|
Risen, there is a difference between speculation and deduction. Employing basic logic and reasoning skills, most of the people in this thread have already reached obvious truths of which you either still remain ignorant or pretend to remain ignorant.
You are likely in the process of experiencing the five stages of grief, as you have already exhibited denial, anger, and bargaining. Be aware that fixation on denial will only make acceptance more difficult, if not impossible, though you may not think so at this point in time.
|
On November 11 2011 07:34 JinNJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:24 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 07:21 JinNJuice wrote:On November 11 2011 07:19 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 07:14 JinNJuice 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:
[quote]
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. So you say if Paterno called CPS in 2002 it would have not made a lick of difference, then you say it would have made a difference.... what are you saying? It was meant to be a hyperbole, but I guess everything we say has to be taken completely seriously. My point was that Paterno shouldn't have had to report it to childs services in the first place. Of course he had no legal obligation; he had a moral one, and he failed it. He was not compelled in anyway, legally or contractually, to have done anything more than he did. He did the bare minimum to protect himself legally. That is not good enough for me. That is not good enough for the victims of Sandusky's actions. He failed them in a moral sense. Yes I agree with you, but again remember you're speaking in hindsight. If the system had worked, Paterno would've been held up as a fighting force for good. Because it hasn't, Paterno is being cast as a heartless bastard who helps sickos rape kids, with no moral compass at all. You all are so quick to judge, and all I'm saying is that greater focus should be placed on the process that failed that allowed this tragedy happened, not who should be held responsible. Not sure if anyone can see the fine difference but there is one. It's like an engine failure. You can fix the root of the problem, but if you don't fix the process that allowed the failiure to occur, then another similar failure could slip through and happen again.
Stop putting arguments and judgements in my mouth please. All I have ever claimed is that Joe Paterno is guilty of a Moral failing because he did not pursue the issue as thoroughly as he could have, and one should have when the safety of a child is at stake. There is a reason why the administrators are facing felonies and Joe is simply facing public scrutiny.
Paterno saw that the system failed in 2002. Sandusky lost his keys but still kept an office. And McQuerey flew through the ranks to head of recruiting . One does not need hindsight to know that Paterno failed his moral obligation. yes if Sandusky was outed by the internal investigation or if McQuerey was fired for lying, then Joe would have also fulfilled his moral obligation.
But because he knew what McQuerey said , and he knew that the issue never reached a conclusion (sorry Sandusky still having an office and McQuerey getting promoted is not a possible resolution) he is guilty of a moral failing.
Of course I am not trying to make light what the administrators did (or failed to do), they deserve to go to jail right along w/ Sandusky and are guilty of a moral failing as well.
|
On November 11 2011 07:41 Enervate wrote:
Risen, there is a difference between speculation and deduction. Employing basic logic and reasoning skills, most of the people in this thread have already reached obvious truths of which you either still remain ignorant or pretend to remain ignorant.
You are likely in the process of experiencing the five stages of grief, as you have already exhibited denial, anger, and bargaining. Be aware that fixation on denial will only make acceptance more difficult, if not impossible, though you may not think so at this point in time.
Deduction from WHAT?!?! Where are you drawing these deductions from????? Spell it out for me, man. Deductions require a chain in logic, and as far as I can tell, there is no chain here.
Edit: And still no one has responded to the possibility that McQueary has lied this entire time in order to take advantage of a situation and boost his career.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
On November 11 2011 07:39 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:35 itsjustatank wrote:On November 11 2011 07:31 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:29 itsjustatank wrote:On November 11 2011 07:19 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:15 itsjustatank wrote:On November 11 2011 07:12 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:11 itsjustatank wrote:On November 11 2011 07:06 stokes17 wrote:On November 11 2011 07:02 JinNJuice wrote:
[quote]
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. Reporting Procedures 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: [list][*]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 You're cute. Now accept the fact that a "distraught" witness who comes and reports the incident after going to sleep, and not going to police, is not considered enough to provide reasonable cause. Guess you aren't a reasonable person. The legal standard for what determines reasonable cause is pretty low. As a prosecutor, I'd be willing to take your scenario and prosecute for willful neglect of reporting duty. Still haven't answered how school admins there failed to report to the Department of Public Welfare, either. You're late to the conversation, so I'll fill you in. I am fully supporting the prosecution of both the Athletic Director and the head of the police force. I am NOT for a mob lynching of Paterno based on pure speculation, and the reports of one man. Especially when that one man has only stood to gain from this whole situation, is the sole witness, and a victim has never been found. Edit: If what you say is true, then why don't Pennsylvania's prosecutors charge Paterno as well? It looks to me like I am in the right here and you are in the wrong. Straw man is cool. I never made arguments of being wrong or right; I'm just injecting actual PA law to the conversation. In my opinion, everyone involved who did not report is potentially guilty of a misdemeanor. No evidence exists thus far that Paterno or anyone for that matter reported to the Department of Public Welfare. You said "Still haven't answered how school admins there failed to report to the Department of Public Welfare, either." That to me is saying, "Hey Risen, respond to this" That's what my post did. I responded to that. I didn't say you had an argument, you ASKED me to answer to the other administrators, which clearly means you haven't been reading the thread since the start of this or you would have seen my responses. I gave you a summary of what I had said earlier. To this you respond that I am using a straw man, wtf? How am I misrepresenting you? You said, "Guess you aren't a reasonable person. The legal standard for what determines reasonable cause is pretty low. As a prosecutor, I'd be willing to take your scenario and prosecute for willful neglect of reporting duty." I responded that I am a reasonable person or else Penn's prosecutors would be all over Paterno.
