A rather bizarre case is developing surrounding former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky and Penn State University. Sandusky is accused of the rape of up to 8 young boys. Two administrator for the school have also been indicted by grand jury for covering up the crimes.
For those of you who don't follow college football. Jerry Sandusky was once the heir apparent to Joe Paternos job as head coach of the PSU football team. Paterno is a god at PSU having built the program up from nothing. Paterno and the PSU football team have also prided itself on having always run a clean program. So this makes everything coming out twice as crazy.
From the looks of things it appears that PSU learned about these rapes as far back as 1998, and did nothing to stop it. Worst yet they continued to let this man host camps for children at the school, and attend practices/bowl games with kids in his company.
Things start to get really nuts when you connect the dots to now declared dead former district attorney Ray Gricar. Gricar was investigating Sandusky as far back as 1998. Now for unknown reason Gricar dropped that case against Sandusky, but there is speculation he was protecting the University as well. In 2005 he goes missing with his car and laptop later found destroyed. Covering up what exactly? Who knows.
This whole case has a very Hot Fuzz "For the greater good" feel to it for anyone who seen that movie. Two questions really stand out to me about the details of this case. One is when these people found him raping kids. Why the hell did they keep bring it to their bosses first? If you find someone raping a small child. Don't you go right to the police? In what world do you stop and say to yourself. "I better let my boss know about this!" Second what did Joe Paterno know and when did he know it?
Jibba brought this up yesterday and I loathe imagining what this thread will look like by page 20. Needless to say, if proved 100% true then the coverup was disgusting and everyone that perjured themselves and hid the actions of a pedophile should be jailed.
Much worse than I thought. I glanced over the headline on fox news.. "Oh sex abuse what else is new.." But rape of 8 boys and people knew about it and let it go on without reporting the very first one? Humanity never ceases to amaze me.
This is just crazy. Stuff like these coverup scandals seem much more common these days. Are people getting worse at covering stuff up/ people are better at finding it or is it actually becoming more common.
I read about this story earlier today. What he's accused of doing, using charities to sexually molest boys, using his role on the team to entice the boys and then abuse them, its sickening. Then university officials trying to cover it up after coaches alerted them and he subsequently stepped down from his coaching position at the same time.
On November 08 2011 07:39 InToTheWannaB wrote: A rather bizarre case is developing surrounding former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky and Penn State University. Sandusky is accused of the rape of up to 8 young boys. Two administrator for the school have also been indicted by grand jury for covering up the crimes.
For those of you who don't follow college football. Jerry Sandusky was once the heir apparent to Joe Paternos job as head coach of the PSU football team. Paterno is a god at PSU having built the program up from nothing. Paterno and the PSU football team have also prided itself on having always run a clean program. So this makes everything coming out twice as crazy.
From the looks of things it appears that PSU learned about these rapes as far back as 1998, and did nothing to stop it. Worst yet they continued to let this man host camps for children at the school, and attend practices/bowl games with kids in his company.
Things start to get really nuts when you connect the dots to now declared dead former district attorney Ray Gricar. Gricar was investigating Sandusky as far back as 1998. Now for unknown reason Gricar dropped that case against Sandusky, but there is speculation he was protecting the University as well. In 2005 he goes missing with his car and laptop later found destroyed. Covering up what exactly? Who knows.
This hole case has a very Hot Fuzz "For the greater good" feel to it for anyone who seen that movie. Two questions really stand out to me about the details of this case. One is when these people found him raping kids. Why the hell did they keep bring it to their bosses first? If you find someone raping a small child. Don't you go right to the police? In what world do you stop and say to yourself. "I better let my boss know about this!" Second what did Joe Paterno know and when did he know it?
According to the Grand Jury report Joe Paterno was informed the next day a Saturday I believe and he informed his boss on Sunday. The grand jury found that Joe Paterno was told exactly what happened and told his boss exactly what happened. Joe Paterno is not facing any legal repercussions for his actions, but his inaction in following it up(making sure the police were involved) or trying to find out the identity of the child is very sad.
It's extremely disturbing on many levels, but people should read it to see how much neglect actually happened (it's an almost unbelievable amount).
It also stretches my credulity to believe that Paterno was as in the dark about it as he claims knowing how influential he is in Penn State politics. Especially if Sandusky's retirement was related to this, which really seems likely given the timing (the next year after he was investigated by police in 1998) and the testimony of the one victim (#4 in the report). But as a beloved defining community icon there is a lot of interest in preserving his image.
The whole thing was a huge shock to me as a former student there (I was just back for a football game not a month ago). The community is basically in shock about both what happened and the inaction/possible cover-up by major school figures. Especially cause this isn't some stupid recruiting/illegal benefits violation like these other school scandals.
It's extremely disturbing on many levels, but people should read it to see how much neglect actually happened (it's an almost unbelievable amount).
It also stretches my credulity to believe that Paterno was as in the dark about it as he claims knowing how influential he is in Penn State politics. Especially if Sandusky's retirement was related to this, which really seems likely given the timing (the next year after he was investigated by police in 1998) and the testimony of the one victim (#4 in the report). But as a beloved defining community icon there is a lot of interest in preserving his image.
The whole thing was a huge shock to me as a former student there (I was just back for a football game not a month ago). The community is basically in shock about both what happened and the inaction/possible cover-up by major school figures. Especially cause this isn't some stupid recruiting/illegal benefits violation like these other school scandals.
Yikes, just finished reading that. That guy is a sick fuck.
Disgusting, Paterno should be fired. The University should be hit with heavy sanctions. All of them should be in jail, if the kid in florida gets life for possession of child porn, then these people should be put away for life as well.
On November 08 2011 07:52 p4NDemik wrote: I read about this story earlier today. What he's accused of doing, using charities to sexually molest boys, using his role on the team to entice the boys and then abuse them, its sickening. Then university officials trying to cover it up after coaches alerted them and he subsequently stepped down from his coaching position at the same time.
Paterno (the head coach) tried to resign at the end of the season, but the Board of Trustees just fired him an hour ago.
It's worth noting for non-Americans that college football is HUGE in the US, bigger than some professional sports, and Coach Paterno was literally one of the most powerful people at the school. More powerful than most of the administrators and arguably second in power to the president of the school. The Board tried to make him quit 5 years ago and he basically told them no.
And Penn State is one of the oldest and largest schools in the country. I think it has a bigger alumni pool than anywhere else in the country.
And it's not just Paterno at fault. The President of the school was fired, and likely most of the football staff will be gone too. There were several people who knew about it and they all covered it up. Sandusky was even caught twice, first in 1998 and again in 2002.
I really feel for Joe Paterno, he was put in a difficult situation and made a mistake. And now he's lost his job and hurt his legacy because of it. However, he should have certainly said something. It sucks so much that people like sandusky fuck it up for everyone.
On November 08 2011 07:52 p4NDemik wrote: I read about this story earlier today. What he's accused of doing, using charities to sexually molest boys, using his role on the team to entice the boys and then abuse them, its sickening. Then university officials trying to cover it up after coaches alerted them and he subsequently stepped down from his coaching position at the same time.
Paterno (the head coach) tried to resign at the end of the season, but the Board of Trustees just fired him an hour ago. + Show Spoiler +
It's worth noting for non-Americans that college football is HUGE in the US, bigger than some professional sports, and Coach Paterno was literally one of the most powerful people at the school. More powerful than most of the administrators and arguably second in power to the president of the school. The Board tried to make him quit 5 years ago and he basically told them no.
And Penn State is one of the oldest and largest schools in the country. I think it has a bigger alumni pool than anywhere else in the country.
And it's not just Paterno at fault. The President of the school was fired, and likely most of the football staff will be gone too. There were several people who knew about it and they all covered it up. Sandusky was even caught twice, first in 1998 and again in 2002.
A small measure of justice as been served. This situation has gone from oh my god to beyond ... just... disgusting.
On November 10 2011 13:17 ampson wrote: I really feel for Joe Paterno, he was put in a difficult situation and made a mistake. And now he's lost his job and hurt his legacy because of it. However, he should have certainly said something. It sucks so much that people like sandusky fuck it up for everyone.
How was he put in a difficult position? He was aware of the allegations and did nothing. He, among other administrators, are equally responsible for all the ensuing sexual abuse that happened after 1998. He had not only a moral obligation but a legal one to report it.
sad that people seem to be more interested in the mans football legacy than proper justice. Why would you 'feel' for this man who let sexual abuse happen and did nothing? being a good football coach doesn't justify turning the other cheek to sick crimes.
I think the reasons Paterno is getting more focus than Sandusky is because people know Sandusky is going to get what's coming, whereas Paterno was mostly unscathed until earlier tonight, and that he had as much power to stop it as anyone. It seems like there's a lot of people guilty of conspiracy on this. :/
I definitely feel for Joe Paterno. What he did was wrong, and he could've acted, but he at least acted better than Sandusky or Spanier or the others. It's a shame for him to go out like this, but really, he did put it on himself.
He was put in a tough situation though, I think anyone who says otherwise is a bit naive. How many people say for sure they wouldn't have been scared to go out as well? There was a bit on the line back then, and he made the mistake of holding back.
I just hope this doesn't get out of hand. Hopefully, with this cleaning of the house, things can just blow over as soon as all is settled and we can get back to our normal university life.
Its not that simple. I mean, let me get it out of the way first off that obviously he made a mistake and should have brought everything to light when it first came up.
But in his mind I am 100% certain he was protecting his players. (Not Sandusky he had allready let go etc. Cant see why he should have given a shit about him.) These guys/kids/young men who were playing for him were living their dreams, and make no mistake. It WOULD have destroyed the Penn State program for years. (just like it is now)
On November 10 2011 13:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: None of those who knew went to the Police, which includes Paterno. I'm sure the Police will have questions soon enough.
This is true, but police won't have anything to do to Paterno though. As in, he's not in any legal trouble. In 2002, he did perform his legal duties and reported to his superiors at the time, so he's not gonna be indited like the others were. his reputation and job are the only things at stake here I believe.
Disgusting, Paterno should be fired. The University should be hit with heavy sanctions. All of them should be in jail, if the kid in florida gets life for possession of child porn, then these people should be put away for life as well.
I doubt we've seen the end of the list of people involved(this whole thing screams massive coverup). This is already a monumental scandal, but when it's all done I wouldn't be shocked if it's the biggest scandal in the history of collegiate athletics(I mean, even just as a criminal happening, this is one of the most major stories in some time).
Paterno could not legally go to the police, since anything he could say would be hearsay and defamation. I don't understand why so many people are blindly out for blood.
The riots here are getting pretty serious, it's kind of scary. From what I here there's quite a bit of property damage and use of tear gas.
Let's keep in mind that someone TOLD joe paterno about the sexual conduct, he never SAW anything. He also was told this ONCE, and did the appropriate thing by reporting to AD, who did NOTHING. AD is the real bad guy. Not saying that joe paterno shouldn't have fired/investigated more, but people need to keep this in mind. It wasn't like he saw the rapes occur and did nothing
It's ridiculous how many of these people involved first and foremost intentions was to protect Sandusky's and PSU's reputations. Let's let this sick fuck ruin more young boys lives and keep it on the down low, because it would just be too embarrassing to report it. This shit happens so often it's not even funny. I bet if a Penn State janitor was caught molesting kids, he'd be turned to the cops in a fucking second.
I seriously get so fucking pissed at all the special treatment people in America get, from government officials to CEO's to high ranking members of major universities. They aren't above the law and their reputation can lick everyone's asshole, we're talking about peoples lives being totally fucked over vs sparing someones god damn credibility/reputation etc.
As a student at Penn State (currently waiting out the riots/etc inside, doing work 'cause I have too much shit to get done to have time to wrap my head around the situation that has developed over the past few days) all I can say is this has left the community in a daze. Everyone's pissed, sad, upset, angry, etc but I think we can all agree that major steps/actions need to be taken. I honestly don't even know how to express how I feel, it's weird how hard something like this hits you. The majority of the kids down town rioting don't even know why the hell they're there except that it gives them an excuse to go crazy. This whole thing is just fucking disappointing.
On November 10 2011 13:52 seRapH wrote: Paterno could not legally go to the police, since anything he could say would be hearsay and defamation. I don't understand why so many people are blindly out for blood.
The riots here are getting pretty serious, it's kind of scary. From what I here there's quite a bit of property damage and use of tear gas.
That's accusations in open court. He could have gone to the police and notified them he at the very least strongly suspected abuse to be going on. Instead he covered it up.
These students are acting completely incongruous with my own thoughts and I think it's best if I just leave it at that.
College football is just disgusting and corrupt to the core. The entire culture around it is a travesty. The fact that people are sorry for Paterno just shows how warped the morals and priorities of people around college football are.
Coaches are lionized for winning and people talk about their high "moral" character just because the program is successful. Coaches don't care about educating and teaching good character, just protecting the playing time of their players. Paterno has a reputation of being extremely soft on the off the field antics of his players, even ones that result in trouble with the law. Urban Meyer ran a penal colony in Florida a few years back and he somehow managed to take the high road because he had Tebow. Rodriguez. Leach. Carroll. The list just goes on and on.
The fact that they covered it up means that an SMU-style death denalty should be in order. If anything deserves it, it's this.
On November 10 2011 13:52 seRapH wrote: Paterno could not legally go to the police, since anything he could say would be hearsay and defamation. I don't understand why so many people are blindly out for blood.
The riots here are getting pretty serious, it's kind of scary. From what I here there's quite a bit of property damage and use of tear gas.
That's accusations in open court. He could have gone to the police and notified them he at the very least strongly suspected abuse to be going on. Instead he covered it up.
These students are acting completely incongruous with my own thoughts and I think it's best if I just leave it at that.
Not to mention he could've made McQueary go to the police and report it.
He was put in a tough situation but the answer should still be simple. Moral ethics vs. his comfortable lifestyle. I can't fathom any reason why you wouldn't go to the police. It could be a whole conspiracy that kept him from coming forward, but the inaction is still appalling.
And he still has the nerves to try to go through until the end of the season? Does he care about the team at all? Think of awkwardness and confusion in the crowd at some players' last game there. It puts everyone in a tough spot. Should they cheer for their team, or not? His insensitivity leads me to believe he only cares about himself, throwing conspiracy out the window.
Coaches are lionized for winning and people talk about their high "moral" character just because the program is successful. Coaches don't care about educating and teaching good character, just protecting the playing time of their players.
Quite the contrary actually, Paterno did a lot for Penn State academically.
On November 10 2011 14:10 andrewlt wrote: Coaches are lionized for winning and people talk about their high "moral" character just because the program is successful. Coaches don't care about educating and teaching good character, just protecting the playing time of their players.
If you think Paterno is held in such high regard simply as a result of his football accomplishments you really have no understanding of this situation.
On November 10 2011 13:52 seRapH wrote: Paterno could not legally go to the police, since anything he could say would be hearsay and defamation. I don't understand why so many people are blindly out for blood.
The riots here are getting pretty serious, it's kind of scary. From what I here there's quite a bit of property damage and use of tear gas.
That's accusations in open court. He could have gone to the police and notified them he at the very least strongly suspected abuse to be going on. Instead he covered it up.
These students are acting completely incongruous with my own thoughts and I think it's best if I just leave it at that.
Not to mention he could've made McQueary go to the police and report it.
Yeah I wrote that briefly with the bare minimum of thought. Look.. JoePa may go to jail (fat chance) over keeping silent, it's completely the opposite way around seRapH.
This is serious shit.
I can't believe.. well actually I can but I"m still appalled news stories are talking about Football possibilities like that is even remotely relevant. When your team dies in a plane crash you go on. When your university was facilitating the molestation and penetration of minors through negligence you need to shut the fuck up about sports and focus.
It's about to get bad. Crowd moving in on cops — @greggdoyelcbs
Good fucking riddance to Paterno and I hope more heads roll soon after. Ps. the interim has been with him since 1980. That whole damn house should be cleaned.
Also, I hope the cops beat the fuck out of those idiots rioting. They've flipped two news vans and started a few fires now in the name of someone who facilitated child molestation.
If anyone is interested in following this a little more "real time" @OnwardState (twitter link) is doing a pretty good job keeping on top of things. The riot has gotten pretty out of hand. A news truck has been flipped, smoke bombs/fireworks are going off, telephone poles are being pulled down and the cops are breaking out shields/mace/etc to disperse crowds. As a student here I'm pretty ashamed at how these kids are reacting.
There you go Hawk. Things are getting fucking sideways. I hope everyone is okay regardless of how asinine it may be to protest over THIS. You don't have to feel like it's your schools fault.. FSU.. Texas.. UMiami.. any school with a tradition or obsession with football I can see this happening...
I apologize they ran this article 47 minutes ago and I thought it was immediate instead of from earlier today. Still relevant though, just not as relevant. JoePas statement on resigning earlier today:
Penn State football coach Joe Paterno released the following statement Wednesday:
"I am disappointed with the Board of Trustees' decision, but I have to accept it.
A tragedy occurred, and we all have to have patience to let the legal process proceed. I appreciate the outpouring of support but want to emphasize that everyone should remain calm and please respect the university, its property and all that we value.
I have been incredibly blessed to spend my entire career working with people I love. I am grateful beyond words to all of the coaches, players and staff who have been a part of this program. And to all of our fans and supporters, my family and I will be forever in your debt."
Earlier Wednesday, Paterno released a statement saying he planned to retire at the end of the season:
"I am absolutely devastated by the developments in this case. I grieve for the children and their families, and I pray for their comfort and relief.
I have come to work every day for the last 61 years with one clear goal in mind: To serve the best interests of this university and the young men who have been entrusted to my care. I have the same goal today.
That's why I have decided to announce my retirement effective at the end of this season. At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can.
This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.
My goals now are to keep my commitments to my players and staff and finish the season with dignity and determination. And then I will spend the rest of my life doing everything I can to help this University."
On November 10 2011 14:30 Probe1 wrote: You don't have to feel like it's your schools fault.. FSU.. Texas.. UMiami.. any school with a tradition or obsession with football I can see this happening...
I know it isn't, and honestly I can weirdly understand the reaction. This place is so entrenched in tradition/etc it's crazy. Like I said earlier it's hard to explain how hard this type of thing hits you. It's just upsetting that the only aspect of this the rest of the world will see and judge us on is these idiotic reactions.
Yeah I didn't just mention my school because I was admitting we're all the same.. it's traditional schools. We're crazy about football. It's part of how we are.. I'm having a tough time putting myself in a Penn State student/fans shoes and imagining what it'd be like.
Years ago when I lived in Belarus, my friends that did pentathlon told me how their maintenance guy was basically fucked in the head, he would let teenagers skip classes and hang out in his room where he had computers, VCR and some other shit, once presented with an opportunity he tried to sex them up by offering blowjobs or handjobs, I can't rem the details. No one seemed outraged back then, we kind of laughed it off. One older guy who even went to the Olympics once told us how he was passed out at a party and woke up to this guy sucking his dick lol. As a whole society is nowhere as educated on these matters as people are here, nobody ever thought of complaining or informing higher ups ( we were like 15-16)
If you fired Paterno how does McQuery keep his job? And I really don't see how you don't fire the entire staff, they have all been there for 10-30 yrs, anything JoePa knew about they likely knew as well
On November 10 2011 14:44 feanor1 wrote: If you fired Paterno how does McQuery keep his job? And I really don't see how you don't fire the entire staff, they have all been there for 10-30 yrs, anything JoePa knew about they likely knew as well
This is something that a lot of people (myself included) are confused about. Sandusky is out on bail until December and McQueary/Curley are still on the Penn State payroll.
On November 10 2011 14:51 Probe1 wrote: Picture of the protest.
Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
On November 10 2011 14:27 Hawk wrote: Good fucking riddance to Paterno and I hope more heads roll soon after. Ps. the interim has been with him since 1980. That whole damn house should be cleaned.
Also, I hope the cops beat the fuck out of those idiots rioting. They've flipped two news vans and started a few fires now in the name of someone who facilitated child molestation.
LoL I can't believe these people's priorities, shit is so backwards. Gives football fans a horrible image.
On November 10 2011 14:44 feanor1 wrote: If you fired Paterno how does McQuery keep his job? And I really don't see how you don't fire the entire staff, they have all been there for 10-30 yrs, anything JoePa knew about they likely knew as well
This is something that a lot of people (myself included) are confused about. Sandusky is out on bail until December and McQueary/Curley are still on the Penn State payroll.
Every single one should be gone. I would say I feel bad about the players who had nada to do with this, until there were those reports of seniors not wanting to play saturday in protest. To which I say scrap every fucking thing.
On the positive side, this thing allows me to quickly pick out idiots on my facebook feed!
I have been a fan of penn state all of my life. My mom,step mom,dad,cousin,and grandparents all went to PSU. I am a junior right now in highschool. My opinion of PSU has plummeted. I don't know if I want to go there anymore. I guess I could settle with an in state school like OSU...
On November 10 2011 14:51 Probe1 wrote: Picture of the protest.
Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
From page 2 of this thread:
On November 10 2011 14:06 thReNody wrote: As a student at Penn State (currently waiting out the riots/etc inside, doing work 'cause I have too much shit to get done to have time to wrap my head around the situation that has developed over the past few days) all I can say is this has left the community in a daze. Everyone's pissed, sad, upset, angry, etc but I think we can all agree that major steps/actions need to be taken. I honestly don't even know how to express how I feel, it's weird how hard something like this hits you. The majority of the kids down town rioting don't even know why the hell they're there except that it gives them an excuse to go crazy. This whole thing is just fucking disappointing.
On November 08 2011 07:52 p4NDemik wrote: I read about this story earlier today. What he's accused of doing, using charities to sexually molest boys, using his role on the team to entice the boys and then abuse them, its sickening. Then university officials trying to cover it up after coaches alerted them and he subsequently stepped down from his coaching position at the same time.
Paterno (the head coach) tried to resign at the end of the season, but the Board of Trustees just fired him an hour ago.
It's worth noting for non-Americans that college football is HUGE in the US, bigger than some professional sports, and Coach Paterno was literally one of the most powerful people at the school. More powerful than most of the administrators and arguably second in power to the president of the school. The Board tried to make him quit 5 years ago and he basically told them no.
And Penn State is one of the oldest and largest schools in the country. I think it has a bigger alumni pool than anywhere else in the country.
And it's not just Paterno at fault. The President of the school was fired, and likely most of the football staff will be gone too. There were several people who knew about it and they all covered it up. Sandusky was even caught twice, first in 1998 and again in 2002.
Sometimes I'm disgusted to be human, and now is one of those times. My question is why they didn't just get Sandusky in 1998 and 2002...I mean he was banned from visiting local public schools...They knew what he was up to, why didn't they stop him?
This is all just a travesty. I, however am reserving my judgement on Joe Pa until more facts arise. Many heads are gonna roll; as they should.
Also, as a student at Virginia Tech (was in class during the school shootings). I know how the public can basically crucify a schools reputation over the bad decisions of a few people. So in that regard I hope Penn State can come out of this situation saving a little face. Some pedo on the football staff should no way reflect the quality of the academia.
@Steelavocado: choose the appropriate school based on its academic programs, research facilities, and quality of teaching staff.
On November 10 2011 13:17 ampson wrote: I really feel for Joe Paterno, he was put in a difficult situation and made a mistake. And now he's lost his job and hurt his legacy because of it. However, he should have certainly said something. It sucks so much that people like sandusky fuck it up for everyone.
He was put in a "difficult situation" and "made a mistake"? This isn't someone cheating on his wife or accidentally getting drunk or hitting someone with his car. Those are mistakes.
Someone told him that there was a child being anally raped and he let the guy who did it continue to run a camp with children and molest more victims for ten years. I'd like to think something like this is far beyond "a difficult situation".
I don't understand why you guys mourn the school itself like it's dropped value. Unless you are in a sports program or a fan of football - why would this even affect you? I'm disgusted by the way some students act about it today, but in 10 years no one is going to look at your diploma and say "oh that's the rapist domain" or w/e. I'm sure half the students don't even give a fuck about sports just like everywhere else and this incident is just a sick weird incident to them, no more than that.
Hot_Bid is right. It isn't even questionable. What I'm asking myself is if Paterno is criminally culpable. My initial reaction.. is yes but I don't know I just don't know.
On November 10 2011 14:52 discodancer wrote: Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
The firing is what ignited the whole thing, as a lot of people are insanely loyal to Paterno. Aside from the kids who are just out there for the experience/to go crazy, the student body is very upset with the University and the Board of Trustees for how they've dealt with the situation so far. Unfortunately I don't think there's any real coherence to the riot (if there were I think protest would be a better word) and so any reasoning for involvement is going to depend on who you talk to.
On November 10 2011 14:54 Steelavocado wrote: My opinion of PSU has plummeted. I don't know if I want to go there anymore. I guess I could settle with an in state school like OSU...
As a current student, please don't let this event singly rule out Penn State as an option. This incident does not define us as a school and does not define us as a student body. The Penn State community is much more than this (and what the media is making us out to be) and I can still say that I am proud of my decision to attend this University. Like tronix said, there are many more important reasons to go/not go to a school.
Just a huge disappointment. Im not a student, fan, or alumni. However, it's just real sad to see someone completely destroy a legacy like Paterno's. Legend would be an understatement for this man in college football and it's now ruined. Just a sad story all the way around and he should have done the right thing. This guy has been a "hero" for millions of people over 4 decades. Which is why I'd assume they are rioting. They're wrong for rioting.
Fuck yeah, he should go to prison. Everyone involved should be prosecuted, if they sentence a pedo with pictures to life in prison - wtf are we even wondering here.
On November 10 2011 15:13 icemanzdoinwork wrote: Just a huge disappointment. Im not a student, fan, or alumni. However, it's just real sad to see someone completely destroy a legacy like Paterno's. Legend would be an understatement for this man in college football and it's now ruined. Just a sad story all the way around and he should have done the right thing. This guy has been a "hero" for millions of people over 4 decades. Which is why I'd assume they are rioting. They're wrong for rioting.
Don't you think this tells a lot about his moral values and sense of decency? How much he cared and his priorities? If he was this sick spineless trash then who cares about his legacy at all? Fuck him.
On November 10 2011 13:58 Zeller wrote: It's ridiculous how many of these people involved first and foremost intentions was to protect Sandusky's and PSU's reputations. Let's let this sick fuck ruin more young boys lives and keep it on the down low, because it would just be too embarrassing to report it. This shit happens so often it's not even funny. I bet if a Penn State janitor was caught molesting kids, he'd be turned to the cops in a fucking second.
I seriously get so fucking pissed at all the special treatment people in America get, from government officials to CEO's to high ranking members of major universities. They aren't above the law and their reputation can lick everyone's asshole, we're talking about peoples lives being totally fucked over vs sparing someones god damn credibility/reputation etc.
shrug if I was in Paterno's shoes I wouldn't tell anyone either, I hate the cops and media and all that shit. He tried to let it blow over and it didn't work obviously, a terrible mistake but he didnt directly assault these kids....Sandusky is the sick fuck here not Paterno.
As a Brit I'm outside of the football bubble, so I don't have any prior feelings about either of these guys - I'd never heard of them until about ten minutes ago. But on thing really got me, looking at what Paterno said about this whole thing -
He added: "This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."
From the BBC website, my bolding.
With the benefit of hindsight? As Hot_bid said above, this isn't a case of a man cheating on his wife. This is an alleged series of vicious sexual assaults by a man in a position of trust and power abusing children placed in his care over a sustained period of time. Paterno fulfilled his basic legal requirements - fucking whoop. He knew what Sandusky had been doing, why didn't he do more to stop it? Why did he continue to work with the man? He made himself complicit along with all the others at Penn State who knew, when he chose to allow this man to keep working with kids and cover up what happened. Simply put, sexual predators have a disease. You don't just give them a slap on the wrist and let them walk away. If allowed, they will abuse again and again. Every single child that was harmed after people at Penn State knew about Sandusky's activities should be on their consciences, because it's their fault as well. Sadly it seems that there are people in the world that consider football and reputation to be a higher priority than dealing with sexual abuse and its victims.
It's just a fucking sports team, for God's sake. Was it worth it?
I don't get why they wouldn't have insta cracked down on this guy. It would make them look responsible for getting it stopped right away. Its not like you can blame a company/university w/e for hiring someone who appears normal because its something that no one knows about until a child speaks out or he is caught. This just makes it soooo much worse to cover it up. It doesn't make sense to me to cover this up to "protect the team". It makes more sense that he was close to the people there so they were protecting someone they liked.
On November 10 2011 15:22 Sanctimonius wrote: As a Brit I'm outside of the football bubble, so I don't have any prior feelings about either of these guys - I'd never heard of them until about ten minutes ago. But on thing really got me, looking at what Paterno said about this whole thing -
He added: "This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."
From the BBC website, my bolding.
With the benefit of hindsight? As Hot_bid said above, this isn't a case of a man cheating on his wife. This is an alleged series of vicious sexual assaults by a man in a position of trust and power abusing children placed in his care over a sustained period of time. Paterno fulfilled his basic legal requirements - fucking whoop. He knew what Sandusky had been doing, why didn't he do more to stop it? Why did he continue to work with the man? He made himself complicit along with all the others at Penn State who knew, when he chose to allow this man to keep working with kids and cover up what happened. Simply put, sexual predators have a disease. You don't just give them a slap on the wrist and let them walk away. If allowed, they will abuse again and again. Every single child that was harmed after people at Penn State knew about Sandusky's activities should be on their consciences, because it's their fault as well. Sadly it seems that there are people in the world that consider football and reputation to be a higher priority than dealing with sexual abuse and its victims.
It's just a fucking sports team, for God's sake. Was it worth it?
I don't think it really had much to do with football and more to do with protecting some guy who was apart of their lil club.
On November 10 2011 14:44 feanor1 wrote: If you fired Paterno how does McQuery keep his job? And I really don't see how you don't fire the entire staff, they have all been there for 10-30 yrs, anything JoePa knew about they likely knew as well
This is something that a lot of people (myself included) are confused about. Sandusky is out on bail until December and McQueary/Curley are still on the Penn State payroll.
Every single one should be gone. I would say I feel bad about the players who had nada to do with this, until there were those reports of seniors not wanting to play saturday in protest. To which I say scrap every fucking thing.
On the positive side, this thing allows me to quickly pick out idiots on my facebook feed!
Yeah. I'm really in favor of the NCAA giving Penn State the "death penalty" that they gave SMU. This is even worse than what SMU did. And like Hot_Bid said, they covered this up for 10 years. 10 years, and none of them questioned themselves on why a child molester is still running around campus? Really?
Pretty good article from ESPN's Ombudsmen on the network's failures, mainly about their Monday and Tuesday coverage.
On November 10 2011 15:11 discodancer wrote: I don't understand why you guys mourn the school itself like it's dropped value. Unless you are in a sports program or a fan of football - why would this even affect you? I'm disgusted by the way some students act about it today, but in 10 years no one is going to look at your diploma and say "oh that's the rapist domain" or w/e. I'm sure half the students don't even give a fuck about sports just like everywhere else and this incident is just a sick weird incident to them, no more than that.
I agree with this as well. I was a student at USC during the early Pete Carroll years, graduated around the time of the split national championship with LSU. Maybe it's because I was usually grouped with international students (USC has a lot of international students) but people didn't care as much about football as outsiders might think. There were plenty of times when the library was packed and we were having group meetings when the football game was going on.
A couple of years or so after I graduated, I completely stopped caring. I'm very proud of the academics. The football barely exists as far as I'm concerned. About the only thing remaining is the football got me interested in the NFL, even though I have no team allegiance.
Completely for the death penalty for the program, this is just something that goes beyond college football and in order to keep its tradition and heritage needs to deal with Penn State in the most sever way possible
On November 10 2011 13:17 ampson wrote: I really feel for Joe Paterno, he was put in a difficult situation and made a mistake. And now he's lost his job and hurt his legacy because of it. However, he should have certainly said something. It sucks so much that people like sandusky fuck it up for everyone.
He was put in a "difficult situation" and "made a mistake"? This isn't someone cheating on his wife or accidentally getting drunk or hitting someone with his car. Those are mistakes.
Someone told him that there was a child being anally raped and he let the guy who did it continue to run a camp with children and molest more victims for ten years. I'd like to think something like this is far beyond "a difficult situation".
It's easy to say this now that we know many of the details of Jerry Sandusky's monstrous actions. However, remove all of that knowledge and the decision probably isn't as black and white as everyone says it is. I'll borrow the words of Drew Magary(a sportswriter for Deadspin and other sites) for a moment(from this excellent/sad article.)
"Sandusky was Paterno's colleague (and one would assume friend) for over three decades. So imagine someone coming up to you and telling you that your friend of 30 years was raping a kid in the shower. Would you believe it? Would you want to believe it? Probably not the first time you hear it. Would you go to the police? What if the grad assistant was wrong and your friend's life is ruined because of a misunderstanding? You might not even want to explore the matter further because you can't tolerate the idea of someone you trusted doing such monstrous things. I think the reason Paterno went to his AD and didn't go to the cops is because it provided him with the chance to have it both ways. This way, he was able to "report" it, without having to be the person who takes the significantly braver step of actually calling the police. Problem solved. Conscience cleared."
Paterno reported it to his boss. He reported it to the vice president of the college. When nothing comes out of sending it up the chain, it's not entirely unreasonable for him to figure the matter was some sort of misunderstanding. Again, pretend you haven't read any of the details you have. You might come to the same conclusion in this situation. It definitely is the conclusion you would want to come to. The other conclusion, the one that says your friend and colleague for 3 decades is an inhuman monster? It's human nature to try to avoid coming to that.
We know nothing about what went through Paterno's head when he was told about the shower incident. We know nothing about what when through his head when he reported it and sent the G.A. to tell his superiors. Don't crucify the man for making a decision that seems horrible to us individuals who probably had never heard of Jerry Sandusky before this scandal came to light.
On November 10 2011 15:46 iSometric wrote: I wanted to feel bad for Paterno, but I can't ignore the monstrosity that he did in not doing what he should've done...
He fucked up(understandably), has to live with the knowledge that he fucked up, has had his perception of someone he's known for years destroyed, and now has been fired by the only employer he has had since 1950. I think you can safely feel a little sorry for the 84-year old man.
I should probably say that I'm fine with Paterno being fired, although I would have preferred it to be done after the last home game and not over the goddamn phone.
Edit: Apparently I need to say quite clearly that I do not think Paterno's decision was right, but I understand on some level why he might have made it. Also, facetious means flippant or inappropriately humorous, neither of which I am being.
HPoirot you have questionable values to me and I believe you represent the facetious argument that drives me away from posting in the general forum with the same frequency as others. Good day.
I think after 40 years as the head coach, and almost 60 being affiliated with PSU, you'd at least let the man finish out the goddamn season.
Obviously what happened is fucking despicable, but I see the same reason Paterno not going to the same reason why the grad assistant didn't go to the police. He's the one that witnessed it for fuck's sake, as a grad assistant you're what..22 years old? I'm sorry but if I saw a grown man fucking a little boy in the shower I would most certainly not only intervene but also go to the fucking police. There's nothing good that will come out this situation, I don't see the harm in letting someone who an icon to an entire fucking population of students and alums alike go out on such a sour note. At least letting Paterno coach and possible win a final bowl game would have allowed him to go out with a small shred of honor.
If there were 1500 students protesting the possibility of Paterno getting fired, I hope the entire school occupies the administration building to get him reinstated, or the football team refuses to play.
On November 10 2011 16:48 Battleaxe wrote: I think after 40 years as the head coach, and almost 60 being affiliated with PSU, you'd at least let the man finish out the goddamn season.
Obviously what happened is fucking despicable, but I see the same reason Paterno not going to the same reason why the grad assistant didn't go to the police. He's the one that witnessed it for fuck's sake, as a grad assistant you're what..22 years old? I'm sorry but if I saw a grown man fucking a little boy in the shower I would most certainly not only intervene but also go to the fucking police. There's nothing good that will come out this situation, I don't see the harm in letting someone who an icon to an entire fucking population of students and alums alike go out on such a sour note. At least letting Paterno coach and possible win a final bowl game would have allowed him to go out with a small shred of honor.
If there were 1500 students protesting the possibility of Paterno getting fired, I hope the entire school occupies the administration building to get him reinstated, or the football team refuses to play.
What's the point of finishing the season? His record is tarnished no matter what. It's extremely insensitive to the team to the students to let him be at the game. Is the crowd supposed to cheer or boo?
Here we go with the people who prioritize football over real life. Letting him finish the season sends the message that the football team is more important than the indictment.
they could not have let Joe Paterno finish out the season, that would mean they are continuing to foster and allow an environment where Joe Paterno was above responsibility and accountability. This weekend will be their last home game, do you really want the entire nation to see everyone in the stadium giving Joe Paterno a standing ovation amidst this developing scandal? And when they go on away games, the opposite will happen.
I was an athlete at PSU from 2000 to 2005. My parents met at PSU. I grew hearing how great of a man Paterno was, and I am really not sure what to think of his firing. I want to say he should have been able to coach the rest of the season, but I am just not sure that was realistic or appropriate. When you go on a recruiting trip to PSU, they tell you up front that the image of the University is sacrad, and anything deemed to tarnish that image will not be tolerated. As an athlete that meant you would be dismissed from the team. For the administration it apparently means cover up any scandals before anyone outside the university finds out about them. Knowing how the administration operated, covering up incidents that would make the university look bad is not surprising. The fact that they would not handle something of this magnitude in an appropriate fashion is beyond comprehension for me. So much for winning with honor.
I don't understand...didn't these kids who were abused tell their parents who in turn would notify the police?
However I've heard that some people, when attacked in such a way, wouldn't tell anybody..I guess what I'm saying is why are we just hearing about this now?
I find it unfortunate that Paterno is taking the brunt of this media attack; when the fact is there were many other people who knew of the situation yet pushed it under the rug. I'm also feeling a strong self righteousness vibe to a lot of posts in this thread, which I think is not needed. Any one with reason can see that the situation, for everyone involved, included many variables which we will probably never know.
If you read the jury report even university police detectives witnessed a convo of Sandusky admitting to showering and touching a boy and only advised him not to do so again. Also the Korean War veteran who said that what he witnessed was the most disturbing thing he has ever seen; failed to act in fear of losing his job. Where is the crusade to bring justice to them? People just want someone to point a finger at imo.
On November 10 2011 15:11 discodancer wrote: I don't understand why you guys mourn the school itself like it's dropped value. Unless you are in a sports program or a fan of football - why would this even affect you? I'm disgusted by the way some students act about it today, but in 10 years no one is going to look at your diploma and say "oh that's the rapist domain" or w/e. I'm sure half the students don't even give a fuck about sports just like everywhere else and this incident is just a sick weird incident to them, no more than that.
I wouldn't say the school has dropped value to the outside world once it passes out of the news cycle, but it and the community have pretty much changed forever, it's the end of an era (not just in football, for the community as a whole), which I'm not sure whether it should be mourned or not if it was based on more illusion than realistic ideas.
I really felt the same way as a lot of that even though I'm not as tied to the community or was ever as football-obsessed, and it really seemed like most of the people around me at school there did too. There's a reason it's always been called Happy Valley (which horribly sounds perverse now). Going there really felt like entering a bubble to a different, more benevolent world tucked away beneath the surrounding hills. Even though the football zealotry seemed sometimes kooky or a misplacement of priorities, the shared experience it created seemed like a powerfully good thing, and it permeates the community. And Joe Paterno was the presiding almost mythic figure, even taken out of the context of football. As much a legend as a person, representing all sorts of concepts, stories, etc.. All of that is shattered now, and a large portion of the culture will be completely changed because it can't be thought of so continually naively with the same benevolent draw.
No, not everyone follows football, but if this strongly affects the perceptions of half the population there, that's such a material difference that would completely change the atmosphere in public. And the economy of the area and the school is so linked to football.
This is so frustrating. It is one thing to see something horrible happening, it is another to turn your back on it for whatever reason. Wrong is wrong. There are something that I don't agree with and have to tolerate in life for whatever reason, but there is a line when it involves molestation/rape/abuse that, as a father of a wonderful son, I could not imagine allowing to happen.
My son is almost 3 years old and I often think about these things and fear putting him in a position where these kinds of things could happen. Don't get me wrong, I am not someone that shelters him constantly, but I am aware that these atrocities can happen...even around people you think you can trust.
I just hope they nail these assholes to the wall for everything.
I love Penn State, i love paterno, i do now and always will. I've argued this so much the past few days that im just tired of it. The media witch hunted paterno because he "didn't do enough" whatever the fuck that means. He isn't qualified to investigate the accusations that were given to him, he gave them to campus authorities like he should have. Theres no fbi in state college, theres the state college police and the campus police, and the campus police is probably the bigger of the 2. People wanna say he didn't do enough but theres no facts for that. In hindsight everyone of us would change alot of things. People dont get that opportunity most times. The whole scandal and the backlash has been disgusting, every part of it.
On November 10 2011 20:25 IndridCold wrote: I love Penn State, i love paterno, i do now and always will. I've argued this so much the past few days that im just tired of it. The media witch hunted paterno because he "didn't do enough" whatever the fuck that means. He isn't qualified to investigate the accusations that were given to him, he gave them to campus authorities like he should have. Theres no fbi in state college, theres the state college police and the campus police, and the campus police is probably the bigger of the 2. People wanna say he didn't do enough but theres no facts for that. In hindsight everyone of us would change alot of things. People dont get that opportunity most times. The whole scandal and the backlash has been disgusting, every part of it.
Its a sad day in state college........
He didnt do enough because he didnt follow up on shit.
Sandusky was supposedly on campus last week rofl. You don't think Joe Paterno could have gone to someone and been like "hey wtf is going on.......... why is Sandusky still here? Haven't we been looking into him for a while?" Not to mention..... Hes Joe Paterno. He could just leak shit to the media or something if he wanted. Everyone involved in this who didnt follow up with things and knew Sandusky had still been on campus for 10 years needs to be fired.
On November 10 2011 20:25 IndridCold wrote: I love Penn State, i love paterno, i do now and always will. I've argued this so much the past few days that im just tired of it. The media witch hunted paterno because he "didn't do enough" whatever the fuck that means. He isn't qualified to investigate the accusations that were given to him, he gave them to campus authorities like he should have. Theres no fbi in state college, theres the state college police and the campus police, and the campus police is probably the bigger of the 2. People wanna say he didn't do enough but theres no facts for that. In hindsight everyone of us would change alot of things. People dont get that opportunity most times. The whole scandal and the backlash has been disgusting, every part of it.
Its a sad day in state college........
While I understand there may very well be a witch hunt taking place, I do wonder what Paterno would have done if it would have been his son/grandson/nephew. Would he just have told the higher ups as the law required ?(and what he did in this case). Or would he have taken it further and made sure something came of it?
(either way it is a sad day because Paterno was one of the few coaches who supposedly did things right in college football). Also, given his age I wonder if this will push him towards his grave. So many coaches pass away soon after they leave the game.
Can someone tell me why Spanier and Paterno got fired? It seems to me that they had minimal involvement in the scandal and shaky evidence against them that they tried to cover it up.
On November 10 2011 14:06 thReNody wrote: As a student at Penn State (currently waiting out the riots/etc inside, doing work 'cause I have too much shit to get done to have time to wrap my head around the situation that has developed over the past few days) all I can say is this has left the community in a daze. Everyone's pissed, sad, upset, angry, etc but I think we can all agree that major steps/actions need to be taken. I honestly don't even know how to express how I feel, it's weird how hard something like this hits you. The majority of the kids down town rioting don't even know why the hell they're there except that it gives them an excuse to go crazy. This whole thing is just fucking disappointing.
Yeah. As a Penn State student I'm ashamed. People in this school just love to riot. Not the way to solve things here. What's done is done, and honestly, it was deserved. I wish they could just get over it.
On November 10 2011 20:35 Sufficiency wrote: Can someone tell me why Spanier and Paterno got fired? It seems to me that they had minimal involvement in the scandal and shaky evidence against them that they tried to cover it up.
