3rd party (who's #1 priority is not protecting PSU football) to investigate the claims made against Sandusky would have made a lick of difference? Seriously? Like seriouslyI've held my tongue all day.... but this one completely deserves a GTFO Kids calm down and read my post on the previous page. School admins had a statutory obligation to report. Failure to report is a misdemeanor under state law. Reporters are given legal immunity from what you guys are yammering on about. They have an obligation to report to their superiors under the law you linked... As Paterno received only reports from the GA and did not witness the event or receive the statement from the victim it is accepted that he only need pass on said information to his superior.
Nope.
Individual Responsibility
Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 23 §§ 6311; 6313
A mandated reporter who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is an abused or neglected child shall make a report to the Department of Public Welfare.
An oral report shall be made immediately, to be followed by a written report within 48 hours.
Written reports shall be made to the appropriate county agency in a manner and on forms the department prescribes by regulation.
Content of Reports
Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 23 § 6313
The written reports shall include the following information if available:
- The names and addresses of the child and the child's parents or other persons responsible for the care of the child, if known
- Where the suspected abuse occurred
- The age and sex of subjects of the report
- The nature and extent of the suspected abuse, including any evidence of prior abuse to the child or siblings of the child
- The name and relationship of the person responsible for causing the suspected abuse, if known, and any evidence of prior abuse by that person
- Family composition
- The source of the report
- The name and contact information of the person making the report
- Any actions taken by the source
source: childwelfare.gov
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