I edited to put in "morally wrong" because that's how I thought you were articulating your response.
If you take the fact that prosecutors still haven't charged Paterno as evidence of innocence, that would be a bit hasty. When I mentioned the "reasonable person" standard earlier, it is the legal test of determining whether or not something can be called reasonable cause. Just because you personally aren't convinced of the testimony of the one 'distraught' person, it doesnt preclude the ability of a prosecutor to successfully argue to a judge or jury that the exact opposite is true. I would say it would be pretty easy for that prosecutor to make that case.
|
On November 11 2011 05:23 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 05:19 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:18 Battleaxe wrote:On November 11 2011 05:12 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:07 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:00 Piggiez wrote:On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote:
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus. What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing. JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching. Jibba how do you know JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go in 98? You don't. More speculation. Stop speculating if you want to sway anyone. Your red status gives you a level of credibility, but just because you say X happened doesn't mean I'll believe you just because of your status. It was his fucking football program. Do you really think he didn't know why his defensive coordinator was forced to resign? Holy shit, I can't take this anymore. My boss at work also has a boss, if I was fired due to a sexual crime in the office by my boss's boss, do you think her superiors would disclose that information if she asked for it? Especially if they were trying to cover it up? I think you misunderstand the chain of command here. I think you misunderstand how football programs work. And I think you and many others are speculating about all this shit. Find me some facts, find me proof that JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go. Oh wait, you're just grabbing your crotch and going NNOOOOOOOO HE KNEW, I KNOW HOW FOOTBALL WORKS HURRRRRR. I think you misunderstand how college football programs work, and college sports in general. Damn son, I'm postin' up. Bring it. Edit: To make this sound harsher. Oh hey look! You're speculating AGAIN! Keep it up man, I'm loving this.
Smoking gun facts are not needed. You seem to be completely oblivious to how the law works. Even in criminal trials, under the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, juries are allowed to reasonably speculate based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that you would place made-up asinine conspiracy theories to the same level as reasonable inferences shows how terrible your logic is.
And guess what, employers don't need to prove that their employees are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to fire them.
|
On November 11 2011 07:50 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 05:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:19 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:18 Battleaxe wrote:On November 11 2011 05:12 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:07 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:00 Piggiez wrote:On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote:
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus. What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing. JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching. Jibba how do you know JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go in 98? You don't. More speculation. Stop speculating if you want to sway anyone. Your red status gives you a level of credibility, but just because you say X happened doesn't mean I'll believe you just because of your status. It was his fucking football program. Do you really think he didn't know why his defensive coordinator was forced to resign? Holy shit, I can't take this anymore. My boss at work also has a boss, if I was fired due to a sexual crime in the office by my boss's boss, do you think her superiors would disclose that information if she asked for it? Especially if they were trying to cover it up? I think you misunderstand the chain of command here. I think you misunderstand how football programs work. And I think you and many others are speculating about all this shit. Find me some facts, find me proof that JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go. Oh wait, you're just grabbing your crotch and going NNOOOOOOOO HE KNEW, I KNOW HOW FOOTBALL WORKS HURRRRRR. I think you misunderstand how college football programs work, and college sports in general. Damn son, I'm postin' up. Bring it. Edit: To make this sound harsher. Oh hey look! You're speculating AGAIN! Keep it up man, I'm loving this. Smoking gun facts are not needed. You seem to be completely oblivious to how the law works. Even in criminal trials, under the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, juries are allowed to reasonably speculate based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that you would place made-up asinine conspiracy theories to the same level as reasonable inferences shows how terrible your logic is. And guess what, employers don't need to prove that their employees are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to fire them.
You are correct, no smoking gun facts are needed. But something beyond circumstantial IS. And all I see is circumstantial and speculation.