Paterno is fired for being the big name that all the media outlets wanted to put into there articles creating the backlash against him and the university had to act and separate themselves from that imo.
if you've followed espn over the past few days every article is about paterno theres little mention of sandusky the actual monster in this case. It was basically a witch hunt of an old man that didn't take the law into his own hands.
They didnt try to cover it up but they did nothing to actually protect the boys that they were alerted of. This is the university trying to save face and honestly its probably the right move. You can't let something like that go unchecked.... especially for years like it did =[ Sure the man deserves a ton of respect for what he did with the football program but there are somethings that can rip that credibility apart in a matter of seconds, and this is one of those things. Sad story for everyone involved and I hope Sandusky ends up getting the same treatment from inmates for the rest of his life.
On November 10 2011 14:06 thReNody wrote: As a student at Penn State (currently waiting out the riots/etc inside, doing work 'cause I have too much shit to get done to have time to wrap my head around the situation that has developed over the past few days) all I can say is this has left the community in a daze. Everyone's pissed, sad, upset, angry, etc but I think we can all agree that major steps/actions need to be taken. I honestly don't even know how to express how I feel, it's weird how hard something like this hits you. The majority of the kids down town rioting don't even know why the hell they're there except that it gives them an excuse to go crazy. This whole thing is just fucking disappointing.
Yeah. As a Penn State student I'm ashamed. People in this school just love to riot. Not the way to solve things here. What's done is done, and honestly, it was deserved. I wish they could just get over it.
its been really crazy day, i was at work when the news broke that paterno was fired. Everything basically just stopped and people were just very sad and angry all at once. Then news of the riots starting coming in and we all were just dumbfounded that this was actually happening.....
On November 10 2011 20:35 Sufficiency wrote: Can someone tell me why Spanier and Paterno got fired? It seems to me that they had minimal involvement in the scandal and shaky evidence against them that they tried to cover it up.
Paterno is fired for being the big name that all the media outlets wanted to put into there articles creating the backlash against him and the university had to act and separate themselves from that imo.
if you've followed espn over the past few days every article is about paterno theres little mention of sandusky the actual monster in this case. It was basically a witch hunt of an old man that didn't take the law into his own hands.
OK this is how I felt as well. It seemed to me that he was wrongfully fired.
Instead of releasing articles about Paterno, the media should just release that Grand Jury Report someone was wise enough to post here already... I just read that, and damn, after reading that I don't care even an ounce about what happened/happens with Paterno -- all that matters it that this sick bastard goes to prison for a while, or at least somewhere far far far away from young boys.
Too bad the media would rather be sensational about "ending the footbaww legaceee" than exposing a sick bastard's crimes with the cold hard facts from court. Granted, I guess ESPN media is more likely to want to focus on the sport-related part of the story, but still...
On November 10 2011 21:20 FallDownMarigold wrote: Instead of releasing articles about Paterno, the media should just release that Grand Jury Report someone was wise enough to post here already... I just read that, and damn, after reading that I don't care even an ounce about what happened/happens with Paterno -- all that matters it that this sick bastard goes to prison for a while, or at least somewhere far far far away from young boys.
Too bad the media would rather be sensational about "ending the footbaww legaceee" than exposing a sick bastard's crimes with the cold hard facts from court. Granted, I guess ESPN media is more likely to want to focus on the sport-related part of the story, but still...
Yeah, that's a good point . . .
People are so focused and angry cause of Paterno's firing. But is he really the one that's hurt? He'll be fine . . .
The kids however . . . that is something Nobody would want to go through. What a mark that is left on their lives thanks to Sandusky. I wish there was more we could do for them. At the very least, give them the attention they deserve, at least show them that they're worth getting upset over and not just Paterno.
lol wow, woke up and looked at the facebook posts and then saw this...so many of my friends go to PSU, even my GF. This is a PR nightmare although it's kinda sad more people are focusing on Paterno then the actual accused >.> yay media next year or so will be an interesting course of events to say the least
On November 10 2011 20:35 Sufficiency wrote: Can someone tell me why Spanier and Paterno got fired? It seems to me that they had minimal involvement in the scandal and shaky evidence against them that they tried to cover it up.
Paterno is fired for being the big name that all the media outlets wanted to put into there articles creating the backlash against him and the university had to act and separate themselves from that imo.
if you've followed espn over the past few days every article is about paterno theres little mention of sandusky the actual monster in this case. It was basically a witch hunt of an old man that didn't take the law into his own hands.
Do you understand what "take the law into his own hands" actually means?
Sufficiency, Sandusky was first caught molesting children in 1998. He was forced to retire and almost had criminal charges brought upon him, but nothing else happened. The PSU program didn't disassociate from him and they didn't take away his access to the campus or facilities. At this point in time, Paterno KNOWS that Sandusky is a pedophile. He is banned from certain public schools.
In 2002, he gets caught by a grad school student (McQueary) who waits 48 hours without telling anyone but his dad, and then tells Paterno. Paterno, after hearing that a known pedophile had raped a boy in his own lockerroom, did not alert authorities nor did he cut ties with Sandusky. Paterno doesn't have "superiors" in realistic terms. He can do just about whatever he wants on that campus and he will be allowed to. He is supposedly the moral compass for the entire football team, which considers itself the most upstanding in the country. And all Paterno did was the bare minimum, so as to prevent his program and his friend from being tarnished. He didn't give a damn about the boys being raped.
7 years later it finally breaks. That means he had a known pedophile in his backyard for 11 years without reporting him to any real authority, or removing his access to the program. If you see someone getting raped in your workplace's bathroom, you don't just fucking call your boss and let it be. Especially when you have more authority than almost all of your bosses. He is/was the face of that institution and any moral human being should've called the police. The tell is that Sandusky never lost his office or his keys to the place. They kept him around, the same as before.
And according to the grand jury testimonies, he did try to cover it up and lighten the blow. McQueary told said he told Paterno everything he saw and was visibly upset. Paterno turns around and tells the AD that they were just roughing around.
On November 08 2011 07:52 p4NDemik wrote: I read about this story earlier today. What he's accused of doing, using charities to sexually molest boys, using his role on the team to entice the boys and then abuse them, its sickening. Then university officials trying to cover it up after coaches alerted them and he subsequently stepped down from his coaching position at the same time.
Paterno (the head coach) tried to resign at the end of the season, but the Board of Trustees just fired him an hour ago.
It's worth noting for non-Americans that college football is HUGE in the US, bigger than some professional sports, and Coach Paterno was literally one of the most powerful people at the school. More powerful than most of the administrators and arguably second in power to the president of the school. The Board tried to make him quit 5 years ago and he basically told them no.
And Penn State is one of the oldest and largest schools in the country. I think it has a bigger alumni pool than anywhere else in the country.
And it's not just Paterno at fault. The President of the school was fired, and likely most of the football staff will be gone too. There were several people who knew about it and they all covered it up. Sandusky was even caught twice, first in 1998 and again in 2002.
Student revolt incoming. Penn State is a wonderful school too. I don't attend, but I've been there for Senior Day and the people there are some of the nicest folks you'll ever meet. Terrible tragedy, really.
Edit: I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the incoming football players decommit either
On November 10 2011 22:50 Partywave wrote: Honestly I say fuck the discussions about the University, football program, Paterno, coaches, students, student riots, etc.
8 poor kid are going to be fucked up for the duration of their lives. That is the real sad talking point here.
Castrate Sandusky and let the prison vermin take care of him in the big house
It's even more than that. There's 8 in the original grand jury testimony, but there was a news report that the number of kids suspected is 20+.
As a new Penn State Alum (graduated this spring), this whole event has been a massive shock to myself, my friends, and everyone I know that are still Penn State students. The fact is, people that think Joe Paterno is to blame here are blatantly ignoring the actual people being charged with crimes in this. Sandusky, Curly and Schultz are the people that should be crucified for this, not Paterno and Spanier. If you really think that all of this is Paterno's fault, you need to take a step back and look at the actual facts of the Grand Jury investigation, not what the media is reporting on.
If you really think that Paterno has had ultimate power at Penn State, you're sorely mistaken. He's half senile by this point, and most people will tell you he hasn't been really coaching the team for several years now. He's just a legendary figure used to promote the school and bring in new potential students. This whole scandal is just ruining a great man's legacy, instead of focusing on punishing those that did real harm to the children.
To those that were thinking of choosing Penn State as a potential college: do NOT let this deter you. I can tell you from personal experience that Penn State is a university second to none and the quality of education there is amazing. Don't let the actions of a creepy old man deter you from experiencing all that this great university has to offer.
Read the grand jury report. Can't believe people are trying to defend Paterno. I'm not sure if he should necessarily be charged as an accomplice, but the fact that people are rioting about no more of him coaching football is disgusting. Really makes me question human morality as a whole.
Was considering applying to Penn State, but with the student reaction, there is no chance now.
As a new Penn State Alum (graduated this spring), this whole event has been a massive shock to myself, my friends, and everyone I know that are still Penn State students. The fact is, people that think Joe Paterno is to blame here are blatantly ignoring the actual people being charged with crimes in this. Sandusky, Curly and Schultz are the people that should be crucified for this, not Paterno and Spanier. If you really think that all of this is Paterno's fault, you need to take a step back and look at the actual facts of the Grand Jury investigation, not what the media is reporting on.
If you really think that Paterno has had ultimate power at Penn State, you're sorely mistaken. He's half senile by this point, and most people will tell you he hasn't been really coaching the team for several years now. He's just a legendary figure used to promote the school and bring in new potential students. This whole scandal is just ruining a great man's legacy, instead of focusing on punishing those that did real harm to the children.
To those that were thinking of choosing Penn State as a potential college: do NOT let this deter you. I can tell you from personal experience that Penn State is a university second to none and the quality of education there is amazing. Don't let the actions of a creepy old man deter you from experiencing all that this great university has to offer.
If Paterno knew about the abuse in 1998, which all accounts seem to say that he did. Then he is as guilty as anyone for not taking it to the police and cleaning out sandusky. The thought that Paterno would allow someone he knew was a pedophile who abused children to continue to work is appaling to me. His failure to act on behalf of the children and instead help his friend keep his job and reputation is despicable, no matter how much the man contributed to College football, he does not deserve to live this down.
On November 10 2011 20:35 Sufficiency wrote: Can someone tell me why Spanier and Paterno got fired? It seems to me that they had minimal involvement in the scandal and shaky evidence against them that they tried to cover it up.
Paterno is fired for being the big name that all the media outlets wanted to put into there articles creating the backlash against him and the university had to act and separate themselves from that imo.
if you've followed espn over the past few days every article is about paterno theres little mention of sandusky the actual monster in this case. It was basically a witch hunt of an old man that didn't take the law into his own hands.
He didn't involve the authorities in any way shape or form.
He did take the law into his own hands, and gave his protege a pretty light sentence.
The elderly/senile excuse has been used for 10+ years, and even though he didn't coach much, he was well within his capacity to do something about it. When the Board tried to remove him before, he told them to fuck off and he kept his job because no one would touch him. His bosses wanted to fire him and he told them no, so they didn't. How much more powerful do you get?
Sandusky is going to get what's coming, he's a disgusting fuck for a human being and if he goes to prison, I hope he is undone. Paterno is getting off because he's an affable old man, but that says nothing about his ethics. Did you read the grand jury testimonies? Because McQueary's and Paterno's statements don't add up.
They're all to blame. Sandusky is the monster, but Paterno, Curly, Schultz, McQueary and even the janitor all enabled him, and protected him.
As a new Penn State Alum (graduated this spring), this whole event has been a massive shock to myself, my friends, and everyone I know that are still Penn State students. The fact is, people that think Joe Paterno is to blame here are blatantly ignoring the actual people being charged with crimes in this. Sandusky, Curly and Schultz are the people that should be crucified for this, not Paterno and Spanier. If you really think that all of this is Paterno's fault, you need to take a step back and look at the actual facts of the Grand Jury investigation, not what the media is reporting on.
If you really think that Paterno has had ultimate power at Penn State, you're sorely mistaken. He's half senile by this point, and most people will tell you he hasn't been really coaching the team for several years now. He's just a legendary figure used to promote the school and bring in new potential students. This whole scandal is just ruining a great man's legacy, instead of focusing on punishing those that did real harm to the children.
To those that were thinking of choosing Penn State as a potential college: do NOT let this deter you. I can tell you from personal experience that Penn State is a university second to none and the quality of education there is amazing. Don't let the actions of a creepy old man deter you from experiencing all that this great university has to offer.
If Paterno knew about the abuse in 1998, which all accounts seem to say that he did. Then he is as guilty as anyone for not taking it to the police and cleaning out sandusky. The thought that Paterno would allow someone he knew was a pedophile who abused children to continue to work is appaling to me. His failure to act on behalf of the children and instead help his friend keep his job and reputation is despicable, no matter how much the man contributed to College football, he does not deserve to live this down.
I have not read the Grand Jury Testimonials, so if I am wrong feel free to point it out, but at least according to the article I linked, there is no indication that Paterno knew of the 1998 incident, and even testified that he did not know until the 2002 incident when McQueary reported it to him.
On November 10 2011 23:12 1Eris1 wrote: Read the grand jury report. Can't believe people are trying to defend Paterno. I'm not sure if he should necessarily be charged as an accomplice, but the fact that people are rioting about no more of him coaching football is disgusting. Really makes me question human morality as a whole.
Was considering applying to Penn State, but with the student reaction, there is no chance now.
The riots that occurred last night are nothing new to Penn State, similar incidents happened when we beat Ohio State 2? years ago, and when it was announced Bin Laden had been killed. Put 44,000 college aged students in a small town and stuff like that is pretty much bound to happen.
EDIT: I also think people are vastly underestimating how much respect and devotion State College and Penn State Students have to Joe Paterno.
On November 10 2011 20:35 Sufficiency wrote: Can someone tell me why Spanier and Paterno got fired? It seems to me that they had minimal involvement in the scandal and shaky evidence against them that they tried to cover it up.
Paterno is fired for being the big name that all the media outlets wanted to put into there articles creating the backlash against him and the university had to act and separate themselves from that imo.
if you've followed espn over the past few days every article is about paterno theres little mention of sandusky the actual monster in this case. It was basically a witch hunt of an old man that didn't take the law into his own hands.
Do you understand what "take the law into his own hands" actually means?
Sufficiency, Sandusky was first caught molesting children in 1998. He was forced to retire and almost had criminal charges brought upon him, but nothing else happened. The PSU program didn't disassociate from him and they didn't take away his access to the campus or facilities. At this point in time, Paterno KNOWS that Sandusky is a pedophile. He is banned from certain public schools.
In 2002, he gets caught by a grad school student (McQueary) who waits 48 hours without telling anyone but his dad, and then tells Paterno. Paterno, after hearing that a known pedophile had raped a boy in his own lockerroom, did not alert authorities nor did he cut ties with Sandusky. Paterno doesn't have "superiors" in realistic terms. He can do just about whatever he wants on that campus and he will be allowed to. He is supposedly the moral compass for the entire football team, which considers itself the most upstanding in the country. And all Paterno did was the bare minimum, so as to prevent his program and his friend from being tarnished. He didn't give a damn about the boys being raped.
7 years later it finally breaks. That means he had a known pedophile in his backyard for 11 years without reporting him to any real authority, or removing his access to the program. If you see someone getting raped in your workplace's bathroom, you don't just fucking call your boss and let it be. Especially when you have more authority than almost all of your bosses. He is/was the face of that institution and any moral human being should've called the police. The tell is that Sandusky never lost his office or his keys to the place. They kept him around, the same as before.
And according to the grand jury testimonies, he did try to cover it up and lighten the blow. McQueary told said he told Paterno everything he saw and was visibly upset. Paterno turns around and tells the AD that they were just roughing around.
Just quoting this post for anyone who can't be bothered to read a little of the facts, since this outlines it pretty clear.
If you're saying Paterno did no wrong, you're basically saying he had no knowledge of the 98 or 02 charges against Sandursky, which is insane. He let the dude on campus, using his facilities WITH CHILDREN and to be associated with PSU football as recently as a few weeks ago. Paterno even spoke on behalf of Sandursky's 2nd Mile program for little kids several times in the past decade.
Forget whether or not he was wrong for not calling the cops when McQueary told him (he was, but that's besides the point here), that is completely inexcusable. He knew what Sandursky had been accused of several times before, he knew there was an ongoing investigation and he still let him around PSU with kids in tow. His legacy will rightfully be complete shit after this
On November 10 2011 23:23 Skullflower wrote: Can anyone explain why Mike McQueary still has his job?
I would hope that he and every one else that was on that staff gets removed. That includes the interim, who had been there since the 80s.
“Of course we’re going to riot,” he said. “What do they expect when they tell us at 10 o’clock that they fired our football coach?”
“I’m here because I just need to be with the rest of my school right now,” she said. “This is devastating for us.”
Bayloader, other rural schools don't do this. MSU and Penn State are the two schools in the B1G that do this, and MSU students are always drunk. Purdue, Iowa, Minnesota, etc. don't have this problem. :/
EDIT: And even dumber is the student who lit his diploma on fire on JoePa's lawn. This shouldn't affect PSU academically, besides the fact that there's a lot of dumbass students.
I'm not trying to excuse the actions of the students that caused the damage in the "riots" last night, but I'm not surprised by the student reaction at all. This reaction was expected, and there are going to be extremes among the students themselves (flipping the news van, burning the diploma, etc), but as a whole this is a very traumatic event for not just the University before. As I said, Paterno is a revered figure at the University and is adored and admired by almost all students. To see someone like him hounded in the media, while almost not focus is put on Curley, Schultz, and Sandusky (the ones actually being charged with criminal offenses) is extremely frustrating to a proud Penn Stater like myself, and all those in State College.
The reaction of the students isn't because they fired a football coach; Paterno is much, much more than that to the University.
EDIT: As to MSU and PSU being the only colleges that do this sort of thing... I'm sure a large majority of the students actually doing property damage at the riots were drunk too hah. Generally, these "riots" are nothing more than a gathering of students doing Penn State cheers and songs.
Here's some footage I took of the Bin Laden "riot" earlier this year..
If it was just the one time in 2002 I could give Paterno a pass, but he clearly knew about this before then. If anyone believes Paterno did not know about this in 98 they are beyond naive. Penn state security was investing Sandusky in 1998. Joe Paterno the most powerful man on campus. Does anyone really believe he would not know they are investigating his right hand man? Once Mcqueary tells him about this again in 02 he should of acted.
On November 10 2011 13:17 ampson wrote: I really feel for Joe Paterno, he was put in a difficult situation and made a mistake. And now he's lost his job and hurt his legacy because of it. However, he should have certainly said something. It sucks so much that people like sandusky fuck it up for everyone.
You're worried about the kids here too, right? Not just the fact that sandusky fucked Ol Joepa over...?
Hey I really think the grand jury report should be added to the OP, it really clears up why everybody involved HAS TO GO. The details in the report are absolutely horrific.
On November 10 2011 23:51 Bayloader wrote: To see someone like him hounded in the media, while almost not focus is put on Curley, Schultz, and Sandusky (the ones actually being charged with criminal offenses) is extremely frustrating to a proud Penn Stater like myself, and all those in State College.
The reaction of the students isn't because they fired a football coach; Paterno is much, much more than that to the University.
did anyone else basically shrug off the whole thing and say they're gonna stay an additional two months because FOOTBAW?? Because JoePa did.
Also:
Sandursky is formally charged. If you read the grand jury report, or even just part, you can see why no one is talking about that... nothing else needs to be said.
Curley and Schultz have been charged as well. They're going to be answering in courts for their lack of action
Joe is not (not yet at least, hopefully he does)
Noticing a trend??
The guy who is at the top of the food chain at happy valley, mr morals himself, played middle manager when something serious came to him and he kicked up to his 'superiors'. That's why he is getting hounded. He supposedly is cleared legally, but damn right the guy who is touted as mr righteous is gonna get hammered when he can't even call the cops. He fucked up, and it's even more of a 'holy shit' because penn state blew it's horn constantly with this kind of shit
when it was well known what was under the rug. JoePa had a major hand in creating that aura, and it's all been a charade for at least a decade now.
the reaction of the students is because they're either retarded and don't understand the gravity of the situation, didn't read the grand jury report at all, or they're pro child raping. Anyone who read even just parts of that thing would be calling for the heads of everyone in the football staff, and the admins too
Bayloader, other rural schools don't do this. MSU and Penn State are the two schools in the B1G that do this, and MSU students are always drunk. Purdue, Iowa, Minnesota, etc. don't have this problem. :/
Purdue rioted in 1999, 2000 and 2001, the first was because we won the women's NCAA, and the others were for wins/losses in the men's NCAA. Purdue cares more about basketball than football. Also the legacy of JoePa is on a completely different scale than any coach at a school like Purdue, Minnesota, etc.
On November 10 2011 13:17 ampson wrote: I really feel for Joe Paterno, he was put in a difficult situation and made a mistake. And now he's lost his job and hurt his legacy because of it. However, he should have certainly said something. It sucks so much that people like sandusky fuck it up for everyone.
I want to address comments like this.
Imagine this situation. You coach a college football team, but in reality, you can do pretty much whatever you want. You're one of the most respected and powerful men in your school, your city, and your sport (This is not an exaggeration. There's a larger-than-life bronze statue of Paterno at Penn State, and he still worked there until this came out.). One day, a graduate assistant comes to you to tell you he witnessed your friend and former assistant coach anally raping a young boy in the team locker room. Do you:
A) Call the police yourself. B) Convince your friend to commit himself to a mental institution to get treatment for his obvious problems. C) Report it to your "boss," who in reality works for you, and never mention it again.
Paterno chose option C. He covered his ass legally and then left it alone. He's not in legal trouble because he technically passed it to his "superior," and didn't lie under oath like his "bosses" did. There's still something decidedly criminal about what he did.
Hell, I don't really even feel bad for the graduate assistant, now passing coach, who witnessed the incident in 2002. He was actually in a tough situation (potentially having to decide between his career and doing the right thing), but in a case like this, the choice is clear.
On November 11 2011 01:09 oneofthem wrote: can someone who think like these kids explain why a football team is so important to a university?
Football is huge at Penn State (it's hard to describe if you're not from the US or don't know much about college football). It's a unifying force for students, and one of the only reasons outsiders ever think about the school.
They're protesting and rioting because they're all caught up in group-think. 10 years from now, they'll probably look back and regret their role in all this. Pretty much everyone outside the university agrees that firing Paterno is the absolute minimum that needs to be done. These kids will see it too, once the emotion of the moment wears off.
I go to penn state. I do not give a shit about football. I'm glad to see these people get fired. I'm ashamed to be lumped in with the morons who rioted last night.
As a new Penn State Alum (graduated this spring), this whole event has been a massive shock to myself, my friends, and everyone I know that are still Penn State students. The fact is, people that think Joe Paterno is to blame here are blatantly ignoring the actual people being charged with crimes in this. Sandusky, Curly and Schultz are the people that should be crucified for this, not Paterno and Spanier. If you really think that all of this is Paterno's fault, you need to take a step back and look at the actual facts of the Grand Jury investigation, not what the media is reporting on.
If you really think that Paterno has had ultimate power at Penn State, you're sorely mistaken. He's half senile by this point, and most people will tell you he hasn't been really coaching the team for several years now. He's just a legendary figure used to promote the school and bring in new potential students. This whole scandal is just ruining a great man's legacy, instead of focusing on punishing those that did real harm to the children.
To those that were thinking of choosing Penn State as a potential college: do NOT let this deter you. I can tell you from personal experience that Penn State is a university second to none and the quality of education there is amazing. Don't let the actions of a creepy old man deter you from experiencing all that this great university has to offer.
If Paterno knew about the abuse in 1998, which all accounts seem to say that he did. Then he is as guilty as anyone for not taking it to the police and cleaning out sandusky. The thought that Paterno would allow someone he knew was a pedophile who abused children to continue to work is appaling to me. His failure to act on behalf of the children and instead help his friend keep his job and reputation is despicable, no matter how much the man contributed to College football, he does not deserve to live this down.
I have not read the Grand Jury Testimonials, so if I am wrong feel free to point it out, but at least according to the article I linked, there is no indication that Paterno knew of the 1998 incident, and even testified that he did not know until the 2002 incident when McQueary reported it to him.
On November 10 2011 23:12 1Eris1 wrote: Read the grand jury report. Can't believe people are trying to defend Paterno. I'm not sure if he should necessarily be charged as an accomplice, but the fact that people are rioting about no more of him coaching football is disgusting. Really makes me question human morality as a whole.
Was considering applying to Penn State, but with the student reaction, there is no chance now.
The riots that occurred last night are nothing new to Penn State, similar incidents happened when we beat Ohio State 2? years ago, and when it was announced Bin Laden had been killed. Put 44,000 college aged students in a small town and stuff like that is pretty much bound to happen.
EDIT: I also think people are vastly underestimating how much respect and devotion State College and Penn State Students have to Joe Paterno.
the population density in your college town does not matter. I go to a school with the same amount of people in a small part of texas, and people haven't acted like that for anything. dono maybe PSU is just really smart engineers who like fucking shit up
one of my good friends is at penn state and witnessed a TV channel truck get flipped. While he was standing there he almost got clubbed with a night stick and exposed to tear gas for just standing there. in addition he said that several light posts were broken to the ground.
It sounds like utter chaos over there, i hope it gets resolved
If you are famous, you are not allowed to make a mistake. That's what this world likes to think. Sadly, this will overshadow his great career because of this negative world we live in.
Joe Paterno was the most powerful man in that town. He is a living legend and the face of the university. He found out that his long time work associate may be sexually abusing young boys. He did the absolute minimum to fulfill his legal duty. He never talked to Sandusky or followed up with the superiors he alerted. It's clear he didn't want to tarnish the sterling reputation of the university and its college football program, so he just pretended it never happened and hoped it would go away. pretty sickening as far as inaction goes. The rioting students look incredibly stupid. Anyone in such a position of power who makes honor and etc his calling card should be fired when he clearly has a 10+ year moral lapse of judgment. Easiest decision in the world.
On November 11 2011 01:34 Uhh Negative wrote: If you are famous, you are not allowed to make a mistake. That's what this world likes to think. Sadly, this will overshadow his great career because of this negative world we live in.
This wasn't a "mistake". A mistake is leaving the lights on your car on overnight, or hitting reply all on that sarcastic email you just sent.
This was enabling a known pedophile to commit a large number of terrible sexual acts on children. Paterno, and everyone else who knew about it, should be in jail for the rest of their lives.
Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
On November 11 2011 01:34 Uhh Negative wrote: If you are famous, you are not allowed to make a mistake. That's what this world likes to think. Sadly, this will overshadow his great career because of this negative world we live in.
You are using the word "mistake" fairly loosely here, knowingly letting someone use a charitable organization and university athletic facilities to facilitate the ANAL RAPE OF A MINOR is more of a grievous and horrendous lapse in judgement, than a "mistake".
You then go on to say that the "negative world we live in" is why Paterno's legacy is tainted. No, his legacy is tainted because he let Sandusky rape kids. Read the god damn grand jury report, what occurred here was fucking despicable.
The out lash of the general public has been so strong against Paterno because he of all people had the clout to break the chain of command and expose this. Instead he covered his ass legally and let his friend continue to RAPE KIDS.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
You completely miss the point. Paterno wasn't just "some guy" on campus. He was the face of the University and the most powerful man there. Central to his legendary status is his honor, morality, etc. After doing the bare minimum required of him by law after hearing about his former d-coordinator doing something of a sexual nature in the shower with a young boy, Paterno didn't ask another question. He is supposed to be a man who cares more about making good men, not just making a good football team. And here he showed no concern for the kid who got victimized in the shower, he cared more that his football program didn't get a black eye.
You need to think about what happened and the amount of inaction on the part of JoePa.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
On November 11 2011 01:34 Uhh Negative wrote: If you are famous, you are not allowed to make a mistake. That's what this world likes to think. Sadly, this will overshadow his great career because of this negative world we live in.
You are using the word "mistake" fairly loosely here, knowingly letting someone use a charitable organization and university athletic facilities to facilitate the ANAL RAPE OF A MINOR is more of a grievous and horrendous lapse in judgement, than a "mistake".
You then go on to say that the "negative world we live in" is why Paterno's legacy is tainted. No, his legacy is tainted because he let Sandusky rape kids. Read the god damn grand jury report, what occurred here was fucking despicable.
The out lash of the general public has been so strong against Paterno because he of all people had the clout to break the chain of command and expose this. Instead he covered his ass legally and let his friend continue to RAPE KIDS.
Did you even read the grand jury report? Holy shitballs this is ridiculous.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
In the real world sticking your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away. If someone describes contact "of a sexual nature" between a grown man and a child, you ask them to elaborate while calling 911.
If they thought McQueary was lying they obviously would have fired him. They certainly wouldn't have promoted him to the wide receiver coach and let him continue to work there to this day.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
I understand if you feel a sense of loyalty to Paterno but for your sake I would back away from the situation until your emotions calm down. No one wants to say something (or support someone) that they deeply regret later.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
In the real world sticking your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away. If someone describes contact "of a sexual nature" between a grown man and a child, you ask them to elaborate while calling 911.
If they thought McQueary was lying they obviously would have fired him. They certainly wouldn't have promoted him to the wide receiver coach and let him continue to work there to this day.
You don't call 911 for non-emergency situations. Shows how much of an you know. You report the conduct to your boss, and then inform the head of the police force on the university while in a meeting with him.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
I understand if you feel a sense of loyalty to Paterno but for your sake I would back away from the situation until your emotions calm down. No one wants to say something (or support someone) that they deeply regret later.
I feel no sense of loyalty to Paterno. I don't follow college football, and I've never attended Penn State. I drove within 100 miles of it, once.
I feel a sense of loyalty to anyone singled out like this when no one has even bothered to read the grand jury report and they're all talking out their ass.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
No, the point is McQuerey said he saw Sandusky naked in the shower standing behind a naked 10 year old boy who had his hands on the wall... that does not encompass that many different things, and all of them should be reported to the police. Joe Pa, more so than literally any other coach in college football, had the clout and knew he had the clout to be able to break the chain of command without risking his job. This is why there is so much scrutiny on Joe Pa and less on McQuerey. Joe Pa should have called the police, instead he kept it internal to keep Penn State's perfect record of never having an infraction. He put Penn state's football program and his friendship with Sandusky over the safety of the children Sandusky was abusing.
While he is not legally responsible, he absolutely needs to share in the moral burden of what occurred here.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
“Of course we’re going to riot,” he said. “What do they expect when they tell us at 10 o’clock that they fired our football coach?”
“I’m here because I just need to be with the rest of my school right now,” she said. “This is devastating for us.”
Bayloader, other rural schools don't do this. MSU and Penn State are the two schools in the B1G that do this, and MSU students are always drunk. Purdue, Iowa, Minnesota, etc. don't have this problem. :/
EDIT: And even dumber is the student who lit his diploma on fire on JoePa's lawn. This shouldn't affect PSU academically, besides the fact that there's a lot of dumbass students.
I'd like to give my perspective as a former Penn State student.
On campus, Joe Pa is God. When I was there, it was difficult to describe the way people here felt about him. He was a beacon of stability in the crazy, rotating world of college and college sports. I know it sounds corny but he really was an inspiration to damn near everyone who attends Penn State. This is an 80+ year old guy who's still running out on the field with his team every game, is universally beloved, hasn't done anything wrong, and he's OUR coach. He's OUR guy. We ARE Penn State. I even feel prideful just thinking about it.
Now let me tell you how much it hurts to have your icon and your idol be implicated in something as horrific as this child rape scandal, and to be fired immediately. It hurts every bone in my body. I know I shouldn't be thinking about Paterno's legacy and I should be focused on the kids that were abused by Sandusky. But I can't. Anyone who's attended Penn State has some sort of emotional investment in Joe Pa. And when things change so soon, so fast, you don't act rationally. Every ounce of my being does not want Paterno's career to end this way. Not like this. I wanted him to retire on his own accord, to conclude his spectacular and impressive career the way that so many other coaches have not done: with a clean record. I know it's not rational. And you know what? Those kids at Penn State now know it's not rational. But they're hurting and surrounded by other people who are hurting. They aren't making a statement that the seriousness and the brutality of the crimes is less important than Joe Pa's career. It's just an emotional outpouring of love for a fallen icon that our heads want to be angry at and our hearts want to love. It's so, so hard to believe he had any knowledge of what was going on and when you're surrounded with other people who are emotionally invested in the situation and are thinking the same thing, then people just ride the wave of emotion. Confirmation Bias. It's a real life version of the Reddit hivemind, basically. It's basic human instinct.
Don't blame the kids on Beaver Ave. They're hurting and acting out. Regardless of whether or not that should be the case, it is. Penn Staters everywhere are hurting right now... just imagine how you felt after the worst breakup of your life. This is how the entire campus presumably feels right now... and it's very difficult to handle. People do stupid shit when their emotions are fucked... no different than any of us.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Evidence? Sandusky was caught mid act twice: once by the GA and once by a Janitor. He was caught rolling around on the floor with a young boy by a wrestling coach. A mother of one of the children who was abused reported it to a campus detective who was silenced by the head of campus police.
On November 11 2011 01:34 Uhh Negative wrote: If you are famous, you are not allowed to make a mistake. That's what this world likes to think. Sadly, this will overshadow his great career because of this negative world we live in.
You are using the word "mistake" fairly loosely here, knowingly letting someone use a charitable organization and university athletic facilities to facilitate the ANAL RAPE OF A MINOR is more of a grievous and horrendous lapse in judgement, than a "mistake".
You then go on to say that the "negative world we live in" is why Paterno's legacy is tainted. No, his legacy is tainted because he let Sandusky rape kids. Read the god damn grand jury report, what occurred here was fucking despicable.
The out lash of the general public has been so strong against Paterno because he of all people had the clout to break the chain of command and expose this. Instead he covered his ass legally and let his friend continue to RAPE KIDS.
Did you even read the grand jury report? Holy shitballs this is ridiculous.
Yea i read every word twice, apparently you have not
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
On November 11 2011 01:09 oneofthem wrote: can someone who think like these kids explain why a football team is so important to a university?
Penn State Football is the only (MAYBE men's basketball does as well) sport that actually makes the school money. The money made from the Football games is what's used to fund almost every other Penn State official sports team.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Explain JoePa not batting an eye when Sandursky was on campus on multiple occasions with children after the allegations and investigations. Explain JoePa speaking at Sandurksky's charity for children after he knew of all this.
I can't even believe that people serious believe that Paterno had no idea why Sandursky, his long time dcoord and good friend, was banned. That's such a huge load
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
Yes, legally Paterno is fine. But in the eyes of the general public he failed his moral duty. Joe Pa was bigger than Penn State, he was aware of this and therefore would know going public would not put his career in danger. Instead he passed it up the chain, a chain he knew was most concerned with Penn State's perfect disciplinary record. Joe Pa put the program ahead of the kids. That is why he is being held responsible in the court of public opinion
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
First, I highly doubt that the guy told Paterno that something "of a sexual nature" happened. Who the hell talks like that in real life? I'm sure the actual conversation went much, much differently. All we're hearing is the grand jury testimony, which comes a decade after the incident. Plenty of time to plan and act a lot more innocent.
Second, does it matter where anal sex is on your list? Anything "of a sexual nature" between a 50 year old man and a child is criminal. The only question is how criminal it was. Turns out, it was really bad and Paterno did shit about it. Same thing with the guy who reported it to him. Same thing with the guys he reported it to. Everyone involved was complicit in the rape of a child and should be treated as such.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
O I'm on your side don't worry, just trying to keep the facts straight
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
In the real world sticking your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away. If someone describes contact "of a sexual nature" between a grown man and a child, you ask them to elaborate while calling 911.
If they thought McQueary was lying they obviously would have fired him. They certainly wouldn't have promoted him to the wide receiver coach and let him continue to work there to this day.
You don't call 911 for non-emergency situations. Shows how much of an you know. You report the conduct to your boss, and then inform the head of the police force on the university while in a meeting with him.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
I understand if you feel a sense of loyalty to Paterno but for your sake I would back away from the situation until your emotions calm down. No one wants to say something (or support someone) that they deeply regret later.
I feel no sense of loyalty to Paterno. I don't follow college football, and I've never attended Penn State. I drove within 100 miles of it, once.
I feel a sense of loyalty to anyone singled out like this when no one has even bothered to read the grand jury report and they're all talking out their ass.
Did you not read the thread? We did read the grand jury report. And Paterno is not being singled out. He's just the biggest guy who needs to be fired. The entire staff needs to be fired. The entire football team needs to be shut down for at least a year.
Where are your morals and your priorities in life? People in positions of power need to be held to a higher standard than doing the bare legal minimum.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
Paterno let him use it? NO. The Athletic Directors let him use those facilities. Those facilities do not belong to Paterno and his authority is that of a coach. People using said facilities do so under the permission of the Athletic Director.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
In the real world sticking your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away. If someone describes contact "of a sexual nature" between a grown man and a child, you ask them to elaborate while calling 911.
If they thought McQueary was lying they obviously would have fired him. They certainly wouldn't have promoted him to the wide receiver coach and let him continue to work there to this day.
You don't call 911 for non-emergency situations. Shows how much of an you know. You report the conduct to your boss, and then inform the head of the police force on the university while in a meeting with him.
On November 11 2011 01:52 trainRiderJ wrote:
On November 11 2011 01:50 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 01:49 1Eris1 wrote:
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
I understand if you feel a sense of loyalty to Paterno but for your sake I would back away from the situation until your emotions calm down. No one wants to say something (or support someone) that they deeply regret later.
I feel no sense of loyalty to Paterno. I don't follow college football, and I've never attended Penn State. I drove within 100 miles of it, once.
I feel a sense of loyalty to anyone singled out like this when no one has even bothered to read the grand jury report and they're all talking out their ass.
Did you not read the thread? We did read the grand jury report. And Paterno is not being singled out. He's just the biggest guy who needs to be fired. The entire staff needs to be fired. The entire football team needs to be shut down for at least a year.
Where are your morals and your priorities in life? People in positions of power need to be held to a higher standard than doing the bare legal minimum.
What would all of that accomplish? The people responsible for the coverup have either been criminally charged and/or fired/resigned. Shutting down to football team will do nothing but cause the University to lose a MASSIVE amount of funding (Penn State Football makes a lotttttt of money), which will do nothing but cause the lives of the students and the professors to suffer, as well as cause the local economy to suffer with less people visiting on the weekends for games.
None of that will change the atrocities that Sandusky committed, whether or not Paterno was a part of any of it.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
Paterno let him use it? NO. The Athletic Directors let him use those facilities. Those facilities do not belong to Paterno and his authority is that of a coach. People using said facilities do so under the permission of the Athletic Director.
Dood Paterno failed his moral obligation to protect though who are cannot protect themselves, and he continued to publicly support a man who he was aware had multiple sexual abuse allegations brought against him. That is the story, splitting hairs will not change this.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
On November 11 2011 00:18 stokes17 wrote: Hey I really think the grand jury report should be added to the OP, it really clears up why everybody involved HAS TO GO. The details in the report are absolutely horrific.
O and those quotes by Penn State kids speaking of rioting.... just no
Even though they're legally adults, the brains of 18-22 year olds aren't fully developed yet. There's also a huge mob mentality going on over there right now. In a few years, most of these people will be embarrassed by what they did last night.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
You're picking at individual words now. The point still stands. Paterno supported a child molestor/rapist in a way that could have endangered dozens of kids when he should have been at the very least not associating with the guy or doing more to put him away.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
You're picking at individual words now. The point still stands. Paterno supported a child molestor/rapist in a way that could have endangered dozens of kids when he should have been at the very least not associating with the guy or doing more to put him away.
When was Paterno supposed to know that Sandusky was a child molester? Oh, when he never was charged with anything, and subsequently allowed to take up a position working with children. Uright
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
He "retired" as a coach but still had full access to Penn State facilities.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
He "retired" as a coach but still had full access to Penn State facilities.
Correct, he also kept an office at the university until extremely recently (i believe weeks)
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
On November 11 2011 00:18 stokes17 wrote: Hey I really think the grand jury report should be added to the OP, it really clears up why everybody involved HAS TO GO. The details in the report are absolutely horrific.
O and those quotes by Penn State kids speaking of rioting.... just no
Even though they're legally adults, the brains of 18-22 year olds aren't fully developed yet. There's also a huge mob mentality going on over there right now. In a few years, most of these people will be embarrassed by what they did last night.
Damn this shit is so confusing... I understand why they want to riot, it feels like everybody let that guy do whatever he pleased... That's sick.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
In the real world sticking your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away. If someone describes contact "of a sexual nature" between a grown man and a child, you ask them to elaborate while calling 911.
If they thought McQueary was lying they obviously would have fired him. They certainly wouldn't have promoted him to the wide receiver coach and let him continue to work there to this day.
You don't call 911 for non-emergency situations. Shows how much of an you know. You report the conduct to your boss, and then inform the head of the police force on the university while in a meeting with him.
On November 11 2011 01:52 trainRiderJ wrote:
On November 11 2011 01:50 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 01:49 1Eris1 wrote:
On November 11 2011 01:39 Risen wrote: Holy shit, what am I reading? You people are so off base. Did anyone even bother READING ANYTHING?
Page six of the grand jury report says Paterno was only told that Sandusky was doing something "of a sexual nature" to the 10 year old boy. That encompasses soooooo much. If I'm told something of a sexual nature has occured I don't write off the possibility of anal sex, but it sure as hell isn't at the top of my list of things that come to mind.
Paterno reported this not only to Athletics Director Tim Curley, but the man who oversaw Penn State's police force, Schultz. What the fuck more do you want him to do? Go beat the shit out of the guy? Sandusky has already been banned from the Penn State facilities following the University investigation, but Paterno doesn't necessarily know why at this point.
Is it maybe just a little bit possible that after he reported these things he was told by either the director or the head of the police force that the investigation had revealed nothing, but they were taking steps to protect the university's image? Or maybe he was told the allegations weren't enough to convict or even bring charges, so his removal from the facilities would have to be enough.
This leads me to the GA, McQueary. Who the fuck witnesses the rape of a ten year old and then waits two days to report it? And when he reports it doesn't go to any police force, but instead goes to the head coach of the football team.
All this bullshit you're slinging is based off pure speculation. Jibba I'm especially disappointed in you. Moderators are supposed to make sure they check their shit because people look and see a MiR and take what you say as fact. Did not alert authorities? What the fuck is the head of a police force then? What's the Athletic Director?
Everyone is placing wayyyyyy too much blame on Joe Paterno here. He did all that could be reasonably expected of a man in his position to do. He reported the incident to his boss, and then had meetings where he told the head of the university police force what he knew. We do not know anything that happened past this point other than Sandusky's subsequent ban from using the facilities. All your speculation resembles very closely a mob that's out of control. You're going off "gut feelings" for something that deserves to be looked at much more closely, and after all the facts come out.
If it turns out Paterno was indeed kept in the know for the whole process, then yeah, he's a bastard. If it turns out he wasn't apart of any "coverup" and was unaware of the flow of events after he told the Curley and Schultz, then I hope you all look back on this as what happens when you don't think before you pass judgement.
This is disgusting.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
I understand if you feel a sense of loyalty to Paterno but for your sake I would back away from the situation until your emotions calm down. No one wants to say something (or support someone) that they deeply regret later.
I feel no sense of loyalty to Paterno. I don't follow college football, and I've never attended Penn State. I drove within 100 miles of it, once.
I feel a sense of loyalty to anyone singled out like this when no one has even bothered to read the grand jury report and they're all talking out their ass.
Did you not read the thread? We did read the grand jury report. And Paterno is not being singled out. He's just the biggest guy who needs to be fired. The entire staff needs to be fired. The entire football team needs to be shut down for at least a year.
Where are your morals and your priorities in life? People in positions of power need to be held to a higher standard than doing the bare legal minimum.
What would all of that accomplish? The people responsible for the coverup have either been criminally charged and/or fired/resigned. Shutting down to football team will do nothing but cause the University to lose a MASSIVE amount of funding (Penn State Football makes a lotttttt of money), which will do nothing but cause the lives of the students and the professors to suffer, as well as cause the local economy to suffer with less people visiting on the weekends for games.
None of that will change the atrocities that Sandusky committed, whether or not Paterno was a part of any of it.
Accountability. Many Penn State students and alumni need to be taught the lesson that football is not bigger than the university, a lesson that is obviously lost to many, not all, but many of the people who went there. And not everybody responsible has been criminally charged or fired/resigned yet. McQueary, for one, still has his job from last I've heard.
The money football teams make mostly go to the football team, then goes to other athletic departments. Barely any goes to the general fund. Penn State's football team generates $52M in profits. The operating costs of the university is $4B. That's 1.3% only. And professors normally get grants from the government, private corporations, non-profit organizations and charities for their research work. The importance of college football to universities is overblown.
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
You're picking at individual words now. The point still stands. Paterno supported a child molestor/rapist in a way that could have endangered dozens of kids when he should have been at the very least not associating with the guy or doing more to put him away.
When was Paterno supposed to know that Sandusky was a child molester? Oh, when he never was charged with anything, and subsequently allowed to take up a position working with children. Uright
Just because the University failed to act upon the accusations does not mean it did not happen. Paterno heard what had happened directly from the source and he didn't bother to look into it further. At the very least he should have shown some discretion.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
On November 11 2011 02:26 Risen wrote: . Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
letting a guy who was twice accused and investigated for child sex abuse have access to psu football facilities with children, players, bowl games (at his invite!), supporting his charity for children knowing sandursky had been charged before and was currently under investigation... your pick there!
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
On November 11 2011 02:26 Risen wrote: . Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
letting a guy who was twice accused and investigated for child sex abuse have access to psu football facilities with children, players, bowl games (at his invite!), supporting his charity for children knowing sandursky had been charged before and was currently under investigation... your pick there!
Sandusky's charity? My bad, I thought it was created in the 70s, but you're right. It was Sandusky's charity.
WAS HE EVER CONVICTED OF CHILD ABUSE? I think we should cut all ties with anyone ever accused of a crime. Segregate them into their own little colony. We'll have the convicted criminals live somewhere, the people accused but never convicted live in another area, and all the people who've never been accused of anything can live somewhere else.
You;re not allowed to be friends with someone accused of a crime. Fuck them. They were ACCUSED god dammit! THEYRE GUILTY! GUILTY I SAY! No one has EVER been wrongly accused.
Edit: I can already feel the response.
Well, uhhh, he's like, above being a normal person and shit man. He should distance himself from anyone who's ever been accused of anything, man. Totally, dude. He's like a god, dude. He's not allowed to live a normal life, dude. People look up to him and shit, dude.
Fuck that. He's a man working a job. Is he important in the grand scheme of things? Yes. Does that mean he should be forced by society to interact only with people who have spotless records?
People always rail against the elite, how the elite always think themselves so much better. Then something like this happens and people say, oh well he was the elite, he should have been better than a regular person. Fuck that bullshit.
The problem is that despite these allegations, Sandusky was still able to work and volunteer at Penn State. If you know a guys an accused rapist/molester, with pretty solid evidence behind it, how are you going to let him work in an enviourment with a lot of young men and kids?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
How is that not enough facts for you? I think the only relevant fact here is that your threshold for moral obligation is extremely low.
For somebody who differentiated his program based on higher morals, Paterno did the absolute bare legal minimum required of him. He only reported the information to clearly biased people, people employed by the university who have less actual power and influence than he does. He knew that he holds more power in that university than his nominal bosses. They tried to fire him multiple times before this for other reasons and he just told them to fuck off.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
Except in this case it was MULTIPLE people who came forward, with MULTIPLE DIFFERENT stories. Jesus man. The evidence was stacked pretty high. The guy wasn't charged because people were trying to protect a football program.
On November 11 2011 02:26 Risen wrote: . Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
letting a guy who was twice accused and investigated for child sex abuse have access to psu football facilities with children, players, bowl games (at his invite!), supporting his charity for children knowing sandursky had been charged before and was currently under investigation... your pick there!
Sandusky's charity? My bad, I thought it was created in the 70s, but you're right. It was Sandusky's charity.
WAS HE EVER CONVICTED OF CHILD ABUSE? I think we should cut all ties with anyone ever accused of a crime. Segregate them into their own little colony. We'll have the convicted criminals live somewhere, the people accused but never convicted live in another area, and all the people who've never been accused of anything can live somewhere else.
You;re not allowed to be friends with someone accused of a crime. Fuck them. They were ACCUSED god dammit! THEYRE GUILTY! GUILTY I SAY! No one has EVER been wrongly accused.
Edit: I can already feel the response.
Well, uhhh, he's like, above being a normal person and shit man. He should distance himself from anyone who's ever been accused of anything, man. Totally, dude. He's like a god, dude. He's not allowed to live a normal life, dude. People look up to him and shit, dude.
Fuck that. He's a man working a job. Is he important in the grand scheme of things? Yes. Does that mean he should be forced by society to interact only with people who have spotless records?
People always rail against the elite, how the elite always think themselves so much better. Then something like this happens and people say, oh well he was the elite, he should have been better than a regular person. Fuck that bullshit.
Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
Are you kidding? Your boss should call the police (the real police, not the office police), something Paterno clearly did not do. Your boss should follow-up on it. If there is probable cause, an investigation needs to be done.
Companies don't need guilty verdicts to fire people. Do you know what at-will employment is?
Solid evidence? Where the fuck are you seeing solid evidence? I see ZERO solid evidence. And even with your other "evidence" I don't see anything that paints Joe Paterno as the bad guy here.
Okay, you keep asking people if they read the GJ testimony, now I'm going to ask if you actually read it? The evidence in there is so clear it's ridiculous.
And yeah, because a good guy would let a known raper/molester continue working under him because football>justice apparentely.
Perhaps I should clarify. Where is the evidence that JOE PATERNO had anything to do with all this. Where is the evidence that he participated in a coverup? Where is the evidence that he didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
There is a mountain of evidence detailing Sandusky as a pedophile. I'm not arguing that. Where the fuck does it say anywhere in that grand jury report that Paterno didn't do everything he was supposed to do?
He LET Sandusky continue working under him.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
How is that not enough facts for you? I think the only relevant fact here is that your threshold for moral obligation is extremely low.
For somebody who differentiated his program based on higher morals, Paterno did the absolute bare legal minimum required of him. He only reported the information to clearly biased people, people employed by the university who have less actual power and influence than he does. He knew that he holds more power in that university than his nominal bosses. They tried to fire him multiple times before this for other reasons and he just told them to fuck off.
Oh my bad, I can see that when you say how is that not enough facts for you I'm supposed to know what you're thinking. I can see that they tried to fire him multiple times, someone on the INTERNET said so! Where are your links, where is your proof. You're a random person on the internet spouting a bunch of shit with nothing to back it up.
I don't have to prove shit. In my eyes Paterno is innocent until proven "guilty" of his moral crimes. Present your evidence to me. Show me how bad of a person he is. All I see here is you saying "How is that not enough fact for you?" and not listing any facts.
I don't care how close they are, how important football is. He should have at least suspended Sandusky and waited until the shit was worked out. Instead he just tossed the problem off on to others and let a child rapist continue to doing his thing. Should Paterno be charged as an accomplice? No probably not. Is part of the blame his? Of course. How can you defend this...
Just to clarify
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
The incident that was brought to Joe's attention by McQuerey occurred after Sandusky had retired.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
I see nothing wrong with allowing people accused and subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing allowed to live their lives as if they were never accused. No.
And he still let Sandusky volunteer on Campus, work in programs related to kids, etc. He even spoke on Sandusky's behalf at a children's fundraiser ffs
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
The Second Mile wasn't Sandusky's foundation. He was a volunteer for the foundation. Paterno spoke at a fundraiser for The Second Mile.
Edit: I see now. You all hate him because he let someone accused of acts against children walk near him. God forbid we actually hold true to innocent until proven guilty in this country. Burn every man and woman accused of such things in my opinion. Let God sort em out, amiright?
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Not sure how many of you have watched Sportscenter in the past couple days, but according to one of the reporters who has a source with first hand knowledge of what McQueary told Paterno, which was apparently that he saw Sandusky "fondling, touching, and horsing around" with a kid in the shower. There was NEVER any mention of the word RAPE, SODOMY, or MOLESTATION. Now with that said, yes even the mention of the word fondling should have provoked Paterno to contact the police, however when its mentioned with touching and "horsing around", I can see exactly why Paterno just went to his superiors, because it didn't seem like a big deal at this time. I'm sure all this will come out eventually.
I find it really funny one of the excuses many are saying he was fired was so he doesn't have to comment on the situation (I guess in a manner of representing the school?). Clearly Paterno will share his side of the story at some point, and we can hopefully find out what was really said.
For everyone who supports Paterno being fired, I suggest you attempt to contact the PSU board of trustees about removing McQueary from his position as well, as he was the WITNESS who also did not go to the police, yet is still on the PSU coaching staff today.
As a side note, not sure if this is true or not because I heard it on TV from one of the students at the gathering, riot, whatever you want to call it last night on campus, that one of the people Paterno reported Sandusky to was actually the head of campus police. If that's true, then as far as I'm concerned he did reach out to the authorities.
Personally, I think this whole thing is the excuse the board needed to get Paterno out of the football program. When he was asked to leave awhile back, Paterno straight up told the board he wasn't going to step down until he was ready. I think the board has had a sour taste ever since and has been looking to get rid of him, and what a better situation then now. I hope the uprising at PSU continues, I hope the players refuse to play, and I hope cowardly board of trustees get what's coming to them for the sneaky bullshit they pulled yesterday.
For anyone not aware, here's how Paterno was fired: a messenger came to his house at 9:45pm, 15 minutes before announced they were firing him. In the letter from the messenger was a telephone number with instructions to call. Paterno calls the number, greeted by 2 members of the board, who promptly tell him "you are relieved of your duties", then make the announcement a short time later. Seems like a pretty fucking disgusting move to me considering the man put almost 65 years into the college, and has donated millions to the school he was proud to call his home.
I heard someone last night point out that this was a business decision, and something the board had to do. I hope the enjoy the results this "business decision" causes, because right now it certainly doesn't seem like the best one to me.
I believe this is the exact moment you will stop trying to argue rationally.
Joe Paterno failed to protect the kids. That is what he did. He knew there was smoke, and instead of going to the authorities he kept it internal. You need to accept this. Joe failed the children who were abused by Sandusky. That is why people are mad at him. He was a larger than life figure who shrunk at a critical time when he could have prevented the future harm of children.
Joe did the exact fucking minimum to legally cover himself. When has Joe Paterno ever been about the bare minimum? He should have done more.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
On November 11 2011 02:55 Risen wrote: I see nothing wrong with allowing people accused and subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing allowed to live their lives as if they were never accused. No.
He wasn't cleared ffs dude, the accusation was pushed under the fucking rug in the name of a football program.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
O hey we made the same point ! well played sir
yea, action being taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky really really makes it look like a cover up.
On November 11 2011 02:55 Risen wrote: I see nothing wrong with allowing people accused and subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing allowed to live their lives as if they were never accused. No.
He wasn't cleared ffs dude, the accusation was pushed under the fucking rug in the name of a football program.
PROVE THAT. And then PROVE that Paterno knew about it. It's so fucking depressing that you're passing off speculation as fact, and you don't even know it.
We're just going to have to disagree. I believe in waiting until all the facts are released prior to passing judgement. It's clear you and many others do not share the same beliefs. If you feel you can sway me, list out the facts. Tell me why Paterno is even morally at fault here.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Fondling, Touching, and Horsing around with a child in a shower are all felony offenses. So if he were punished as much as he can be for horsing around, he would have been arrested. So... no he wasn't. He lost his keys so the next time he raped a kid it was off campus away from the Football Program.
EDIT: Joe should have called the police. The real police.
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Rofl, what? Punished enough for horsing around... Horsing around like that is still a felony offense. Sandusky didn't even make it on the sex offender list.
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.
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.
No dood, there was the wrestling coach that saw him rolling on the floor with a boy
There was the janitor that saw him raping a boy
There was the mother who reported him to campus police
There was the GA who saw him raping a boy in the shower
What is occurring now is as much as can be done. Charging Sandusky with 40 felonies is all that can be done.
The evidence has not changed from 2002. So how can more be done now than then if all that could be done was done then?
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.
No dood, there was the wrestling coach that saw him rolling on the floor with a boy
There was the janitor that saw him raping a boy
There was the mother who reported him to campus police
There was the GA who saw him raping a boy in the shower
What is occurring now is as much as can be done. Charging Sandusky with 40 felonies is all that can be done.
The evidence has not changed from 2002. So how can more be done now than then if all that could be done was done then?
Are you fuckin' KIDDING ME? Go read the document you scanned again. Then come back and edit your post.
Edit: Earlier I stated that Sandusky was merely a volunteer for Second Mile. I was correct, but wrong at the same time. Sandusky created the Second Mile foundation in 1977. Wanted to post that in the interest of full disclosure so as not to mislead anyone. That doesn't change my stance.
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.
He knows they are not informed because the case never resolved itself, it was swept under the rug. How is this being lost on you? McQuerey got promoted and Sandusky lost his keys to the facilities. If Sandusky really did rape someone and the police really were called then what is happening now would have happened then. If McQuerey lied about a revered member of the PSU community fooling around with a boy in the shower he would not be getting job promotions. Having neither of these occur makes it look like there was a cover up.
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.
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.
No dood, there was the wrestling coach that saw him rolling on the floor with a boy
There was the janitor that saw him raping a boy
There was the mother who reported him to campus police
There was the GA who saw him raping a boy in the shower
What is occurring now is as much as can be done. Charging Sandusky with 40 felonies is all that can be done.
The evidence has not changed from 2002. So how can more be done now than then if all that could be done was done then?
Are you fuckin' KIDDING ME? Go read the document you scanned again. Then come back and edit your post.
What would you like me to edit? All those people caught Sandusky over the years and none of them took action. And the sum total of those people is in excess of one. So if one of them had acted and brought him to court the total number of witnesses for Sandusky's inappropriate sexual conduct would be greater than 1
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.
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.
Yea that's fine you can caps and curse all you want idc, I'll still respond to your points. He is just pointing out that it makes you look bad, and when you are supporting a minority opinion looking bad is usually not optimal
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.
No dood, there was the wrestling coach that saw him rolling on the floor with a boy
There was the janitor that saw him raping a boy
There was the mother who reported him to campus police
There was the GA who saw him raping a boy in the shower
What is occurring now is as much as can be done. Charging Sandusky with 40 felonies is all that can be done.
The evidence has not changed from 2002. So how can more be done now than then if all that could be done was done then?
Are you fuckin' KIDDING ME? Go read the document you scanned again. Then come back and edit your post.
What would you like me to edit? All those people caught Sandusky over the years and none of them took action. And the sum total of those people is in excess of one. So if one of them had acted and brought him to court the total number of witnesses for Sandusky's inappropriate sexual conduct would be greater than 1
I don't care about them. You responded to a post made by me referring to Joe Paterno. Joe Paterno knew about ONE witness. He didn't know about the janitor, the wrestling coach, or the mother. I don't give a shit how many real witnesses there are. There was ONE witness Paterno knew about. Additionally, all those witnesses had their event with Sandusky take place AFTER 2002 and AFTER he had been banned from being around children on the Penn State campus.
So now you're suggesting Paterno's at fault for not continually searching for witnesses that could back up the GA's testimony? What is he now, a detective? He's a head coach of a major college program. He had other shit to do in order to keep his job and maintain his lifestyle for his family.
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.
Using capital letters to show emphasis and level of voice through text is a bad thing? It's not like he's just caps lock spamming the whole way through his post.
To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
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.
No dood, there was the wrestling coach that saw him rolling on the floor with a boy
There was the janitor that saw him raping a boy
There was the mother who reported him to campus police
There was the GA who saw him raping a boy in the shower
What is occurring now is as much as can be done. Charging Sandusky with 40 felonies is all that can be done.
The evidence has not changed from 2002. So how can more be done now than then if all that could be done was done then?
What I don't understand is why would you not physically stop that if you saw it happening? How do you just walk away after seeing that happen with your own eyes and live with yourself?
It's pretty simple. JoePa heard the news a long time ago, and he should have dealt some vigilante justice and rape Sandusky.
Kidding aside though. The media/public needs a punching bag; its how the system works. Arguing over facts and speculation is irrelevant. In all outcomes JoePa is a tarnished legacy, and the whole situation blows major donkey dick.
Oh and btw, all those flaming the name of JoePa; you realize its almost the equivalent of saying that the Victims(3-5) are also to blame, because they were in the knowledge.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Right if Joe was interested in the facts getting out he would have gone to the authorities so a real investigation could have occurred. Instead he kept it in house. He did this because he wanted to protect the Penn State Football Program's reputation (don't even try to say he could have had fear of losing his job)
His failure to report to the authorities the possibility of a minor being raped, is why he is morally at fault.
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I don't get it. Assuming the grand jury is correct, then Paterno informed the AD and the VP in charge of Campus police. What else is he supposed to do? He did not witness the crimes himself so he is in no position to even know for sure that Sandusky is guilty and Sandusky was no longer on his staff or working for him.
These sort of allegations were old hat. State College had already failed to even charge Sandusky the last time allegations are made. There is a screwed up system here, but Paterno is not part of it.
There is a reason that the grand jury has charged the AD and VP and not Paterno.
Paterno could have gone to the media to provide a second hand account of what might or might not have happened. He could have called the city or state police instead of just the head of the university police. There are things he could have done, but how are we to know it would have helped.
Sandusky is free as of this moment! He is still not behind bars. That is a problem with the system not Paterno.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
He is most likely not legally at fault. I've said that numerous times. It is still the opinion of the general public, or at least the media, and the board of trustees that Paterno did fail a moral obligation.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
He is most likely not legally at fault. I've said that numerous times. It is still the opinion of the general public, or at least the media, and the board of trustees that Paterno did fail a moral obligation.
I think he did all that he could do. You don't. I think that's where this discussion will end. You still haven't brought me any evidence that he knew about anything except the 2002 incident in which he reported the issue to his boss and the head of campus police.
I say he fulfilled his moral obligation there, you say he hasn't. The end.
The response made by the Board of Trustees is always in the best interest of the University. At the point of last night, they had to remove Paterno because of the media coverage of this scandal, and how many new organizations and their readers blamed Paterno for it. Their decision was to cut ties as quickly as possible in order to save some face for the University.
None of that proves that the Board felt that Paterno was at a moral fault or not. Strictly from a business standpoint firing Paterno was the correct decision.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
For some reason the head of the campus police force isn't authoritative enough for you. This is where I think our disagreement comes in. I'm sorry that we have to disagree over such a matter.
Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
He is most likely not legally at fault. I've said that numerous times. It is still the opinion of the general public, or at least the media, and the board of trustees that Paterno did fail a moral obligation.
I think he did all that he could do. You don't. I think that's where this discussion will end. You still haven't brought me any evidence that he knew about anything except the 2002 incident in which he reported the issue to his boss and the head of campus police.
I say he fulfilled his moral obligation there, you say he hasn't. The end.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:52 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:41 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:38 stokes17 wrote: [quote] Of course that's not enough. Joe Paterno knew the people in power at the university would place protecting the football program's perfect record over truly investigating the allegations. He decided to take part in this protection. He is morally responsible.
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:52 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:41 Risen wrote: [quote]
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
Can't really make a judgement on morality until we know the literal words that he heard from the witness.
Imagine this report to the actual state police:
"Yeah so my GA saw one of my fellow coaching staff showering (in open showers) with a younger male touching and horsing around! Get that mothafucka in prison!!"
edit: I meant to illustrate that the above statement doesn't exactly hold the same weight as "Yeah so my GA witnessed first hand Sandusky having anal intercourse with an underage boy."
On November 11 2011 04:03 tronix wrote: Can't really make a judgement on morality until we know the literal words that he heard from the witness.
Imagine this report to the actual state police:
"Yeah so my GA saw one of my fellow coaching staff showering (in open showers) with a younger male touching and horsing around! Get that mothafucka in prison!!"
Um, you are aware the younger male in question is a 10 year old? So yea I think one can argue, pretty easily, that any fondling, touching, or horsing around between a 60 year old and 10 year old, naked in a shower is something worth reporting.
Yes you should get that "mothafucka" in jail. And yes a failure to report that leaves one morally responsible.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:52 stokes17 wrote: [quote]
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:52 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:41 Risen wrote: [quote]
He KNEW that? Really? He KNEW what they would do? No, now you're talking for him as if you're omnipotent, and you're not a god.
Edit: Here's an example. Let's say I'm an intern where you work. I go to your boss and say X person raped a kid two days ago, I saw it.
You're saying your boss should just straight fire you, sever all contact with you, and report you to the police. Cool man. That's awesome.
I don't think that's what should happen, though.
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
To bad he never informed the police.
He did the legal thing by telling his boss but he didn't do the moral thing but following up on it.
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:52 stokes17 wrote: [quote]
No that is not even close man. Your example is also awful.
Joe is not some intern at some "work" He is Joe Fucking Paterno. If he or his bosses went to the police this would never have happened. But They didn't they pushed it under the rug to protect the reputation of the program. And unless you are going to argue that Joe didn't expect them to do said pushing... he is as morally responsible as they are.
There was no fact finding, there was no investigation. Everyone realized if these allegations got out the reputation of the Penn State Football Program would be at risk. So they kept it internal.
I never said that PSU should have assumed what McQuerey said was fact... but I am saying you should call the god damn police when there is a report of sexual misconduct between an old man and a young boy in a shower. How can you disagree with that?
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
If you say so, my experience says otherwise.. I'll expand it.
I think informing the Athletic Director and the head of the fairy police as enough. You and many others don't. Then end.
I think you and many others need to take a look at whether "fairy" police are real police. They are. The officers at Penn State are armed and according to state law, these have both the power and the duty "to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner." Taken from the last link.
So you and many others saying campus police aren't "real"... Well ya know that's just like, uhh, your opinion, man.
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote: [quote]
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police.
No, the campus police would not respond to 911. Campus police are more analogous to mall security than the actual police. They are employees of the university, not the Police force.
I went to a public school, all of my campus police officers were state cops with the power to arrest, carry firearms, all that good stuff. Perhaps it speaks to a larger issue that other public universities should stop hiring bullshit rent a cops and get a real police force so they have the power to do something. Also, campus police would still have the power to do some sort of investigation and turn the findings over to the "actual" police.
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote: [quote]
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police.
You've clearly never been to a unversity have you...
Campus police are like mall cops. There rent-a-cops so to speak.
Um, you are aware the younger male in question is a 10 year old? So yea I think one can argue, pretty easily, that any fondling, touching, or horsing around between a 60 year old and 10 year old, naked in a shower is something worth reporting.
Yes you should get that "mothafucka" in jail. And yes a failure to report that leaves one morally responsible.
Considering both of us (im assuming) don't have law degrees; making an off-the-cuff judgement potentially placing a man in jail off a vague description of something that might have been misinterpreted, exaggerated, or just outright a lied about is really quite irresponsible on your part.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote: [quote]
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police.
No, the campus police would not respond to 911. Campus police are more analogous to mall security than the actual police. They are employees of the university, not the Police force.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote: [quote]
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police.
You've clearly never been to a unversity have you...
Campus police are like mall cops. There rent-a-cops so to speak.
And You.
Both of you have NEVER had to deal with the campus police force. I can tell, or you wouldn't hold such illusions about them being mall cops.
That's a pretty valid point. Joe did not even know if the allegations were true, if someone makes an allegation, about ANYTHING, you don't hold a fucking press conference and alert the media that some random person alleges something against you or one of your staff. You alert the AD, which he did, and it needed to be the AD's responsibility to hold an investigation into the validity of the situation.
The only way it would become more of a MORAL obligation, is the eye witness that supposedly informed Joe of what he saw.
Once again, we don't know what exactly was said at the time, but if Joe was told by a trusted source that he was an eye witness to sandusky assaulting a kid, then there is just no way Joe gets out of this one with a good name. :\
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:54 Risen wrote: [quote]
I didn't say Paterno was an intern. MCQUEARY is the intern in my example. All I see is a bunch of speculation in your post. Oh, everyone KNEW X would happen if Y got out. Everyone KNEW it.
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
If you say so, my experience says otherwise.. I'll expand it.
I think informing the Athletic Director and the head of the fairy police as enough. You and many others don't. Then end.
I think you and many others need to take a look at whether "fairy" police are real police. They are. The officers at Penn State are armed and according to state law, these have both the power and the duty "to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner." Taken from the last link.
So you and many others saying campus police aren't "real"... Well ya know that's just like, uhh, your opinion, man.
Hmm, that last article is very interesting. I did not realize public universities could have sworn officers, i attend a private uni in PA where our police officers are unarmed mall cops. If that is the case, then that does really change things from my perspective.
While I still think Joe should have done more, I will concede that reporting to university police seems to be basically analogous to reporting to municipal authorities. Since this is the case I do also hold the campus police chief as morally responsible as I hold Joe.
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote: [quote]
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote: [quote]
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police.
No, the campus police would not respond to 911. Campus police are more analogous to mall security than the actual police. They are employees of the university, not the Police force.
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote: [quote]
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote: [quote]
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police.
You've clearly never been to a unversity have you...
Campus police are like mall cops. There rent-a-cops so to speak.
And You.
Both of you have NEVER had to deal with the campus police force. I can tell, or you wouldn't hold such illusions about them being mall cops.
yes i did not realize Public Universities can hire sworn in officers, Private universities cannot do this.
On November 11 2011 04:09 Battleaxe wrote: I went to a public school, all of my campus police officers were state cops with the power to arrest, carry firearms, all that good stuff. Perhaps it speaks to a larger issue that other public universities should stop hiring bullshit rent a cops and get a real police force so they have the power to do something. Also, campus police would still have the power to do some sort of investigation and turn the findings over to the "actual" police.
The campus police DID investigate following a mom reporting an incident, and they decided to "advise him not to shower with young boys anymore." This gives credence to the theory that what was actually reported by the witness was some vague ass shit. I highly doubt the campus police were in on some university coverup scandal.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact. And It's absurd to think that he didn't know why Sandursky, under his staff during the 98 allegation and known as one of Joepa's closest pals, suddenly retired and was banned from campus after he was tabbed as being JoePa's successor.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:51 Hawk wrote: Twice accused and investigated. Also with two eye witness reports of child abuse, with at least one that was directly reported to him. And this man was around football activities as recently as a few weeks ago. Sandursky brought in many kids since the 2002 allegations after McQueary told JoePa..... Keep in mind this current investigation had been cooking for three years, and was known by PSU brass and JoePa.
you see no moral wrong doing in that??
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 02:57 stokes17 wrote: [quote]
Bro, everyone knew the PSU football program's reputation would be tainted if it got out that Sandusky was raping boys in their facilities. You seriously can't be arguing that?
And to say that those in power at PSU would take protecting their program over protecting the children is not speculation.... that's literally what happened.
The only out you have is if you are going to say Joe didn't know the administrators would cover up the allegations instead of calling the police.
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
If you say so, my experience says otherwise.. I'll expand it.
I think informing the Athletic Director and the head of the fairy police as enough. You and many others don't. Then end.
I think you and many others need to take a look at whether "fairy" police are real police. They are. The officers at Penn State are armed and according to state law, these have both the power and the duty "to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner." Taken from the last link.
So you and many others saying campus police aren't "real"... Well ya know that's just like, uhh, your opinion, man.
Hmm, that last article is very interesting. I did not realize public universities could have sworn officers, i attend a private uni in PA where our police officers are unarmed mall cops. If that is the case, then that does really change things from my perspective.
While I still think Joe should have done more, I will concede that reporting to university police seems to be basically analogous to reporting to municipal authorities. Since this is the case I do also hold the campus police chief as morally responsible as I hold Joe.
Thank you so much for that concession. I went to a private university once and you are correct, they're glorified mall cops. I've since attended a public university with sworn officers and can attest to the fact that they are the real deal.
Edit: To be clear, I hold the campus police chief and the Athletic Director at both moral and legal fault.
Oh hey look, even MORE speculation. Keep piling it up buddy. You know he knew about the 2002 case, now tell me how you know he knew about the 98 case. Don't bother if all you have is speculation. It's becoming clear that's where all your thoughts come from. Good thing you're not a judge.
Everything else here isn't speculation:
On November 11 2011 02:52 Risen wrote: [quote]
Great, now link that to Paterno having any knowledge of it. One more step for you, buddy.
Go read any of the report? he clearly knew about the 2002 investigation since McQueary told him of it and he reported it up. That is a fact.
If that's not enough for you, please explain how McQueary reports that he saw a 60 year old man raping a kid in a shower and it gets pushed up by Paterno. Nothing comes of it. So JoePa either would presumably fire McQueary for being a liar who tried to get his friend in trouble, or he is either someone who looked the other way when Sandursky was back on campus with kids after that.
It's a pretty damn clear cut case of turning a blind eye to it morally
So, your answer to whether or not he is morally responsible for the above would be...???
Risen, are you gonna answer this or no?
I thought I had, oh wait I did.
On November 11 2011 03:17 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:09 stokes17 wrote:
On November 11 2011 03:03 Risen wrote: [quote]
That is my out. That's what I've been going on about this whole time. How is he supposed to know that they would value the reputation of the Penn State football team over the protection of a little boy? He ISN'T. How is Paterno supposed to know that when he reported it to his boss and the head of campus police that they'd cover it up? Maybe he was told by his superiors that the proper channels had been informed, that an investigation was already underway. Then again, maybe he was in on it the whole time. Maybe he's the one who suggested they cover it up. Guess what? You don't know shit about what happened and you're passing your speculation off as fact.
How do you know ANYTHING. You don't know jack shit. You speculate about everything and consider it "fact". I'm just sitting here calling bullshit when you and everyone else here is trying so desperately to pass this stuff off as fact.
You're right I don't know for a fact that Joe knew his bosses would cover it up. But then why was no action taken against McQuerey for falsely accusing a man of such a heinous thing? Joe certainly would certainly take action against some freaking GA who is accusing his friend of 30 years of rape? Unless, keeping McQuerey on board was part of the cover up.
While there is no way Joe is legally responsible here, at least I, personally, am going to hold him morally responsible. He chose to let the issue disappear (how can action be taken against neither McQuerey or Sandusky? ) instead of pursuing it.
He took the easy way out here. He should have done more.
Oh, fuck that shit. Get off your high horse and consider the possibilities. How are you going to take action? Please tell me how Paterno is supposed to handle this situation. They're in a grey area. As far as I know Paterno was only told (as the poster right above you stated) of touching and horsing around. Maybe the investigation discovered that the actions were inappropriate and Sandusky has to be banned from being around little kids. If that's the case, the GA hasn't lied about anything as far as Paterno knows. Sandusky is punished as much as can be for "horsing around" and action has been taken.
Applies to both of you since you made the exact same point.
Edit: Quoting this for people who can't be bothered to look at the bottom of the previous page.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
I'm not talking about legal. He's been cleared of that thus far. You asked if Paterno had a moral obligation to do something more, if he morally failed and I gave my reasons that he absolutely and you've yet to say anything to beyond cursing a whole lot and giving your shift button a lot of work
As I previously stated, I think informing the police and your boss is enough. You and many others don't. The end.
Stop treating campus police like the actual police. Idn if you aren't familiar with the how public universities work in America. But the campus police =/= the real police. Not even close.
Joe Paterno DID NOT report what he knew to the Police. That is why is he morally at fault.
If you say so, my experience says otherwise.. I'll expand it.
I think informing the Athletic Director and the head of the fairy police as enough. You and many others don't. Then end.
I think you and many others need to take a look at whether "fairy" police are real police. They are. The officers at Penn State are armed and according to state law, these have both the power and the duty "to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner." Taken from the last link.
So you and many others saying campus police aren't "real"... Well ya know that's just like, uhh, your opinion, man.
Hmm, that last article is very interesting. I did not realize public universities could have sworn officers, i attend a private uni in PA where our police officers are unarmed mall cops. If that is the case, then that does really change things from my perspective.
While I still think Joe should have done more, I will concede that reporting to university police seems to be basically analogous to reporting to municipal authorities. Since this is the case I do also hold the campus police chief as morally responsible as I hold Joe.
Thank you so much for that concession. I went to a private university once and you are correct, they're glorified mall cops. I've since attended a public university with sworn officers and can attest to the fact that they are the real deal.
And I can attest that Penn State's campus police are the real deal from personal experience.. when they gave me a Public Drunkeness citation this last New Year's............
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
So if he picked up his office phone and dialed 911 who answers? If its campus police then they are the police.
You've clearly never been to a unversity have you...
Campus police are like mall cops. There rent-a-cops so to speak.
I have never been to an unversity, but I have been to many universities including Penn State, for the American Regions Math League (National High School Match Champsionship.) I never had the chance to call police there, but at Duke University I know that if you call 911 to report a crime you are connected to campus police.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
I think the point many of us backing Paterno are making here (and I apologize if I'm incorrectly speaking for anyone I've grouped into this) is that he made the correct moral decision based on the information he had. He received an allegation from a graduate assistant, he took that allegation to his superior and also to the campus police. At that point, what else would suggest he do? Assuming he had faith in the school officials and the campus police, and saw that neither of those parties did nothing, wouldn't it be fair to assume that the allegations were investigated and dismissed?
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
I think he was actually considered at-will because he was at one time asked to resign as head coach and he declined. If he was a contract employee the university would have fired him about 10 years ago
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
Taken away Sandusky's office, his keys to the program, barred him from entering the facility and follow up with police. This is in 2002 (or 1998.)
Battleaxe, he IS a school official. He has more connections and more power than the AD and most of the administrators. If he wanted to make it an issue, he could've.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
I'll say it. I would have wanted Joe Pa, and McQuerey, to have reported the incident to child services for an unbiased investigation by people who's sole concern is the well being of the children. I know that this is asking them to go beyond their legal requirement, and could have resulted in McQuerey losing his job.
But children need protecting, diffusion of responsibility led to at least 8 children being abused. I hold those in positions of responsibility to a higher standard, especially with regards to children, and super especially when you are the most influential man on campus.
On November 11 2011 04:40 Battleaxe wrote: I think the point many of us backing Paterno are making here (and I apologize if I'm incorrectly speaking for anyone I've grouped into this) is that he made the correct moral decision based on the information he had. He received an allegation from a graduate assistant, he took that allegation to his superior and also to the campus police. At that point, what else would suggest he do? Assuming he had faith in the school officials and the campus police, and saw that neither of those parties did nothing, wouldn't it be fair to assume that the allegations were investigated and dismissed?
You might want to change "moral decision" with "legal decision".
It was said in the report that Sandusky was banned from bringing kids to the facilities; but also mentioned how this couldn't be enforced. I don't think you are implying JoePa should have stood guard and made sure he did not do such a thing. Follow up with the police? Imagine that:
"Hey just callin to see if you guys are doing your fucking job. Cause I'd really like hourly updates on the sting operation with cameras and shit you should be using to incriminate a friend (loosely used) and coworker of mine. Thanks kbai"
"Hey AD, whats up; we know if good ole Sandy is a pedo yet?"
edit: trying to illustrate that using the words "follow up" and the actual action of doing so are much different.
On November 11 2011 04:40 Battleaxe wrote: I think the point many of us backing Paterno are making here (and I apologize if I'm incorrectly speaking for anyone I've grouped into this) is that he made the correct moral decision based on the information he had. He received an allegation from a graduate assistant, he took that allegation to his superior and also to the campus police. At that point, what else would suggest he do? Assuming he had faith in the school officials and the campus police, and saw that neither of those parties did nothing, wouldn't it be fair to assume that the allegations were investigated and dismissed?
You might want to change "moral decision" with "legal decision".
Moral is an every person is different sort of deal....
On November 11 2011 04:40 Battleaxe wrote: I think the point many of us backing Paterno are making here (and I apologize if I'm incorrectly speaking for anyone I've grouped into this) is that he made the correct moral decision based on the information he had. He received an allegation from a graduate assistant, he took that allegation to his superior and also to the campus police. At that point, what else would suggest he do? Assuming he had faith in the school officials and the campus police, and saw that neither of those parties did nothing, wouldn't it be fair to assume that the allegations were investigated and dismissed?
Well the conclusion Joe saw was McQuerey got promoted and Sandusky lost his keys to the facilities.
If the allegations were true then steps beyond taking Sandusky's keys are necessary.
If they were false then McQuerey should have lost his job.
The fact is neither of these occurred. Because of this, one can argue, that Joe had a moral responsibility to pursue the issue, to prevent future children from being harmed
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
Taken away Sandusky's office, his keys to the program, barred him from entering the facility and follow up with police. This is in 2002 (or 1998.)
Battleaxe, he IS a school official. He has more connections and more power than the AD and most of the administrators. If he wanted to make it an issue, he could've.
All this based purely off allegations? You're harsh man.
They need to clean that whole house. Anyone that has been there at least several years needs to get thrown out. Give the program a death penalty for the rest of the season.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
Taken away Sandusky's office, his keys to the program, barred him from entering the facility and follow up with police. This is in 2002 (or 1998.)
Battleaxe, he IS a school official. He has more connections and more power than the AD and most of the administrators. If he wanted to make it an issue, he could've.
All this based purely off allegations? You're harsh man.
Allegations of sexual misconduct of a minor. Jibba is basically echoing my sentiment. Joe was big enough that he could have broke this in 2002. He decided to turn a blind eye while implicitly protecting the Football Program's re. That's a moral wrong
An argument about the moral ground Joe did or did not hold can definitely be made. Joe is definitely in the gray area on that.
This is why we have shit like, oh I dunno, the law; to sort it out so peoples opinions on what extent people are required to step beyond the obligations of their daily lives to prevent "bad" stuff from happening.
edit: @stokes: Sure he might have turned a blind eye, but in no way do I think he did so to protect the football teams rep. It simply wasn't big enough (from his interpretation of the witness testemony) for him to really give a shit about.
On November 11 2011 04:11 CamTSU wrote: That's a pretty valid point. Joe did not even know if the allegations were true, if someone makes an allegation, about ANYTHING, you don't hold a fucking press conference and alert the media that some random person alleges something against you or one of your staff. You alert the AD, which he did, and it needed to be the AD's responsibility to hold an investigation into the validity of the situation.
The only way it would become more of a MORAL obligation, is the eye witness that supposedly informed Joe of what he saw.
Once again, we don't know what exactly was said at the time, but if Joe was told by a trusted source that he was an eye witness to sandusky assaulting a kid, then there is just no way Joe gets out of this one with a good name. :\
McQueary did inform him. He give a testimony that said he told him everything he saw, including a 'rhythmic slapping sound coming from the showers'. Joe countered and said it was 'very vague' and that there was no details besides some fooling around and groping or something or other.
there's several reasons for calling for joe's head:
Whatever McQueary said, it was enough to kick it to higher ups and start an investigation.
Assuming that it wasn't a cover up and nothing came of the investigation because it was false... why's McQueary still an employee to this day??
If it wasn't a cover up, why the hell did JoePa make sure Sandursky never stepped foot on his field again? Why did JoePa continue to support Second Mile and Sandursky??
Legally, maybe he covered his ass. But anyone with a brain can clearly see something was way fucked there and he had to go
On November 11 2011 04:43 tronix wrote: Minimum legal requirement? Explain to me the maximum legal requirement.
People who are holding the pitchforks and torches have yet to explain the physical steps he should have taken to be free from blame.
He should have reported explicitly what the graduate assistant told him instead of using ambiguous phrases like "something of a sexual nature". Horsing around/wrestling aren't given the same concern as "rhythmic, slapping sounds" and the sodomy of a minor within a university's facilities.
Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
Taken away Sandusky's office, his keys to the program, barred him from entering the facility and follow up with police. This is in 2002 (or 1998.)
Battleaxe, he IS a school official. He has more connections and more power than the AD and most of the administrators. If he wanted to make it an issue, he could've.
Joe Paterno does not have that authority. Paterno was almost forced to resign back then, so his power might not be as great as you assume. Also yesterday shows quite clearly how little power he has since he was just fired.
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
Taken away Sandusky's office, his keys to the program, barred him from entering the facility and follow up with police. This is in 2002 (or 1998.)
Battleaxe, he IS a school official. He has more connections and more power than the AD and most of the administrators. If he wanted to make it an issue, he could've.
All this based purely off allegations? You're harsh man.
He was forced to retire in 1999 after being accused of molesting a boy and criminal charges were almost brought upon him.
3 years later a trusted grad student (who would soon be promoted and eventually end up as recruiting coordinator) tells JoePa in no uncertain terms (according to his grand jury testimony) that he saw Sandusky raping a boy in the shower. You really don't think JoePa was aware of Sandusky's nature at this point?
On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote: Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus.
What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing.
Well if I were to put my Joe Pa hat on for a second, I see my friend of 30 years get booted from his office, keys taken away, and him barred from entering the facility. Here I wonder, "hmm, why is this?" I go to my friend Mr. Sandusky, "Hey man, how come they took your keys and your office?" You think Sandusky replies, "Oh, they caught me fucking around with little kids"? Or how about I go to my AD and say, "Hey how come this man's privs were taken away?" The AD being his superior and obviously covering up the incident, none of your fucking business Joe.
I'm just curious as to where you think Joe Pa received his PI license from. This was a cover up on a much higher level then the football program, as evident by the article linked earlier which could potentially link Sandusky to a pimping ring and a cover up by the entire university. Just because Joe Pa is bigger then the school doesn't mean he needs to be the fall guy
On November 11 2011 04:43 tronix wrote: Minimum legal requirement? Explain to me the maximum legal requirement.
People who are holding the pitchforks and torches have yet to explain the physical steps he should have taken to be free from blame.
He should have reported explicitly what the graduate assistant told him instead of using ambiguous phrases like "something of a sexual nature". Horsing around/wrestling aren't given the same concern as "rhythmic, slapping sounds" and the sodomy of a minor within a university's facilities.
I'm confused. Every account from before the grand jury's start says that the GA only told JoePa and company about horsing around and touching. Nowhere does it say the GA told them he was witness to an actual rape of a 10 year old.
On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote: Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus.
Yea right he did report to the proper authorities, but when the proper authorities covered up the issue (promote McQuerey and tell Sandusky to rape kids elsewhere)
Joe was in the unique position, given his clout, to have pursued the issue out of concern for the well ware of future children. Instead he did nothing
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
Taken away Sandusky's office, his keys to the program, barred him from entering the facility and follow up with police. This is in 2002 (or 1998.)
Battleaxe, he IS a school official. He has more connections and more power than the AD and most of the administrators. If he wanted to make it an issue, he could've.
Joe Paterno does not have that authority. Paterno was almost forced to resign back then, so his power might not be as great as you assume. Also yesterday shows quite clearly how little power he has since he was just fired.
Lol? Paterno wasn't forced to resign because he didn't want to. The drama 5 years ago between him and the Board is an example of how powerful the man is. They wanted him gone, and he told them he wouldn't leave.
On November 11 2011 04:43 tronix wrote: Minimum legal requirement? Explain to me the maximum legal requirement.
People who are holding the pitchforks and torches have yet to explain the physical steps he should have taken to be free from blame.
He should have reported explicitly what the graduate assistant told him instead of using ambiguous phrases like "something of a sexual nature". Horsing around/wrestling aren't given the same concern as "rhythmic, slapping sounds" and the sodomy of a minor within a university's facilities.
I'm confused. Every account from before the grand jury's start says that the GA only told JoePa and company about horsing around and touching. Nowhere does it say the GA told them he was witness to an actual rape of a 10 year old.
Yeah, you're right. Im confusing this with what "Jim" had testified
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
Taken away Sandusky's office, his keys to the program, barred him from entering the facility and follow up with police. This is in 2002 (or 1998.)