Edit: It is not possible to be convicted of something purely based on speculation. That is what is occurring here.
|
On November 11 2011 07:53 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:50 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 05:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:19 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:18 Battleaxe wrote:On November 11 2011 05:12 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:07 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:00 Piggiez wrote:On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote:
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus. What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing. JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching. Jibba how do you know JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go in 98? You don't. More speculation. Stop speculating if you want to sway anyone. Your red status gives you a level of credibility, but just because you say X happened doesn't mean I'll believe you just because of your status. It was his fucking football program. Do you really think he didn't know why his defensive coordinator was forced to resign? Holy shit, I can't take this anymore. My boss at work also has a boss, if I was fired due to a sexual crime in the office by my boss's boss, do you think her superiors would disclose that information if she asked for it? Especially if they were trying to cover it up? I think you misunderstand the chain of command here. I think you misunderstand how football programs work. And I think you and many others are speculating about all this shit. Find me some facts, find me proof that JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go. Oh wait, you're just grabbing your crotch and going NNOOOOOOOO HE KNEW, I KNOW HOW FOOTBALL WORKS HURRRRRR. I think you misunderstand how college football programs work, and college sports in general. Damn son, I'm postin' up. Bring it. Edit: To make this sound harsher. Oh hey look! You're speculating AGAIN! Keep it up man, I'm loving this. Smoking gun facts are not needed. You seem to be completely oblivious to how the law works. Even in criminal trials, under the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, juries are allowed to reasonably speculate based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that you would place made-up asinine conspiracy theories to the same level as reasonable inferences shows how terrible your logic is. And guess what, employers don't need to prove that their employees are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to fire them. You are correct, no smoking gun facts are needed. But something beyond circumstantial IS. And all I see is circumstantial and speculation.
Wrong. Nothing beyond circumstantial is needed. All it needs is for something to be the only reasonable explanation for it.
Edit: And conviction is not a requirement for any company or organization to fire someone. The fact that Paterno's number 2 guy managed to do this on his watch is enough.
|
On November 11 2011 07:45 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:41 Enervate wrote:
Risen, there is a difference between speculation and deduction. Employing basic logic and reasoning skills, most of the people in this thread have already reached obvious truths of which you either still remain ignorant or pretend to remain ignorant.
You are likely in the process of experiencing the five stages of grief, as you have already exhibited denial, anger, and bargaining. Be aware that fixation on denial will only make acceptance more difficult, if not impossible, though you may not think so at this point in time. Deduction from WHAT?!?! Where are you drawing these deductions from????? Spell it out for me, man. Deductions require a chain in logic, and as far as I can tell, there is no chain here. Edit: And still no one has responded to the possibility that McQueary has lied this entire time in order to take advantage of a situation and boost his career.
The logic is
Is person A accuses Person B of a serious offense, to Person C, the direct superior to Person A. Person C passes on this accusation to those who can resolve it, with the intent that the issue gets resolved.
Person A gets a job promotion
Person B gets to continue maintaining an office on campus
My assumption here is that Person C is aware of the two above facts.
With that assumption, it is logical to assume that Person C would see this as a lack of resolution to the situation.
Seeing this lack of resolution, Person C sits idle, knowing that his legal obligation has been fulfilled. It is here in which Person C commits a moral failing.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Holy fuck bags. This is truly despicable. I hope the guilty parties all receive their just dues.
|
|
|
On November 11 2011 07:53 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:50 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 05:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:19 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:18 Battleaxe wrote:On November 11 2011 05:12 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:07 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:00 Piggiez wrote:On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote:
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus. What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing. JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching. Jibba how do you know JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go in 98? You don't. More speculation. Stop speculating if you want to sway anyone. Your red status gives you a level of credibility, but just because you say X happened doesn't mean I'll believe you just because of your status. It was his fucking football program. Do you really think he didn't know why his defensive coordinator was forced to resign? Holy shit, I can't take this anymore. My boss at work also has a boss, if I was fired due to a sexual crime in the office by my boss's boss, do you think her superiors would disclose that information if she asked for it? Especially if they were trying to cover it up? I think you misunderstand the chain of command here. I think you misunderstand how football programs work. And I think you and many others are speculating about all this shit. Find me some facts, find me proof that JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go. Oh wait, you're just grabbing your crotch and going NNOOOOOOOO HE KNEW, I KNOW HOW FOOTBALL WORKS HURRRRRR. I think you misunderstand how college football programs work, and college sports in general. Damn son, I'm postin' up. Bring it. Edit: To make this sound harsher. Oh hey look! You're speculating AGAIN! Keep it up man, I'm loving this. Smoking gun facts are not needed. You seem to be completely oblivious to how the law works. Even in criminal trials, under the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, juries are allowed to reasonably speculate based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that you would place made-up asinine conspiracy theories to the same level as reasonable inferences shows how terrible your logic is. And guess what, employers don't need to prove that their employees are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to fire them. You are correct, no smoking gun facts are needed. But something beyond circumstantial IS. And all I see is circumstantial and speculation. Edit: It is not possible to be convicted of something purely based on speculation. That is what is occurring here.
Alright, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding on how the legal system works. The legal system and employment are two different things. Criminal courts require a guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdict. Civil courts require preponderance of the evidence. Employment in Pennsylvania is at will. Under that legal doctrine:
any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
If the Board of Trustees felt that Paterno, Spanier or anybody else didn't do enough to investigate and bring to light past abuses and prevent future abuses by Sandusky, the board can fire them without a criminal conviction. Paterno wasn't the only one who was fired yesterday. Spanier was fired, too. There's no reason to spare Paterno when everybody else above Sandusky in the chain of command is being fired or charged in criminal court or both.
Now, let's take the OJ Simpson case that was brought up earlier. OJ wasn't found innocent. Courts rarely use the word innocent. The term is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different from innocent. If OJ was found innocent, he wouldn't be found liable in civil court, which he was. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just means that the jury can not convict the defendant in criminal court. It doesn't mean that the defendant can't be found liable in civil court nor does it mean the defendant gets to keep his job. In fact, OJ was found liable in civil court.
|
On November 11 2011 08:18 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:53 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:50 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 05:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:19 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:18 Battleaxe wrote:On November 11 2011 05:12 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:07 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:00 Piggiez wrote:On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote:
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus. What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing. JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching. Jibba how do you know JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go in 98? You don't. More speculation. Stop speculating if you want to sway anyone. Your red status gives you a level of credibility, but just because you say X happened doesn't mean I'll believe you just because of your status. It was his fucking football program. Do you really think he didn't know why his defensive coordinator was forced to resign? Holy shit, I can't take this anymore. My boss at work also has a boss, if I was fired due to a sexual crime in the office by my boss's boss, do you think her superiors would disclose that information if she asked for it? Especially if they were trying to cover it up? I think you misunderstand the chain of command here. I think you misunderstand how football programs work. And I think you and many others are speculating about all this shit. Find me some facts, find me proof that JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go. Oh wait, you're just grabbing your crotch and going NNOOOOOOOO HE KNEW, I KNOW HOW FOOTBALL WORKS HURRRRRR. I think you misunderstand how college football programs work, and college sports in general. Damn son, I'm postin' up. Bring it. Edit: To make this sound harsher. Oh hey look! You're speculating AGAIN! Keep it up man, I'm loving this. Smoking gun facts are not needed. You seem to be completely oblivious to how the law works. Even in criminal trials, under the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, juries are allowed to reasonably speculate based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that you would place made-up asinine conspiracy theories to the same level as reasonable inferences shows how terrible your logic is. And guess what, employers don't need to prove that their employees are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to fire them. You are correct, no smoking gun facts are needed. But something beyond circumstantial IS. And all I see is circumstantial and speculation. Edit: It is not possible to be convicted of something purely based on speculation. That is what is occurring here. Alright, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding on how the legal system works. The legal system and employment are two different things. Criminal courts require a guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdict. Civil courts require preponderance of the evidence. Employment in Pennsylvania is at will. Under that legal doctrine: any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. If the Board of Trustees felt that Paterno, Spanier or anybody else didn't do enough to investigate and bring to light past abuses and prevent future abuses by Sandusky, the board can fire them without a criminal conviction. Paterno wasn't the only one who was fired yesterday. Spanier was fired, too. There's no reason to spare Paterno when everybody else above Sandusky in the chain of command is being fired or charged in criminal court or both. Now, let's take the OJ Simpson case that was brought up earlier. OJ wasn't found innocent. Courts rarely use the word innocent. The term is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different from innocent. If OJ was found innocent, he wouldn't be found liable in civil court, which he was. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just means that the jury can not convict the defendant in criminal court. It doesn't mean that the defendant can't be found liable in civil court nor does it mean the defendant gets to keep his job. In fact, OJ was found liable in civil court.
WTF? Where have you been the whole conversation. I never argued that he should keep his job. Would I have let him keep his job? Yes. Did Penn State do anything illegal when firing him? No.
All I have ever been for, and what I continue to stand for, is to reserve judgement until the FACTS come out. Until we can move past speculation and talk about what ACTUALLY happened.
|
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?
People who have no idea of the legal definition of slander and defamation should stop bringing it up. Sandusky, being the defensive coordinator of the team, is considered a public figure. If Paterno went public with McQueary's allegations and Sandusky sued Paterno for slander and/or defamation, Sandusky has to prove that:
a.) the allegations were false;
b.) Paterno had reason to believe they were false; and
c.) Paterno published the accusations due to malice.