Battleaxe, he IS a school official. He has more connections and more power than the AD and most of the administrators. If he wanted to make it an issue, he could've.
All this based purely off allegations? You're harsh man.
He was forced to retire in 1999 after being accused of molesting a boy and criminal charges were almost brought upon him.
3 years later a trusted grad student (who would soon be promoted and eventually end up as recruiting coordinator) tells JoePa in no uncertain terms (according to his grand jury testimony) that he saw Sandusky raping a boy in the shower. You really don't think JoePa was aware of Sandusky's nature at this point?
I feel so bad for JoePa. He is the best college football coach of all time. And he had to go out like this... Its quite sad that he was let go through the phone especially what he did for the University. At least the board of trustees should have met him at his door or called him up for a meeting. Jerry Sandusky is a disgusting piece of shit (Excuse my french) but Joe didn't deserve to go out like this. He didn't want to retire till it was time. Joe Paterno's coaching career will have a black cloud in it for a while and it is sad. Also the board of trustees are hypocrites because Mike McQuerey was the one that witnessed the whole thing happen and he will be coaching on the sideline or from the coaches box tomorrow and He did nothing about it other than tell Joe and call his dad. Mike Mcquerey should at least be fired also if the board of trustees were going to fire Joe for not calling the law enforcement. From my understanding Joe Paterno thought what Mike Mcquerey was saying was Dennis Sandusky was "fondling/horsing around" with little boys in the showers, and Joe told the activity director and that was that. Although I agree that joe should have done more, but the fact is Joe had no idea Mike McQuerey witnessed a rape.
This is just really sad for Joe Paterno and all he has done for the university and the football program.
On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote: Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus.
What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing.
JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching.
Jibba how do you know JoePa knew why Sandusky was let go in 98? You don't. More speculation. Stop speculating if you want to sway anyone. Your red status gives you a level of credibility, but just because you say X happened doesn't mean I'll believe you just because of your status.
On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote: Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus.
What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing.
JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching.
I'm gonna go with the dude that testified before a jury under the threat of prejury over JoePa saying nuhuh on that one
On November 11 2011 03:42 Risen wrote: To reinforce. I don't give a shit about anyone else in this case beyond the victims. The fact that the higher ups at Penn State covered this shit up is horrifying. I hope they're charged with as much as can be, and I hope Sandusky is locked in a small cell the rest of his life. Having said that, until I see evidence of actual misconduct on Paternos part, or conduct that would lead me to believe he participated in the coverup, or conduct that would lead me to believe he did not do all that was required of him by the law, I will stand firm in my conviction that he is being lynched unjustly by an unruly mob of people acting with their hearts not their heads.
All this shows is that you believe that meeting the minimum legal requirement is morally justified. You're looking at the case from a purely legalistic standpoint. Paterno built his career upon doing more than the legal minimum. He always preached about doing the right thing and going above and beyond. He failed to do so himself so he was fired.
Paterno will likely not be charged with a crime. He did the absolute legal minimum required then buried his head in the sand. Continued employment by the university shouldn't be based upon doing the absolute legal minimum to not get charged. Unless you don't know the concept of at-will employment.
You keep saying this but I've been an at-will employee before. Are you sure he was an at-will employee? I'm not. I'm pretty sure he was under contract as more than an at-will employee, but maybe I am wrong.
Regardless, what did you want Paterno to do? Tell me what you would have done in his shoes. Stop just quoting old posts and disregarding everything else that has been said.
Taken away Sandusky's office, his keys to the program, barred him from entering the facility and follow up with police. This is in 2002 (or 1998.)
Battleaxe, he IS a school official. He has more connections and more power than the AD and most of the administrators. If he wanted to make it an issue, he could've.
Joe Paterno does not have that authority. Paterno was almost forced to resign back then, so his power might not be as great as you assume. Also yesterday shows quite clearly how little power he has since he was just fired.
Lol? Paterno wasn't forced to resign because he didn't want to. The drama 5 years ago between him and the Board is an example of how powerful the man is. They wanted him gone, and he told them he wouldn't leave.
Once again, the Board's decision can't be so cut and clean as they wanted him gone and he said no. The Board's job is to take the University's best interests into account. Paterno's presence at the University was a massive recruiting bonus and has helped bring in countless students and massive amounts of money over Paterno's career at Penn State.
While some member's of the Board probably wanted Paterno gone for their own reasons, the cost of losing him obviously outweighed the benefits of having him gone. It's no so simple as they said, "We want you gone," and he said "Nope."
This is where any and all arguement on the subject breaks down. We do not know exactly the words that were used in these scenarios. If JoePa comes out and says "yeah he used the word rape." I agree JoePa should fuckin burn. But if it comes down to "Well I remember him saying...." or "He definitely did not use those words...."
Making a clear cut judgement on the morality is unreasonable; as Risen pointed out before we just don't know enough. And, as such we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused. (Joe)
On November 11 2011 05:09 tronix wrote: This is where any and all arguement on the subject breaks down. We do not know exactly the words that were used in these scenarios. If JoePa comes out and says "yeah he used the word rape." I agree JoePa should fuckin burn. But if it comes down to "Well I remember him saying...." or "He definitely did not use those words...."
Making a clear cut judgement on the morality is unreasonable; as Risen pointed out before we just don't know enough. And, as such we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused. (Joe)
What words describing a situation between a 60 year old man and 10 year old boy naked in a shower would exempt Paterno from " fuckin burn"ing as you say?
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.
On November 11 2011 05:09 tronix wrote: This is where any and all arguement on the subject breaks down. We do not know exactly the words that were used in these scenarios. If JoePa comes out and says "yeah he used the word rape." I agree JoePa should fuckin burn. But if it comes down to "Well I remember him saying...." or "He definitely did not use those words...."
Making a clear cut judgement on the morality is unreasonable; as Risen pointed out before we just don't know enough. And, as such we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused. (Joe)
Whoa dude. You have to remember the guy who witnessed the "Rape" turned his back on it and went to go call his dad, Then told JoePa the next day. The guy who witnessed the rape should be fired. Not JoePa... You have to remember JoePa thought it was "Fondling/Touching/Horsing around" so Joe told the director of activities and that was that... There is no reason to hate Joe Paterno for what he did... Yes he should have done more but he didn't know it was an actual "rape"
On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote: Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus.
What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing.
JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching.
I'm gonna go with the dude that testified before a jury under the threat of prejury over JoePa saying nuhuh on that one
You act as if no one has committed perjury before. Remember this same guy who is now saying he did tell Paterno in explicit language is also the same man who didn't go to the police when he witnessed the act, and also the same man who still has his job where Paterno does not. I find it pretty reasonable he was asked to use more explicit terms in his testimony because let's face it, it was years ago, and Paterno is quite old. It'll be quite easy to use his age as a way to falsify his recollection of the conversation.
Also, when describing the incident, was McQueary asked what he saw or what he told to Paterno? These are two completely different things
On November 11 2011 04:59 Risen wrote: Broke what? That a man had been accused by a graduate assistant of sexual harassment? He did break it, to the proper authorities. You want someone to go to the press every time they hear about sexual harassment consequences be damned? I think that's bogus.
What?! Sexual harassment and sexual assault involving anal intercourse are not the same thing.
JoePa wasn't told about a sexual assault involving anal intercourse. He was told about horsing around and touching.
I'm gonna go with the dude that testified before a jury under the threat of prejury over JoePa saying nuhuh on that one
I'm going to go with the three people who testified before a jury under threat of perjury over Mike McQueary who had a lot to gain with the loss of the head coach. Who's the interim head coach at the moment?
OH HEY LOOK! We can BOTH make useless speculations!
I figured it out. This has all been a giant plot by Mike McQueary to remove Paterno as head coach. He laid the seeds in 2002 after learning about Sandusky's 1998 firing. He then hired a wrestling coach, a janitor, a mom, and various children to lie about being abused. Sounds legit to me, and everything fits SO WELL!
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.
Are you aware that it would be perfectly reasonable for JoePa to not be informed, and never be told?
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.
..... He built the football program himself. Do you REALLY think that he (i) did not know why his own DC was let go, and if he didn't know, (ii) he didn't care to ask?
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.
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 have no fucking clue how football programs work.
EDIT: rephrased to be harsher, because this roundabout is stupid. Sandusky was JoePa's #2. JoePa was his boss. The school forces him to resign, and JoePa never gets word of why that happens? He just passively sits in his office until the AD hires a new defensive coordinator for him? Are you out of your mind? At no point in his career has JoePa acted like a passive, detached old man yet whenever something bad happens, whether it's him being a shitty football coach or his #2 being a child rapist, his supporters are ready to attach that description to his name in order to save him.
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.
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.
In all honesty, Paterno has been nothing more than a figurehead in the Penn State Football Organization for a number of years now. Hell, almost all of the games he's not even on the field anymore. The only reason that Penn State has even kept him around this long is his legacy and the amount of money and students he brings in to the school, as well as football recruits. It's full feasible that he wasn't told about this. I'm not sure why you think the football program would operate so vastly different than any other University organization.
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.
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.
Sandusky was the defensive coordinator, his superior is Paterno, and his superior is the AD, whose superior is the President of the University, whose superiors are the board of trustees. If anyone above Paterno made the decision to release Sandusky, its entirely plausible Paterno would be denied the reasoning for that.
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.
Only you aren't a hyper critical piece of your boss' job. As a defensive coordinator you have an enormous role on a football team. The Head coach along with this offensive and defensive coordinators make up the trinity of the top. You think that somehow the man chosen by JoePa to run his defense would be let go and no one would care to tell him why? That JoePa wouldn't wonder at all? That somehow the man who built the program would be completely fine with allowing arbitrary firings of his people? (Arbitrary assuming he was never given a reason why). No he wouldn't. He would be in the know about everything that goes on within his football organization, that's why hes the head coach. And yet JoePa let this man use his connection to the university to continue to pursue children. How fucked is that.
On November 11 2011 05:24 tronix wrote: While Jibba makes sense. The justice system doesn't act around "nuh uh he is lying!" Nor should it.
Thank you tronix. Until I see actual evidence I'm going to assume Paterno is innocent of any moral wrongdoing. All anyone, Jibba included, can be bothered to do is wave their arms around and go uhhhh hurrrrr durrr, he knew.
An e-mail sent to Penn State students by Interim President Rodney Erickson:
A message from Rodney Erickson
This is one of the saddest weeks in the history of Penn State. It has been difficult to comprehend the horrific nature of the allegations that were revealed in the Attorney General's presentment last week. As a member of the Penn State community for 34 years, as a parent, and as a grandfather, I find the charges as they have been described to be devastating, and my heart goes out to those who have been victimized and their families. This is a terrible tragedy for everyone involved, and it will take some time to bring a measure of understanding and resolution to the community.
In addition to the legal process under way, Penn State's Board of Trustees has authorized a full investigation "...to determine what failures occurred, who is responsible, and what measures are necessary to insure that this never happens at our University again and that those responsible are held fully accountable." As those involved pursue their cases, I also urge you, as Penn Staters, to be patient, to avoid speculation, and to refrain from passing judgment until the facts are known.
As you are now aware, the Board of Trustees has asked me to serve as the interim president of Penn State effective immediately. I undertake these duties with a firm sense of resolve, and I ask for your support as we move forward. And move forward, we must and we will.
Penn State has a long and storied tradition that has endured for more than 150 years. Our roots are deep, our constitution is resilient, and the importance of our work is as vital today as it was last week - perhaps even more so in the face of such adversity. We are 96,000 students, 46,000 employees, and more than a half a million alumni. We are 24 campuses across the Commonwealth and a World Campus. We are a university that is committed to its core values of honesty, integrity, and community. We are a university that will rebuild the trust and confidence that so many people have had in us for so many years.
Through your conduct every day, you can play a role in restoring the integrity, honor, and pride that have always characterized Penn State. I share your anger and sadness in this time, but always remember that your actions reflect on the entire Penn State community. Please set an example that will make us all proud. Moving forward is the only responsible course to take in the coming months. I ask for the full support of our faculty, students, staff, and alumni, and in return I will do my best to lead this institution through the challenges ahead.
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.
man your attitude has really deteriorated over the course of the day.
You are right there are not FACTS at this time Joe knew about a cover up. But based on what Joe saw (McQuerey Promoted and Sandusky losing his keys) the most likely conclusion one can draw is that a full investigation did not occur. With this information, it is my opinion, that Joe failed his moral obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves, by not pursuing the issue any further. For the record, McQuerey, the Administrators, and all others who saw something and remained silent as equally guilty of failing their moral duty.
But, as of now, I believe you can argue that Joe had a moral failing in his handling of the situation. And given his brief statement (about spending the rest of his life trying to make this right) it seems he feels similarly.
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.
Remember the Dave Chapelle skit where he wants proof that R. Kelly, Michael Jackson and OJ did it? That's you, right now.
Paterno may have fulfilled a legal responsibility to report suspected abuse by ex-defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, "but somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child," state police Commissioner Frank Noonan told reporters Monday.
Lastly I'll just say that I believe the appropriate way to approach this information is at face value. Making assumptions, although seemingly reasonable are still assumptions.
In reality I'd love for it to be a huge scandal with JoePa knowing about it and even taking part. Always gotta love a good drama fest; gives me more avenues for procrastination.
On November 11 2011 05:24 tronix wrote: While Jibba makes sense. The justice system doesn't act around "nuh uh he is lying!" Nor should it.
Thank you tronix. Until I see actual evidence I'm going to assume Paterno is innocent of any moral wrongdoing. All anyone, Jibba included, can be bothered to do is wave their arms around and go uhhhh hurrrrr durrr, he knew.
No, Jibba and others are saying "In the organization that Sandusky and JoePa were in, it is basically impossible for JoePa to claim he had absolutely no knowledge of what was going on."
And you guys are saying "Its totally plausible!"
Fundamentally none of us work in college sports so we can't bring any more expertise to the conversation.
I apologize for the deterioration Stokes. I've been beating a drum all day and people like Jibba disgrace the mod team with their rampant speculation.
It hurts me that there is such ignorance amongst people. I like to think that TL has people who avoid speculation, who reserve judgement for when all the facts are out. Then someone like Jibba comes along and shatters that.
All I have asked is for people to come forward with facts and truths. I have found none. You do not believe he held up his moral end of the argument, fine. But be honest with yourself and with others on this forum and say, I'm basing this off a gut feeling and I think Joe didn't do all he should have. Don't sit there and act patronizing as Jibba and others have and pretend your speculation is fact. It's bullshit, and I hope Jibba feels ashamed.
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.
Remember the Dave Chapelle skit where he wants proof that R. Kelly, Michael Jackson and OJ did it? That's you, right now.
Paterno may have fulfilled a legal responsibility to report suspected abuse by ex-defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, "but somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child," state police Commissioner Frank Noonan told reporters Monday.
That's really all it needs to be left at.
Rofl, that's what I been saying all day.
I'm not speculating. Joe knew:Sadnusky- 10 year old boy- naked- shower. That's all he needed to know to be morally responsible in the matter. So Unless McQuerey lied on the stand, Joe knew these things, and failed his moral obligation to pursue it.
In a statement, Paterno said he was "informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report."
"Regardless," Paterno's statement continued," it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators."
After that incident in 2002, Sandusky STILL had access to the program. They took away his keys but people at the program said he would come (no pun intended) and go as he pleased, and him and The Second Mile was still closely tied with the program. Which is exactly why this kept happening, several more times until 2009 IN THE PSU FACILITIES.
If I'm in his position, I say the exact same thing and try to quell some up the uprising against, I think "I should have done more" was a damage control statement, not an admission to anything. Everyone involved is trying to the stop the bleeding, Paterno included.
In regard to Paterno's moral failing, I'll wait to see what comes out. If he was told why Sandusky was barred and failed to follow up, I can agree he is certainly at fault. Certainly wouldn't be the first time a high profile figure has been used a scapegoat to cover up something much larger.
On November 11 2011 05:24 tronix wrote: While Jibba makes sense. The justice system doesn't act around "nuh uh he is lying!" Nor should it.
Thank you tronix. Until I see actual evidence I'm going to assume Paterno is innocent of any moral wrongdoing. All anyone, Jibba included, can be bothered to do is wave their arms around and go uhhhh hurrrrr durrr, he knew.
No, Jibba and others are saying "In the organization that Sandusky and JoePa were in, it is basically impossible for JoePa to claim he had absolutely no knowledge of what was going on."
And you guys are saying "Its totally plausible!"
Fundamentally none of us work in college sports so we can't bring any more expertise to the conversation.
You're supporting my point. I don't know how college football works, Jibba doesn't know how college football works. Until such a time that all the facts are revealed Jibba should shut his mouth unless he declares that it is his gut opinion based upon assumptions and speculation that JoePa didn't live up to his moral obligations.
If that's your gut opinion JoePa, ok. I have a feeling that when the dust settles you will be right, it will come to light that JoePa didn't do all that could be expected of him. For now, I will reserve judgement.
Edit: Wowza I'm glad Jibba isn't a judge. Were you on the jury for those trials? I don't think you were. You don't know all the facts of the case, you know what the media told you. Disgusting.
Double Edit: I'm glad I live in a society where "know it" isn't accepted.
As a person somewhat neutral on this (anyone claiming complete neutrality is probably ready to do battle) and completely new on this, I will say this. Campus police claim to be real police, but I have yet to see them heft their real weight, seeing as I am resided in Baltimore. My campus police is definitely nowhere near Baltimore police, who shoot first and ask later. Joe most likely knew about the molestations and tried to cover it up. Campus police are bound to protect the school's reputation more then actually report a real crime.
Unless you are telling me Joe had his head stuck in the dirt that much, NOBODY is willfully that stupid. Please don't blame it on being senile either. One thing I absolutely hate about American society is we are very good at playing dumb, and lying. The American people are not that stupid, yet we insist on "saving face" and pretending that shit isn't going down, and its ticking me off, from every aspect of our culture, to morality and jobs.
On November 11 2011 05:32 Risen wrote: I apologize for the deterioration Stokes. I've been beating a drum all day and people like Jibba disgrace the mod team with their rampant speculation.
It hurts me that there is such ignorance amongst people. I like to think that TL has people who avoid speculation, who reserve judgement for when all the facts are out. Then someone like Jibba comes along and shatters that.
All I have asked is for people to come forward with facts and truths. I have found none. You do not believe he held up his moral end of the argument, fine. But be honest with yourself and with others on this forum and say, I'm basing this off a gut feeling and I think Joe didn't do all he should have. Don't sit there and act patronizing as Jibba and others have and pretend your speculation is fact. It's bullshit, and I hope Jibba feels ashamed.
I fail to see how expressing an opinion, especially a majority opinion, would be disgracing the mod team. Its not he banned you disagreeing w/ him.... maybe be a little more respectful to the Mods who put untold volunteer hours so that we have the beautiful forum on which to discuss issues?
On November 11 2011 05:38 Jibba wrote: Hey guys, OJ WAS NEVER CONVICTED. Who wants to have a sleepover at his house? It's cold outside, so make sure to bring your own gloves. - Risen
This thread is going down hill really fast. I think I'm gonna leave for a while. I'll check back tonight.
Hopefully these pimping rumors by second Mile and Sandusky turn out to be just rumors.
In a statement, Paterno said he was "informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report."
"Regardless," Paterno's statement continued," it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators."
After that incident in 2002, Sandusky STILL had access to the program. They took away his keys but people at the program said he would come (no pun intended) and go as he pleased, and him and The Second Mile was still closely tied with the program. Which is exactly why this kept happening, several more times until 2009 IN THE PSU FACILITIES.
I'm confused. Paterno's statement there supports my argument. Sandusky had his keys taken away, what more do you want Paterno to do? Ban him from Penn State? Something he has no authority over? Again, as far as Paterno knows (or has been revealed at this point) is that Sandusky has had his keys taken away. He doesn't know if the allegations are true or not. He might assume the keys being taken away is just to cover the bases for Penn State's security.
On November 11 2011 05:32 Risen wrote: I apologize for the deterioration Stokes. I've been beating a drum all day and people like Jibba disgrace the mod team with their rampant speculation.
It hurts me that there is such ignorance amongst people. I like to think that TL has people who avoid speculation, who reserve judgement for when all the facts are out. Then someone like Jibba comes along and shatters that.
All I have asked is for people to come forward with facts and truths. I have found none. You do not believe he held up his moral end of the argument, fine. But be honest with yourself and with others on this forum and say, I'm basing this off a gut feeling and I think Joe didn't do all he should have. Don't sit there and act patronizing as Jibba and others have and pretend your speculation is fact. It's bullshit, and I hope Jibba feels ashamed.
I fail to see how expressing an opinion, especially a majority opinion, would be disgracing the mod team. Its not he banned you disagreeing w/ him.... maybe be a little more respectful to the Mods who put untold volunteer hours so that we have the beautiful forum on which to discuss issues?
I guess I just hold the mods to a higher standard. Cool, he has an opinion shared by the majority. Does that mean it's right for him to come in and comment on the matter wielding pure speculation as his weapon? I don't believe so.
On November 11 2011 05:38 Jibba wrote: Hey guys, OJ WAS NEVER CONVICTED. Who wants to have a sleepover at his house? It's cold outside, so make sure to bring your own gloves. - Risen
It's a shame that people like you exist. I want to live in a world where innocent is in fact innocent. Instead I have to share it with people like you who are willing to judge a man based on hearsay.
Edit: When I say innocent is in fact innocent, I mean that he was innocent in a court of law. He should be treated as such by members of the community. Is he? No, but that is a failing of ours, not his.
How can you fire Joe Paterno and not fire McQueary. Thats ridiculous. He was a 28 year old man who witnessed the assault, did nothing to stop it, did not go to the police. He was equally if not more morally responsible to report the crime than Joe. That is just outrageous.
I read the grand jury recount last night. Holy jeez is Sandusky one mentally ill person. He basically had his own pedo farm. In no way do I doubt that there are numerous other victims that have yet to come out and say anything.
Ok, so you're saying OJ is clean. How about Nixon? Can we all agree that since he was never prosecuted or impeached, he seemed like a pretty nice guy? How could the President know people were covering things up underneath him, if no one told him?
On November 11 2011 05:45 Jibba wrote: Ok, so you're saying OJ is clean. How about Nixon? Can we all agree that since he was never prosecuted or impeached, he seemed like a pretty nice guy?
Nixon was never tried, and it is my opinion that OJ was guilty. Does this change anything?
I'm not arguing that Paterno is innocent here. I am stating that as it stands now, it is wrong for you to judge him based off speculation. That's what I've been trying to hammer this entire time.
It is a failing of me and members of the community that we hold a grudge against OJ after he has been declared innocent by people who were actually in the courtroom.
As for Nixon, it is a failing of our political system that he was not tried. Were he tried and found innocent I would expect him to be treated as such. I think it's clear that were he tried he would not have been, so instead we must use our judgement based upon what we know as fact. Now that all the facts are out, I would not trust Nixon.
All I'm asking is that you and others hold judgement until all the facts are out. They are not as of yet. As I said earlier, you have a gut feeling that I share. It is probable that JoePa will have some role to play in this that we do not know about yet. Until such a time, though, I will not condemn him based upon speculation or what I "know".
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
To those people saying that the student body at Penn State University are rioting purely because of football are flat wrong. Joe Vincent Paterno has done more for this school than anyone in the history of Penn State. He donated the money that built the 10 Million dollar Library which is named after him.
While I agree the rioting and destruction of campus infrastructure is wrong, there is more to this riot than the blind allegiance of a school to its head coach of football for over 40 years. When someone has worked for a school that long and has given so much back to the school, the abrupt immediate firing over speculation is plain wrong. Paterno deserves more than this
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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?
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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?
Feel for the young boys whom he molested. Sad story, and per usual the media is directed away from the tragedy and into something as petty as the coach being fired for not taking the right course of action to help these boys and put Sandusky to immediate justice.
Had he been convicted in 1998 that would have spared 6 kids from his actions.
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
You are either trolling us all or the most naive man in the world.
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?
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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.
Outside of the military... I can think of no other profession where men work together longer and more closely than a coaching staff in college football.
The hours they work are insane. Medical school intern insane.
I would absolutely guarantee you that JoePa has spent more waking hours with Jerry Sandusky than his wife or any of his children.
If there is one person on Earth that JoePa could say he "knew" it would be Jerry Sandusky. They were working 12 to 16 hour days together, every day, for 30 years.
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?
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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?
JoePa's statements indicate that he believed McQueary. So if that's true, again, JoePa believed Sandusky was molesting a boy in the shower room in 2002.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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?
JoePa's statements indicate that he believed McQueary. So if that's true, again, JoePa believed Sandusky was molesting a boy in the shower room in 2002.
Ok seriously, you guys are all debating circumstantial evidence that can't be used to prove or disprove anything. Someone obviously dropped the ball on this issue. I'm pretty sure no sane person with a good conscience can hear the words "10 year old boy + sex" without some sort of strong response. The guilty parties are the ones who heard this and made the worst kind of judgement call which is to avoid scandal and bury this issue. Paterno definitely could have done a lot more, but don't crucify the guy for trusting the system.
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?
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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
On November 11 2011 05:55 Slurpy wrote: To those people saying that the student body at Penn State University are rioting purely because of football are flat wrong. Joe Vincent Paterno has done more for this school than anyone in the history of Penn State. He donated the money that built the 10 Million dollar Library which is named after him.
While I agree the rioting and destruction of campus infrastructure is wrong, there is more to this riot than the blind allegiance of a school to its head coach of football for over 40 years. When someone has worked for a school that long and has given so much back to the school, the abrupt immediate firing over speculation is plain wrong. Paterno deserves more than this
Not really. Child molestation is horrible, and Joe Paterno, though a lovable member of the community for many years, chose to ignore what was going on, even following an eyewitness report from a member of his own staff.
To say it is speculation is absurd. Paterno admits that he knew what was happening (though not the particulars), and did not call the police. He admitted this in court testimony. The witness testified that he told Paterno what he had seen. This is not speculation, this is reality.
The students of Penn State are way in the wrong. It is embarrassing.
On November 11 2011 05:55 Slurpy wrote: To those people saying that the student body at Penn State University are rioting purely because of football are flat wrong. Joe Vincent Paterno has done more for this school than anyone in the history of Penn State. He donated the money that built the 10 Million dollar Library which is named after him.
While I agree the rioting and destruction of campus infrastructure is wrong, there is more to this riot than the blind allegiance of a school to its head coach of football for over 40 years. When someone has worked for a school that long and has given so much back to the school, the abrupt immediate firing over speculation is plain wrong. Paterno deserves more than this
wtf I don't care if Joepa was a saint for 40 years until this. There some things that are in inexcusable. Turning a blind eye towards a child molester is one of them. There no coming back from that. 40 years of collateral and good will does not even begin to cover the bill for this one.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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?
JoePa's statements indicate that he believed McQueary. So if that's true, again, JoePa believed Sandusky was molesting a boy in the shower room in 2002.
Ok seriously, you guys are all debating circumstantial evidence that can't be used to prove or disprove anything. Someone obviously dropped the ball on this issue. I'm pretty sure no sane person with a good conscience can hear the words "10 year old boy + sex" without some sort of strong response. The guilty parties are the ones who heard this and made the worst kind of judgement call which is to avoid scandal and bury this issue. Paterno definitely could have done a lot more, but don't crucify the guy for trusting the system.
I'm not crucifying him, I'm holding him morally responsible
On November 11 2011 05:55 Slurpy wrote: To those people saying that the student body at Penn State University are rioting purely because of football are flat wrong. Joe Vincent Paterno has done more for this school than anyone in the history of Penn State. He donated the money that built the 10 Million dollar Library which is named after him.
While I agree the rioting and destruction of campus infrastructure is wrong, there is more to this riot than the blind allegiance of a school to its head coach of football for over 40 years. When someone has worked for a school that long and has given so much back to the school, the abrupt immediate firing over speculation is plain wrong. Paterno deserves more than this
Reading the articles about Paterno, all of them talk about how big of an influence he has been for the people he coached. And even last night when he received the news, the told the kids on his lawn to go home, sleep and study. He's not just a legend in the college football sense, he's a mentor and a father figure to many people.
On November 11 2011 06:03 RCMDVA wrote: Outside of the military... I can think of no other profession where men work together longer and more closely than a coaching staff in college football.
The hours they work are insane. Medical school intern insane.
I would absolutely guarantee you that JoePa has spent more waking hours with Jerry Sandusky than his wife or any of his children.
If there is one person on Earth that JoePa could say he "knew" it would be Jerry Sandusky. They were working 12 to 16 hour days together, every day, for 30 years.
Can we stop with speculation (not that I don't trust you, but your guarantee as an outsider holds little weight)? There are many things we think about the situation, but adding speculation doesn't help the discussion.
On November 11 2011 05:55 Slurpy wrote: To those people saying that the student body at Penn State University are rioting purely because of football are flat wrong. Joe Vincent Paterno has done more for this school than anyone in the history of Penn State. He donated the money that built the 10 Million dollar Library which is named after him.
While I agree the rioting and destruction of campus infrastructure is wrong, there is more to this riot than the blind allegiance of a school to its head coach of football for over 40 years. When someone has worked for a school that long and has given so much back to the school, the abrupt immediate firing over speculation is plain wrong. Paterno deserves more than this
wtf I don't care if Joepa was a saint for 40 years until this. There some things that are in inexcusable. Turning a blind eye towards a child molesters is one of them. There no coming back from that. 40 years of collateral and good will does not even begin to cover the bill for this one.
Not sure what kind of blind people you've met before, but Paterno didn't "turn a blind eye." He reported this to his superiors and placed his trust in a system that we all know is flawed, greedy, and corrupt. I agree he could've done A LOOOOOTTTTTTT more, but don't disregard his whole life of service.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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
On November 11 2011 05:55 Slurpy wrote: To those people saying that the student body at Penn State University are rioting purely because of football are flat wrong. Joe Vincent Paterno has done more for this school than anyone in the history of Penn State. He donated the money that built the 10 Million dollar Library which is named after him.
While I agree the rioting and destruction of campus infrastructure is wrong, there is more to this riot than the blind allegiance of a school to its head coach of football for over 40 years. When someone has worked for a school that long and has given so much back to the school, the abrupt immediate firing over speculation is plain wrong. Paterno deserves more than this
wtf I don't care if Joepa was a saint for 40 years until this. There some things that are in inexcusable. Turning a blind eye towards a child molesters is one of them. There no coming back from that. 40 years of collateral and good will does not even begin to cover the bill for this one.
Not sure what kind of blind people you've met before, but Paterno didn't "turn a blind eye." He reported this to his superiors and placed his trust in a system that we all know is flawed, greedy, and corrupt. I agree he could've done A LOOOOOTTTTTTT more, but don't disregard his whole life of service.
He knew in 98, any doubt left was gone in 2002. He did the bare minimum, and then never gave it a second thought. He never gave it a second thought as this monster walked around Joepa football field with children in his company. If thats not turning a blind eye I don't know what is.
On November 11 2011 06:05 JinNJuice wrote: Ok seriously, you guys are all debating circumstantial evidence that can't be used to prove or disprove anything. Someone obviously dropped the ball on this issue. [b] I'm pretty sure no sane person with a good conscience can hear the words "10 year old boy + sex" without some sort of strong response.[b] The guilty parties are the ones who heard this and made the worst kind of judgement call which is to avoid scandal and bury this issue. Paterno definitely could have done a lot more, but don't crucify the guy for trusting the system.
Just like Bernard Law, right?
This is incredibly similar Geoghan's role in the Boston Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and it will come to a comparable conclusion. The higher ups were aware of Sandusky's abuse and did nothing to report it to the proper authorities. Rather, they tried to hide it and the men involved in these decisions need to be held accountable.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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"
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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
On break so I'll come back for this one. Would be ok saying the reason you feel Paterno was fired was because he didn't "do enough" and is therefore morally responsible? If so, I think you should also be calling for the same justice for McQueary, as he actually witnessed the act in person, went to his superior the same as Joe Pa did, did not follow up with the police like Joe Pa did, yet still remains with a job. If you think Paterno was fired for a larger reason then that, fine. But if not you should be willing to concede this point
On November 11 2011 06:05 JinNJuice wrote: Ok seriously, you guys are all debating circumstantial evidence that can't be used to prove or disprove anything. Someone obviously dropped the ball on this issue. [b] I'm pretty sure no sane person with a good conscience can hear the words "10 year old boy + sex" without some sort of strong response.[b] The guilty parties are the ones who heard this and made the worst kind of judgement call which is to avoid scandal and bury this issue. Paterno definitely could have done a lot more, but don't crucify the guy for trusting the system.
Just like Bernard Law, right?
This is incredibly similar Geoghan's role in the Boston Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and it will come to a comparable conclusion. The higher ups were aware of Sandusky's abuse and did nothing to report it to the proper authorities. Rather, they tried to hide it and the men involved in these decisions need to be held accountable.
Know whats different about those two situations? It came out later that higher ups knew about it and did nothing. That isn't the case here, we do not KNOW JoePa's role in this yet. All we have is speculation. We don't have speculation about the Church scandal, we know what happened there because we have access to all the information.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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.
This is the moral failing.
He reported it to the AD a day later, and then a day later the AD called a meeting between JoePa and Schultz. In most states, JoePa's and McQueary's failing to call police or child protective services would've already been a crime. Pennsylvania happens to have one of the most lenient laws for it, and it's about to change after this.
Like everyone has said again and again, Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation but not a moral one. You keep saying it wasn't a moral obligation, but it's not only a moral obligation, it would be a legal obligation in the vast majority of states.
Risen, fwiw the grand jury classified McQueary's report as highly credible.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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
On break so I'll come back for this one. Would be ok saying the reason you feel Paterno was fired was because he didn't "do enough" and is therefore morally responsible? If so, I think you should also be calling for the same justice for McQueary, as he actually witnessed the act in person, went to his superior the same as Joe Pa did, did not follow up with the police like Joe Pa did, yet still remains with a job. If you think Paterno was fired for a larger reason then that, fine. But if not you should be willing to concede this point
I see Joe's firing as separate from any discussion of his moral accountability. Most likely they are just focusing on the business side, and firing him was the correct business move. But on the note of jobs, IMHO the whole staff and administration needs to go. This is easily the worst scandal to ever taint a university, athletics or otherwise. If the rumors are true the worst is yet to have even been revealed.
Everyone who remained silent, from the janitor, to the president should be fucking ashamed of the lives that were put at risk and ruined by their silence.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote:
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999, he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu e-mail account.
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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
On break so I'll come back for this one. Would be ok saying the reason you feel Paterno was fired was because he didn't "do enough" and is therefore morally responsible? If so, I think you should also be calling for the same justice for McQueary, as he actually witnessed the act in person, went to his superior the same as Joe Pa did, did not follow up with the police like Joe Pa did, yet still remains with a job. If you think Paterno was fired for a larger reason then that, fine. But if not you should be willing to concede this point
I see Joe's firing as separate from any discussion of his moral accountability. Most likely they are just focusing on the business side, and firing him was the correct business move. But on the note of jobs, IMHO the whole staff and administration needs to go. This is easily the worst scandal to ever taint a university, athletics or otherwise. If the rumors are true the worst is yet to have even been revealed.
Everyone who remained silent, from the janitor, to the president should be fucking ashamed of the lives that were put at risk and ruined by their silence.
Actually the best part is that if this wasn't an athletic program affected by it, there wouldn't even have been a coverup. Anyone even remotely possible of being guilty of sexual assault would've been investigated/fired. But there's too much money in football for that to happen.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote: [quote]
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote:
On November 11 2011 05:54 Jibba wrote: [quote]
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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
On break so I'll come back for this one. Would be ok saying the reason you feel Paterno was fired was because he didn't "do enough" and is therefore morally responsible? If so, I think you should also be calling for the same justice for McQueary, as he actually witnessed the act in person, went to his superior the same as Joe Pa did, did not follow up with the police like Joe Pa did, yet still remains with a job. If you think Paterno was fired for a larger reason then that, fine. But if not you should be willing to concede this point
I see Joe's firing as separate from any discussion of his moral accountability. Most likely they are just focusing on the business side, and firing him was the correct business move. But on the note of jobs, IMHO the whole staff and administration needs to go. This is easily the worst scandal to ever taint a university, athletics or otherwise. If the rumors are true the worst is yet to have even been revealed.
Everyone who remained silent, from the janitor, to the president should be fucking ashamed of the lives that were put at risk and ruined by their silence.
Actually the best part is that if this wasn't an athletic program affected by it, there wouldn't even have been a coverup. Anyone even remotely possible of being guilty of sexual assault would've been investigated/fired. But there's too much money in football for that to happen.
PSU football program, one of the most profitable in the country, accounts for not even 2% of the PSU endowment. It wasn't about money. It was about reputation..
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote: [quote]
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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?
Paterno 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.
Paterno 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.
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:
On November 11 2011 05:55 Risen wrote: [quote]
What does this have to do with anything? It supports the fact that maybe JoePa was under the assumption that the issue had been investigated and nothing had been found.
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.
Please read the article. To take a quote out of it.
"After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."
Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation."
What MORE should he have done? He sees an investigation, he has informed an effective police chief. What MORE can he do? You're right, he can anonymously inform child protective sources, and he didn't. This is a mistake, but it isn't a morally damaging one.
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?
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.
On November 11 2011 05:58 Jibba wrote: Nothing had been found, but the disturbed GA who saw the rape occur was soon promoted and it was left at that.
At what point, in your opinion, does it become JoePa's moral responsibility to find out what's happening? Is the GA lying? Or is it ok for Sandusky, as long as he's only a molester and not a rapist (which fits with JoePa's statement) to hang around the program?
If McQueary lightened what he saw for JoePa, but JoePa still believes what he was told and passes it on, then JoePa would still believe that Sandusky was molesting a boy in the shower room. So we're at the point where JoePa believes Sandusky was molesting (not raping) a boy in the shower room. Nothing comes of it from the AD, so JoePa drops it? And still allows him access to his buildings?
On November 11 2011 05:59 stokes17 wrote: [quote] I can't stay away ahh!!
No dood it doesn't show that. If there was an investigation and nothing was found.... why the fuck would you promote McQuerey to head of recruiting after making such a heinous baseless claim?
It shows that McQuerey was really good at recruiting. Why else would McQuerey stay knowing the man he had accused was still around?
Edit: I am not naive, I have stated that I believe in my gut that JoePa knew more or didn't do everything in his power to stop the actions of Sandusky. I am reserving judgement until something confirms my gut feelings, though. Which is what I expect everyone else to do. Some people disagree with this.
Ok so if the accuser and the one being accused both still work at the university. That means the case was not resolved. Because either McQuerey lied, or Snadusky raped a kid. One of those must be true, and failing to determine which is true, by sweeping the whole thing under the rug is a cover up.
Joe saw this going on, and turned a blind eye. Idn how many more times i need to say it
He should have done more
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
No, actually, that's exactly what you do in most states. Upon suspicion, you immediately call the police or child protective services. Slander and defamation had nothing to do with it.
And again, Curly set up the meeting with Schultz and Paterno. Paterno didn't go to the campus police himself. Like I said before, it's legally fine in Pennsylvania but not most places, which is exactly why it's a moral failing.
This belief that Paterno is just a coach is astounding. He let the case rest and still allowed a child molester into his facilities?
On November 11 2011 06:34 kainzero wrote: so if mcquerey never told paterno, would you still fire paterno?
Morally- no if Paterno never knew anything at all he would not be morally responsible. Business- yea you probably still fire him, you need a fresh start, this scandal is baddddddd
On November 11 2011 03:23 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.
It shows that McQuerey was really good at recruiting. Why else would McQuerey stay knowing the man he had accused was still around?
Edit: I am not naive, I have stated that I believe in my gut that JoePa knew more or didn't do everything in his power to stop the actions of Sandusky. I am reserving judgement until something confirms my gut feelings, though. Which is what I expect everyone else to do. Some people disagree with this.
Ok so if the accuser and the one being accused both still work at the university. That means the case was not resolved. Because either McQuerey lied, or Snadusky raped a kid. One of those must be true, and failing to determine which is true, by sweeping the whole thing under the rug is a cover up.
Joe saw this going on, and turned a blind eye. Idn how many more times i need to say it
He should have done more
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean?
Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim.
....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
Paterno 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.
Ok so if the accuser and the one being accused both still work at the university. That means the case was not resolved. Because either McQuerey lied, or Snadusky raped a kid. One of those must be true, and failing to determine which is true, by sweeping the whole thing under the rug is a cover up.
Joe saw this going on, and turned a blind eye. Idn how many more times i need to say it
He should have done more
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean?
Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim.
....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
Good lord. This eclipses every other dumb thing said in this thread.
Reporting someone you suspect to be fucking little kids to child services is not slander or libel. My fucking brain ughhhhhhhhghghghghasdfsa
Ok so if the accuser and the one being accused both still work at the university. That means the case was not resolved. Because either McQuerey lied, or Snadusky raped a kid. One of those must be true, and failing to determine which is true, by sweeping the whole thing under the rug is a cover up.
Joe saw this going on, and turned a blind eye. Idn how many more times i need to say it
He should have done more
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean?
Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim.
....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
No it wouldn't. Spoken word can be published if it becomes public record. If he went on TV and said something that would be publishing spoken word. Political rhetoric at a rally is publishing spoken word.
Calling child services to report possible sexual misconduct between an old man and young boy would never, ever,EVER , be considered publishing a claim. It would be difficult to even say that calling child services to investigate possible sexual misconduct is even making a claim, let alone publishing it.
Even if the call was recorded for internal review, and private record, it would never be considered as publishing a claim
Paterno reported the incident to someone who was essentially (according to state statute that gives campus police the same authority as SC municipal police officers) the commissioner of a several-hundred strong police force; he didn't just "pass off the shit to the AD," he gave it to the highest ranking police officer in the area, who called in the actual witness and spoke to him.
It sucks, hindsight is 20/20, etc, etc, but JoePa is not the monster that the media made him out to be.
OMG thats not even close to being enough. When he sees Sandusky again and again over the next 9 years at PSU with children in his company. He never once asks whats going on? He never looks into it again? He never demands to know if the wheels of justice are turning on this? Worst yet he never looks Sandusky in the face, calls him a sick fuck, and tells him to get the fuck off his football field? No instead he does children's charities events for this guy. Are you fucking kidding me? He lucky he not in jail forget losing his job.
He didn't break the law, there's no reason he should be jail. You seem like you're willing to discuss, stop posting bullshit like this
Paterno 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.
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean?
Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim.
....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
Good lord. This eclipses every other dumb thing said in this thread.
Reporting someone you suspect to be fucking little kids to child services is not slander or libel. My fucking brain ughhhhhhhhghghghghasdfsa
yea pretty much, but maybe he's just misinformed. So I explained it for him.
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean?
Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim.
....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
No it wouldn't. Spoken word can be published if it becomes public record. If he went on TV and said something that would be publishing spoken word. Political rhetoric at a rally is publishing spoken word.
Calling child services to report possible sexual misconduct between an old man and young boy would never, ever,EVER , be considered publishing a claim. It would be difficult to even say that calling child services to investigate possible sexual misconduct is even making a claim, let alone publishing it.
Even if the call was recorded for internal review, and private record, it would never be considered as publishing a claim
You are certainly making a claim if you say that someone is molesting and sodomizing young children based on something someone told you. I'll give you the publishing part though
On November 11 2011 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.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean?
Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim.
....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
No it wouldn't. Spoken word can be published if it becomes public record. If he went on TV and said something that would be publishing spoken word. Political rhetoric at a rally is publishing spoken word.
Calling child services to report possible sexual misconduct between an old man and young boy would never, ever,EVER , be considered publishing a claim. It would be difficult to even say that calling child services to investigate possible sexual misconduct is even making a claim, let alone publishing it.
Even if the call was recorded for internal review, and private record, it would never be considered as publishing a claim
You are certainly making a claim if you say that someone is molesting and sodomizing young children based on something someone told you. I'll give you the publishing part though
Calling child services to investigate a claim made by one of your assistants in no way attaches you to that claim.
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean?
Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim.
....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
Good lord. This eclipses every other dumb thing said in this thread.
Reporting someone you suspect to be fucking little kids to child services is not slander or libel. My fucking brain ughhhhhhhhghghghghasdfsa
So if I called child services and told them that YOU were molesting little kids, those accusations turned out to be false, you lose your job, your reputation, and your life due to this accusation, I'm pretty fucking sure you'd take me to the fucking bank for slander.
How the grand jury can view him as a credible witness when he only informed Paterno 2 days after the fact is beyond me. How they can still view him as credible after he has only benefited from subsequent actions is also beyond me.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean?
Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim.
....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
Good lord. This eclipses every other dumb thing said in this thread.
Reporting someone you suspect to be fucking little kids to child services is not slander or libel. My fucking brain ughhhhhhhhghghghghasdfsa
So if I called child services and told them that YOU were molesting little kids, those accusations turned out to be false, you lose your job, your reputation, and your life due to this accusation, I'm pretty fucking sure you'd take me to the fucking bank for slander.
Pretty sure you would sue the company in that case. Besides, if he has evidence (which they did) its not slander.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
How would calling child services to investigate a claim of inappropriate conduct between a 60YO and a 10YO in a shower make Paterno guilty of defamation or slander? Do you know what those words mean?
Slander-from wikipedia "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[12] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Calling child services would not constitute publishing a claim.
....Did you seriously just copy-paste the definition without even reading it? As the definition states THAT YOU JUST LINKED, slander is something that you SAY about someone, aka calling child services which i'm sure calls are monitored and recorded....
Good lord. This eclipses every other dumb thing said in this thread.
Reporting someone you suspect to be fucking little kids to child services is not slander or libel. My fucking brain ughhhhhhhhghghghghasdfsa
So if I called child services and told them that YOU were molesting little kids, those accusations turned out to be false, you lose your job, your reputation, and your life due to this accusation, I'm pretty fucking sure you'd take me to the fucking bank for slander.
Dood, that's not what would happen. A child service rep would come check me out, see absolutely zero evidence to support your claims. And be pissed off that you wasted his/her time.
Now if you went on the local news and made that same claim, then you would be guilty of slander because i could lose my job and reputation over that.
Do you just not understand how child services is structured? Its not like a giant megaphone. Its a state run program who's purpose is to protect children from various forms of abuse.
Persons required to report include, but are not limited to:
Licensed physicians, osteopaths, medical examiners, coroners, funeral directors, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, podiatrists, interns, nurses, or hospital personnel
Christian Science practitioners or members of the clergy
School administrators, teachers, school nurses, social services workers, daycare center workers, or any other child care or foster care workers
Mental health professionals
Peace officers or law enforcement officials
Standards for Making a Report Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311
A report is required when a person, who in the course of employment, occupation, or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children, has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical, professional, or other training and experience, that a child is a victim of child abuse.
Failure to Report Cons. Stat. Ch. 23, § 6319
A mandatory reporter who willfully fails to report as required commits a misdemeanor of the third degree for the first violation and a misdemeanor of the second degree for a second or subsequent violation.
On November 11 2011 05:58 Jibba wrote: Nothing had been found, but the disturbed GA who saw the rape occur was soon promoted and it was left at that.
At what point, in your opinion, does it become JoePa's moral responsibility to find out what's happening? Is the GA lying? Or is it ok for Sandusky, as long as he's only a molester and not a rapist (which fits with JoePa's statement) to hang around the program?
If McQueary lightened what he saw for JoePa, but JoePa still believes what he was told and passes it on, then JoePa would still believe that Sandusky was molesting a boy in the shower room. So we're at the point where JoePa believes Sandusky was molesting (not raping) a boy in the shower room. Nothing comes of it from the AD, so JoePa drops it? And still allows him access to his buildings?
On November 11 2011 05:59 stokes17 wrote: [quote] I can't stay away ahh!!
No dood it doesn't show that. If there was an investigation and nothing was found.... why the fuck would you promote McQuerey to head of recruiting after making such a heinous baseless claim?
It shows that McQuerey was really good at recruiting. Why else would McQuerey stay knowing the man he had accused was still around?
Edit: I am not naive, I have stated that I believe in my gut that JoePa knew more or didn't do everything in his power to stop the actions of Sandusky. I am reserving judgement until something confirms my gut feelings, though. Which is what I expect everyone else to do. Some people disagree with this.
Ok so if the accuser and the one being accused both still work at the university. That means the case was not resolved. Because either McQuerey lied, or Snadusky raped a kid. One of those must be true, and failing to determine which is true, by sweeping the whole thing under the rug is a cover up.
Joe saw this going on, and turned a blind eye. Idn how many more times i need to say it
He should have done more
You view it as a coverup, I view it as none of Paterno's business. He reported the issue to his boss and the police, the end. If he's a part of the coverup then gut reaction confirmed. If not, I'm glad I reserved judgement.
Should he have quit over the issue? Should he have left the program when neither the GA or Sandunsky was publicly outed?
The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey.
it doesn't matter if he was active in a cover up. A failure to act can be seen as moral failing. I see Paterno's failure to act as a moral failing.
And how the fuck can you say you confirm McQuerey as being in on the cover up when he's the only one still with a job?
the speculation whistle blower..... has fallen to speculation
You are correct. My apologies. I meant to say that if what you say is true "The only people I see confirmed as being a part of the coverup are the athletic director, the head of police, Sandusky, and McQuerey"
And I say confirmed because why hasn't he blown the whistle on Sandusky until the grand jury? Why did he wait so long? This isn't a white knight witness. His credibility is in question because he benefitted from the "coverup"
Yea for sure, McQuerey clearly benefited from keeping his mouth shut. He probably would have lost his job if he talked.
But Joe wouldn't have. He had absolutely NO excuse for remaining silent, which makes it worse. You keep trying to pin me on saying Joe broke the Law. I'm not saying that. I'm saying he failed in his moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
You really are going to tell me Joe did all he could have to protect future children from harm? No he didn't, therefore he failed his moral obligation.
I didn't mean to peg you as saying he failed legally. I apologize for that interpretation.
How do you know Joe wouldn't have lost his job? If McQuerey can lose his job from this so can Paterno. Maybe McQuerey was lying about the whole thing and Paterno goes forward and announces it publicly, he's fucked. He doesn't know whether there's an investigation occuring or not, and he has no right to deny Sandusky anything. He also can't just out of the blue fire McQuerey. He has to sit tight and do nothing, which is exactly what he did.
I am beyond certain that if Paterno called child services to investigate Sandusky he would not have lost his job.
If you are going to tell me Joe "had to sit tight and do nothing" when child's lives were at risk. Then we are done talking I'm afraid.
Not really actually. There's also something called slander and/or defamation, which is a crime as well. You can't just announce to people that someone is a serial child rapist without evidence. What if McQuerey decided to keep quiet after telling Paterno and Paterno announced it?
PA law gives immunity.
Citation: Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Ch. 23, § 6318 (LexisNexis through 7-11-08) Statute: A person, hospital, institution, school, facility, agency or agency employee that participates in good faith in making a report--whether required or not--cooperating with an investigation, testifying in a proceeding arising out of an instance of suspected child abuse, the taking of photographs or the removal or keeping of a child pursuant to § 6315 (relating to taking child into protective custody), and any official or employee of a county agency who refers a report of suspected abuse to law enforcement authorities or provides services under this chapter, shall have immunity from civil and criminal liability that might otherwise result by reason of those actions.
For the purpose of any civil or criminal proceeding, the good faith of a person required to report pursuant to § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse) and of any person required to make a referral to law enforcement officers under this chapter shall be presumed.
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.
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 06:51 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.
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.
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?
Paterno 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 06:51 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 06:20 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
Paterno 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.
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.
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.
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 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 06:51 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 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 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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.....
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
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....
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 seriously
I'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
Paterno 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.
Paterno own statement says he did not do enough. There no need to reserve judgement in this. There is already more then enough facts to condemn joepa as morally bankrupt. If there wasn't, he still be the coach at PSU today. I know that none of that matters to you. You'll simply cry "speculation!" to any facts presented to you, or somehow rationalize Paternos actions away. How much evidence is needed before we can pass judgment on this? Please tell us.
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 seriously
I'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.
yea idn why he said that to me, I am saying nothing of legal obligations, simply that calling CPS in 2002 would have certainly made at least "a lick of difference"
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
Not arguing anything about the slander, just wanted to make sure I was on the same page there.
So I think I'm really going to make my final post in the thread, as I don't have much more to contribute here. My final word is that despite everything, I think it was a poor decision by the board to fire Paterno when they did and how they did. If not letting him finish out the season, at least letting him coach one last game seems like the classy thing to do, but maybe I'm in the minority there too.
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
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....
On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote: [quote] 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
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
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.
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 seriously
I'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.
Also
Standards for Making a Report Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311
A report is required when a person, who in the course of employment, occupation, or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children, has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical, professional, or other training and experience, that a child is a victim of child abuse.
Paterno had none of these, just a secondary account of what happened. By your guys' arguments, McQuerey should be the one charged as well.
Paterno 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.
Paterno own statement says he did not do enough. There no need to reserve judgement in this. There is already more then enough facts to condemn joepa as morally bankrupt. If there wasn't, he still be the coach at PSU today. I know that none of that matters to you. You'll simply cry "speculation!" to any facts presented to you, or somehow rationalize Paternos actions away. How much evidence is needed before we can pass judgment on this? Please tell us.
All we know is that Paterno reported the incident to his superior and made sure the head of the Campus police force not only knew, but was investigating the matter.
The end. That's all we know.
Now you wanna tell me that's enough to call him morally bankrupt? Must be a lot of morally bankrupt people in your life man.
On November 11 2011 06:35 stokes17 wrote: [quote] 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
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.
I'd like to take a moment to state that the only evidence we have that Sandusky raped a child in 2002 is the word of McQueary. Nothing else. No one knows who this child is, no one knows whether it happened or not.
We have one mans word. That's it. Victim 2 is, and likely will forever be, nameless. If someone can find me a source where victim 2 is known that changes quite a bit in relation to McQueary.
AS IT STANDS. We must consider the possibility that McQueary lied then, and is lying now to advance his career.
Kind of sick that all of the focus is on whether or not Paterno has been treated fairly. All of the coverage is on how this hurts his legacy - so fucking what? The board made its decision. The university isn't the victim here. The actual victims of the child abuse are.
Paterno 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.
Paterno own statement says he did not do enough. There no need to reserve judgement in this. There is already more then enough facts to condemn joepa as morally bankrupt. If there wasn't, he still be the coach at PSU today. I know that none of that matters to you. You'll simply cry "speculation!" to any facts presented to you, or somehow rationalize Paternos actions away. How much evidence is needed before we can pass judgment on this? Please tell us.
All we know is that Paterno reported the incident to his superior and made sure the head of the Campus police force not only knew, but was investigating the matter.
The end. That's all we know.
Now you wanna tell me that's enough to call him morally bankrupt? Must be a lot of morally bankrupt people in your life man.
When it is with concerns to possible sexual misconduct between an older man, in power who runs a charity where he deals with young children and is routinely seen hanging out with young boys without the accompaniment of those boys's parents, and a young boy. Yes I think that's enough to hold him morally responsible.
On November 11 2011 06:39 JinNJuice wrote: [quote]
....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
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
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.
The bottom line is if you are a required reporter and you hear of pretty much anything resembling child abuse, you are statutorially obligated to report. Because such a statute could potentially get you into civil suit trouble, it has built in immunity.
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
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
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.
Paterno 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.
Paterno own statement says he did not do enough. There no need to reserve judgement in this. There is already more then enough facts to condemn joepa as morally bankrupt. If there wasn't, he still be the coach at PSU today. I know that none of that matters to you. You'll simply cry "speculation!" to any facts presented to you, or somehow rationalize Paternos actions away. How much evidence is needed before we can pass judgment on this? Please tell us.
All we know is that Paterno reported the incident to his superior and made sure the head of the Campus police force not only knew, but was investigating the matter.
The end. That's all we know.
Now you wanna tell me that's enough to call him morally bankrupt? Must be a lot of morally bankrupt people in your life man.
That's not nearly all we know. We know that after all this Paterno never batted a eye lash as Sandusky a now twice accused pedophile. Walked around his football field with children in his company. He even attended PSU bowl games and had children stay with him in his hotel room. Paterno at the least is guilty of being a extremely naive fool, or at worst a enabler of this.
Paterno 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.
Paterno own statement says he did not do enough. There no need to reserve judgement in this. There is already more then enough facts to condemn joepa as morally bankrupt. If there wasn't, he still be the coach at PSU today. I know that none of that matters to you. You'll simply cry "speculation!" to any facts presented to you, or somehow rationalize Paternos actions away. How much evidence is needed before we can pass judgment on this? Please tell us.
All we know is that Paterno reported the incident to his superior and made sure the head of the Campus police force not only knew, but was investigating the matter.
The end. That's all we know.
Now you wanna tell me that's enough to call him morally bankrupt? Must be a lot of morally bankrupt people in your life man.
That's not nearly all we know. We know that after all this Paterno never batted a eye lash as Sandusky a now twice accused pedophile. Walked around his football field with children in his company. He even attended PSU bowl games and had children stay with him in his hotel room. Paterno at the least guilty of being a extremely naive fool, or at worst a enabler of this.
WE now know he was twice accused, and so does Sandusky, NOW. You do not KNOW that Paterno was aware of the first time Sandusky was accused at the time of the 2002 incident. And did Paterno KNOW about those children staying with Sandusky? He did NOT, and you can not prove to me that he did.
On November 11 2011 06:39 JinNJuice wrote: [quote]
....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
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.
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 seriously
I'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
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 morally 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.
Paterno 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.
Paterno own statement says he did not do enough. There no need to reserve judgement in this. There is already more then enough facts to condemn joepa as morally bankrupt. If there wasn't, he still be the coach at PSU today. I know that none of that matters to you. You'll simply cry "speculation!" to any facts presented to you, or somehow rationalize Paternos actions away. How much evidence is needed before we can pass judgment on this? Please tell us.
All we know is that Paterno reported the incident to his superior and made sure the head of the Campus police force not only knew, but was investigating the matter.
The end. That's all we know.
Now you wanna tell me that's enough to call him morally bankrupt? Must be a lot of morally bankrupt people in your life man.
That's not nearly all we know. We know that after all this Paterno never batted a eye lash as Sandusky a now twice accused pedophile. Walked around his football field with children in his company. He even attended PSU bowl games and had children stay with him in his hotel room. Paterno at the least guilty of being a extremely naive fool, or at worst a enabler of this.
WE now know he was twice accused, and so does Sandusky, NOW. You do not KNOW that Paterno was aware of the first time Sandusky was accused at the time of the 2002 incident. And did Paterno KNOW about those children staying with Sandusky? He did NOT, and you can not prove to me that he did.
If you don't believe that the most powerful man at PSU did not know that campus police were investing Joepa right hand man. Then your very naive and I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
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 seriously
I'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
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.
Paterno 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.
Paterno own statement says he did not do enough. There no need to reserve judgement in this. There is already more then enough facts to condemn joepa as morally bankrupt. If there wasn't, he still be the coach at PSU today. I know that none of that matters to you. You'll simply cry "speculation!" to any facts presented to you, or somehow rationalize Paternos actions away. How much evidence is needed before we can pass judgment on this? Please tell us.
All we know is that Paterno reported the incident to his superior and made sure the head of the Campus police force not only knew, but was investigating the matter.
The end. That's all we know.
Now you wanna tell me that's enough to call him morally bankrupt? Must be a lot of morally bankrupt people in your life man.
That's not nearly all we know. We know that after all this Paterno never batted a eye lash as Sandusky a now twice accused pedophile. Walked around his football field with children in his company. He even attended PSU bowl games and had children stay with him in his hotel room. Paterno at the least guilty of being a extremely naive fool, or at worst a enabler of this.
WE now know he was twice accused, and so does Sandusky, NOW. You do not KNOW that Paterno was aware of the first time Sandusky was accused at the time of the 2002 incident. And did Paterno KNOW about those children staying with Sandusky? He did NOT, and you can not prove to me that he did.
If you don't believe that the most powerful man at PSU did not know that campus police were investing Joepa right hand man. Then your very naive and I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
OH HEY LOOK! Your argument falls apart and you resort to speculation AGAIN. I'm shocked, really, I am.
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.
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
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.
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 seriously
I'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
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 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 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 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 07:41 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.
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 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 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.
Pretty good read, highlights the inconsistency between Paterno and McQuerey's grand jury statements, although I think it may be slightly biased against Paterno. It definitely seems to claim he downplayed the severity of the situation to his boss .
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?
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 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 seriously
I'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
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 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.
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 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 seriously
I'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
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.
PSU students are giving college protestors a bad name :[
I can't believe there are people who think Paterno should keep his job/not be fired when he fucking covered up the rape of 8 kids and protected a child molester for what? almost 10 years? That's fucking ridiculous.
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 seriously
I'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
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.
Once again its you who have reading issues. In your own post, you type and I quote "a victim has never been found'. That implies that no victims have been found.
You're actually so incompetent you don't even know what the fuck you're saying lol.
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
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
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.
Once again its you who have reading issues. In your own post, you type and I quote "a victim has never been found'. That implies that no victims have been found.
You're actually so incompetent you don't even know what the fuck you're saying lol.
He was very clearly referring to the 2002 allegations... Not whether "any victim ever" has been found.
I'm not expressing a view one way or another on this subject because I don't know enough about it, but this thread could certainly use less snarky little comments like yours.
On November 11 2011 09:24 Ryuu314 wrote: I can't believe there are people who think Paterno should keep his job/not be fired when he fucking covered up the rape of 8 kids and protected a child molester for what? almost 10 years? That's fucking ridiculous.
it was only 1 kid (victim #2) and whether or not he covered it up is up for debate.
more or less the entire administration and everyone to who the responsibility was passed to was at fault. sandusky assistant emeritus? get the fuck outta here.
the students probably feel that paterno has done way more good than harm for the community so they have the right to be angry. perhaps even moreso that the mcquerery passed the responsibility to paterno and is now the interim coach. that defies all logic to me.
On November 11 2011 10:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Paterno has hired a criminal defense attorney.
Probably just standard procedure, but an interesting development none the less
A civil litigator would be standard if you're in shit but not criminal. Something must be coming up the pipe
Considering my probably pretty reasonable assumption that this guy is quite well off financially, hiring a defence lawyer when there is so much shit going on around you is a pretty reasonable precaution to take... Even if nothing is coming. As a criminal defence lawyer myself my first impression was that this guy should be lawyering up and shutting up..
On November 11 2011 10:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Paterno has hired a criminal defense attorney.
Probably just standard procedure, but an interesting development none the less
A civil litigator would be standard if you're in shit but not criminal. Something must be coming up the pipe
Considering my probably pretty reasonable assumption that this guy is quite well off financially, hiring a defence lawyer when there is so much shit going on around you is a pretty reasonable precaution to take... Even if nothing is coming. As a criminal defence lawyer myself my first impression was that this guy should be lawyering up and shutting up..
Off topic: Is defenCe an Australian thing? I think it looks better than defense. I might start using it lol
I believe defenSe and offenSe is purely an American thing these days, with most English speaking nations of the world (Aus, NZ, countries in UK etc) using defenCe and offenCe.
I think I remember reading that the use of 'S' is the old spelling which America has retained where others have not.
On November 11 2011 11:11 Brett wrote: Considering my probably pretty reasonable assumption that this guy is quite well off financially, hiring a defence lawyer when there is so much shit going on around you is a pretty reasonable precaution to take... Even if nothing is coming. As a criminal defence lawyer myself my first impression was that this guy should be lawyering up and shutting up..
Off topic: Is defenCe an Australian thing? I think it looks better than defense. I might start using it lol
There's a pretty substantial number of ways that American English differs from British English. "Defen[sc]e" is one, the "-ize"/"-ise" suffix is another and "color"/"colour" et al. are a third. Those are just off the top of my head.
Most commonwealth or recent ex-commonwealth countries use the British spelling. Certainly AU and NZ and the UK.
On November 11 2011 11:54 kakaman wrote: The kid in the end sounds like an idiot...state school in America ftw
I don't know where people get this sentiment from, imo private school students have way crazier lifestyles unless we're talking top competitors. State school is just a ton of people who don't know/care for each other.
On November 11 2011 10:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Paterno has hired a criminal defense attorney.
Probably just standard procedure, but an interesting development none the less
A civil litigator would be standard if you're in shit but not criminal. Something must be coming up the pipe
Considering my probably pretty reasonable assumption that this guy is quite well off financially, hiring a defence lawyer when there is so much shit going on around you is a pretty reasonable precaution to take... Even if nothing is coming. As a criminal defence lawyer myself my first impression was that this guy should be lawyering up and shutting up..
The odd part is that, criminal defense lawyers are not meant to take on civil suit cases, and vice versa. Or at least that is my understanding from the many lawyer statements in other threads. So if he hires a criminal lawyer, he should be expecting something...
On November 11 2011 09:31 UndoneJin wrote: I don't think anyone outside of PSU understands how damaging this whole thing is....
It's kinda crushing honestly.
I think anyone considering sending a son or daughter to Penn State for ANYTHING has to think twice considering how the university brass reacted to this incident. If your daughter goes there and is raped, is the university going to cover shit up and protect their rep before they worry about the victim?
On November 11 2011 10:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Paterno has hired a criminal defense attorney.
Probably just standard procedure, but an interesting development none the less
A civil litigator would be standard if you're in shit but not criminal. Something must be coming up the pipe
Considering my probably pretty reasonable assumption that this guy is quite well off financially, hiring a defence lawyer when there is so much shit going on around you is a pretty reasonable precaution to take... Even if nothing is coming. As a criminal defence lawyer myself my first impression was that this guy should be lawyering up and shutting up..
The odd part is that, criminal defense lawyers are not meant to take on civil suit cases, and vice versa. Or at least that is my understanding from the many lawyer statements in other threads. So if he hires a criminal lawyer, he should be expecting something...
It's not a matter of whether a criminal defence lawyer would take a civil brief or not (generally we wouldn't because we are smart enough to know the limits of our expertise, not because we are precluded from doing so)... Presumably, given the amount of shit that has hit the fan, he is concerned about the possibility of criminal charges coming in the future, and has provided a retainer to the defence lawyer to obtain their advice as to how to proceed and minimize any future harm. It's quite possible that a prosecutor with a bone to pick with him could well start scraping the barrel for something to charge him with. It doesn't necessarily mean that he will be charged, it's just the smart thing to do....
First rule of being a lawyer: CYA... COVER YOUR ASS. He'd be well advised to do the same given the circumstances.
In any event there are some lawyers who will take both criminal and civil matters on board. There's also nothing stopping him from having another firm to deal with any civil suit.
The kid in the end sounds like an idiot...state school in America ftw
Just cause you spend 40-50 years doing "good" football things, doesn't mean that you are incapable of wrong doing and free from blame. Question: The football camps that these kids were allegedly (i think they were) raped; was it a camp that was sponsored/backed personally by Joe Paterno or by the University? I only ask cause if it was, then JoePa had a contractual legal duty to work in the best interest of these childern. I'm not an attorney, and maybe there is one that can clear up what Paterno's legal duty was in regards to the football camps.
The kid in the end sounds like an idiot...state school in America ftw
Just cause you spend 40-50 years doing "good" football things, doesn't mean that you are incapable of wrong doing and free from blame. Question: The football camps that these kids were allegedly (i think they were) raped; was it a camp that was sponsored/backed personally by Joe Paterno or by the University? I only ask cause if it was, then JoePa had a contractual legal duty to work in the best interest of these childern. I'm not an attorney, and maybe there is one that can clear up what Paterno's legal duty was in regards to the football camps.
They weren't football camps as far as I know. It sounds like Sandusky created a troubled boys' home for the express purpose of recruiting sexual marks. The more I hear about how much people knew was going on and how little was done, how everyone knew some small piece of the puzzle but didn't want to reveal what little they knew to upset the balance... so no one came forward... this is just a tragedy and completely demoralizing.
On November 11 2011 13:31 SirKibbleX wrote: I'm pretty sure he hired a criminal lawyer because he may have perjured himself if what he said on TV about what he was told is true.
you can't perjure yourself on TV. If he lied to the grand jury then yeah it's perjury. It makes sense for him to get a lawyer for all the civil lawsuits he's going to get slapped with, but I don't get the criminal part, maybe he just wants to be safe
On November 08 2011 07:40 Jacko11 wrote: Yea saw the news this morning. Shoulda done more reaseach before I went to Penn State, now im stuck here
Uh oh better cover your ass. Better yet glue a piece of wood to your pants as a defensive mechanism, then paint it the color of said pants to camouflage.
Disgraced pedophile and former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky may have actually pimped out young boys to rich donors of his foundation Second Mile.
These revolutions were first reported to a large audience by radio host and journalist Mark Madden who himself broke the whole Jerry Sandusky pedophile story accurately in April 2011.
Speaking on The Dennis and Callahan Show, Madden revealed what he thinks the next big revelation will be:
“I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen,” Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. “I hear there’s a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation — and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can — that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak.”
While this fact might seem outlandish to the uninformed person, the fact that the super rich may be involved in child pedophile rings is something that has been heavily documented in the last twenty years including the now infamous Franklin Scandal.
The Franklin Scandal, widely exposed in an outstanding book by author Nick Bryant, involved a nationwide pedophile ring that reached the highest levels of the American and European governments.
On November 11 2011 13:31 SirKibbleX wrote: I'm pretty sure he hired a criminal lawyer because he may have perjured himself if what he said on TV about what he was told is true.
you can't perjure yourself on TV. If he lied to the grand jury then yeah it's perjury. It makes sense for him to get a lawyer for all the civil lawsuits he's going to get slapped with, but I don't get the criminal part, maybe he just wants to be safe
The point is what he said on TV might be inconsistent with the grand jury statement, meaning he lied to the grand jury.
Disgraced pedophile and former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky may have actually pimped out young boys to rich donors of his foundation Second Mile.
These revolutions were first reported to a large audience by radio host and journalist Mark Madden who himself broke the whole Jerry Sandusky pedophile story accurately in April 2011.
Speaking on The Dennis and Callahan Show, Madden revealed what he thinks the next big revelation will be:
“I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen,” Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. “I hear there’s a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation — and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can — that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak.”
While this fact might seem outlandish to the uninformed person, the fact that the super rich may be involved in child pedophile rings is something that has been heavily documented in the last twenty years including the now infamous Franklin Scandal.
The Franklin Scandal, widely exposed in an outstanding book by author Nick Bryant, involved a nationwide pedophile ring that reached the highest levels of the American and European governments.
On November 11 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote: WTF?! How in the world do people justify defending somebody who abetted the rape of a child? What the hell is wrong with students at Penn State?
Hero worship. They don't want to believe their hero coach did something terrible. Crimes of omission are much easier to let pass than crimes of action. No one will forgive Sandusky. But what Paterno failed to do is "understandable" which many people will want to push into the realm of "acceptable" because of their personal bias.
Firing him now prevents possible more dirt from coming out on Paterno. If he was involved in some way more than what was already speculated or directly involved in covering up Sandusky's actions then this all makes quite a bit of sense. Let him go before the real dirt comes out.
I feel like I've given this explanation more times than I can count in the past few days considering that UNLIKE MOST PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD, I GO TO PENN STATE.
Now with that out of the way....
The situation is completely fucked up, mistakes were made and things could have been handled better IN EVERY REGARD.
People do bad things that are legal. People do good things that are illegal. This is one of those scenarios were Joe Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation but the public is displeased with the higher moral obligation that we have all learned and expect Joe to hold as well. He was fired because of that fact. It was sloppy and nothing can be said otherwise and even he admits he could have done more. That being said the media is completely blowing out of proportion what is going on with Joe Pa rather than what's going to happen to the scum that started this mess to begin with, how are we going to help the victims and what now for Penn State. We're getting so much stupid coverage on Joe Pa and not any of the other dirt balls. Now while I can see the logic to this (Joe Paterno has been in the spot light of Penn state for 61 years, he holds the school and the players to a higher moral standard and doesn't fulfill it himself, he's the face of Penn state etc etc etc) it isn't really helping the situation to scapegoat him as much as the media has been doing. What about all the other people who witnessed this or did nothing? They should be getting slammed much harder than Joe Pa after what has transpired.
Joe Pa's firing was another big mistake. While the board of trustees was being pressured to get him out of there for failing morally (even if he's not legally accountable) it was still handled terribly. Why did they feel the need to fire him at 10pm at night in the middle of a week, when everyone was still at school. If you ask me they should have seen this riot coming. Hell I saw it coming as I was sitting in GMan(a bar) and I could see swarms of people flowing to beaver ave to prepare to riot after Joe got fired. If anything they should have delayed it to a point when people weren't there or have Joe step down gracefully himself earlier (urge him to retire sooner rather than at the end of the season).
The riot was unfounded, unneeded and if anything did WAY more harm than any of the good it was supposed to cause. There was no way after starting the riot that anyone on the board would be willing to just say "aww you're right guys, we shouldn't have fired joe we fucked up". It was fucking stupid and a waste of time and I'm pretty sure more than half of the people there were just there because they were looking for an opportunity to riot not because they actually had any stake in this whole scenario.
As for the aftermath, nobody seems to realize how many football related endorsements are now gone. Millions of dollars that would have been going to Penn state has now disappeared. Alumi are pulling Penn State from their wills, most likely will also stop donating money as well. If you're like me who's a senior you lived the best years of penn state. As for the rest of you who choose to go here in the future (the education is still top quality) and those of you who may be here now. Good luck as this will be a tough act to follow.
Penn Staters are not child molesters and we certainly do not support child molesters. I speak for us all when I say if anything we're the #1 school in the country who supports the kids. Ever hear of THON? The largest student run philanthropy in the world? Yeah... we're trying to do some good here even if we do do stupid shit on occasion as well.
Overall the media coverage is shitty, everyone is poorly informed, the PR work of not only the administration but the board of trustees was mediocre at best and Joe Pa should not be scapegoated as the key source of blame as there are a lot of fuck ups that have occurred. And finally the rioting was absolutely stupid and served no practical benefit what so ever. It just tarnished our look after all of this that much more.
Penn Staters are not child molesters and we certainly do not support child molesters. I speak for us all when I say if anything we're the #1 school in the country who supports the kids. Ever hear of THON? The largest student run philanthropy in the world? Yeah... we're trying to do some good here even if we do do stupid shit on occasion as well.
While I admire your attempt to help keep your school clean (I too hero worship my alma matter quite a bit), no place is full of child molesters, per se. As someone who works in the criminal justice system, I can safely say that these sorts of crimes occur way more often in every part of the country that people expect. Heck, all crime is way more common then the average person thinks. People should not just assume that only certain types of people in certain types of professions do this crime. People at Penn State are probably no more or less inclined to this then anybody from the rest of the general population. This crime however is particularly atrocious and going to get a lot of attention because of the powerful people involved and the wide spread scope of the allegations over a number of years involving many victims.
This situation is pretty disgusting. I'm thinking they need to reinvestigate the first DA's dissappearance/death. It reminds me a little too much of the 'Conspiracy of Silence' I posted in the Awesomely Entertaining Documentaries. The fact it took this long, most likely points to a culture, not just a isolated incident.
The sponsor pulling just might have a bit more to do with the pedophillia than it is JoePa being gone... just a hunch.
I keep on seeing that dumb claim that the media coverage of the events has been terrible, but there's never explanation (or at least one that isn't stupid). So I'm curious about that as well.
On November 08 2011 07:52 feanor1 wrote: [..] Joe Paterno is not facing any legal repercussions for his actions, but his inaction in following it up(making sure the police were involved) or trying to find out the identity of the child is very sad.
Not just "sad", it's plain wrong, and also a crime.
On November 10 2011 14:52 discodancer wrote: Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
The firing is what ignited the whole thing, as a lot of people are insanely loyal to Paterno. Aside from the kids who are just out there for the experience/to go crazy, the student body is very upset with the University and the Board of Trustees for how they've dealt with the situation so far. Unfortunately I don't think there's any real coherence to the riot (if there were I think protest would be a better word) and so any reasoning for involvement is going to depend on who you talk to.
On November 10 2011 14:54 Steelavocado wrote: My opinion of PSU has plummeted. I don't know if I want to go there anymore. I guess I could settle with an in state school like OSU...
As a current student, please don't let this event singly rule out Penn State as an option. This incident does not define us as a school and does not define us as a student body. The Penn State community is much more than this (and what the media is making us out to be) and I can still say that I am proud of my decision to attend this University. Like tronix said, there are many more important reasons to go/not go to a school.
it shouldn't but it is !
mente: The riot was unfounded, unneeded and if anything did WAY more harm than any of the good it was supposed to cause. There was no way after starting the riot that anyone on the board would be willing to just say "aww you're right guys, we shouldn't have fired joe we fucked up". It was fucking stupid and a waste of time and I'm pretty sure more than half of the people there were just there because they were looking for an opportunity to riot not because they actually had any stake in this whole scenario.
so u have half of the people that supports child fucking and the other half is just retarded ?
On November 10 2011 14:52 discodancer wrote: Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
The firing is what ignited the whole thing, as a lot of people are insanely loyal to Paterno. Aside from the kids who are just out there for the experience/to go crazy, the student body is very upset with the University and the Board of Trustees for how they've dealt with the situation so far. Unfortunately I don't think there's any real coherence to the riot (if there were I think protest would be a better word) and so any reasoning for involvement is going to depend on who you talk to.
On November 10 2011 14:54 Steelavocado wrote: My opinion of PSU has plummeted. I don't know if I want to go there anymore. I guess I could settle with an in state school like OSU...
As a current student, please don't let this event singly rule out Penn State as an option. This incident does not define us as a school and does not define us as a student body. The Penn State community is much more than this (and what the media is making us out to be) and I can still say that I am proud of my decision to attend this University. Like tronix said, there are many more important reasons to go/not go to a school.
mente: The riot was unfounded, unneeded and if anything did WAY more harm than any of the good it was supposed to cause. There was no way after starting the riot that anyone on the board would be willing to just say "aww you're right guys, we shouldn't have fired joe we fucked up". It was fucking stupid and a waste of time and I'm pretty sure more than half of the people there were just there because they were looking for an opportunity to riot not because they actually had any stake in this whole scenario.
so u have half of the people that supports child fucking and the other half is just retarded ?
LIke I said before not one of the PSU students would ever support child molestation. It blows my mind how you managed to draw that conclusion. I will agree with the other half of PSU is retarded but half the world is retarded as well.
On November 10 2011 14:52 discodancer wrote: Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
The firing is what ignited the whole thing, as a lot of people are insanely loyal to Paterno. Aside from the kids who are just out there for the experience/to go crazy, the student body is very upset with the University and the Board of Trustees for how they've dealt with the situation so far. Unfortunately I don't think there's any real coherence to the riot (if there were I think protest would be a better word) and so any reasoning for involvement is going to depend on who you talk to.
On November 10 2011 14:54 Steelavocado wrote: My opinion of PSU has plummeted. I don't know if I want to go there anymore. I guess I could settle with an in state school like OSU...
As a current student, please don't let this event singly rule out Penn State as an option. This incident does not define us as a school and does not define us as a student body. The Penn State community is much more than this (and what the media is making us out to be) and I can still say that I am proud of my decision to attend this University. Like tronix said, there are many more important reasons to go/not go to a school.
it shouldn't but it is !
mente: The riot was unfounded, unneeded and if anything did WAY more harm than any of the good it was supposed to cause. There was no way after starting the riot that anyone on the board would be willing to just say "aww you're right guys, we shouldn't have fired joe we fucked up". It was fucking stupid and a waste of time and I'm pretty sure more than half of the people there were just there because they were looking for an opportunity to riot not because they actually had any stake in this whole scenario.
so u have half of the people that supports child fucking and the other half is just retarded ?
LIke I said before not one of the PSU students would ever support child molestation. It blows my mind how you managed to draw that conclusion. I will agree with the other half of PSU is retarded but half the world is retarded as well.
Of course they don't support child molestation. They're just willing to let children be molested by an organization they are indoctrinated to worship. Sadly for you, you don't get to decide what what defines you. Right now, and probably for a long time, your school will be marred by an outcry trying to protect somebody who aided in child molestation, instead of vindicated by an outcry against the atrocities committed on PSU grounds. If you wish to not be part of that group, I suggest you (and anybody else) apply for a transfer to another university.
On November 10 2011 14:52 discodancer wrote: Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
The firing is what ignited the whole thing, as a lot of people are insanely loyal to Paterno. Aside from the kids who are just out there for the experience/to go crazy, the student body is very upset with the University and the Board of Trustees for how they've dealt with the situation so far. Unfortunately I don't think there's any real coherence to the riot (if there were I think protest would be a better word) and so any reasoning for involvement is going to depend on who you talk to.
On November 10 2011 14:54 Steelavocado wrote: My opinion of PSU has plummeted. I don't know if I want to go there anymore. I guess I could settle with an in state school like OSU...
As a current student, please don't let this event singly rule out Penn State as an option. This incident does not define us as a school and does not define us as a student body. The Penn State community is much more than this (and what the media is making us out to be) and I can still say that I am proud of my decision to attend this University. Like tronix said, there are many more important reasons to go/not go to a school.
it shouldn't but it is !
mente: The riot was unfounded, unneeded and if anything did WAY more harm than any of the good it was supposed to cause. There was no way after starting the riot that anyone on the board would be willing to just say "aww you're right guys, we shouldn't have fired joe we fucked up". It was fucking stupid and a waste of time and I'm pretty sure more than half of the people there were just there because they were looking for an opportunity to riot not because they actually had any stake in this whole scenario.
so u have half of the people that supports child fucking and the other half is just retarded ?
LIke I said before not one of the PSU students would ever support child molestation. It blows my mind how you managed to draw that conclusion. I will agree with the other half of PSU is retarded but half the world is retarded as well.
Of course they don't support child molestation. They're just willing to let children be molested by an organization they are indoctrinated to worship. Sadly for you, you don't get to decide what what defines you. Right now, and probably for a long time, your school will be marred by an outcry trying to protect somebody who aided in child molestation, instead of vindicated by an outcry against the atrocities committed on PSU grounds. If you wish to not be part of that group, I suggest you (and anybody else) apply for a transfer to another university.
Oh god this is just pathetic. You are from the United States, a country full of dumb fat rednecks.If you wish not to be part of that group I suggest you and anybody else move to another country.
Don't let the actions of a few define a whole group PSU is still better than a majority of the colleges in the US. Just because you go to that school doesn't mean you have a nice rubber sticker "supporter of child molestation". Yes mistakes were made, but to throw a whole school under the bus, including the students, is just wrong.
On November 10 2011 14:52 discodancer wrote: Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
The firing is what ignited the whole thing, as a lot of people are insanely loyal to Paterno. Aside from the kids who are just out there for the experience/to go crazy, the student body is very upset with the University and the Board of Trustees for how they've dealt with the situation so far. Unfortunately I don't think there's any real coherence to the riot (if there were I think protest would be a better word) and so any reasoning for involvement is going to depend on who you talk to.
On November 10 2011 14:54 Steelavocado wrote: My opinion of PSU has plummeted. I don't know if I want to go there anymore. I guess I could settle with an in state school like OSU...
As a current student, please don't let this event singly rule out Penn State as an option. This incident does not define us as a school and does not define us as a student body. The Penn State community is much more than this (and what the media is making us out to be) and I can still say that I am proud of my decision to attend this University. Like tronix said, there are many more important reasons to go/not go to a school.
it shouldn't but it is !
mente: The riot was unfounded, unneeded and if anything did WAY more harm than any of the good it was supposed to cause. There was no way after starting the riot that anyone on the board would be willing to just say "aww you're right guys, we shouldn't have fired joe we fucked up". It was fucking stupid and a waste of time and I'm pretty sure more than half of the people there were just there because they were looking for an opportunity to riot not because they actually had any stake in this whole scenario.
so u have half of the people that supports child fucking and the other half is just retarded ?
LIke I said before not one of the PSU students would ever support child molestation. It blows my mind how you managed to draw that conclusion. I will agree with the other half of PSU is retarded but half the world is retarded as well.
Of course they don't support child molestation. They're just willing to let children be molested by an organization they are indoctrinated to worship. Sadly for you, you don't get to decide what what defines you. Right now, and probably for a long time, your school will be marred by an outcry trying to protect somebody who aided in child molestation, instead of vindicated by an outcry against the atrocities committed on PSU grounds. If you wish to not be part of that group, I suggest you (and anybody else) apply for a transfer to another university.
On November 10 2011 14:52 discodancer wrote: Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
The firing is what ignited the whole thing, as a lot of people are insanely loyal to Paterno. Aside from the kids who are just out there for the experience/to go crazy, the student body is very upset with the University and the Board of Trustees for how they've dealt with the situation so far. Unfortunately I don't think there's any real coherence to the riot (if there were I think protest would be a better word) and so any reasoning for involvement is going to depend on who you talk to.
On November 10 2011 14:54 Steelavocado wrote: My opinion of PSU has plummeted. I don't know if I want to go there anymore. I guess I could settle with an in state school like OSU...
As a current student, please don't let this event singly rule out Penn State as an option. This incident does not define us as a school and does not define us as a student body. The Penn State community is much more than this (and what the media is making us out to be) and I can still say that I am proud of my decision to attend this University. Like tronix said, there are many more important reasons to go/not go to a school.
it shouldn't but it is !
mente: The riot was unfounded, unneeded and if anything did WAY more harm than any of the good it was supposed to cause. There was no way after starting the riot that anyone on the board would be willing to just say "aww you're right guys, we shouldn't have fired joe we fucked up". It was fucking stupid and a waste of time and I'm pretty sure more than half of the people there were just there because they were looking for an opportunity to riot not because they actually had any stake in this whole scenario.
so u have half of the people that supports child fucking and the other half is just retarded ?
LIke I said before not one of the PSU students would ever support child molestation. It blows my mind how you managed to draw that conclusion. I will agree with the other half of PSU is retarded but half the world is retarded as well.
Of course they don't support child molestation. They're just willing to let children be molested by an organization they are indoctrinated to worship. Sadly for you, you don't get to decide what what defines you. Right now, and probably for a long time, your school will be marred by an outcry trying to protect somebody who aided in child molestation, instead of vindicated by an outcry against the atrocities committed on PSU grounds. If you wish to not be part of that group, I suggest you (and anybody else) apply for a transfer to another university.
Or instead of backing away and letting this horrible tragedy take over, do something about it, like Penn State students are. 10,000 plus students gathered for a candle light vigil for the victims:
In 2 days, PSU has raised $200k for RAINN (http://www.rainn.org),
The actions of those who did wrong do not define Penn State. If you believe that, you are just ignorant of a school that has done great things in the past and will only continue to do so in the future. I think the 500,000 plus alumni and 100,000 current students raising millions of dollars each and every year in support for children who have cancer define what this school is more than the few people in administration that fucked up. Only the media doesn't report things like THON.
On November 11 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote: WTF?! How in the world do people justify defending somebody who abetted the rape of a child? What the hell is wrong with students at Penn State?
My mom asked me this. I said "aren't you a catholic?" lol =[
On November 10 2011 14:52 discodancer wrote: Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
The firing is what ignited the whole thing, as a lot of people are insanely loyal to Paterno. Aside from the kids who are just out there for the experience/to go crazy, the student body is very upset with the University and the Board of Trustees for how they've dealt with the situation so far. Unfortunately I don't think there's any real coherence to the riot (if there were I think protest would be a better word) and so any reasoning for involvement is going to depend on who you talk to.
On November 10 2011 14:54 Steelavocado wrote: My opinion of PSU has plummeted. I don't know if I want to go there anymore. I guess I could settle with an in state school like OSU...