|
|
|
On November 11 2011 08:21 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 08:18 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 07:53 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:50 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 05:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:19 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:18 Battleaxe wrote:On November 11 2011 05:12 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:07 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:00 Piggiez wrote:
[quote]
What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing. JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching. Jibba how do you know JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go in 98? You don't. More speculation. Stop speculating if you want to sway anyone. Your red status gives you a level of credibility, but just because you say X happened doesn't mean I'll believe you just because of your status. It was his fucking football program. Do you really think he didn't know why his defensive coordinator was forced to resign? Holy shit, I can't take this anymore. My boss at work also has a boss, if I was fired due to a sexual crime in the office by my boss's boss, do you think her superiors would disclose that information if she asked for it? Especially if they were trying to cover it up? I think you misunderstand the chain of command here. I think you misunderstand how football programs work. And I think you and many others are speculating about all this shit. Find me some facts, find me proof that JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go. Oh wait, you're just grabbing your crotch and going NNOOOOOOOO HE KNEW, I KNOW HOW FOOTBALL WORKS HURRRRRR. I think you misunderstand how college football programs work, and college sports in general. Damn son, I'm postin' up. Bring it. Edit: To make this sound harsher. Oh hey look! You're speculating AGAIN! Keep it up man, I'm loving this. Smoking gun facts are not needed. You seem to be completely oblivious to how the law works. Even in criminal trials, under the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, juries are allowed to reasonably speculate based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that you would place made-up asinine conspiracy theories to the same level as reasonable inferences shows how terrible your logic is. And guess what, employers don't need to prove that their employees are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to fire them. You are correct, no smoking gun facts are needed. But something beyond circumstantial IS. And all I see is circumstantial and speculation. Edit: It is not possible to be convicted of something purely based on speculation. That is what is occurring here. Alright, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding on how the legal system works. The legal system and employment are two different things. Criminal courts require a guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdict. Civil courts require preponderance of the evidence. Employment in Pennsylvania is at will. Under that legal doctrine: any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. If the Board of Trustees felt that Paterno, Spanier or anybody else didn't do enough to investigate and bring to light past abuses and prevent future abuses by Sandusky, the board can fire them without a criminal conviction. Paterno wasn't the only one who was fired yesterday. Spanier was fired, too. There's no reason to spare Paterno when everybody else above Sandusky in the chain of command is being fired or charged in criminal court or both. Now, let's take the OJ Simpson case that was brought up earlier. OJ wasn't found innocent. Courts rarely use the word innocent. The term is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different from innocent. If OJ was found innocent, he wouldn't be found liable in civil court, which he was. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just means that the jury can not convict the defendant in criminal court. It doesn't mean that the defendant can't be found liable in civil court nor does it mean the defendant gets to keep his job. In fact, OJ was found liable in civil court. WTF? Where have you been the whole conversation. I never argued that he should keep his job. Would I have let him keep his job? Yes. Did Penn State do anything illegal when firing him? No. All I have ever been for, and what I continue to stand for, is to reserve judgement until the FACTS come out. Until we can move past speculation and talk about what ACTUALLY happened.
Why? You're looking for a standard of evidence that is higher than required for a criminal conviction. As already stated above, 100% circumstantial evidence is permissible for a criminal conviction. There is already enough evidence in the grand jury testimony for moral failing at all levels at Penn State (soon to be State Pen, ho ho ho). There is no reason why saying somebody failed in their moral duty requires a standard beyond that which applies to a criminal conviction.
Very rarely does a case happen where all the facts come out. It requires a Paterno-like head in the sand to not be able to make reasonable inferences at this point. We don't know to what extent Paterno is culpable. We don't know yet if he broke the law or is merely morally culpable. We don't know how morally culpable he is. But it's a ludicrous joke to think that it is still within the realm of possibility that his hands are clean.
The fact is, he's a doddering football coach whose legacy is the Grand Experiment. The board wanted to fire him years ago and he told them no. The only reason he was still employed is he represented himself and his football program as carrying a standard of moral obligation that is above and beyond the call of duty. All the excuses people are making for him just shows how far short of his standard he has acted. And when that curtain is torn down, what else does he have?
|
On November 11 2011 08:37 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 08:21 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 08:18 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 07:53 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:50 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 05:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:19 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:18 Battleaxe wrote:On November 11 2011 05:12 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:07 Risen wrote:
[quote]
JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching.
Jibba how do you know JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go in 98? You don't. More speculation. Stop speculating if you want to sway anyone. Your red status gives you a level of credibility, but just because you say X happened doesn't mean I'll believe you just because of your status. It was his fucking football program. Do you really think he didn't know why his defensive coordinator was forced to resign? Holy shit, I can't take this anymore. My boss at work also has a boss, if I was fired due to a sexual crime in the office by my boss's boss, do you think her superiors would disclose that information if she asked for it? Especially if they were trying to cover it up? I think you misunderstand the chain of command here. I think you misunderstand how football programs work. And I think you and many others are speculating about all this shit. Find me some facts, find me proof that JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go. Oh wait, you're just grabbing your crotch and going NNOOOOOOOO HE KNEW, I KNOW HOW FOOTBALL WORKS HURRRRRR. I think you misunderstand how college football programs work, and college sports in general. Damn son, I'm postin' up. Bring it. Edit: To make this sound harsher. Oh hey look! You're speculating AGAIN! Keep it up man, I'm loving this. Smoking gun facts are not needed. You seem to be completely oblivious to how the law works. Even in criminal trials, under the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, juries are allowed to reasonably speculate based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that you would place made-up asinine conspiracy theories to the same level as reasonable inferences shows how terrible your logic is. And guess what, employers don't need to prove that their employees are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to fire them. You are correct, no smoking gun facts are needed. But something beyond circumstantial IS. And all I see is circumstantial and speculation. Edit: It is not possible to be convicted of something purely based on speculation. That is what is occurring here. Alright, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding on how the legal system works. The legal system and employment are two different things. Criminal courts require a guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdict. Civil courts require preponderance of the evidence. Employment in Pennsylvania is at will. Under that legal doctrine: any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. If the Board of Trustees felt that Paterno, Spanier or anybody else didn't do enough to investigate and bring to light past abuses and prevent future abuses by Sandusky, the board can fire them without a criminal conviction. Paterno wasn't the only one who was fired yesterday. Spanier was fired, too. There's no reason to spare Paterno when everybody else above Sandusky in the chain of command is being fired or charged in criminal court or both. Now, let's take the OJ Simpson case that was brought up earlier. OJ wasn't found innocent. Courts rarely use the word innocent. The term is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different from innocent. If OJ was found innocent, he wouldn't be found liable in civil court, which he was. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just means that the jury can not convict the defendant in criminal court. It doesn't mean that the defendant can't be found liable in civil court nor does it mean the defendant gets to keep his job. In fact, OJ was found liable in civil court. WTF? Where have you been the whole conversation. I never argued that he should keep his job. Would I have let him keep his job? Yes. Did Penn State do anything illegal when firing him? No. All I have ever been for, and what I continue to stand for, is to reserve judgement until the FACTS come out. Until we can move past speculation and talk about what ACTUALLY happened. Why? You're looking for a standard of evidence that is higher than required for a criminal conviction. As already stated above, 100% circumstantial evidence is permissible for a criminal conviction. There is already enough evidence in the grand jury testimony for moral failing at all levels at Penn State (soon to be State Pen, ho ho ho). There is no reason why saying somebody failed in their moral duty requires a standard beyond that which applies to a criminal conviction. Very rarely does a case happen where all the facts come out. It requires a Paterno-like head in the sand to not be able to make reasonable inferences at this point. We don't know to what extent Paterno is culpable. We don't know yet if he broke the law or is merely morally culpable. We don't know how morally culpable he is. But it's a ludicrous joke to think that it is still within the realm of possibility that his hands are clean.
Again, you ASSUME McQueary isn't LYING. There has never been any "victim 2" found. There has never been anything except one man's word. Since when is ONE MAN'S WORD enough to convict? Never.
|
On November 11 2011 07:31 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:29 itsjustatank wrote:On November 11 2011 07:19 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:15 itsjustatank wrote:On November 11 2011 07:12 Risen wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Reporting Procedures 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: [list][*]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 You're cute. Now accept the fact that a "distraught" witness who comes and reports the incident after going to sleep, and not going to police, is not considered enough to provide reasonable cause. Guess you aren't a reasonable person. The legal standard for what determines reasonable cause is pretty low. As a prosecutor, I'd be willing to take your scenario and prosecute for willful neglect of reporting duty. Still haven't answered how school admins there failed to report to the Department of Public Welfare, either. You're late to the conversation, so I'll fill you in. I am fully supporting the prosecution of both the Athletic Director and the head of the police force. I am NOT for a mob lynching of Paterno based on pure speculation, and the reports of one man. Especially when that one man has only stood to gain from this whole situation, is the sole witness, and a victim has never been found. Edit: If what you say is true, then why don't Pennsylvania's prosecutors charge Paterno as well? It looks to me like I am in the right here and you are in the wrong.
Once again, you still have no clue what you're talking about. 'a victim has never been found' lol? They have 6 victims already ready to testify for the prosecution (source espn), and that's considering not all the alleged victims have came forward.
You keep ranting about holding back judgement until the facts are out, but then ignore the ones that are clearly in existence right in front of you. It's probably pointless to even post anything in response to you because you're clearly just too incompetent for this discussion.