As a current student, please don't let this event singly rule out Penn State as an option. This incident does not define us as a school and does not define us as a student body. The Penn State community is much more than this (and what the media is making us out to be) and I can still say that I am proud of my decision to attend this University. Like tronix said, there are many more important reasons to go/not go to a school.
it shouldn't but it is !
mente: The riot was unfounded, unneeded and if anything did WAY more harm than any of the good it was supposed to cause. There was no way after starting the riot that anyone on the board would be willing to just say "aww you're right guys, we shouldn't have fired joe we fucked up". It was fucking stupid and a waste of time and I'm pretty sure more than half of the people there were just there because they were looking for an opportunity to riot not because they actually had any stake in this whole scenario.
so u have half of the people that supports child fucking and the other half is just retarded ?
LIke I said before not one of the PSU students would ever support child molestation. It blows my mind how you managed to draw that conclusion. I will agree with the other half of PSU is retarded but half the world is retarded as well.
Of course they don't support child molestation. They're just willing to let children be molested by an organization they are indoctrinated to worship. Sadly for you, you don't get to decide what what defines you. Right now, and probably for a long time, your school will be marred by an outcry trying to protect somebody who aided in child molestation, instead of vindicated by an outcry against the atrocities committed on PSU grounds. If you wish to not be part of that group, I suggest you (and anybody else) apply for a transfer to another university.
Or instead of backing away and letting this horrible tragedy take over, do something about it, like Penn State students are. 10,000 plus students gathered for a candle light vigil for the victims:
In 2 days, PSU has raised $200k for RAINN (http://www.rainn.org),
The actions of those who did wrong do not define Penn State. If you believe that, you are just ignorant of a school that has done great things in the past and will only continue to do so in the future. I think the 500,000 plus alumni and 100,000 current students raising millions of dollars each and every year in support for children who have cancer define what this school is more than the few people in administration that fucked up. Only the media doesn't report things like THON.
News often doesn't report on the thousands of other groups who do great things in the name of charity. A certain amount of philanthropic activity is almost expected these days. It's pretty much a shared attribute between groups these days. However, rioting over a coach being fired for incredible negligence concerning a very serious allegation of child rape is something PSU has almost exclusively over any other group. This entire thing is appalling from the President of PSU all the way down to the undergrad student body.
Doing great things doesn't somehow wipe the mistakes away. This is something that apparently a great deal of PSU needs to realize between the administration, student body, and organizations, because it seems that they think some sort of "karmic balance" is all that is needed to clear their mistakes.
On November 10 2011 14:52 discodancer wrote: Is this protest against firing? Are these football fans? This is so disturbing...
The firing is what ignited the whole thing, as a lot of people are insanely loyal to Paterno. Aside from the kids who are just out there for the experience/to go crazy, the student body is very upset with the University and the Board of Trustees for how they've dealt with the situation so far. Unfortunately I don't think there's any real coherence to the riot (if there were I think protest would be a better word) and so any reasoning for involvement is going to depend on who you talk to.
On November 10 2011 14:54 Steelavocado wrote: My opinion of PSU has plummeted. I don't know if I want to go there anymore. I guess I could settle with an in state school like OSU...
As a current student, please don't let this event singly rule out Penn State as an option. This incident does not define us as a school and does not define us as a student body. The Penn State community is much more than this (and what the media is making us out to be) and I can still say that I am proud of my decision to attend this University. Like tronix said, there are many more important reasons to go/not go to a school.
it shouldn't but it is !
mente: The riot was unfounded, unneeded and if anything did WAY more harm than any of the good it was supposed to cause. There was no way after starting the riot that anyone on the board would be willing to just say "aww you're right guys, we shouldn't have fired joe we fucked up". It was fucking stupid and a waste of time and I'm pretty sure more than half of the people there were just there because they were looking for an opportunity to riot not because they actually had any stake in this whole scenario.
so u have half of the people that supports child fucking and the other half is just retarded ?
LIke I said before not one of the PSU students would ever support child molestation. It blows my mind how you managed to draw that conclusion. I will agree with the other half of PSU is retarded but half the world is retarded as well.
i think penn state is a great uni . im just showing u the reality of the situation. blows my mind how you think other people should do otherwise
tldr: former player is trying to organize other former players to donate money to Sandusky for his defense.
I'm sure that's going to go well.
Oh come on, that's a sensational TLDR. You left out the reason WHY he's donating money.
Stellatella sent Sandusky $100. He wrote personal letters to other members of the 1959 Liberty Bowl team that defeated a Bear Bryant-coached Alabama team and asked they also donate. He does not know how much money was raised.
"I know some of the guys sent money," Stellatella told The Associated Press. "Here's the thing, these are horrendous charges against him. But he's still entitled to his day in court. Everybody's prejudged him. He's done horrendous damage to Paterno and (athletic director Tim) Curley and the football program. I don't listen to the news and I don't read the reports of what he did because I would get too upset.
"But he's still entitled to his day in court."
I don't know if Stellatella's reason is genuine or not but it's still a valid one. Unless Sandusky is a rich motherfucker that could afford any lawyer he wants in which case this reason falls flat on it's face.
IMO, if you think, based on the available evidence, that he's likely to have done it, than "everyone's entitled to his day in court" is a terrible reason to donate money for his defence. Not looking at the evidence is just willful ignorance and that's hard to justify morally. I mean, obviously the guy means well, but he seems way too upset to think straight (as he says himself).
Guilty or not, no criminal deserves to get rolled in court because their lawyer is shitty and the court of public opinion has already judged them. We take pride here in treating criminals fairly. It doesn't mean that anyone condones the criminal activity or anything like that, just that they deserves to be given due process before they get a very harsh punishment handed down.
Stellatella sent Sandusky $100. He wrote personal letters to other members of the 1959 Liberty Bowl team that defeated a Bear Bryant-coached Alabama team and asked they also donate. He does not know how much money was raised.
"I know some of the guys sent money," Stellatella told The Associated Press. "Here's the thing, these are horrendous charges against him. But he's still entitled to his day in court. Everybody's prejudged him. He's done horrendous damage to Paterno and (athletic director Tim) Curley and the football program. I don't listen to the news and I don't read the reports of what he did because I would get too upset.
"But he's still entitled to his day in court."
I don't know if Stellatella's reason is genuine or not but it's still a valid one. Unless Sandusky is a rich motherfucker that could afford any lawyer he wants in which case this reason falls flat on it's face.
He admits he didn't read or follow what's happened. If there's an issue with the court system in the US and the disparity in lawyers, then that's one thing. He's just blindly donating to a person he likes. Sandusky will have his day in court, regardless of hiring a high powered lawyer or not.
He admits he didn't read or follow what's happened. If there's an issue with the court system in the US and the disparity in lawyers, then that's one thing. He's just blindly donating to a person he likes. Sandusky will have his day in court, regardless of hiring a high powered lawyer or not.
There IS a disparity issue in the US court system in regards to the quality of lawyers though.
I don't think it really applies to Sandusky though given that he's well off social-economically and a white male so I guess my statement doesn't really hold in that regard. Personally if it was me I won't donate just because I'd never believe that Sandusky wouldn't have good council at his trial. (Double negative FTL =[)
But I still think Stellatella's reason, if he genuinely believes Sandusky currently won't be getting a fair trial unless money is donated, is a valid one for donating. Obviously that's something we can't ever know but I think your TLDR simplified the situation in a skewed manner.
On November 13 2011 01:31 Geosensation wrote: Guilty or not, no criminal deserves to get rolled in court because their lawyer is shitty and the court of public opinion has already judged them. We take pride here in treating criminals fairly. It doesn't mean that anyone condones the criminal activity or anything like that, just that they deserves to be given due process before they get a very harsh punishment handed down.
That's true, but you can't donate to everyone who can't afford a good lawyer. So when you donate to someone who is accused (with good reason) of raping children you are making a statement.
On November 13 2011 01:52 chaoser wrote: Obviously that's something we can't ever know but I think your TLDR simplified the situation in a skewed manner.
On November 13 2011 01:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The game is about start in less than 15 minutes, should be very interesting. Crowd reaction, player morale etc. The huge amount of press.
You know where there's a live stream to watch it? I'd love to see how the game is treated by both teams, schools, the media covering it, etc.
On November 13 2011 01:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The game is about start in less than 15 minutes, should be very interesting. Crowd reaction, player morale etc. The huge amount of press.
You know where there's a live stream to watch it? I'd love to see how the game is treated by both teams, schools, the media covering it, etc.
Well its on ESPN if you have cable, ESPN3.com also has it but your internet provider has to pay for access to that
On November 13 2011 01:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The game is about start in less than 15 minutes, should be very interesting. Crowd reaction, player morale etc. The huge amount of press.
You know where there's a live stream to watch it? I'd love to see how the game is treated by both teams, schools, the media covering it, etc.
Well its on ESPN if you have cable, ESPN3.com also has it but your internet provider has to pay for access to that
=[ I guess I'll wait till tomorrow for the news coverage..
tldr: former player is trying to organize other former players to donate money to Sandusky for his defense.
I'm sure that's going to go well.
Oh come on, that's a sensational TLDR. You left out the reason WHY he's donating money.
Stellatella sent Sandusky $100. He wrote personal letters to other members of the 1959 Liberty Bowl team that defeated a Bear Bryant-coached Alabama team and asked they also donate. He does not know how much money was raised.
"I know some of the guys sent money," Stellatella told The Associated Press. "Here's the thing, these are horrendous charges against him. But he's still entitled to his day in court. Everybody's prejudged him. He's done horrendous damage to Paterno and (athletic director Tim) Curley and the football program. I don't listen to the news and I don't read the reports of what he did because I would get too upset.
"But he's still entitled to his day in court."
I don't know if Stellatella's reason is genuine or not but it's still a valid one. Unless Sandusky is a rich motherfucker that could afford any lawyer he wants in which case this reason falls flat on it's face.
He admits he didn't read or follow what's happened. If there's an issue with the court system in the US and the disparity in lawyers, then that's one thing. He's just blindly donating to a person he likes. Sandusky will have his day in court, regardless of hiring a high powered lawyer or not.
You're making a heck of a lot of assumptions for a mere $100 donation. He's making a small donation based on the principal that the guy is innocent until proven guilty. It's not "blind" at all because it's based on a principal that he will hold regardless of the content of the news coverage. $100 isn't going to get him close to a high-powered lawyer, but it's some small support of the idea that the media shouldn't be able to convict someone.
I don't understand how Paterno could have reported the 2002 incident upstairs and then acted like nothing happened after no action was taken by his "superiors" in the university administration.
Paterno said McQreary (whatever, weirdly-spelled name) told him something "vague" regarding Sandusky "fondling" a ten year old in the shower. Full stop there Joe. That's enough knowledge that you, as coach and demigod of State College, Pennsylvania, have a duty to do something about. You don't need more details.
And apparently reports or rumors went back as far as 1995, the details get worse every day. It looks like everyone in the PSU administration who should have done something if they knew either did know and did nothing, or didn't know because they didn't want to open their eyes.
Bob Costas interviews Sandusky and his lawyer. About 10 minutes long. The last couple questions.. Seems like Sandusky done fucked up and he seems pretty guilty after that answer.
Should have recused herself, but I don't think it's a terribly big deal that he is free right now. He's not going to kidnap children and rape them, that isn't how he rolls. He has to have permission to have access to kids and he will never have that again, at least in the near future. Does look really bad though, what was that judge thinking??
On November 16 2011 01:28 Geosensation wrote: Should have recused herself, but I don't think it's a terribly big deal that he is free right now. He's not going to kidnap children and rape them, that isn't how he rolls. He has to have permission to have access to kids and he will never have that again, at least in the near future. Does look really bad though, what was that judge thinking??
That might be true but keep in mind that his house is right next to an elementary school playground. If nothing else it makes people nervous and uncomfortable.
On November 16 2011 01:28 Geosensation wrote: Should have recused herself, but I don't think it's a terribly big deal that he is free right now. He's not going to kidnap children and rape them, that isn't how he rolls. He has to have permission to have access to kids and he will never have that again, at least in the near future. Does look really bad though, what was that judge thinking??
That might be true but keep in mind that his house is right next to an elementary school playground. If nothing else it makes people nervous and uncomfortable.
On November 16 2011 01:19 Jibba wrote: The judge who gave Sandusky $100,000 unsecured bail (he didn't actually have to pay anything) is also a volunteer at Second Mile. >.>
On November 16 2011 01:28 Geosensation wrote: Should have recused herself, but I don't think it's a terribly big deal that he is free right now. He's not going to kidnap children and rape them, that isn't how he rolls. He has to have permission to have access to kids and he will never have that again, at least in the near future. Does look really bad though, what was that judge thinking??
That might be true but keep in mind that his house is right next to an elementary school playground. If nothing else it makes people nervous and uncomfortable.
I thought sex offenders were not allowed to live anywhere near public schools.
On November 16 2011 01:28 Geosensation wrote: Should have recused herself, but I don't think it's a terribly big deal that he is free right now. He's not going to kidnap children and rape them, that isn't how he rolls. He has to have permission to have access to kids and he will never have that again, at least in the near future. Does look really bad though, what was that judge thinking??
That might be true but keep in mind that his house is right next to an elementary school playground. If nothing else it makes people nervous and uncomfortable.
I thought sex offenders were not allowed to live anywhere near public schools.
They aren't. Sandusky has never been charged with anything before this.
Sportscenter just played a damning tape of a telephone conversation with the wife of the Syracuse assistant coach believed to have been sexually assaulting boys. She basically admitted she knew what was happening and her husband's issues and wouldn't do anything to stop it. She even slept with one of the same boys her husband did.
Fuck these people. I hope the rest of their lives are miserable.
On November 28 2011 14:16 Jibba wrote: Sportscenter just played a damning tape of a telephone conversation with the wife of the Syracuse assistant coach believed to have been sexually assaulting boys. She basically admitted she knew what was happening and her husband's issues and wouldn't do anything to stop it. She even slept with one of the same boys her husband did.
Fuck these people. I hope the rest of their lives are miserable.
Currently listening to it on ESPN right now. Wow. I am thoroughly disgusted.
Oh my god I thought this was about Sandusky. Fucking
Syracuse University Fires Coach Bernie Fine Amid Child Sex Abuse Allegations
Dear fucking god edit- i can't help but notice the guy at the desk pronounces it mall estation instead of molestation. I think that's my brain trying to keep me from killing myself.
The boy was 18 when he engaged in a relationship with the wife of his abuser (according to his report that is broadcasting on Sports Center). More than sick that part isn't illegal. Just more disgusting than most of 4chan.
On November 28 2011 14:34 Probe1 wrote: The boy was 18 when he engaged in a relationship with the wife of his abuser (according to his report that is broadcasting on Sports Center). More than sick that part isn't illegal. Just more disgusting than most of 4chan.
Dood I'm watching the same thing on ESPN.... this is the most fucked up outside the lines I have ever seen..... like this out does 2 girls 1 cup for me.... seriously
So apparently his son was going to testify against him as well? I just walked in the door and saw the attorneys addressing the media. Hopefully this begins the start of some kind of healing process at PSU. This, Joe Pa, all the news coming out of it is so sad.
Every few days I read the new reports on the trial/allegations. The testimonies are so fucked up I've never actually finished a single article. In particular the boy whose mother kept sending him to his house so he'd have a "strong male role model," a man who would take him into the basement everytime and sodomize him as he screamed for help. I just... I can't handle this shit. That this man was protected for long...
What's really beginning to irk me is the wife's role in all this. I have no doubts she did nothing to help when this was going on (children screaming in my own house? unusual quantity of young boys? better do some laundry!), but I suspect she probably enabled this more than we know yet.
The fact that an entire university looked the other way for this man is beyond words.
On June 23 2012 11:50 p4NDemik wrote: So apparently his son was going to testify against him as well? I just walked in the door and saw the attorneys addressing the media. Hopefully this begins the start of some kind of healing process at PSU. This, Joe Pa, all the news coming out of it is so sad.
I don't think that for all of his victims the nightmare will ever be over. That is why Sandusky is facing the possibility of life in prison. Molesting a minor isn't just shattered a childs innocence. It's risking a terrible chance of ruining a person for the rest of their lives.
The nightmare for Penn State? Maybe. I mean with time any institution will have its stain lifted by the passing years. But until this has passed well through recent memory it will still be a Blight on the university.
I want to say something but I don't really know how to say this without respecting the gravity of the crimes and how it transcends mere sports. I'm just going to say it and forgive me if it's callous to think of it at this time.
Every season until Bobby Bowden retired we had a friendly rivalry with Paterno. We were neck and neck with most wins and as fans we were pretty competitive with PSU. We'd wish that Paterno would retire or that they'd lose 12 games or whatever. Then Coach Bowden retires and ... this. It's pretty fucked up. All those years of wishing ill against Paterno and something like this happens. It makes you regret ever hoping a bad turn for your rival will help you win.
On June 23 2012 11:50 p4NDemik wrote: So apparently his son was going to testify against him as well? I just walked in the door and saw the attorneys addressing the media. Hopefully this begins the start of some kind of healing process at PSU. This, Joe Pa, all the news coming out of it is so sad.
Defense lawyers were saying that if they called Jerry to the stand to testify, the prosecution could have called his adopted son as a rebuttal witness, which they say would have lowered their chance of an acquittal.
It will be a long time before Penn State can recover from this. They could have done so much more to bring justice sooner.
On June 23 2012 11:50 p4NDemik wrote: So apparently his son was going to testify against him as well? I just walked in the door and saw the attorneys addressing the media. Hopefully this begins the start of some kind of healing process at PSU. This, Joe Pa, all the news coming out of it is so sad.
On June 23 2012 12:20 holy_war wrote: This Amendola guy is a joke
ahah so true.
I am a religious man (I know many here are not, im not trying to start that pointless argument) and I dont wish anybody to go to hell or bad for anybody, but Sandusky might be an exception. You have to be so fucked up in the brain to do something this terrible.
On June 23 2012 11:50 p4NDemik wrote: So apparently his son was going to testify against him as well? I just walked in the door and saw the attorneys addressing the media. Hopefully this begins the start of some kind of healing process at PSU. This, Joe Pa, all the news coming out of it is so sad.
You mean adopted son, no?
Does it make a difference?
I would say so actually. The act is still wrong and obviously fucked-up, but the standpoint of relationships are vastly different.
such an ugly crime. stuff like this is despicable. Just enforces the idea that universities are just businesses that want to make money and will hide gruesome things like this when they can
I'm glad the dog is convicted. ruined so many lives
It's funny, child molesters are the most disgusting, heinous, malevlolent, evil fucks on this planet. Everyone (who isn't also one) on a primal level, hates them.
I hope this guy gets assraped day in and day out, or stabbed.
Having known a child who was molested, I have a first-hand hatred for pedophiles and the damage they cause. It's shocking. The level and depth of the damage, hurt, and trauma that they cause their victims.. It's akin to murder, in a sense, as they destroy the potential person that child was going to become, and change their lives (for the worse) forever.
FUCK this guy. I'm glad he's getting railed. I just wish it happened sooner. And that it would happen more often, worldwide.
Strangely enough, these serial pedophile types, they're protected by those around them through fear, manipulation, and power games. It's strange but true.
On June 23 2012 15:50 BoX wrote: It's funny, child molesters are the most disgusting, heinous, malevlolent, evil fucks on this planet. Everyone (who isn't also one) on a primal level, hates them.
I hope this guy gets assraped day in and day out, or stabbed.
Having known a child who was molested, I have a first-hand hatred for pedophiles and the damage they cause. It's shocking. The level and depth of the damage, hurt, and trauma that they cause their victims.. It's akin to murder, in a sense, as they destroy the potential person that child was going to become, and change their lives (for the worse) forever.
FUCK this guy. I'm glad he's getting railed. I just wish it happened sooner. And that it would happen more often, worldwide.
Strangely enough, these serial pedophile types, they're protected by those around them through fear, manipulation, and power games. It's strange but true.
Exactly. It's one of those unspoken rules: children are precious and shouldn't be abused. I hope he suffers extreme mental anguish in prison before he dies/is executed by a fellow inmate.
BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- Jerry Sandusky entered the Centre County Courthouse Friday as one of the most celebrated figures in the history of Penn State sports. He left a convicted child molester.
Following two days of jury deliberations, Sandusky was found guilty Friday of molesting several young boys.
The 68-year-old could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Sandusky was convicted of 45 of 48 criminal counts related to the alleged assault of 10 boys over a 15-year period. The allegations led to the ouster of the late Penn State University president and long-time coach Joe Paterno, who died in January.
[Click here for latest updates.]
Prosecutors said Sandusky was a "predatory pedophile" and a "sick, disturbed man," who targeted "the most vulnerable kids, kids in need."
Defense lawyer Joe Amendola said Sandusky was the victim of a grand conspiracy and that prosecutors provided no physical evidence to prove he had molested anyone. Because of the allegations, "everything [Jerry Sandusky] ever loved, everything he's ever built, and everything he's ever stood for -- it's gone," Amendola said.
Sandusky did not testify on his own behalf, but his wife, Dottie Sandusky, did take the stand. She said she never witnessed any inappropriate contact between her husband and the young boys.
The case has attracted widespread media coverage, as Sandusky was one of the most notable assistant football coaches in the country and the founder of The Second Mile, a nonprofit charity for underprivileged and at-risk youth.
People reacted with unrestrained joy when word of the verdict reached the crowd outside the courthouse. Some were chanting "Justice," while others sat on the sidewalk in lawn chairs to enjoy the spectacle.
"Our grandson was best friends with Victim No. 1," Bill Andrus told The Huffinton Post. "They were on the junior high wrestling team together. So knowing Victim No. 1, we had a personal interest and were hopeful it would come out this way."
Kelly Houp, who lives in Bellefonte, had harsh words for the Sandusky family.
"I knew he was guilty," she said. "All those kids would not lie. Everyone knew he did it. Dottie knew too and she should be hung."
Crime expert Scott A. Bonn, an assistant professor of sociology at Drew University, called the decision "a certainty."
"This case shocked the nation, violated our collective sense of morality and demonstrated that our children may not be safe from sexual predators after all,” Bonn said. “The jury had a moral obligation to society to convict Sandusky, and the only verdict that could restore public trust and equilibrium is guilty. I would have been shocked by any other verdict.”
Sentencing is expected to take place within 90 days.
i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
in some ways i think it's worse than murder... i won't make any assumptions, because no one who hasn't gone through something like that can understand shit about it, but i almost think i might rather be murdered. thats stupid to even say, i guess, because how the fuck would i know, but i just feel like it's true. i think it's good that people are so disgusted with the action and the person who does it, but i think it's also important to be able to forgive them on some level, and to have compassion even for them. they don't deserve it, necessarily, but i still think it's important.
this whole story is just so sad that it almost makes you want to cry. those poor kids were betrayed by everyone that should have been protecting them. fuck it makes me so mad i could punch a fucking hole through my computer screen.
You know who else is as full of shit as sandusky? The entire penn state community and those who refused to believe in the accusations because they were afraid of damaging their stupid football program. They are all full of shit. Every single student and university worker who whined about the whole thing.
On June 23 2012 12:03 Probe1 wrote: I don't think that for all of his victims the nightmare will ever be over. That is why Sandusky is facing the possibility of life in prison. Molesting a minor isn't just shattered a childs innocence. It's risking a terrible chance of ruining a person for the rest of their lives.
The nightmare for Penn State? Maybe. I mean with time any institution will have its stain lifted by the passing years. But until this has passed well through recent memory it will still be a Blight on the university.
I want to say something but I don't really know how to say this without respecting the gravity of the crimes and how it transcends mere sports. I'm just going to say it and forgive me if it's callous to think of it at this time.
Every season until Bobby Bowden retired we had a friendly rivalry with Paterno. We were neck and neck with most wins and as fans we were pretty competitive with PSU. We'd wish that Paterno would retire or that they'd lose 12 games or whatever. Then Coach Bowden retires and ... this. It's pretty fucked up. All those years of wishing ill against Paterno and something like this happens. It makes you regret ever hoping a bad turn for your rival will help you win.
I'm confused by this last bit. Paterno helped cover this up for almost a decade.
The widespread institutional corruption in this case really hasn't gotten the press it deserves. Paterno and other senior members of the Penn State athletic program covered for a child rapist. The name "Sandusky" helps sell newspapers and draw viewers because his crimes are so horriffic, but that's not the important story here. Realistically, there's no way to prevent terrible shit like this from happening. There are sick people out there, and some of them harm children. We should support the children/families and punish the predator.
But remember, we're not talking about a man who molested a single child, which would be bad enough. We're talking about a man who was just convicted of 45 counts associated with child molestation over the last 15 years. Think of how many children could have been protected if Paterno or anyone else at Penn state had done the responsible thing and reported Sandusky to the police when they learned about his actions back in 2002. These people are criminals, and their actions (or lack therof) are almost as contemptable as Sandusky's.
I actually hope that this guy doesn't get capital punishment or go to a solitary jail or something like that. In jail, the inmates have the least respect for "chesters" which is code came for child abusers. If this guy really did all the horrible stuff he's done, then he deserves to be locked up with the other inmates. My gosh, think of all the lives he's damaged and destroyed so far...
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
in some ways i think it's worse than murder... i won't make any assumptions, because no one who hasn't gone through something like that can understand shit about it, but i almost think i might rather be murdered. thats stupid to even say, i guess, because how the fuck would i know, but i just feel like it's true. i think it's good that people are so disgusted with the action and the person who does it, but i think it's also important to be able to forgive them on some level, and to have compassion even for them. they don't deserve it, necessarily, but i still think it's important.
this whole story is just so sad that it almost makes you want to cry. those poor kids were betrayed by everyone that should have been protecting them. fuck it makes me so mad i could punch a fucking hole through my computer screen.
Dude...no. Pedos don't deserve compassion. You cannot rehabilitate them; they never get any better. They are like rabid dogs. They need to be put down or locked up forever. Their rate of recidivism is very high because of the fact that they can't be rehabbed. They need to be freaking shot like animals.
I hate this so much and i hate hearing about it all the time on the radio and TV it really just puts me in a bad mood its so disgusting. Whats worst is that he didn't just act alone all those people who covered up for him, really fucking makes me angry at the world really.
Guilty. This guy is getting what he deserves. The nice thing about when these things come to surface is that not one but all the victims feel its their chance to finally come out with their secret. I can't imagine living with the story in my head for so long as some of them did, especially Sandusky's own "children." A disgusting case that seemed pretty open and shut from the start.
On June 23 2012 12:03 Probe1 wrote: I don't think that for all of his victims the nightmare will ever be over. That is why Sandusky is facing the possibility of life in prison. Molesting a minor isn't just shattered a childs innocence. It's risking a terrible chance of ruining a person for the rest of their lives.
The nightmare for Penn State? Maybe. I mean with time any institution will have its stain lifted by the passing years. But until this has passed well through recent memory it will still be a Blight on the university.
I want to say something but I don't really know how to say this without respecting the gravity of the crimes and how it transcends mere sports. I'm just going to say it and forgive me if it's callous to think of it at this time.
Every season until Bobby Bowden retired we had a friendly rivalry with Paterno. We were neck and neck with most wins and as fans we were pretty competitive with PSU. We'd wish that Paterno would retire or that they'd lose 12 games or whatever. Then Coach Bowden retires and ... this. It's pretty fucked up. All those years of wishing ill against Paterno and something like this happens. It makes you regret ever hoping a bad turn for your rival will help you win.
I'm confused by this last bit. Paterno helped cover this up for almost a decade.
The widespread institutional corruption in this case really hasn't gotten the press it deserves. Paterno and other senior members of the Penn State athletic program covered for a child rapist. The name "Sandusky" helps sell newspapers and draw viewers because his crimes are so horriffic, but that's not the important story here. Realistically, there's no way to prevent terrible shit like this from happening. There are sick people out there, and some of them harm children. We should support the children/families and punish the predator.
But remember, we're not talking about a man who molested a single child, which would be bad enough. We're talking about a man who was just convicted of 45 counts associated with child molestation over the last 15 years. Think of how many children could have been protected if Paterno or anyone else at Penn state had done the responsible thing and reported Sandusky to the police when they learned about his actions back in 2002. These people are criminals, and their actions (or lack therof) are almost as contemptable as Sandusky's.
^
child molesters exists. bad as that is, theres nothing new about that. What's interesting about this case is that apparently if a child molester helps you win games, then you're allowed to continue do what you do. /headshake
maybe im just really canadian and dont understand how it works, but is a college football program really that important in the states? in canadian universities its never had that much attention put to it
Charges are starting to be dropped on the case : D I found it compelling the pedophile comment regarding discrimination against a mental disease. Obviously he deserves prison, but I can be sympathetic... Molesting kids should be forever in jail, except rare occasions (that even I can't think of) but thinking about weird shit like that ? I mean it's because of a low count of white matter if I recall right so it's not like he's jsut preying.
Anywho, it's been an interesting case.
They actually put a lot of money into football, it's almost absurd when you ring the numbers... I'd go as far as to say 10times the amount of a Canadian university/college.... It's just how it works.
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
-.- This is why we don't let parents decide justice, and when it does happen we get ridiculous things. Revenge should never equate justice, and that's just how it is. The fact of the matter, it's not like these kids were "raped" by him... He offered them position, and they decided freely to do it. He's not fucking 5 year olds...
If someone told me today if I sucked there cock I'd get to play on an NHL team, I'd say no... You have to wonder, what type of people are saying yes? Is it all his fault?
Anyone who jockeys for position by accepting favours (sexual or not) from a superior (coach/teacher) is pretty much in fault too unless they're below 16...
So we can all burn him down, hell I agree he's twisted for doing it, but if you think those teenagers (young adults) didn't know what they were getting into, and didn't understand full well about what it meant for them personally (rising stardom) than I think you're a bit naive.
Ask yourself, would you have sex with your teacher/coach if it meant you could get ahead? Not to many people will say yes, especially 16-19 year olds...
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
-.- This is why we don't let parents decide justice, and when it does happen we get ridiculous things. Revenge should never equate justice, and that's just how it is. The fact of the matter, it's not like these kids were "raped" by him... He offered them position, and they decided freely to do it. He's not fucking 5 year olds...
If someone told me today if I sucked there cock I'd get to play on an NHL team, I'd say no... You have to wonder, what type of people are saying yes? Is it all his fault?
Anyone who jockeys for position by accepting favours (sexual or not) from a superior (coach/teacher) is pretty much in fault too unless they're below 16...
So we can all burn him down, hell I agree he's twisted for doing it, but if you think those teenagers (young adults) didn't know what they were getting into, and didn't understand full well about what it meant for them personally (rising stardom) than I think you're a bit naive.
Ask yourself, would you have sex with your teacher/coach if it meant you could get ahead? Not to many people will say yes, especially 16-19 year olds...
Are you serious? Did you pay any attention to the case and some of the victims' stories?
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
-.- This is why we don't let parents decide justice, and when it does happen we get ridiculous things. Revenge should never equate justice, and that's just how it is. The fact of the matter, it's not like these kids were "raped" by him... He offered them position, and they decided freely to do it. He's not fucking 5 year olds...
If someone told me today if I sucked there cock I'd get to play on an NHL team, I'd say no... You have to wonder, what type of people are saying yes? Is it all his fault?
Anyone who jockeys for position by accepting favours (sexual or not) from a superior (coach/teacher) is pretty much in fault too unless they're below 16...
So we can all burn him down, hell I agree he's twisted for doing it, but if you think those teenagers (young adults) didn't know what they were getting into, and didn't understand full well about what it meant for them personally (rising stardom) than I think you're a bit naive.
Ask yourself, would you have sex with your teacher/coach if it meant you could get ahead? Not to many people will say yes, especially 16-19 year olds...
Read the story please, you sound like a fucking idiot.
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Guy fucked up bad, him and everybody else involved are due justice, but inflicting the actions they brought about back on them is silly. They need to sit in jail for a long long time, in this case, I doubt this person will ever be fit for society again. But they're still humans, and wishing death and the same despair upon them is perpetuating the validity of such rape and abuse as "tools of justice."
Shit situation, my heart goes out to every one of those kids, everyone hurt, and everyone involved in it for making such grave mistakes that will warp them for the rest of their lives. Sad sad day.
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
-.- This is why we don't let parents decide justice, and when it does happen we get ridiculous things. Revenge should never equate justice, and that's just how it is. The fact of the matter, it's not like these kids were "raped" by him... He offered them position, and they decided freely to do it. He's not fucking 5 year olds...
If someone told me today if I sucked there cock I'd get to play on an NHL team, I'd say no... You have to wonder, what type of people are saying yes? Is it all his fault?
Anyone who jockeys for position by accepting favours (sexual or not) from a superior (coach/teacher) is pretty much in fault too unless they're below 16...
So we can all burn him down, hell I agree he's twisted for doing it, but if you think those teenagers (young adults) didn't know what they were getting into, and didn't understand full well about what it meant for them personally (rising stardom) than I think you're a bit naive.
Ask yourself, would you have sex with your teacher/coach if it meant you could get ahead? Not to many people will say yes, especially 16-19 year olds...
WTF...because rape victims had it coming, right? It is their own fault? This post is rather disgusting. I think you need to clarify your position because it sounds to me like you are blaming a victim for a crime, then saying that the perpetrator is not guilty even though HIS OWN SON has come and and said that he was abused as well...
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Guy fucked up bad, him and everybody else involved are due justice, but inflicting the actions they brought about back on them is silly. They need to sit in jail for a long long time, in this case, I doubt this person will ever be fit for society again. But they're still humans, and wishing death and the same despair upon them is perpetuating the validity of such rape and abuse as "tools of justice."
Shit situation, my heart goes out to every one of those kids, everyone hurt, and everyone involved in it for making such grave mistakes that will warp them for the rest of their lives. Sad sad day.
I have a son and I will say that I am someone that refuses to teach my son that all people are bad and we need to be scared of them. I also do not wish this scum of the earth to die, just to serve the sentence that is applicable and never be allowed to be around children again. That is a true torture and punishment that this man deserves.
I do agree that we need to resist the temptation to resort to harmful acts upon what can only be classified as a monster, but then again, you are innocent when you dream...thinking something and do something are two different actions, so have fun...
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
-.- This is why we don't let parents decide justice, and when it does happen we get ridiculous things. Revenge should never equate justice, and that's just how it is. The fact of the matter, it's not like these kids were "raped" by him... He offered them position, and they decided freely to do it. He's not fucking 5 year olds...
If someone told me today if I sucked there cock I'd get to play on an NHL team, I'd say no... You have to wonder, what type of people are saying yes? Is it all his fault?
Anyone who jockeys for position by accepting favours (sexual or not) from a superior (coach/teacher) is pretty much in fault too unless they're below 16...
So we can all burn him down, hell I agree he's twisted for doing it, but if you think those teenagers (young adults) didn't know what they were getting into, and didn't understand full well about what it meant for them personally (rising stardom) than I think you're a bit naive.
Ask yourself, would you have sex with your teacher/coach if it meant you could get ahead? Not to many people will say yes, especially 16-19 year olds...
WTF...because rape victims had it coming, right? It is their own fault? This post is rather disgusting. I think you need to clarify your position because it sounds to me like you are blaming a victim for a crime, then saying that the perpetrator is not guilty even though HIS OWN SON has come and and said that he was abused as well...
Did he hold them down and slam them?
I'm saying that this isn't some teenage girl walking down the street raped by a guy, this is victim after victim who were given options... This is very similar to Fleury's case a few months ago (and the book he came out with)...
Obviously, it's his fault that he was suggestive and his fault for doing the act, but if you want to tell me that victim after victim for X number of years were raped (full out, no choice raped) then, that's plain bullshit, this isn't a serial rapists catching girls and boys at preschool... its a coach taking advantage of weak kids wanting position, and the kids take the chance to move up.
Do I think he deserves life? Yes. Obviously we shouldn't let someone in position act in such a manner... But to think it was 100% him, and no choice given to any victim? imagine... Let's not live in a fairy tale, they're going to sensationalize their story "I had no option, it was that or nothing!" which again is where you bring yourself to ask... What would you have done?
Each one of those victims, was given position (ranked up) or allowed to stay because of what they did, some moved farther in the career because of it.
My position, is yes he had sex with these victims (in one way or another) but if we think they had no option and no way out, all of them? Then I believe we're fooling ourselves.
Oh and finally, calm down with the progressive shitstorm, it's a discussion... Not a crusade, this is my opinion you can refute and debate it (as discussions go) but no need get agitated... I have very intimate knowledge of rape (and murder) first hand as one of my friends (Amber Kirwan) is now dead because of such things.
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
-.- This is why we don't let parents decide justice, and when it does happen we get ridiculous things. Revenge should never equate justice, and that's just how it is. The fact of the matter, it's not like these kids were "raped" by him... He offered them position, and they decided freely to do it. He's not fucking 5 year olds...
If someone told me today if I sucked there cock I'd get to play on an NHL team, I'd say no... You have to wonder, what type of people are saying yes? Is it all his fault?
Anyone who jockeys for position by accepting favours (sexual or not) from a superior (coach/teacher) is pretty much in fault too unless they're below 16...
So we can all burn him down, hell I agree he's twisted for doing it, but if you think those teenagers (young adults) didn't know what they were getting into, and didn't understand full well about what it meant for them personally (rising stardom) than I think you're a bit naive.
Ask yourself, would you have sex with your teacher/coach if it meant you could get ahead? Not to many people will say yes, especially 16-19 year olds...
WTF...because rape victims had it coming, right? It is their own fault? This post is rather disgusting. I think you need to clarify your position because it sounds to me like you are blaming a victim for a crime, then saying that the perpetrator is not guilty even though HIS OWN SON has come and and said that he was abused as well...
Did he hold them down and slam them?
I'm saying that this isn't some teenage girl walking down the street raped by a guy, this is victim after victim who were given options... This is very similar to Fleury's case a few months ago (and the book he came out with)...
Obviously, it's his fault that he was suggestive and his fault for doing the act, but if you want to tell me that victim after victim for X number of years were raped (full out, no choice raped) then, that's plain bullshit, this isn't a serial rapists catching girls and boys at preschool... its a coach taking advantage of weak kids wanting position, and the kids take the chance to move up.
Do I think he deserves life? Yes. Obviously we shouldn't let someone in position act in such a manner... But to think it was 100% him, and no choice given to any victim? imagine... Let's not live in a fairy tale, they're going to sensationalize their story "I had no option, it was that or nothing!" which again is where you bring yourself to ask... What would you have done?
Each one of those victims, was given position (ranked up) or allowed to stay because of what they did, some moved farther in the career because of it.
My position, is yes he had sex with these victims (in one way or another) but if we think they had no option and no way out, all of them? Then I believe we're fooling ourselves.
Okay, so you are arguing the definition of rape. That I can understand and debate, but in this case, everything met the conditions of the legal definition of rape.
Also, just giving someone an "option" does not always mean they have much of an option and their hands aren't tied. As youth we are (generally) taught to listen and respect our elders, so sometimes children, who are the most vulnerable, are put in a situation where they might actually have an option, but don't have the understanding to know how dangerous a situation or person is, or think that they just need to choose what the adult wants them to choose out of respect, or even selfish reason, to get something in return, but they really don't know the full extent of the situation.
Adults are then put into position of power over youth and with power comes responsibility. He, as an adult and with the child in his custody, has a social and moral responsibility to the child and the child's parents, at least that is how I see it and even just approaching a youth in such a manner is reprehensible, even if he gave the child a "choice."
On June 23 2012 12:03 Probe1 wrote: I don't think that for all of his victims the nightmare will ever be over. That is why Sandusky is facing the possibility of life in prison. Molesting a minor isn't just shattered a childs innocence. It's risking a terrible chance of ruining a person for the rest of their lives.
The nightmare for Penn State? Maybe. I mean with time any institution will have its stain lifted by the passing years. But until this has passed well through recent memory it will still be a Blight on the university.
I want to say something but I don't really know how to say this without respecting the gravity of the crimes and how it transcends mere sports. I'm just going to say it and forgive me if it's callous to think of it at this time.
Every season until Bobby Bowden retired we had a friendly rivalry with Paterno. We were neck and neck with most wins and as fans we were pretty competitive with PSU. We'd wish that Paterno would retire or that they'd lose 12 games or whatever. Then Coach Bowden retires and ... this. It's pretty fucked up. All those years of wishing ill against Paterno and something like this happens. It makes you regret ever hoping a bad turn for your rival will help you win.
I'm confused by this last bit. Paterno helped cover this up for almost a decade.
The widespread institutional corruption in this case really hasn't gotten the press it deserves. Paterno and other senior members of the Penn State athletic program covered for a child rapist. The name "Sandusky" helps sell newspapers and draw viewers because his crimes are so horriffic, but that's not the important story here. Realistically, there's no way to prevent terrible shit like this from happening. There are sick people out there, and some of them harm children. We should support the children/families and punish the predator.
But remember, we're not talking about a man who molested a single child, which would be bad enough. We're talking about a man who was just convicted of 45 counts associated with child molestation over the last 15 years. Think of how many children could have been protected if Paterno or anyone else at Penn state had done the responsible thing and reported Sandusky to the police when they learned about his actions back in 2002. These people are criminals, and their actions (or lack therof) are almost as contemptable as Sandusky's.
Have you ever wished something bad would happen then something did and you felt guilty about it? That, in the darkest corner of my head, is how I feel.
On June 23 2012 15:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Here's a new article on it:
BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- Jerry Sandusky entered the Centre County Courthouse Friday as one of the most celebrated figures in the history of Penn State sports. He left a convicted child molester.
Following two days of jury deliberations, Sandusky was found guilty Friday of molesting several young boys.
The 68-year-old could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Sandusky was convicted of 45 of 48 criminal counts related to the alleged assault of 10 boys over a 15-year period. The allegations led to the ouster of the late Penn State University president and long-time coach Joe Paterno, who died in January.
[Click here for latest updates.]
Prosecutors said Sandusky was a "predatory pedophile" and a "sick, disturbed man," who targeted "the most vulnerable kids, kids in need."
Defense lawyer Joe Amendola said Sandusky was the victim of a grand conspiracy and that prosecutors provided no physical evidence to prove he had molested anyone. Because of the allegations, "everything [Jerry Sandusky] ever loved, everything he's ever built, and everything he's ever stood for -- it's gone," Amendola said.
Sandusky did not testify on his own behalf, but his wife, Dottie Sandusky, did take the stand. She said she never witnessed any inappropriate contact between her husband and the young boys.
The case has attracted widespread media coverage, as Sandusky was one of the most notable assistant football coaches in the country and the founder of The Second Mile, a nonprofit charity for underprivileged and at-risk youth.
People reacted with unrestrained joy when word of the verdict reached the crowd outside the courthouse. Some were chanting "Justice," while others sat on the sidewalk in lawn chairs to enjoy the spectacle.
"Our grandson was best friends with Victim No. 1," Bill Andrus told The Huffinton Post. "They were on the junior high wrestling team together. So knowing Victim No. 1, we had a personal interest and were hopeful it would come out this way."
Kelly Houp, who lives in Bellefonte, had harsh words for the Sandusky family.
"I knew he was guilty," she said. "All those kids would not lie. Everyone knew he did it. Dottie knew too and she should be hung."
Crime expert Scott A. Bonn, an assistant professor of sociology at Drew University, called the decision "a certainty."
"This case shocked the nation, violated our collective sense of morality and demonstrated that our children may not be safe from sexual predators after all,” Bonn said. “The jury had a moral obligation to society to convict Sandusky, and the only verdict that could restore public trust and equilibrium is guilty. I would have been shocked by any other verdict.”
Sentencing is expected to take place within 90 days.
Seems he got what he deserved. Finally closure for the families, although obviously nothing can make up for what he did to those kids.
Crime expert Scott A. Bonn, an assistant professor of sociology at Drew University, called the decision "a certainty."
"This case shocked the nation, violated our collective sense of morality and demonstrated that our children may not be safe from sexual predators after all,”
Thanks Crime Expert Scott A. Bonn. Way to be a complete tool and fearmonger so your name is published.