|
On November 11 2011 08:43 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 08:37 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 08:21 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 08:18 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 07:53 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:50 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 05:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:19 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:18 Battleaxe wrote:On November 11 2011 05:12 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
It was his fucking football program. Do you really think he didn't know why his defensive coordinator was forced to resign? Holy shit, I can't take this anymore. My boss at work also has a boss, if I was fired due to a sexual crime in the office by my boss's boss, do you think her superiors would disclose that information if she asked for it? Especially if they were trying to cover it up? I think you misunderstand the chain of command here. I think you misunderstand how football programs work. And I think you and many others are speculating about all this shit. Find me some facts, find me proof that JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go. Oh wait, you're just grabbing your crotch and going NNOOOOOOOO HE KNEW, I KNOW HOW FOOTBALL WORKS HURRRRRR. I think you misunderstand how college football programs work, and college sports in general. Damn son, I'm postin' up. Bring it. Edit: To make this sound harsher. Oh hey look! You're speculating AGAIN! Keep it up man, I'm loving this. Smoking gun facts are not needed. You seem to be completely oblivious to how the law works. Even in criminal trials, under the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, juries are allowed to reasonably speculate based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that you would place made-up asinine conspiracy theories to the same level as reasonable inferences shows how terrible your logic is. And guess what, employers don't need to prove that their employees are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to fire them. You are correct, no smoking gun facts are needed. But something beyond circumstantial IS. And all I see is circumstantial and speculation. Edit: It is not possible to be convicted of something purely based on speculation. That is what is occurring here. Alright, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding on how the legal system works. The legal system and employment are two different things. Criminal courts require a guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdict. Civil courts require preponderance of the evidence. Employment in Pennsylvania is at will. Under that legal doctrine: any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. If the Board of Trustees felt that Paterno, Spanier or anybody else didn't do enough to investigate and bring to light past abuses and prevent future abuses by Sandusky, the board can fire them without a criminal conviction. Paterno wasn't the only one who was fired yesterday. Spanier was fired, too. There's no reason to spare Paterno when everybody else above Sandusky in the chain of command is being fired or charged in criminal court or both. Now, let's take the OJ Simpson case that was brought up earlier. OJ wasn't found innocent. Courts rarely use the word innocent. The term is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different from innocent. If OJ was found innocent, he wouldn't be found liable in civil court, which he was. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just means that the jury can not convict the defendant in criminal court. It doesn't mean that the defendant can't be found liable in civil court nor does it mean the defendant gets to keep his job. In fact, OJ was found liable in civil court. WTF? Where have you been the whole conversation. I never argued that he should keep his job. Would I have let him keep his job? Yes. Did Penn State do anything illegal when firing him? No. All I have ever been for, and what I continue to stand for, is to reserve judgement until the FACTS come out. Until we can move past speculation and talk about what ACTUALLY happened. Why? You're looking for a standard of evidence that is higher than required for a criminal conviction. As already stated above, 100% circumstantial evidence is permissible for a criminal conviction. There is already enough evidence in the grand jury testimony for moral failing at all levels at Penn State (soon to be State Pen, ho ho ho). There is no reason why saying somebody failed in their moral duty requires a standard beyond that which applies to a criminal conviction. Very rarely does a case happen where all the facts come out. It requires a Paterno-like head in the sand to not be able to make reasonable inferences at this point. We don't know to what extent Paterno is culpable. We don't know yet if he broke the law or is merely morally culpable. We don't know how morally culpable he is. But it's a ludicrous joke to think that it is still within the realm of possibility that his hands are clean. Again, you ASSUME McQueary isn't LYING. There has never been any "victim 2" found. There has never been anything except one man's word. Since when is ONE MAN'S WORD enough to convict? Never.
You tell everybody that you're running a program to higher moral standards than everybody else. You pitch yourself as the moral compass of the school. You even have a label for it, the GRAND EXPERIMENT. Your no. 2 guy, the guy you're grooming to be your successor, your direct report, suddenly resigns under questionable circumstances. 3 years later, a grad student working for you tells you that he saw him with a 10 year old boy in a shower room doing inappropriate sexual things.
So your higher moral standard compels you to do the minimum under the law to not get charged with a crime? You don't follow-up? Not even curiousity compels you to follow-up? You just bury your head in the sand and assume the grad student could be lying and/or mistaken, even though the guy he's accusing has been under a cloud of suspicion before? You never ask what the investigation turned up? All the while you're telling everybody, or at the least, recruiting potential football players based upon your higher moral standards. All the while, one of your biggest selling points is that your school is very clean because it has never had any NCAA infractions.
At the very least, Paterno has been a fucking hypocrite for the last nine years.
Btw, here's a timeline of events. They took away Sandusky's locker keys after the incident with McQueary. So they had reasons to believe something happened. And nobody, including Paterno, wondered why nothing came out of it and elevated it further? Remember, GRAND EXPERIMENT.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-state-sex-abuse-case
|
On November 11 2011 09:06 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 08:43 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 08:37 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 08:21 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 08:18 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 07:53 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:50 andrewlt wrote:On November 11 2011 05:23 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 05:19 Jibba wrote:On November 11 2011 05:18 Battleaxe wrote:
[quote]