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
-.- This is why we don't let parents decide justice, and when it does happen we get ridiculous things. Revenge should never equate justice, and that's just how it is. The fact of the matter, it's not like these kids were "raped" by him... He offered them position, and they decided freely to do it. He's not fucking 5 year olds...
If someone told me today if I sucked there cock I'd get to play on an NHL team, I'd say no... You have to wonder, what type of people are saying yes? Is it all his fault?
Anyone who jockeys for position by accepting favours (sexual or not) from a superior (coach/teacher) is pretty much in fault too unless they're below 16...
So we can all burn him down, hell I agree he's twisted for doing it, but if you think those teenagers (young adults) didn't know what they were getting into, and didn't understand full well about what it meant for them personally (rising stardom) than I think you're a bit naive.
Ask yourself, would you have sex with your teacher/coach if it meant you could get ahead? Not to many people will say yes, especially 16-19 year olds...
WTF...because rape victims had it coming, right? It is their own fault? This post is rather disgusting. I think you need to clarify your position because it sounds to me like you are blaming a victim for a crime, then saying that the perpetrator is not guilty even though HIS OWN SON has come and and said that he was abused as well...
Did he hold them down and slam them?
I'm saying that this isn't some teenage girl walking down the street raped by a guy, this is victim after victim who were given options... This is very similar to Fleury's case a few months ago (and the book he came out with)...
Obviously, it's his fault that he was suggestive and his fault for doing the act, but if you want to tell me that victim after victim for X number of years were raped (full out, no choice raped) then, that's plain bullshit, this isn't a serial rapists catching girls and boys at preschool... its a coach taking advantage of weak kids wanting position, and the kids take the chance to move up.
Do I think he deserves life? Yes. Obviously we shouldn't let someone in position act in such a manner... But to think it was 100% him, and no choice given to any victim? imagine... Let's not live in a fairy tale, they're going to sensationalize their story "I had no option, it was that or nothing!" which again is where you bring yourself to ask... What would you have done?
Each one of those victims, was given position (ranked up) or allowed to stay because of what they did, some moved farther in the career because of it.
My position, is yes he had sex with these victims (in one way or another) but if we think they had no option and no way out, all of them? Then I believe we're fooling ourselves.
Okay, so you are arguing the definition of rape. That I can understand and debate, but in this case, everything met the conditions of the legal definition of rape.
Also, just giving someone an "option" does not always mean they have much of an option and their hands aren't tied. As youth we are (generally) taught to listen and respect our elders, so sometimes children, who are the most vulnerable, are put in a situation where they might actually have an option, but don't have the understanding to know how dangerous a situation or person is, or think that they just need to choose what the adult wants them to choose out of respect, or even selfish reason, to get something in return, but they really don't know the full extent of the situation.
Adults are then put into position of power over youth and with power comes responsibility. He, as an adult and with the child in his custody, has a social and moral responsibility to the child and the child's parents, at least that is how I see it and even just approaching a youth in such a manner is reprehensible, even if he gave the child a "choice."
As I've said, I agree that he should get life behind bars... I completely agree with that, but the argument is whether we place all the blame on him? or perhaps society for giving people the impression to do "whatever" to get ahead? or maybe the parents for not instilling trust in which those kids could have went and said what was happening? Obviously the other teachers/staff that have been laid off because of it are mentioned but what about the silent partners, there's definitely more than one head coach who knew about all of this. Also, do we place blame on the kids for trying to place themselves higher by doing things that they know are wrong, but they want to be the "best" so they will go to any end to do so.
My impression is that all of the blame is riding on the assailant, while there are other factors being excluded.
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
I'm sure people with kids probably don't see eye to eye with you, and tbh I'd side with their views on whether or not they're human since I'll probably have kids eventually too
-.- This is why we don't let parents decide justice, and when it does happen we get ridiculous things. Revenge should never equate justice, and that's just how it is. The fact of the matter, it's not like these kids were "raped" by him... He offered them position, and they decided freely to do it. He's not fucking 5 year olds...
If someone told me today if I sucked there cock I'd get to play on an NHL team, I'd say no... You have to wonder, what type of people are saying yes? Is it all his fault?
Anyone who jockeys for position by accepting favours (sexual or not) from a superior (coach/teacher) is pretty much in fault too unless they're below 16...
So we can all burn him down, hell I agree he's twisted for doing it, but if you think those teenagers (young adults) didn't know what they were getting into, and didn't understand full well about what it meant for them personally (rising stardom) than I think you're a bit naive.
Ask yourself, would you have sex with your teacher/coach if it meant you could get ahead? Not to many people will say yes, especially 16-19 year olds...
WTF...because rape victims had it coming, right? It is their own fault? This post is rather disgusting. I think you need to clarify your position because it sounds to me like you are blaming a victim for a crime, then saying that the perpetrator is not guilty even though HIS OWN SON has come and and said that he was abused as well...
Did he hold them down and slam them?
I'm saying that this isn't some teenage girl walking down the street raped by a guy, this is victim after victim who were given options... This is very similar to Fleury's case a few months ago (and the book he came out with)...
Obviously, it's his fault that he was suggestive and his fault for doing the act, but if you want to tell me that victim after victim for X number of years were raped (full out, no choice raped) then, that's plain bullshit, this isn't a serial rapists catching girls and boys at preschool... its a coach taking advantage of weak kids wanting position, and the kids take the chance to move up.
Do I think he deserves life? Yes. Obviously we shouldn't let someone in position act in such a manner... But to think it was 100% him, and no choice given to any victim? imagine... Let's not live in a fairy tale, they're going to sensationalize their story "I had no option, it was that or nothing!" which again is where you bring yourself to ask... What would you have done?
Each one of those victims, was given position (ranked up) or allowed to stay because of what they did, some moved farther in the career because of it.
My position, is yes he had sex with these victims (in one way or another) but if we think they had no option and no way out, all of them? Then I believe we're fooling ourselves.
Okay, so you are arguing the definition of rape. That I can understand and debate, but in this case, everything met the conditions of the legal definition of rape.
Also, just giving someone an "option" does not always mean they have much of an option and their hands aren't tied. As youth we are (generally) taught to listen and respect our elders, so sometimes children, who are the most vulnerable, are put in a situation where they might actually have an option, but don't have the understanding to know how dangerous a situation or person is, or think that they just need to choose what the adult wants them to choose out of respect, or even selfish reason, to get something in return, but they really don't know the full extent of the situation.
Adults are then put into position of power over youth and with power comes responsibility. He, as an adult and with the child in his custody, has a social and moral responsibility to the child and the child's parents, at least that is how I see it and even just approaching a youth in such a manner is reprehensible, even if he gave the child a "choice."
As I've said, I agree that he should get life behind bars... I completely agree with that, but the argument is whether we place all the blame on him? or perhaps society for giving people the impression to do "whatever" to get ahead? or maybe the parents for not instilling trust in which those kids could have went and said what was happening? Obviously the other teachers/staff that have been laid off because of it are mentioned but what about the silent partners, there's definitely more than one head coach who knew about all of this. Also, do we place blame on the kids for trying to place themselves higher by doing things that they know are wrong, but they want to be the "best" so they will go to any end to do so.
This I understand and overall agree that there are a ton of place where blame and education can be instilled and could/may have prevented issues. I still though agree with the legal definition of rape in this case and feel that it applies. Thank you for clarifying your position.
My impression is that all of the blame is riding on the assailant, while there are other factors being excluded.
While I agree that there are many other factors, I still feel that does not take anything away from his actions.
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
in some ways i think it's worse than murder... i won't make any assumptions, because no one who hasn't gone through something like that can understand shit about it, but i almost think i might rather be murdered. thats stupid to even say, i guess, because how the fuck would i know, but i just feel like it's true. i think it's good that people are so disgusted with the action and the person who does it, but i think it's also important to be able to forgive them on some level, and to have compassion even for them. they don't deserve it, necessarily, but i still think it's important.
this whole story is just so sad that it almost makes you want to cry. those poor kids were betrayed by everyone that should have been protecting them. fuck it makes me so mad i could punch a fucking hole through my computer screen.
Dude...no. Pedos don't deserve compassion. You cannot rehabilitate them; they never get any better. They are like rabid dogs. They need to be put down or locked up forever. Their rate of recidivism is very high because of the fact that they can't be rehabbed. They need to be freaking shot like animals.
everyone deserves some compassion, that does not mean that they deserve leniency, and that does not mean they deserve any kind of lighter punishment, but we cannot treat them the same way they treated others and still think we hold a moral high-ground.
i agree that sometimes the death penalty should be applicable to serious offenders, but not because they are pieces of shit, but because they've shown a willingness and capability of endangering society to a point where them being alive might be dangerous. some people in here are wishing (understandably) that the guy gets attacked or raped in prison. one, this would be horrible for the prisoners themselves who will do the action, and two, it is horrible to do that to anyone, i don't care what they've done. even a dog deserves the mercy of a painless death, and no one should have to live in constant fear for their dignity and life.
i won't tell someone not to hate the guy, though i think they should probably not hate the guy. i won't tell someone not to wish death on the guy, but i think someone needs to be... not on "his side" but willing to stand with the guy. that does not mean that they have to approve of him or his crimes in any way, just that even someone like him needs a certain degree of mercy. i can understand why people don't like to give mercy in situations like this, and i would never tell someone to forgive him, but even the most heinous people need some degree of forgiveness imo.
And for the complete retards arguing that tha hatred for pedophiles and child molestors is "discriminatory" vs their "mental disease" - you're fucking retarded.
Their "mental disease" is a huge and imminent threat children. They will attack children. They will destroy lives.
You don't consider quarantine of the infectious sick to be discrimination against sickness, do you? Same shit. We quarantine people afflicted with highly infectious viruses because they are an imminent threat to society. Pedophiles are an imminent threat to society. They should be quarantined also. They might not kill millions, but I dunno about you, but one person's life destroyed is enough for me to want to act to prevent it.
On June 24 2012 02:36 BoX wrote: And for the complete retards arguing that tha hatred for pedophiles and child molestors is "discriminatory" vs their "mental disease" - you're fucking retarded.
Their "mental disease" is a huge and imminent threat children. They will attack children. They will destroy lives.
You don't consider quarantine of the infectious sick to be discrimination against sickness, do you? Same shit. We quarantine people afflicted with highly infectious viruses because they are an imminent threat to society. Pedophiles are an imminent threat to society. They should be quarantined also. They might not kill millions, but I dunno about you, but one person's life destroyed is enough for me to want to act to prevent it.
There are many pedophiles that do not harm children. The concept that some people don't act upon all their urges, regardless of what kind of form it may be, due to self-discipline, must be a difficult concept for you to grasp your mind around.
Offenders should be punished with little mercy but you don't go around preemptively gutting people because they might be possible offenders. Punishing thought crime is utterly asinine and insane. We might as well all make a global suicide pact so that no evil could ever be done.
On June 24 2012 02:36 BoX wrote: And for the complete retards arguing that tha hatred for pedophiles and child molestors is "discriminatory" vs their "mental disease" - you're fucking retarded.
Their "mental disease" is a huge and imminent threat children. They will attack children. They will destroy lives.
You don't consider quarantine of the infectious sick to be discrimination against sickness, do you? Same shit. We quarantine people afflicted with highly infectious viruses because they are an imminent threat to society. Pedophiles are an imminent threat to society. They should be quarantined also. They might not kill millions, but I dunno about you, but one person's life destroyed is enough for me to want to act to prevent it.
That is talk about thought crimes. We also do not quarantine racists despite them being dangerous, until they try to burn down someone's house or something.
On June 24 2012 02:36 BoX wrote: And for the complete retards arguing that tha hatred for pedophiles and child molestors is "discriminatory" vs their "mental disease" - you're fucking retarded.
Their "mental disease" is a huge and imminent threat children. They will attack children. They will destroy lives.
You don't consider quarantine of the infectious sick to be discrimination against sickness, do you? Same shit. We quarantine people afflicted with highly infectious viruses because they are an imminent threat to society. Pedophiles are an imminent threat to society. They should be quarantined also. They might not kill millions, but I dunno about you, but one person's life destroyed is enough for me to want to act to prevent it.
There are many pedophiles that do not harm children. The concept that some people don't act upon all their urges, regardless of what kind of form it may be, due to self-discipline, must be a difficult concept for you to grasp your mind around.
Offenders should be punished with little mercy but you don't go around preemptively gutting people because they might be possible offenders. Punishing thought crime is utterly asinine and insane. We might as well all make a global suicide pact so that no evil could ever be done.
I wasn't clear, i was specifically referring to the pedophiles and child molestors who act upon their urges.
No, the concept of self-control is not difficult for me to understand. No need to be an asshole, guy.
My anger in these posts comes from my personally knowing (and loving) a victim of a pedophile/child molester. I know, first hand, the pain that it causes. So I am very passionate about the subject, and I wish for all pedophiles who act upon their urges to be punished to the maximum.
And no, punishing thought crimes is not my point at all. That's something that hasn't even occurred to me because it's so outlandish. My post was very unclear - the point of it was that OFFENDERS should be punished mercilessly.
Hey guys, remember when everyone got brain washed into thinking JoePa wasn't a huge piece of shit?? That report came out today, if you havent seen it all over the news.
JoePa, the admins, coaches and everyone there are horrible human beings. Jesus. I hope that stupid program gets at least a year ban for the cover up, and the victims sue to get all the money the alumni donated to the school in support of Paterno.
On June 23 2012 15:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: i hate what they do, and to a certain degree, i have an uncontrollable hatred and disgust of the person who does something like that, but i think it's important to... not fight, but resist that reaction. i mean, they are fucking disgusting, they are horrible, they deserve something that i can't even describe... but they are humans too. i don't want the guy to be raped or murdered.
in some ways i think it's worse than murder... i won't make any assumptions, because no one who hasn't gone through something like that can understand shit about it, but i almost think i might rather be murdered. thats stupid to even say, i guess, because how the fuck would i know, but i just feel like it's true. i think it's good that people are so disgusted with the action and the person who does it, but i think it's also important to be able to forgive them on some level, and to have compassion even for them. they don't deserve it, necessarily, but i still think it's important.
this whole story is just so sad that it almost makes you want to cry. those poor kids were betrayed by everyone that should have been protecting them. fuck it makes me so mad i could punch a fucking hole through my computer screen.
Dude...no. Pedos don't deserve compassion. You cannot rehabilitate them; they never get any better. They are like rabid dogs. They need to be put down or locked up forever. Their rate of recidivism is very high because of the fact that they can't be rehabbed. They need to be freaking shot like animals.
everyone deserves some compassion, that does not mean that they deserve leniency, and that does not mean they deserve any kind of lighter punishment, but we cannot treat them the same way they treated others and still think we hold a moral high-ground.
i agree that sometimes the death penalty should be applicable to serious offenders, but not because they are pieces of shit, but because they've shown a willingness and capability of endangering society to a point where them being alive might be dangerous. some people in here are wishing (understandably) that the guy gets attacked or raped in prison. one, this would be horrible for the prisoners themselves who will do the action, and two, it is horrible to do that to anyone, i don't care what they've done. even a dog deserves the mercy of a painless death, and no one should have to live in constant fear for their dignity and life.
i won't tell someone not to hate the guy, though i think they should probably not hate the guy. i won't tell someone not to wish death on the guy, but i think someone needs to be... not on "his side" but willing to stand with the guy. that does not mean that they have to approve of him or his crimes in any way, just that even someone like him needs a certain degree of mercy. i can understand why people don't like to give mercy in situations like this, and i would never tell someone to forgive him, but even the most heinous people need some degree of forgiveness imo.
People like you are rare bud. I often try to explain that to people. Problem is so many people are simple minded. "He raped someone? HE SHOULD GET RAPED" To the other Americans in this thread. Should 600,000 Americans die because they killed 600,000 Iraqi's? Would you agree to that too? Everyone knows the saying an eye for an eye and the whole words blind. This is one of those situations, you have to stand on the higher moral ground. Punishment should be swift and unrelated to emotion, he committed this crime he should be punished accordingly to it.
Instead of people thinking this guy should die, then kill him yourself if you think that, oh right empty threats. Start saying what you mean, if you say this guy should get raped and you want him raped, do it yourself! Don't say you will do it!
I'm simply saying people need to put truth and meaning behind their words and stop making them empty. I am not literally saying rape the guy. I'm saying a lot of people have made these statements with no honesty behind it without understanding what they even mean themselves, be a little less ignorant to your own words and feelings.
On July 13 2012 05:02 RoosterSamurai wrote: I hope the parents and victims sue Penn State so hard that they can never open their doors again.
Well it's not the student's fault, hopefully they should still get a good education if the school has any money left
Really though it's the fucking worst situation for everyone, the people running this school are absolutely demented. I Hope the NCAA shuts down the football program for at least a year, have you seen what they have done in the past to players or schools for simple financial violations (SMU Mustangs good example). The atrocities committed within PennState are 1000x more heinous than what happened at SMU back in the day, and they got rap... I mean they had their program demolished by the NCAA.
There needs to be a standard set so that all the other DEMENTED MOTHERFUCKERS running these schools know that they can't hide anything like this ever again.
On July 13 2012 04:40 Hawk wrote: Hey guys, remember when everyone got brain washed into thinking JoePa wasn't a huge piece of shit?? That report came out today, if you havent seen it all over the news.
JoePa, the admins, coaches and everyone there are horrible human beings. Jesus. I hope that stupid program gets at least a year ban for the cover up, and the victims sue to get all the money the alumni donated to the school in support of Paterno.
Disgusting stuff. I agree with you. The whole damn school should be sanctioned for their criminal or at the very least, completely immoral acts.
Interesting parts: findings - p.13 timeline p.19 on the response of the officials p. 39-80 (this is the meat it, and what people are probably most interested in) appendix has some of the infamous notes and e-mails.
I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
LOL you cant blame America for liking football. The blame is on Sandusky first and foremost, because without him there is none of this and then the blame is one the administration for covering it up and letting it continue.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Same could be said of any sport anywhere. Same could be said of Brood War and the match fixing scandal. College sports are frankly a huge business and out-of-control. I don't know how to solve the problem, the machine is so huge and there are so many people that care more about this stuff than real life and sociopolitical matters. Their morals get pretty skewed, and that's how these things can happen.
But these were individual decisions made by individuals. Any one of those in the know could have spoken up in spite of the pressure, but they did not. Which makes it all the more tragic.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
On July 13 2012 05:02 RoosterSamurai wrote: I hope the parents and victims sue Penn State so hard that they can never open their doors again.
Your mindset is disgusting. Punish all of the faculty that Penn State employs as well as all the students in Penn State for something they had no part in? Stop projecting onto an entire university and focus on the key group that covered this crime up, PSU is so much more than football.
I knew penn state and their football community was full of shit when I read news reports of PSU students rioting and whining over paterno's firing and the apparant damage that PSU's football program took because of the scandal. Being a great football coach is meaningless if you are going to destroy the lives of children and try to cover the shit up.
On June 24 2012 02:36 BoX wrote: And for the complete retards arguing that tha hatred for pedophiles and child molestors is "discriminatory" vs their "mental disease" - you're fucking retarded.
Their "mental disease" is a huge and imminent threat children. They will attack children. They will destroy lives.
You don't consider quarantine of the infectious sick to be discrimination against sickness, do you? Same shit. We quarantine people afflicted with highly infectious viruses because they are an imminent threat to society. Pedophiles are an imminent threat to society. They should be quarantined also. They might not kill millions, but I dunno about you, but one person's life destroyed is enough for me to want to act to prevent it.
There are many pedophiles that do not harm children. The concept that some people don't act upon all their urges, regardless of what kind of form it may be, due to self-discipline, must be a difficult concept for you to grasp your mind around.
Offenders should be punished with little mercy but you don't go around preemptively gutting people because they might be possible offenders. Punishing thought crime is utterly asinine and insane. We might as well all make a global suicide pact so that no evil could ever be done.
don't care how you phrase it, someone who would even think what they think about sexualizing kids are animals/monsters/whatever negative word can be associated with it. I'm not a parent right now but I expect that the way I think about how these people think is a good quality for anyone who cares about their kids (or kids in general). Even someone like you with your thought crime nonsense I wouldn't let near my kids, soz bro
thought crime, kek. Don't discriminate against me on how I think because I discriminate against how other "people" think
i have to ask, why did they cover up for sandusky when he was just the defensive coordinator? i mean defensive coordinators in college football isn't THAT highly coveted of a position.
makes it a lot sleazier imo.
on the whole topic of paedophiles,they don't choose to be paedophiles. don't murder them for being paedophiles, go with chemical castration.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
Everyone involved in the cover up should be charged, and because this whole cover up was done because of the status of athletics, the school's athletics program should be shut down for a year to get the damn point across. Students there only for athletics can transfer, and people promised scholarships can still get their money, but this is the time to make an example of these bastards, and to do something about this ridiculous sports culture.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
It will take time to see if how changes. But even still, there are thousands of JoePa faithful that will never say a bad thing against the man due to his devotion to Penn State (for better or worse I fear). In the minds of some he will always be that larger than life figure in the arena of College athletics for all time.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
On July 13 2012 13:24 shawster wrote: i have to ask, why did they cover up for sandusky when he was just the defensive coordinator? i mean defensive coordinators in college football isn't THAT highly coveted of a position.
makes it a lot sleazier imo.
on the whole topic of paedophiles,they don't choose to be paedophiles. don't murder them for being paedophiles, go with chemical castration.
It's still one of the top ranking positions on the team. The sport requires recruitment for it's players and the fact that one of the top guys was a pedophile probably wouldn't sit well with parents...
Losers at Penn State were scared it would ruin a few years of their team, I guess.
On July 13 2012 13:24 shawster wrote: i have to ask, why did they cover up for sandusky when he was just the defensive coordinator? i mean defensive coordinators in college football isn't THAT highly coveted of a position.
makes it a lot sleazier imo.
on the whole topic of paedophiles,they don't choose to be paedophiles. don't murder them for being paedophiles, go with chemical castration.
Sandusky was a big community figure too, having coached at Penn State for 30 years himself. One of Penn State's football nicknames is Linebacker U, and Sandusky was linebacker coach (starting in 1970) before he became defensive coordinator, so a lot of that reputation probably leads back to him, really. Also, one of the biggest, most famous, influential college football games ever, Penn State's 14-10 upset of Miami in the Fiesta Bowl 1987--Sandusky's stamp on that was huge if you think about it, holding one of the most talented college offenses ever assembled to 10 points and 5 interceptions in the still most watched college game ever. Very odd to revisit that game now (which was dubbed and marketed as a biblical good vs. evil clash in its time). Here's a telling of the overall story of the game which is a pretty compelling one: The Night College Football Went to Hell
So Sandusky was a very established part of the whole Penn State football mythology (they were and still are always especially known for defense), and also coached with Paterno for 30 years. Does that give a sense of where the loyalty to him was coming from?
On June 24 2012 02:36 BoX wrote: And for the complete retards arguing that tha hatred for pedophiles and child molestors is "discriminatory" vs their "mental disease" - you're fucking retarded.
Their "mental disease" is a huge and imminent threat children. They will attack children. They will destroy lives.
You don't consider quarantine of the infectious sick to be discrimination against sickness, do you? Same shit. We quarantine people afflicted with highly infectious viruses because they are an imminent threat to society. Pedophiles are an imminent threat to society. They should be quarantined also. They might not kill millions, but I dunno about you, but one person's life destroyed is enough for me to want to act to prevent it.
There are many pedophiles that do not harm children. The concept that some people don't act upon all their urges, regardless of what kind of form it may be, due to self-discipline, must be a difficult concept for you to grasp your mind around.
Offenders should be punished with little mercy but you don't go around preemptively gutting people because they might be possible offenders. Punishing thought crime is utterly asinine and insane. We might as well all make a global suicide pact so that no evil could ever be done.
don't care how you phrase it, someone who would even think what they think about sexualizing kids are animals/monsters/whatever negative word can be associated with it. I'm not a parent right now but I expect that the way I think about how these people think is a good quality for anyone who cares about their kids (or kids in general). Even someone like you with your thought crime nonsense I wouldn't let near my kids, soz bro
thought crime, kek. Don't discriminate against me on how I think because I discriminate against how other "people" think
Are u kidding me? Besides the fact that it would literally IMPOSSIBLE to catch "criminals" who have bad thoughts, it's completely insane. Let's say ur a 19 year old guy at a party and met a cute 17 yo girl. U find out she's 17, stop hitting on her, but still think of her sexually. Should he be arrested? Hell no.
What u are now talking about is the government taking complete control of us and even controlling what we think. That's scarier than Big Brother.
Yeah, I get that child molestation is definitely wrong and horrific. But u are way overreacting and u are a prisoner of the moment
Can't agree with this article at all, you'd be punishing hundreds, (those involved with the football program in terms of jobs or as players/coaches) even thousands, (The legions of Penn State fans and alumni) for the terrible actions of five men. Prosecute those man to the fullest extent of the law, I hope they rot in jail, but killing the entire program would be an in appropriate punishment in my mind.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
Can't agree with this article at all, you'd be punishing hundreds, (those involved with the football program in terms of jobs or as players/coaches) even thousands, (The legions of Penn State fans and alumni) for the terrible actions of five men. Prosecute those man to the fullest extent of the law, I hope they rot in jail, but killing the entire program would be an in appropriate punishment in my mind.
Vicarious liability.
There will always be innocent people in any wrongdoing organization. Using that as a shield from liability is terrible excuse. Countries, states, towns, corporations, businesses, non-profits and many other organizations suffer from the wrongdoings of their citizens or employees all the time. It's not a shield and students and other employees are free to go elsewhere.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
A lot of MLB pros played college baseball (Barry Bonds, Stephan Strasburg, the list goes on and on.) You dont know much about college sports. These big colleges get millions of dollars from their football and basketball programs and dont have to pay the players. The school makes money off them, they dont take money from the school when they get a scholarship. And most players need to get a job after football and they do need college for that.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
A lot of MLB pros played college baseball (Barry Bonds, Stephan Strasburg, the list goes on and on.) You dont know much about college sports. These big colleges get millions of dollars from their football and basketball programs and dont have to pay the players. The school makes money off them, they dont take money from the school when they get a scholarship. And most players need to get a job after football and they do need college for that.
also, there is such a large pool of potential players that most colleges require you to be academically successful anyway. i knew a guy who was an awesome football player who didn't get shit for scholarships because his grades were abysmal. i knew another guy ON THE SAME TEAM who did get a scholarship and he was a 4.0 (maybe better) student.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
you do realize that the athletic department's budget is completely separate from a university's academic budget, right? the revenue from the $$ sports (football and mens basketball) subsidizes all of the non-revenue sports such as tennis, baseball, track and field, and every womens sport. in the top tier football programs, coaching staff/AD salaries and starting player position scholarships are oftentimes endowed by wealthy donors/alumni so it really is no cost to the school.
more on topic, i honestly feel like the program should be dismantled for an equal amount of seasons as there are victims. it's honestly the most disgusting thing to come out of collegiate sports.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
you do realize that the athletic department's budget is completely separate from a university's academic budget, right? the revenue from the $$ sports (football and mens basketball) subsidizes all of the non-revenue sports such as tennis, baseball, track and field, and every womens sport. in the top tier football programs, coaching staff/AD salaries and starting player position scholarships are oftentimes endowed by wealthy donors/alumni so it really is no cost to the school.
more on topic, i honestly feel like the program should be dismantled for an equal amount of seasons as there are victims. it's honestly the most disgusting thing to come out of collegiate sports.
I honestly dont think the NCAA will ever give the death penalty again unfortunately after what happened with SMU. Penn State football would never recover and that would affect the players and fans who had no part in the scandal. Nbody in the current staff on the football team or players were covering it up. They need to put the adminstrators that covered it up in jail and tear down the paterno statue. I wish they would not let them play football, but i dont think it will happen.
ideally presidents and ADs of the B1G get together and vote to kick out penn st from the conference. i know if it was a PAC-12 school that had committed this sort of thing i wouldn't want to be associated with that school in any way.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
Our country is lagging behind in everything except college. We have the best universities in the world. For every 1 great university in another country there are like 10 in america. Just because you dont like sports doesnt mean people dont. I dont think american culture had anything to do with a pedophile raping kids and his friends covering it up because they were afriad for their own selves and reputations.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
Our country is lagging behind in everything except college. We have the best universities in the world. For every 1 great university in another country there are like 10 in america. Just because you dont like sports doesnt mean people dont. I dont think american culture had anything to do with a pedophile raping kids and his friends covering it up because they were afriad for their own selves and reputations.
Our country has the best universities, but guess who these best universities are educating? If you guessed foreigners, you guessed right. Look at how many students in the United States graduate college with a degree in an actual academic subject (not visual or performing arts), like a STEM degree, or a management or social and behavioral science degree, or something else that's academic in nature. The majority of U.S. citizens who attend college attend for visual and performing arts, or a similar non academic subject. Why is that? Because our culture frowns on academics and academically inclined people. They're labeled as 'nerds' or 'geeks', while the sport jocks are 'popular'. There's nothing wrong with visual and performing arts degrees, but our culture is emphasizing things like entertainment and sports while not emphasizing actual academics, and it's becoming quite obvious when you start looking at the world economy, and areas of technological development (you might notice India has it's own silicon valley now, guess where those workers got their education?). This is not a winning combination in the long run, it's unsustainable and it's going to cause serious issues down the line. Yeah, I know, our consumerist culture tells you want things now and not give a shit about later, but this is a serious problem. Having the best universities is irrelevant when location has no real effect on who attends, these schools take the best students, and many of them aren't from the U.S. They might as well be located overseas.
Again, I don't hate sports, but I also don't raise it to this ridiculous level that it's fans seem to think it deserves (Yes, I watch sports too). Sports simply are not important, they're nice to have and fun, but they aren't important, and this absurd drive our culture has to promote sports constantly is ridiculous. It doesn't matter that people like it, I like Burger King, but I would never argue that it's a healthy thing. Just look at your average newspaper: how much of it is taken up by sports? How much of it is taken up by academics or academic achievements? I've lost track of the amount of times someone I know has earned a very impressive academic achievement and had nobody care (win the national science fair? High school math team win for the state? Ignored!), while the sports team does nothing out of the ordinary and gets 100 times the attention.
Why did the people higher up cover for Sandusky? Because he was valuable to their sports program. That's disgusting.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
You sound really defensive about this issue. I assume you didn't play many sports in high school. As was mentioned above, the revenue brought in by big name sports programs subisidizes the rest of the athletics for the school. The scholarships given to athletes could never be changed to academic sholarships, because that money wouldn't exist without the sports program. No kid has ever been denied a spot at a school because it was "stolen" by a recruited athlete.
Basically, as he finds out the Sandusky investigation is going to happen in early 2011, he immediately begins talking of revisiting his contract and ends up negotiating to a contract option with a retirement package worth $5.5 million if 2011 is his last season. It's negotiated with Spanier, and only a few board members know of the new agreement, the full board only finds out when they fire him what they now owe him. The board of trustees is split on whether they should or need to honor the contract and the final decision seems to be yes, they do.
On July 13 2012 11:45 Tewks44 wrote: I think part of the blame should be on the U.S.'s insane worship of Football. This was obviously covered up due to Sandusky's status as the football coach. In the U.S. we don't only enjoy football, we idolize it and revere it with religious intensity. As a non-football fan it's very annoying.
Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
You sound really defensive about this issue. I assume you didn't play many sports in high school. As was mentioned above, the revenue brought in by big name sports programs subisidizes the rest of the athletics for the school. The scholarships given to athletes could never be changed to academic sholarships, because that money wouldn't exist without the sports program. No kid has ever been denied a spot at a school because it was "stolen" by a recruited athlete.
I played soccer and football in highschool, your assumption is wrong.
On July 13 2012 12:05 ZapRoffo wrote: [quote] Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
You sound really defensive about this issue. I assume you didn't play many sports in high school. As was mentioned above, the revenue brought in by big name sports programs subisidizes the rest of the athletics for the school. The scholarships given to athletes could never be changed to academic sholarships, because that money wouldn't exist without the sports program. No kid has ever been denied a spot at a school because it was "stolen" by a recruited athlete.
I played soccer and football in highschool, your assumption is wrong.
Lot of people put forth the argument that you shouldn't punish present student-athletes with penalties because they weren't involved in the scandal at all. But the whole purpose of punishment is to serve as a deterrent for all the other institutions in the NCAA. If other schools know that all they have to do is fire the offending coach to get off without any penalties then there is no incentive for the BoT or the admins to ensure that their athletic department is doing things the right way.
As far as a solution to the unseemliness of college sports, I think the key is to have congress step in and force the NBA and NFL to drop their age limits. Congress could do that because both of those professional orgs essentially have anti-trust exemptions (see steroid hearings with MLB). This way, if a kid is ready to go pro and make money, he is able to do so. If a guy isn't ready to go pro, then he's not going to be worth $180,000 cash under the table to some university. People say that kids aren't big enough to play in the NFL out of high school, but there are actually plenty of 300+ lb linemen in college.
Why did the people higher up cover for Sandusky? Because he was valuable to their sports program. That's disgusting.
It was covered up because having a child sex scandal is really, really fucking bad for the school's image. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a football coach to have a bad effect on the school. A tarnished image means lower enrollment and less alumni contribution. He had little value to the program at that point. He retired after the first investigation in 1998.
The cover up was because of what would happen if it came out that this had taken place at PSU. It would be bad for any school and dry up alumni donations to the university as a whole. It would also have implications on the football program (which in turn, takes money away money from other programs at the school).
It was especially bad for PSU because Paterno was a smug dipshit who regularly touted how morally righteous he and his program was, which has been proven to be bs at this point.
I do not believe it is representative of the entire city or schools opinion but when I see this as well as the report that PSU shuffled television channels when the Freeh report came on.. It makes me wonder what the atmosphere is like on campus in a general sense.
The threat of vandalism really is the main reason why the statue should be taken down, at least for now. Makes no sense to keep it up when it's just going to be the center of more trouble for the school. Someone is obviously going to do something to it.
On July 13 2012 12:05 ZapRoffo wrote: [quote] Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
Our country is lagging behind in everything except college. We have the best universities in the world. For every 1 great university in another country there are like 10 in america. Just because you dont like sports doesnt mean people dont. I dont think american culture had anything to do with a pedophile raping kids and his friends covering it up because they were afriad for their own selves and reputations.
Our country has the best universities, but guess who these best universities are educating? If you guessed foreigners, you guessed right. Look at how many students in the United States graduate college with a degree in an actual academic subject (not visual or performing arts), like a STEM degree, or a management or social and behavioral science degree, or something else that's academic in nature. The majority of U.S. citizens who attend college attend for visual and performing arts, or a similar non academic subject. Why is that? Because our culture frowns on academics and academically inclined people. They're labeled as 'nerds' or 'geeks', while the sport jocks are 'popular'. There's nothing wrong with visual and performing arts degrees, but our culture is emphasizing things like entertainment and sports while not emphasizing actual academics, and it's becoming quite obvious when you start looking at the world economy, and areas of technological development (you might notice India has it's own silicon valley now, guess where those workers got their education?). This is not a winning combination in the long run, it's unsustainable and it's going to cause serious issues down the line. Yeah, I know, our consumerist culture tells you want things now and not give a shit about later, but this is a serious problem. Having the best universities is irrelevant when location has no real effect on who attends, these schools take the best students, and many of them aren't from the U.S. They might as well be located overseas.
Again, I don't hate sports, but I also don't raise it to this ridiculous level that it's fans seem to think it deserves (Yes, I watch sports too). Sports simply are not important, they're nice to have and fun, but they aren't important, and this absurd drive our culture has to promote sports constantly is ridiculous. It doesn't matter that people like it, I like Burger King, but I would never argue that it's a healthy thing. Just look at your average newspaper: how much of it is taken up by sports? How much of it is taken up by academics or academic achievements? I've lost track of the amount of times someone I know has earned a very impressive academic achievement and had nobody care (win the national science fair? High school math team win for the state? Ignored!), while the sports team does nothing out of the ordinary and gets 100 times the attention.
Why did the people higher up cover for Sandusky? Because he was valuable to their sports program. That's disgusting.
You think this is a result of "our culture" that you apparently hate so much? It was a sick individual who turned out to be surrounded by some more sick individuals who were avoiding a scandal. "sports" and "America" did not create this issue, you fool. Disappoitnd about athletics driving universities?Oh "boo-hoo" another business model that follows the income, no surprise...not to mention all the positive impacts that strong sports programs have. They covered for him because they knew the consequences would be horrible for them, not because Sandusky was such a great football guru. Also, Harvard is your example? lol. Let's just all get academic scholarships to Harvard, I hear they're just taking kids off the street left and right.
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
Our country is lagging behind in everything except college. We have the best universities in the world. For every 1 great university in another country there are like 10 in america. Just because you dont like sports doesnt mean people dont. I dont think american culture had anything to do with a pedophile raping kids and his friends covering it up because they were afriad for their own selves and reputations.
Our country has the best universities, but guess who these best universities are educating? If you guessed foreigners, you guessed right. Look at how many students in the United States graduate college with a degree in an actual academic subject (not visual or performing arts), like a STEM degree, or a management or social and behavioral science degree, or something else that's academic in nature. The majority of U.S. citizens who attend college attend for visual and performing arts, or a similar non academic subject. Why is that? Because our culture frowns on academics and academically inclined people. They're labeled as 'nerds' or 'geeks', while the sport jocks are 'popular'. There's nothing wrong with visual and performing arts degrees, but our culture is emphasizing things like entertainment and sports while not emphasizing actual academics, and it's becoming quite obvious when you start looking at the world economy, and areas of technological development (you might notice India has it's own silicon valley now, guess where those workers got their education?). This is not a winning combination in the long run, it's unsustainable and it's going to cause serious issues down the line. Yeah, I know, our consumerist culture tells you want things now and not give a shit about later, but this is a serious problem. Having the best universities is irrelevant when location has no real effect on who attends, these schools take the best students, and many of them aren't from the U.S. They might as well be located overseas.
Again, I don't hate sports, but I also don't raise it to this ridiculous level that it's fans seem to think it deserves (Yes, I watch sports too). Sports simply are not important, they're nice to have and fun, but they aren't important, and this absurd drive our culture has to promote sports constantly is ridiculous. It doesn't matter that people like it, I like Burger King, but I would never argue that it's a healthy thing. Just look at your average newspaper: how much of it is taken up by sports? How much of it is taken up by academics or academic achievements? I've lost track of the amount of times someone I know has earned a very impressive academic achievement and had nobody care (win the national science fair? High school math team win for the state? Ignored!), while the sports team does nothing out of the ordinary and gets 100 times the attention.
Why did the people higher up cover for Sandusky? Because he was valuable to their sports program. That's disgusting.
You think this is a result of "our culture" that you apparently hate so much? It was a sick individual who turned out to be surrounded by some more sick individuals who were avoiding a scandal. "sports" and "America" did not create this issue, you fool. Disappoitnd about athletics driving universities?Oh "boo-hoo" another business model that follows the income, no surprise...not to mention all the positive impacts that strong sports programs have. They covered for him because they knew the consequences would be horrible for them, not because Sandusky was such a great football guru. Also, Harvard is your example? lol. Let's just all get academic scholarships to Harvard, I hear they're just taking kids off the street left and right.
You should seriously read what he had to say instead of tangenting off to something completely irrelevant. He's absolutely right, sports take priority over academics at most universities. School is a business. What generates the most revenue? Sports.
He used Harvard as an example for what more schools should be like, not in terms of academic excellence, but in academic standards where how well you do in terms of studies is more important than if you can play sports or not. It's not my problem if you can't comprehend this.
man i just hope our great football triumphs over these rape victims and is never again threatened by such petty complaints. "daddy why isnt the football program shut down?" "because son, its just too big." evil voice -- "muahhaaha nothing will stand in our way." on a more serious note, can you imagine these slaves oh sorry "student athletes" after their practice is done and trying to take a shower in the same place where little boys were raped.
seeing stuff likes this makes me realize that Richard Nixon and NASA could easily have covered up a series of fake moon landings...
pedophiles don't wake up at 40 years old and say... " yuo know adult women are boring .. i think i'll have sex with 8 year old boys now". Sandusky has been a child molester his entire adult life and managed to cover it up for 45 years... leaving dozens if not hundreds of lives in ruin... all hidden ... all covered up.
On July 23 2012 03:55 TommyP wrote: 3:35 on that video.. WOW, the irony.
it's also exactly why the cover up happened and went on for so long. when you build yourself up as infallible, youre gonna do anything to protect that image
For the lazy: • $60 million fine (roughly what the football team takes in annually). This will be used to establish an endowment to help child sexual abuse victims • Loss of 10 scholarships (25 to 15) annually • Four-year postseason ban • Vacating all wins from 1998-2011. Bowden is now the #1 in all time wins • Students can transfer penalty free
Honestly, who gives a shit about the wins. They should have stripped them of all scholarships for four years. Among the several things that the cover up was done to protect (Paterno's legacy, the school's rep, alumni donation revenue), one of the chief things was recruiting, which would have been impacted by that coming to light in 1998.
I understood that the penn state college football community was full of shit the moment I read news about students protesting and complaining about paterno's firing after allegations surfaced that he was part of the coverup. It really just shows how perverse and cult-like the whole football program is and all who support it. Yes, it is unfair that innocent students who did nothing wrong are going to suffer punishment, but hey thats what happens when your leaders fuck up.
On July 23 2012 23:31 Zorkmid wrote: This program should have received the death penalty just like SMU.
Nice slap on the wrist NCAA.
At least they got the benefactor of the fine correct.
I don't think you understand how severe this is.
This is essentially worse than a one year death penalty that SMU received. 5 years from now coming off this they will be a team with MAC level talent at best. No top level players are going to go to Penn St for the next three years at least, no bowl games or conference championship games is a huge deal. On top of that they can only take 15 players per year, so the will have way less scholarship players and much lower level players than they traditionally have had.
O and throw in that all current players will be allowed to stop playing and keep their schollies or transfer immediately without penalty.
And it wouldn't surprise me is the B10 threw on some additional sanctions on during their news conference at 11AM EST
I was talking to a friend, because at first I didn't think it was harsh enough, but he says this is pretty serious.
Vacating wins doesn't do shit, we all agree. 60 million is not the profits from 1 year, it's more like 4 years of profits. Loss of scholarships is a huge deal. Their recruitment will be fucked even more than it is now. No post season hurts recruitment even more. Combined with the bad press, loss of paterno, and don't forget actual criminal hearings against people at the school, Penn State football is pretty clobbered.
Basically the penalties do a very good job of only hurting the football program and maybe a few other athletic things. It wouldn't be right to do penalties so severe that the academic portion of the school would be negatively affected.
On July 23 2012 23:40 Bigtony wrote: It wouldn't be right to do penalties so severe that the academic portion of the school would be negatively affected.
The administration of Penn State is as responsible for this unfathomable crime as the football program is.
On July 13 2012 12:05 ZapRoffo wrote: [quote] Undeniably. And Penn State football has been one of the most extreme examples of it, it really is cult-like there. I swear before all this, Paterno was viewed by most Penn State devotees as closer to a mythical figure than a man.
College football though, it's just ugh, the whole institution already felt sort of icky but now it's gone over the edge. I don't really think I can watch it very much anymore without feeling really uneasy. And pro football, it's better but doesn't feel wholly right either (well and there's the fact that college football is its de-facto minor league so it's tied in as well).
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
Our country is lagging behind in everything except college. We have the best universities in the world. For every 1 great university in another country there are like 10 in america. Just because you dont like sports doesnt mean people dont. I dont think american culture had anything to do with a pedophile raping kids and his friends covering it up because they were afriad for their own selves and reputations.