My boss at work also has a boss, if I was fired due to a sexual crime in the office by my boss's boss, do you think her superiors would disclose that information if she asked for it? Especially if they were trying to cover it up? I think you misunderstand the chain of command here. I think you misunderstand how football programs work. And I think you and many others are speculating about all this shit. Find me some facts, find me proof that JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go. Oh wait, you're just grabbing your crotch and going NNOOOOOOOO HE KNEW, I KNOW HOW FOOTBALL WORKS HURRRRRR. I think you misunderstand how college football programs work, and college sports in general. Damn son, I'm postin' up. Bring it. Edit: To make this sound harsher. Oh hey look! You're speculating AGAIN! Keep it up man, I'm loving this. Smoking gun facts are not needed. You seem to be completely oblivious to how the law works. Even in criminal trials, under the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, juries are allowed to reasonably speculate based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that you would place made-up asinine conspiracy theories to the same level as reasonable inferences shows how terrible your logic is. And guess what, employers don't need to prove that their employees are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to fire them. You are correct, no smoking gun facts are needed. But something beyond circumstantial IS. And all I see is circumstantial and speculation. Edit: It is not possible to be convicted of something purely based on speculation. That is what is occurring here. Alright, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding on how the legal system works. The legal system and employment are two different things. Criminal courts require a guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdict. Civil courts require preponderance of the evidence. Employment in Pennsylvania is at will. Under that legal doctrine: any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. If the Board of Trustees felt that Paterno, Spanier or anybody else didn't do enough to investigate and bring to light past abuses and prevent future abuses by Sandusky, the board can fire them without a criminal conviction. Paterno wasn't the only one who was fired yesterday. Spanier was fired, too. There's no reason to spare Paterno when everybody else above Sandusky in the chain of command is being fired or charged in criminal court or both. Now, let's take the OJ Simpson case that was brought up earlier. OJ wasn't found innocent. Courts rarely use the word innocent. The term is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that is different from innocent. If OJ was found innocent, he wouldn't be found liable in civil court, which he was. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just means that the jury can not convict the defendant in criminal court. It doesn't mean that the defendant can't be found liable in civil court nor does it mean the defendant gets to keep his job. In fact, OJ was found liable in civil court. WTF? Where have you been the whole conversation. I never argued that he should keep his job. Would I have let him keep his job? Yes. Did Penn State do anything illegal when firing him? No. All I have ever been for, and what I continue to stand for, is to reserve judgement until the FACTS come out. Until we can move past speculation and talk about what ACTUALLY happened. Why? You're looking for a standard of evidence that is higher than required for a criminal conviction. As already stated above, 100% circumstantial evidence is permissible for a criminal conviction. There is already enough evidence in the grand jury testimony for moral failing at all levels at Penn State (soon to be State Pen, ho ho ho). There is no reason why saying somebody failed in their moral duty requires a standard beyond that which applies to a criminal conviction. Very rarely does a case happen where all the facts come out. It requires a Paterno-like head in the sand to not be able to make reasonable inferences at this point. We don't know to what extent Paterno is culpable. We don't know yet if he broke the law or is merely morally culpable. We don't know how morally culpable he is. But it's a ludicrous joke to think that it is still within the realm of possibility that his hands are clean. Again, you ASSUME McQueary isn't LYING. There has never been any "victim 2" found. There has never been anything except one man's word. Since when is ONE MAN'S WORD enough to convict? Never. You tell everybody that you're running a program to higher moral standards than everybody else. You pitch yourself as the moral compass of the school. You even have a label for it, the Grand Experiment. Your no. 2 guy, the guy you're grooming to be your successor, your direct report, suddenly resigns under questionable circumstances. 3 years later, a grad student working for you tells you that he saw him with a 10 year old boy in a shower room doing inappropriate sexual things. So your higher moral standard compels you to do the minimum under the law to not get charged with a crime? You don't follow-up? Not even curiousity compels you to follow-up? You just bury your head in the sand and assume the grad student could be lying and/or mistaken, even though the guy he's accusing has been under a cloud of suspicion before? You never ask what the investigation turned up? All the while you're telling everybody, or at the least, recruiting potential football players based upon your higher moral standards. All the while, one of your biggest selling points is that your school is very clean because it has never had any NCAA infractions. At the very least, Paterno has been a fucking hypocrite for the last nine years.
It is looking that way. The fact that PSU openly bragged and lured recruits with its perfect disciplinary record (only one of 2 D1 schools to never have major infraction) only makes it worse.
|
On November 11 2011 08:52 gayfius173 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 07:31 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:29 itsjustatank wrote:On November 11 2011 07:19 Risen wrote:On November 11 2011 07:15 itsjustatank wrote:On November 11 2011 07:12 Risen wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Reporting Procedures 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: [list][*]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 You're cute. Now accept the fact that a "distraught" witness who comes and reports the incident after going to sleep, and not going to police, is not considered enough to provide reasonable cause. Guess you aren't a reasonable person. The legal standard for what determines reasonable cause is pretty low. As a prosecutor, I'd be willing to take your scenario and prosecute for willful neglect of reporting duty. Still haven't answered how school admins there failed to report to the Department of Public Welfare, either. You're late to the conversation, so I'll fill you in. I am fully supporting the prosecution of both the Athletic Director and the head of the police force. I am NOT for a mob lynching of Paterno based on pure speculation, and the reports of one man. Especially when that one man has only stood to gain from this whole situation, is the sole witness, and a victim has never been found. Edit: If what you say is true, then why don't Pennsylvania's prosecutors charge Paterno as well? It looks to me like I am in the right here and you are in the wrong. Once again, you still have no clue what you're talking about. 'a victim has never been found' lol? They have 6 victims already ready to testify for the prosecution (source espn), and that's considering not all the alleged victims have came forward. You keep ranting about holding back judgement until the facts are out, but then ignore the ones that are clearly in existence right in front of you. It's probably pointless to even post anything in response to you because you're clearly just too incompetent for this discussion.
Victim #2 has never been found. Reading comprehension is tough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