Our country has the best universities, but guess who these best universities are educating? If you guessed foreigners, you guessed right. Look at how many students in the United States graduate college with a degree in an actual academic subject (not visual or performing arts), like a STEM degree, or a management or social and behavioral science degree, or something else that's academic in nature. The majority of U.S. citizens who attend college attend for visual and performing arts, or a similar non academic subject. Why is that? Because our culture frowns on academics and academically inclined people. They're labeled as 'nerds' or 'geeks', while the sport jocks are 'popular'. There's nothing wrong with visual and performing arts degrees, but our culture is emphasizing things like entertainment and sports while not emphasizing actual academics, and it's becoming quite obvious when you start looking at the world economy, and areas of technological development (you might notice India has it's own silicon valley now, guess where those workers got their education?). This is not a winning combination in the long run, it's unsustainable and it's going to cause serious issues down the line. Yeah, I know, our consumerist culture tells you want things now and not give a shit about later, but this is a serious problem. Having the best universities is irrelevant when location has no real effect on who attends, these schools take the best students, and many of them aren't from the U.S. They might as well be located overseas.
Again, I don't hate sports, but I also don't raise it to this ridiculous level that it's fans seem to think it deserves (Yes, I watch sports too). Sports simply are not important, they're nice to have and fun, but they aren't important, and this absurd drive our culture has to promote sports constantly is ridiculous. It doesn't matter that people like it, I like Burger King, but I would never argue that it's a healthy thing. Just look at your average newspaper: how much of it is taken up by sports? How much of it is taken up by academics or academic achievements? I've lost track of the amount of times someone I know has earned a very impressive academic achievement and had nobody care (win the national science fair? High school math team win for the state? Ignored!), while the sports team does nothing out of the ordinary and gets 100 times the attention.
Why did the people higher up cover for Sandusky? Because he was valuable to their sports program. That's disgusting.
Your example of newspapers giving more attention to sports doesn't really explain anything.
Papers report on things people actually find interesting. Does anyone honestly care that the local high school math team won state? Probably not enough to receive more than a short story, because frankly, what is there to report? They went to state, beat so and so, heres some quotes from members/coach, done. People don't like math and science in general. You can call that a problem if you want, but something as simple as sports is easy to follow.
You claim they're not important, but how important is math really? Outside of basic division/multiplication/addition/subtraction, when do you really use math unless your job actually requires it? Do you need to know the Pythagorean Theorem, or what a quadratic equation is? Chances are pretty good that you don't.
The sickest part of this is that Penn State is easily in the top 3 every year in football profits but those profits represent only around 2% of their overall budget every year. Most of that profit goes into funding other athletic programs. Most other schools aren't even making money with their programs. One of the victims' lawyers stated correctly that universities should stop being whores to their football programs.
And the NCAA did the correct thing in punishing them. We all know many religious cults outlive their founders. Penn State's football culture is cult like. Paternology did not go away with its founder. Its adherents are still clinging to it. Penn State and the NCAA have to dismantle the cult and reintegrate its members back to broader society.
You claim they're not important, but how important is math really? Outside of basic division/multiplication/addition/subtraction, when do you really use math unless your job actually requires it? Do you need to know the Pythagorean Theorem, or what a quadratic equation is? Chances are pretty good that you don't.
This is such a stupid argument. I could make an argument just as stupid about athletics. Schools and public institutions encourage math education because it leads to important careers vital to the nation and more importantly learning math develops problem solving and critical thinking skills that people need for whatever job they are going to get. Nobody learns the pythagorean theorem because they ask for it at work; they learn it for the sake of learning.
Football should adopt the baseball minor league format, rather than taking students from college. People who want to go pro in football would go play in the minor league for it. People shouldn't be going to college for something non-academic like sports, and taking scholarship money that should go to students there for academics.
It would help with issues like this too.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
Our country is lagging behind in everything except college. We have the best universities in the world. For every 1 great university in another country there are like 10 in america. Just because you dont like sports doesnt mean people dont. I dont think american culture had anything to do with a pedophile raping kids and his friends covering it up because they were afriad for their own selves and reputations.
Our country has the best universities, but guess who these best universities are educating? If you guessed foreigners, you guessed right. Look at how many students in the United States graduate college with a degree in an actual academic subject (not visual or performing arts), like a STEM degree, or a management or social and behavioral science degree, or something else that's academic in nature. The majority of U.S. citizens who attend college attend for visual and performing arts, or a similar non academic subject. Why is that? Because our culture frowns on academics and academically inclined people. They're labeled as 'nerds' or 'geeks', while the sport jocks are 'popular'. There's nothing wrong with visual and performing arts degrees, but our culture is emphasizing things like entertainment and sports while not emphasizing actual academics, and it's becoming quite obvious when you start looking at the world economy, and areas of technological development (you might notice India has it's own silicon valley now, guess where those workers got their education?). This is not a winning combination in the long run, it's unsustainable and it's going to cause serious issues down the line. Yeah, I know, our consumerist culture tells you want things now and not give a shit about later, but this is a serious problem. Having the best universities is irrelevant when location has no real effect on who attends, these schools take the best students, and many of them aren't from the U.S. They might as well be located overseas.
Again, I don't hate sports, but I also don't raise it to this ridiculous level that it's fans seem to think it deserves (Yes, I watch sports too). Sports simply are not important, they're nice to have and fun, but they aren't important, and this absurd drive our culture has to promote sports constantly is ridiculous. It doesn't matter that people like it, I like Burger King, but I would never argue that it's a healthy thing. Just look at your average newspaper: how much of it is taken up by sports? How much of it is taken up by academics or academic achievements? I've lost track of the amount of times someone I know has earned a very impressive academic achievement and had nobody care (win the national science fair? High school math team win for the state? Ignored!), while the sports team does nothing out of the ordinary and gets 100 times the attention.
Why did the people higher up cover for Sandusky? Because he was valuable to their sports program. That's disgusting.
Your example of newspapers giving more attention to sports doesn't really explain anything.
Papers report on things people actually find interesting. Does anyone honestly care that the local high school math team won state? Probably not enough to receive more than a short story, because frankly, what is there to report? They went to state, beat so and so, heres some quotes from members/coach, done. People don't like math and science in general. You can call that a problem if you want, but something as simple as sports is easy to follow.
You claim they're not important, but how important is math really? Outside of basic division/multiplication/addition/subtraction, when do you really use math unless your job actually requires it? Do you need to know the Pythagorean Theorem, or what a quadratic equation is? Chances are pretty good that you don't.
Yeah, math isn't important. Let's stop educating our youth on anything they don't need to know and watch as progress in pretty much every area grinds to a total halt.
There's a good deal in there for the current players.
They can say.. screw it I'm done. But I'm staying at Penn State. And keeping my money.
But they never have to play football again.
All the guys who were 2nd/3rd deep juniors and senior...who really don't have a shot at going pro. I'm betting they will take that deal. All the guys who do have a shot at going pro are GONE.
well in baseball there is collegiate base ball as well...
theoretically the idea is alright, but in reality collegiate football is such a phenomenon in the U.S. that it'll probably never change. it took them 70 years to put in a damn play off system for god sakes.
Collegiate baseball isn't for students who want a pro-career in baseball, that's what the minor leagues are for. People shouldn't be going to college (an institution for academics) on a football scholarship, taking money that could go to students there for academics, so they can get a job as a pro-football player which has no need for academics whatsoever.
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Many players shoot for an athletic scholarship because it is the only way they can get a college education coming from a poor background. The vast majority of college athletes never become professional athletes, especially at lower tier Division 1 schools. I think my Division 1 school sent, at most, 1 or 2 people to the NFL every year. Everybody else on the team has to get a real job, and guess what you need for that? A college education!
Whether you like it or not (you seem to not like sports), these athletic programs bring in a lot of money to the universities. There is corruption involved, but that is no different from any other area of society and needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis, not by turning the system on its head.
I don't dislike sports, they're a good form of entertainment and promote healthy living for those not abusing steroids. I just don't see any academic value in them, and would prefer that they be kept separate from academic institutions.
Why?? So schools dont make money and good/hard working kids who only could go to college due to sports, would still be in the ghetto.
Why? Because of this absurd, ridiculous sports culture that dominates almost every academic institution in the country. You realize high school students get a day off from school to cheer for their football team? This culture is ridiculous, and it has to stop. Sports are valuable as a form of entertainment and as a good way for people to stay healthy, and that's pretty much it. They are raised up on this pedestal as if they're literally holy in this country. Shit like this asshole touching little kids and then having the staff cover for him happens because of this bullshit culture.
Good hardworking kids should be able to get into college without sports if they apply themselves to their academics. I know for a fact that many fantastic schools like Harvard only charge based on your ability to pay if you get into the school. If your issue is with them being able to afford it, then rather than emphasizing sports as a way for them to get into it, we should be working on making school more affordable for students who work hard on academics.
Our country is lagging behind so many others in terms of academics because we don't seem to value it. Maybe it's time that changed.
Our country is lagging behind in everything except college. We have the best universities in the world. For every 1 great university in another country there are like 10 in america. Just because you dont like sports doesnt mean people dont. I dont think american culture had anything to do with a pedophile raping kids and his friends covering it up because they were afriad for their own selves and reputations.
Our country has the best universities, but guess who these best universities are educating? If you guessed foreigners, you guessed right. Look at how many students in the United States graduate college with a degree in an actual academic subject (not visual or performing arts), like a STEM degree, or a management or social and behavioral science degree, or something else that's academic in nature. The majority of U.S. citizens who attend college attend for visual and performing arts, or a similar non academic subject. Why is that? Because our culture frowns on academics and academically inclined people. They're labeled as 'nerds' or 'geeks', while the sport jocks are 'popular'. There's nothing wrong with visual and performing arts degrees, but our culture is emphasizing things like entertainment and sports while not emphasizing actual academics, and it's becoming quite obvious when you start looking at the world economy, and areas of technological development (you might notice India has it's own silicon valley now, guess where those workers got their education?). This is not a winning combination in the long run, it's unsustainable and it's going to cause serious issues down the line. Yeah, I know, our consumerist culture tells you want things now and not give a shit about later, but this is a serious problem. Having the best universities is irrelevant when location has no real effect on who attends, these schools take the best students, and many of them aren't from the U.S. They might as well be located overseas.
Again, I don't hate sports, but I also don't raise it to this ridiculous level that it's fans seem to think it deserves (Yes, I watch sports too). Sports simply are not important, they're nice to have and fun, but they aren't important, and this absurd drive our culture has to promote sports constantly is ridiculous. It doesn't matter that people like it, I like Burger King, but I would never argue that it's a healthy thing. Just look at your average newspaper: how much of it is taken up by sports? How much of it is taken up by academics or academic achievements? I've lost track of the amount of times someone I know has earned a very impressive academic achievement and had nobody care (win the national science fair? High school math team win for the state? Ignored!), while the sports team does nothing out of the ordinary and gets 100 times the attention.
Why did the people higher up cover for Sandusky? Because he was valuable to their sports program. That's disgusting.
Your example of newspapers giving more attention to sports doesn't really explain anything.
Papers report on things people actually find interesting. Does anyone honestly care that the local high school math team won state? Probably not enough to receive more than a short story, because frankly, what is there to report? They went to state, beat so and so, heres some quotes from members/coach, done. People don't like math and science in general. You can call that a problem if you want, but something as simple as sports is easy to follow.
You claim they're not important, but how important is math really? Outside of basic division/multiplication/addition/subtraction, when do you really use math unless your job actually requires it? Do you need to know the Pythagorean Theorem, or what a quadratic equation is? Chances are pretty good that you don't.
Yeah, math isn't important. Let's stop educating our youth on anything they don't need to know and watch as progress in pretty much every area grinds to a total halt.
On a sidenote, abolishing schools might be a legit tactics how we might catch up with South Korea in terms of competitive gaming!
On July 23 2012 23:31 Zorkmid wrote: This program should have received the death penalty just like SMU.
Nice slap on the wrist NCAA.
At least they got the benefactor of the fine correct.
I don't think you understand how severe this is.
This is essentially worse than a one year death penalty that SMU received. 5 years from now coming off this they will be a team with MAC level talent at best. No top level players are going to go to Penn St for the next three years at least, no bowl games or conference championship games is a huge deal. On top of that they can only take 15 players per year, so the will have way less scholarship players and much lower level players than they traditionally have had.
O and throw in that all current players will be allowed to stop playing and keep their schollies or transfer immediately without penalty.
And it wouldn't surprise me is the B10 threw on some additional sanctions on during their news conference at 11AM EST
They're only losing 10 scholarships a year for four years. It's not small, but it is certainly not death penalty level. Not even close. I think they could have and should have done more.
Is there any word on whether or not they can do as USC did and stagger when they take the bowl ban and scholarship hit? Because that will definitely determine how severe the penalties are
stolen from another forum about how this isn't even close to the SMU death penalty:
"I don't see how.
The death penalty meant zero scholarships for the first year (85). This penalty is 80 scholarships total.
The death penalty meant no football, period, and then no home games the next season. This means just no bowl games.
The death penalty meant no football revenue for a year, then no home game revenue for the next year. The $60 million fine is equivalent to just one year of football revenue.
The only way you can argue that this penalty is harsher is the vacated wins, which I don't think is a serious penalty for the school's football program. That's more about dismantling Paterno's history. "
Big 10 (the conferecne itself) is tacking on $13 million, so the grand total is $73 million. It looks like they are clawing back previous bowl revenues from PSU.
For the lazy: • $60 million fine (roughly what the football team takes in annually). This will be used to establish an endowment to help child sexual abuse victims • Loss of 10 scholarships (25 to 15) annually • Four-year postseason ban • Vacating all wins from 1998-2011. Bowden is now the #1 in all time wins • Students can transfer penalty free
Honestly, who gives a shit about the wins. They should have stripped them of all scholarships for four years. Among the several things that the cover up was done to protect (Paterno's legacy, the school's rep, alumni donation revenue), one of the chief things was recruiting, which would have been impacted by that coming to light in 1998.
You claim they're not important, but how important is math really? Outside of basic division/multiplication/addition/subtraction, when do you really use math unless your job actually requires it? Do you need to know the Pythagorean Theorem, or what a quadratic equation is? Chances are pretty good that you don't.
This is such a stupid argument. I could make an argument just as stupid about athletics. Schools and public institutions encourage math education because it leads to important careers vital to the nation and more importantly learning math develops problem solving and critical thinking skills that people need for whatever job they are going to get. Nobody learns the pythagorean theorem because they ask for it at work; they learn it for the sake of learning.
Is that really true though; surely there are other areas where students learn to use critical thinking or general problem solving skills. People can do critical thinking in creating a short film for their media class, writing computer programs, analyzing great classics in English class or learning to work as a team in a fast-paced game of soccer or rugby. And even if its not on the same level as solving a complex math equation, why would they need to think at that level anyways? If they generally won't need to think on that level for most of their life, then there's no reason to push them to do so. Not everyone needs to be a deep thinker; it may be far more important for some to develop artistic or social skills to a higher level than critical thinking/problem solving.
I think the better argument is simply that kids don't know what they're going to be in the future, and that they could quickly change their mind when they realize the field they thought they wanted to enter wasn't as good as they had imagined. So therefore everyone needs basic training in a number of areas.
On July 23 2012 23:40 Bigtony wrote: It wouldn't be right to do penalties so severe that the academic portion of the school would be negatively affected.
The administration of Penn State is as responsible for this unfathomable crime as the football program is.
So that means thousands (literally thousands) of students should be negatively effected for something which they had no knowledge or part in? Sorry, making other innocent people suffer is not the answer here.
On July 23 2012 23:40 Bigtony wrote: It wouldn't be right to do penalties so severe that the academic portion of the school would be negatively affected.
The administration of Penn State is as responsible for this unfathomable crime as the football program is.
I would think a vast majority of the professors ( barring those on the administration ) PhD candidates and post docs are not involved with the cover-up let alone actually give a fuck about the football program besides what it does for alumni donor program reputation and small profits it gives ( which means more research money ). They shouldn't really have to suffer.
On July 23 2012 23:40 Bigtony wrote: It wouldn't be right to do penalties so severe that the academic portion of the school would be negatively affected.
The administration of Penn State is as responsible for this unfathomable crime as the football program is.
So that means thousands (literally thousands) of students should be negatively effected for something which they had no knowledge or part in? Sorry, making other innocent people suffer is not the answer here.
Not sure where I said any of that stuff about wanting innocent people to suffer. The academic portion of the school WILL suffer as a result of this, regardless of any specific penalties.
I don't really understand this. JoePa is gone. Spanier is gone. Sandusky is in jail and 2 other administrators are still facing charges. Is there anyone left at Penn State who knew what was going on and failed to act? Who exactly are we punishing here? Certainly the Board of Trustees failed in its oversight, but how do these football punishments apply to them?
I think this is all just a big witch hunt. Terrible things happened and so now we feel the need to blame the institution where it happened, despite the fact that all of the individuals who perpetrated the crime or covered it up (to our knowledge) were fired or are in prison. I just don't understand how this has anything to do with the NCAA or football.
Apparently, the 'culture' at Penn State is to blame for this incident. Can anyone point to exactly how this culture contributed? Joe Paterno was above reproach because no one had any reason to believe otherwise; he had always conducted himself with honesty and integrity. What exactly are we advocating here, that a university should be perpetually suspicious of the positive qualities of its football staff?
The fact is that this had nothing to do with football and should've been handled in a court of law and not by the NCAA or the Big 10.
The fine is from the football budget. It also represents less thatn 2% of the school's budget. The most damage it would do to non-football players is that other sport programs might get a little less support, or it comes from elsewhere in the budget. Players already on the team get to transfer with scholarships with no penalty. It is no where near thousands of students.
Alumni donations drying up has a lot more to do with the school valuing its rep, football and dollars from donors more than doing the right thing. Anyone not donating because the football program is going to be mediocre now has the same mentality that enabled this shit.
And finally, what exactly is an apt punishment in this case?
When some guy with a family goes out and murders someone, and gets tossed in jail for life, his wife and children grow up without him. A drunk driver kills someone and leaves his wife with no income for the 10 years he is in jail.
Should we not punish people because others in that person's web might suffer?
On July 24 2012 01:14 Hawk wrote: Should we not punish people because others in that person's web might suffer?
But in this case, we aren't even punishing the right people. We're punishing the name of Penn State without any reflection of who was actually at fault.
I think the families of the victims should sue the pants off of Penn State (and I think that they are) and receive millions of dollars in damages as a result of the negligence of the Penn State Board of Trustees. That doesn't mean that I think the NCAA and Big 10 should also go in for their pound of flesh.
On July 24 2012 01:13 Anytus wrote: The fact is that this had nothing to do with football and should've been handled in a court of law and not by the NCAA or the Big 10.
Totally and completely wrong.
It wasn't just football, but you're insane if you don't think it was one of the chief reasons that this was swept under the rug rather than being reported and followed up on.
Even if the school did the right thing initially, there would be bad publicity. Paterno and the football program had always touted how they've never had a scandal, ever. This was all over their recruitment letters. Having it be known that a long time and popular defensive coordinator was using his position of power to fuck little boys would blow any recruiting scandal out of the water.
Things at stake when this first came to light in 1998: Paterno's legacy, football recruiting, Paterno's good friend, PSU's repuation, alumni donation revenue stream and enrollment.
All these people and things benefited from it never being mentioned in public.
On July 24 2012 01:14 Hawk wrote: Should we not punish people because others in that person's web might suffer?
But in this case, we aren't even punishing the right people. We're punishing the name of Penn State without any reflection of who was actually at fault.
I think the families of the victims should sue the pants off of Penn State (and I think that they are) and receive millions of dollars in damages as a result of the negligence of the Penn State Board of Trustees. That doesn't mean that I think the NCAA and Big 10 should also go in for their pound of flesh.
it is the culture of football and university image above all else that is being punished. The NCAA is totally right to come in because the school and admins swept this under the rug to not be at a competitive disadvantage due to the pr hit they'd take
On July 23 2012 23:40 Bigtony wrote: It wouldn't be right to do penalties so severe that the academic portion of the school would be negatively affected.
The administration of Penn State is as responsible for this unfathomable crime as the football program is.
So that means thousands (literally thousands) of students should be negatively effected for something which they had no knowledge or part in? Sorry, making other innocent people suffer is not the answer here.
Not sure where I said any of that stuff about wanting innocent people to suffer. The academic portion of the school WILL suffer as a result of this, regardless of any specific penalties.
Also, it's affected not effected.
Uh maybe the part where you said that the administration of the school (IE: the academic portion) was to blame? How would the academic portion of the school be responsible for this? Useless post, seriously.
On July 23 2012 23:40 Bigtony wrote: It wouldn't be right to do penalties so severe that the academic portion of the school would be negatively affected.
The administration of Penn State is as responsible for this unfathomable crime as the football program is.
So that means thousands (literally thousands) of students should be negatively effected for something which they had no knowledge or part in? Sorry, making other innocent people suffer is not the answer here.
Not sure where I said any of that stuff about wanting innocent people to suffer. The academic portion of the school WILL suffer as a result of this, regardless of any specific penalties.
Also, it's affected not effected.
Uh maybe the part where you said that the administration of the school (IE: the academic portion) was to blame? How would the academic portion of the school be responsible for this? Useless post, seriously.
Insane punishment. Probably warranted as well. I don't see why people don't think the NCAA should have any involvement. If it wasn't for the college wanting to save damage to it's football program and all it's benefits that dude would have been in jail over a decade ago. The program was too big and too fucked up.
On July 24 2012 01:13 Anytus wrote: I don't really understand this. JoePa is gone. Spanier is gone. Sandusky is in jail and 2 other administrators are still facing charges. Is there anyone left at Penn State who knew what was going on and failed to act? Who exactly are we punishing here? Certainly the Board of Trustees failed in its oversight, but how do these football punishments apply to them?
I think this is all just a big witch hunt. Terrible things happened and so now we feel the need to blame the institution where it happened, despite the fact that all of the individuals who perpetrated the crime or covered it up (to our knowledge) were fired or are in prison. I just don't understand how this has anything to do with the NCAA or football.
Apparently, the 'culture' at Penn State is to blame for this incident. Can anyone point to exactly how this culture contributed? Joe Paterno was above reproach because no one had any reason to believe otherwise; he had always conducted himself with honesty and integrity. What exactly are we advocating here, that a university should be perpetually suspicious of the positive qualities of its football staff?
The fact is that this had nothing to do with football and should've been handled in a court of law and not by the NCAA or the Big 10.
You don't see how the culture contributed? You didn't read the parts in the Freeh report about how the janitors were afraid to report Sandusky because they were scared of Paterno? You didn't read about the school administrator who was fired because she clashed with Paterno about him wanting to keep disciplinary measures in-house? You didn't see all those dumbshit cultists, err students, rioting after Paterno was fired? You didn't read the interviews with Penn State students in just about any article written about the scandal? Or those students protecting the statue last week?
Penn State's culture is being a cult-like entity that is closed to outside influence. The institution is placed above all. Behavior is handled in house. People inside the institution are blind to the humanity outside their bubble.
While most of the punishment is warranted, I will never be ok with taking away victories from someone's record. These events were completely off the field and had nothing to do with on-field performance whatsoever. Those players and that coach earned those victories legitimately, regardless of what the coaches and/or administration did off the field.
On July 24 2012 01:13 Anytus wrote: I don't really understand this. JoePa is gone. Spanier is gone. Sandusky is in jail and 2 other administrators are still facing charges. Is there anyone left at Penn State who knew what was going on and failed to act? Who exactly are we punishing here? Certainly the Board of Trustees failed in its oversight, but how do these football punishments apply to them?
I think this is all just a big witch hunt. Terrible things happened and so now we feel the need to blame the institution where it happened, despite the fact that all of the individuals who perpetrated the crime or covered it up (to our knowledge) were fired or are in prison. I just don't understand how this has anything to do with the NCAA or football.
Apparently, the 'culture' at Penn State is to blame for this incident. Can anyone point to exactly how this culture contributed? Joe Paterno was above reproach because no one had any reason to believe otherwise; he had always conducted himself with honesty and integrity. What exactly are we advocating here, that a university should be perpetually suspicious of the positive qualities of its football staff?
The fact is that this had nothing to do with football and should've been handled in a court of law and not by the NCAA or the Big 10.
You don't see how the culture contributed? You didn't read the parts in the Freeh report about how the janitors were afraid to report Sandusky because they were scared of Paterno? You didn't read about the school administrator who was fired because she clashed with Paterno about him wanting to keep disciplinary measures in-house? You didn't see all those dumbshit cultists, err students, rioting after Paterno was fired? You didn't read the interviews with Penn State students in just about any article written about the scandal? Or those students protecting the statue last week?
Penn State's culture is being a cult-like entity that is closed to outside influence. The institution is placed above all. Behavior is handled in house. People inside the institution are blind to the humanity outside their bubble.
Purely curious, are you involved in Penn State somehow? Student, staff?
But talking about Athletic departments,
I work in Administration at a Big10 school, and I will tell you that the Athletics programs in these places are treated like kings from the University administration (in some ways..) . They are given huge amounts of money and leeway, because football is the school's bread and butter. (They make... so much money... ) and one of the most visible symbols of a school (in Penn State, probably THE most)
So, they can and do directly impact a school. I think it would be safe to assume that if you affected the Athletics department it would affect the University in it's entirety, as every discussion of changing anything in Athletics is always directly correlated to affecting the rest of the University. At least every decision I've heard..
Imagine all those kids who started looking for colleges and now don't want to go to Penn State "just because". I can see especially how all these sanctions against the school can really hurt it's marketability.
EDIT: I accidentally a apostrophe and clarified some things.
On July 24 2012 03:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: While most of the punishment is warranted, I will never be ok with taking away victories from someone's record. These events were completely off the field and had nothing to do with on-field performance whatsoever. Those players and that coach earned those victories legitimately, regardless of what the coaches and/or administration did off the field.
Of course it's hard to say, but who knows what the effect would have been on the football program if Sandusky's crimes were made public when they should have in 1998. It could have easily hurt recruitment or had NCAA action back then as well. Who knows maybe Paterno himself would have been punished in some way. That all could have certainly affected on-field performance in the subsequent years. There's a reason it was all swept under the rug.
On July 24 2012 03:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: While most of the punishment is warranted, I will never be ok with taking away victories from someone's record. These events were completely off the field and had nothing to do with on-field performance whatsoever. Those players and that coach earned those victories legitimately, regardless of what the coaches and/or administration did off the field.
I think the victories thing is simply to kick JoePa off of what remains of that pedastal he was on.
Someone on another forum said something to the extent of that it was done so that when people read over the record books, there's an asterisk next to his name so that this whole thing will never be forgotten and hoepfully, others won't put football/school image ahead of more pressing stuff like child rape ever again
Honestly, I'm indifferent to the record thing. I think it's kind of dumb. I hated it for when USC got hit for the Bush scandal. I do wish though they got hit harder on the scholarship thing instead of the fines. PSU will play and draw crowds no matter what. There isn't shit else to do there and it is still the biggest draw. The fines will have a much more broad effect on athletics. But school is also stupid rich. I don't think it will be that huge. I read that part of the agreement is that the school can't axe other sports to compensate for the loss of revenue in the football program.
On July 24 2012 03:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: While most of the punishment is warranted, I will never be ok with taking away victories from someone's record. These events were completely off the field and had nothing to do with on-field performance whatsoever. Those players and that coach earned those victories legitimately, regardless of what the coaches and/or administration did off the field.
So you're good with Barry Bonds at 762?
That's a totally different animal though. It stands to reason that a scandal will fuck with recruiting, even if no punishments are levied. Saucing for a decade gives you 40lbs of muscle at 40 years old, and the ability to crank 70 hrs a year when you could only hit 40 prior.
I think it's a really over the top punishment. I've read the Freeh Report and, frankly, except for the child rape stuff (yeah...kind of a big deal,) that report would be exactly the same at every other major football school in the nation. That's just how it is when you develop a mechanism like American College Football.
And who exactly are you punishing? The athletes who had nothing to do with Jerry Sandusky? Jerry Sandusky who is going to die in prison? Joe Paterno who is dead? Joe Paterno's family? The institution of PSU itself? I mean, who cares what a meaningless entity like the NCAA does with its justice? I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
Facetious, sorry. But punishments are meant to be deterrents, as well as punitive. This punishment doesn't actually do anything. Going to jail for covering up a heinous crime - that's a deterrent. I don't think Graham Spanier, Tim Curley or Gary Schultz are going to give 1 damn about the fact that Penn State can't attend Bowls when they're in jail.
Here's a insight for all you non-American or non-football fans. My sister just told me the news and within a minute I said, "You know I feel bad for saying this but.. BOBBY BOWDENS HAS THE MOST CAREER WINS NOW!" She told me that that was the first thing she thought of.
That's the mentality that leads to this shit. It's more than just a game to us. It's hometown patriotism. It's dangerous. We lose sight of what is important and the more important we are, the more it can hurt others. That's how this shit happened. Chasing after wins.
There are only two times in my life when I have supported vacating accomplishments.
The first is Barry Bonds. I'm a Braves fan. Anyone who knows baseball gets why.
The second is Joe Paterno. I was a long time Paterno supporter. I thought he should be allowed to die coaching. The man was a legend and an icon, someone who said "fuck you cancer (and broken pelvis or w/e), I'm going to keep doing what I love." But the moment the Sandusky thing came out, I knew he needed to step down. And once his involvement came out, every win he had was tainted.
The weird thing is, I still don't consider Bowden to be the wins leader either, because he didn't earn the #1 spot. In my mind, until someone tops Paterno's original record, there is no win leader, only a #2 (not that this will ever happen). I understand that this is illogical, but to me its like Bowden has the interim title until someone at least tops him.
On July 24 2012 01:13 Anytus wrote: I don't really understand this. JoePa is gone. Spanier is gone. Sandusky is in jail and 2 other administrators are still facing charges. Is there anyone left at Penn State who knew what was going on and failed to act? Who exactly are we punishing here? Certainly the Board of Trustees failed in its oversight, but how do these football punishments apply to them?
I think this is all just a big witch hunt. Terrible things happened and so now we feel the need to blame the institution where it happened, despite the fact that all of the individuals who perpetrated the crime or covered it up (to our knowledge) were fired or are in prison. I just don't understand how this has anything to do with the NCAA or football.
Apparently, the 'culture' at Penn State is to blame for this incident. Can anyone point to exactly how this culture contributed? Joe Paterno was above reproach because no one had any reason to believe otherwise; he had always conducted himself with honesty and integrity. What exactly are we advocating here, that a university should be perpetually suspicious of the positive qualities of its football staff?
The fact is that this had nothing to do with football and should've been handled in a court of law and not by the NCAA or the Big 10.
You don't see how the culture contributed? You didn't read the parts in the Freeh report about how the janitors were afraid to report Sandusky because they were scared of Paterno? You didn't read about the school administrator who was fired because she clashed with Paterno about him wanting to keep disciplinary measures in-house? You didn't see all those dumbshit cultists, err students, rioting after Paterno was fired? You didn't read the interviews with Penn State students in just about any article written about the scandal? Or those students protecting the statue last week?
Penn State's culture is being a cult-like entity that is closed to outside influence. The institution is placed above all. Behavior is handled in house. People inside the institution are blind to the humanity outside their bubble.
Purely curious, are you involved in Penn State somehow? Student, staff?
But talking about Athletic departments,
I work in Administration at a Big10 school, and I will tell you that the Athletics programs in these places are treated like kings from the University administration (in some ways..) . They are given huge amounts of money and leeway, because football is the school's bread and butter. (They make... so much money... ) and one of the most visible symbols of a school (in Penn State, probably THE most)
So, they can and do directly impact a school. I think it would be safe to assume that if you affected the Athletics department it would affect the University in it's entirety, as every discussion of changing anything in Athletics is always directly correlated to affecting the rest of the University. At least every decision I've heard..
Imagine all those kids who started looking for colleges and now don't want to go to Penn State "just because". I can see especially how all these sanctions against the school can really hurt it's marketability.
EDIT: I accidentally a apostrophe and clarified some things.
Nope, not affiliated with Penn State at all. I graduated from USC, a big football school, roughly a decade ago. I was from overseas and came for the academics, just like a pretty big minority of people in that university.
Anyway, I became a bit of a football fan during my time there. I've mostly migrated to the NFL, though, as my opinion of college football goes down each and every year. The stupidity and the hypocrisy gets harder and harder to stand.
I get the marketability argument but there are plenty of ways to market a university. I remember reading a list of the schools with the highest enrollment of foreign students years ago and was surprised that Ohio State had one of the highest foreign student populations. They were an annual championship contender back then but I'm sure the international students didn't go there for the football.
There are only two times in my life when I have supported vacating accomplishments.
The first is Barry Bonds. I'm a Braves fan. Anyone who knows baseball gets why.
The second is Joe Paterno. I was a long time Paterno supporter. I thought he should be allowed to die coaching. The man was a legend and an icon, someone who said "fuck you cancer (and broken pelvis or w/e), I'm going to keep doing what I love." But the moment the Sandusky thing came out, I knew he needed to step down. And once his involvement came out, every win he had was tainted.
The weird thing is, I still don't consider Bowden to be the wins leader either, because he didn't earn the #1 spot. In my mind, until someone tops Paterno's original record, there is no win leader, only a #2 (not that this will ever happen). I understand that this is illogical, but to me its like Bowden has the interim title until someone at least tops him.
It's not illogical at all. I just said the same exact thing to my sister and believe me, I'm not above stabbing someone in a bar fight over whether FSU is the greatest team to ever exist. They can change the record but it'll only be on paper. Paterno won, call it what you will. I get the symbolic gesture of taking away the wins but it's not the substance of the penalties and when I think about the game, not this that has happened, I'll remember that Bobby came in second (as much as it pains me to admit).
The punishments make no sense what so ever. So the NCAA is vacating all wins from 1988 which means they are acknowledging the fact that Penn St. was violating "institutional control" for 14 years but they are only fining them 60 million which is equivalent to one year gross revenue for their football program.So If you are going to vacate 14 years of victories then you must fine them for the entire 14 year period no? So the fair punishment would be a fine of well over 500 million. 60 million is a drop in the bucket for a school with an endowment of over 1.5 billion.
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
On July 24 2012 04:41 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: ... 60 million which is equivalent to one year gross revenue for their football program.So If you are going to vacate 14 years of victories then you must fine them for the entire 14 year period no? So the fair punishment would be a fine of well over 500 million. 60 million is a drop in the bucket for a school with an endowment of over 1.5 billion.
$60 million is an insane amount of money for a University, especially considering funding is already at a premium. If PSU is like the one I work for, every dollar is distributed and fought over like fucking vultures on a dead horse.Some of that $60 million revenue may have gone towards funding programs which aid students in athletics or may even cross over and fund other programs to help students.
And if it is all the gross revenue, well so what, revenue doesn't mean anything, profit does. Revenue being poured back into the program = don't take that away, I guess, you're punishing the wrong people (students, athletes, student athletes, etc.) . Revenue turning profit given to the administration =/= cool.
And quoting the endowment isn't very helpful either, perhaps how much of that endowment is going towards the football program, sure!
On July 24 2012 04:47 tree.hugger wrote: One supercharged, definitely evil, too big to fail college football program down. Many many many more to go.
Will it happen? Nope, today's punishment has filled the NCAA's morality quota for at least ten years.
Actually, if you're read what Mark Emmert (NCAA Pres) has been saying, the NCAA might actually get cleaner under his rule, similar to Goodell in the NFL. Emmert seems set to use the power he's gotten as a result of the Penn State issue to grant himself more power relative to the board. Could be a good thing if it works out, though it'll sure be painful.
Pretty much as anticipated by most. I, however, did not expect them to vacate the wins PSU had over the years. I'm glad to see the money from the sanction going to support programs preventing child sex abuse.
One question regarding the bowl ban. I understand that teams who are barred from the post-season (bowl games) may not compete in them. If I remember correctly, all teams within their conference split the revenue generated from teams playing in bowl games. I'm assuming this means that the team may not contribute, nor will they receive any money either??
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
You're simply incorrect. The school did violate NCAA rules and these penalties are in addition to whatever civil/legal penalties they face.
On July 23 2012 23:31 Zorkmid wrote: This program should have received the death penalty just like SMU.
Nice slap on the wrist NCAA.
At least they got the benefactor of the fine correct.
I don't think you understand how severe this is.
This is essentially worse than a one year death penalty that SMU received. 5 years from now coming off this they will be a team with MAC level talent at best. No top level players are going to go to Penn St for the next three years at least, no bowl games or conference championship games is a huge deal. On top of that they can only take 15 players per year, so the will have way less scholarship players and much lower level players than they traditionally have had.
O and throw in that all current players will be allowed to stop playing and keep their schollies or transfer immediately without penalty.
And it wouldn't surprise me is the B10 threw on some additional sanctions on during their news conference at 11AM EST
They're only losing 10 scholarships a year for four years. It's not small, but it is certainly not death penalty level. Not even close. I think they could have and should have done more.
Is there any word on whether or not they can do as USC did and stagger when they take the bowl ban and scholarship hit? Because that will definitely determine how severe the penalties are
stolen from another forum about how this isn't even close to the SMU death penalty:
"I don't see how.
The death penalty meant zero scholarships for the first year (85). This penalty is 80 scholarships total.
The death penalty meant no football, period, and then no home games the next season. This means just no bowl games.
The death penalty meant no football revenue for a year, then no home game revenue for the next year. The $60 million fine is equivalent to just one year of football revenue.
The only way you can argue that this penalty is harsher is the vacated wins, which I don't think is a serious penalty for the school's football program. That's more about dismantling Paterno's history. "
10 scholarships a year is huge when you consider their limit is at 65 during that time frame. PSU is going to be done for a long time. Since the signing limit is 25, they wont have a full scholarship team until 2020 at the earliest.
They are going to be doormats. Nobody will want to go there now. Especially after seeing them get destroyed for the next few years.
The death penalty may have been better depending on how long it would have lasted (If they had a death penalty on the table for 4 years as is being reported, they were REALLY Fucked and had no choice but to agree to the sanctions). They could have MAYBE recovered in 5 years. They are fucked for 10 at least now.
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
unrelated to the thread in general, but one correction. the bush ordeal wasn't about recruiting violations at all. it was about a wannabe agent (who is actually a convicted felon) that was trying to get bush to leave usc early after he was already in the program for 2 years.
more on topic, these sanctions basically mean PSU football is dead for the next decade. i don't think people realize what it means to have a roster limit of 65 and four years of 15 incoming scholarships to offer. combine that with 4 years of post season ban, and also the free agency of any current player on the team means that they will basically be playing for the next 10 years with walk-on level quality players. why would any high school recruit with D1 talent go to PSU now or for the next several years? the level of talent that penn state will be getting the next 4+ years will be unable to compete with a school like temple.
I don't know all the details of the case, nor have I read all 35 pages of this thread so someone might have posted/answered to what I'm going to say already. I think it's BS though how much heat Jopa is taking on this though. While he's at fault, there's no way it's entirely his responsibility for what happened. He reported what he heard from the guy who saw Sandusky abusing the boy in the shower to his superiors. Maybe he should have done more, but he didn't see it first hand, and why isn't it the actual guy who saw Sandusky abusing the kid taking any flak? The same logic used on Jopa can be used on him. Also there is no way that there was a scandal this big and only 1 or 2 people knew about it, it wasn't just Jopa who didn't come forward, I'm sure there were a lot of people who knew and didn't come forward.
On July 24 2012 09:04 BabyGiraldo wrote: I don't know all the details of the case, nor have I read all 35 pages of this thread so someone might have posted/answered to what I'm going to say already. I think it's BS though how much heat Jopa is taking on this though. While he's at fault, there's no way it's entirely his responsibility for what happened. He reported what he heard from the guy who saw Sandusky abusing the boy in the shower to his superiors. Maybe he should have done more, but he didn't see it first hand, and why isn't it the actual guy who saw Sandusky abusing the kid taking any flak? The same logic used on Jopa can be used on him. Also there is no way that there was a scandal this big and only 1 or 2 people knew about it, it wasn't just Jopa who didn't come forward, I'm sure there were a lot of people who knew and didn't come forward.
I would recommend you go back the last 10 pages then and read. Its not really that much to cover and most of your post has already been addressed. I would also recommend reading any of the summaries available of the Freeh report and what they said Joepa. The tl:dr for that is that he isn't as innocent as he presented himself to be and had more knowledge to the situation than he led on. Which is one of the major reasons people are coming down so hard on him.
On July 24 2012 09:04 BabyGiraldo wrote: I don't know all the details of the case, nor have I read all 35 pages of this thread so someone might have posted/answered to what I'm going to say already. I think it's BS though how much heat Jopa is taking on this though. While he's at fault, there's no way it's entirely his responsibility for what happened. He reported what he heard from the guy who saw Sandusky abusing the boy in the shower to his superiors. Maybe he should have done more, but he didn't see it first hand, and why isn't it the actual guy who saw Sandusky abusing the kid taking any flak? The same logic used on Jopa can be used on him. Also there is no way that there was a scandal this big and only 1 or 2 people knew about it, it wasn't just Jopa who didn't come forward, I'm sure there were a lot of people who knew and didn't come forward.
The guy who actually saw it is the whistleblower, whether he had any part in the cover up is irrelevant, w/o his statement, none of the proceeding actions could have occured to bring the criminal to the justice. Just think, if we punish the whistleblower in this situation, it sets the precedent that every future whistleblower is culpable for prosecution, and no one would ever report organizational crime. This is why McQueary is not being prosecuted, because it would set a terrible precedent for the future.
As for Paterno and his direct superiors, they deserve everything they get. This wasn't a one time thing, this crap was going on since 1998. That's a decade long cover-up. Paterno is just getting the brunt of the heat, because he was the figurehead of the program and he had the most power to both bring Sandusky to justice, and to cover up the entire thing.
All the heat Paterno is taking is because he claimed he didnt know about the 98 incident but Freeh's report is concluding he did based on emails. He would likely be facing perjury charges if he were alive today.
My one question in all of this though, is if he was indeed trying to cover it up, why even have Mcquery tell his story to any of the higher ups? Why even let it get that far?
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
Just quoting this for truth and how I also feel about this. Hope more people see this.
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
Just quoting this for truth and how I also feel about this. Hope more people see this.
Do you really think that the NCAA is just gonna sit on its ass while Penn State's actions have completely tarnished the reputation of college football? The NCAA is ultimately a business, and when something is bad for business, something needs to go. Can you imagine the flak they will get if they do nothing and Penn State is hoisting a Rose Bowl next year?
On July 23 2012 23:56 Cloud9157 wrote: You claim they're not important, but how important is math really? Outside of basic division/multiplication/addition/subtraction, when do you really use math unless your job actually requires it? Do you need to know the Pythagorean Theorem, or what a quadratic equation is? Chances are pretty good that you don't.
is this a troll? going beyond basic div/multi/add/subtr does not mean quadratic equations are the next step.
is your house , car and life insured? ever built anything with your own hands ? how do you compare insurance or build anything without math that goes beyond "basic division/multiplication/addition/subtraction"
or are you one of these mid-twenties perpetual adolescents that lives in front of their computers ?
the hilarious thing is ... when i am in any retail situation the morons at the cash register can't even do basic division and multiplication or understand percentages.
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
Just quoting this for truth and how I also feel about this. Hope more people see this.
Do you really think that the NCAA is just gonna sit on its ass while Penn State's actions have completely tarnished the reputation of college football? The NCAA is ultimately a business, and when something is bad for business, something needs to go. Can you imagine the flak they will get if they do nothing and Penn State is hoisting a Rose Bowl next year?
Okay, so the NCAA did this to save face? As long as we are all on the same page - the NCAA is not a moral body meant to dispense justice - it's just a hypocritical greedy organization that doesn't care about raped children: just public outrage and lost revenue. As long as we're clear.
As a result of this harsh penalty to PSU, at the very least you can be assured that if this kind of crap happens again at another school, the likelihood of it getting covered up/swept under the carpet will be close to nil.
I feel bad for Paterno losing 14 seasons of wins though, that's rough. At least he didn't live to see this day come, it probably would have crushed whatever spirit he still had left.
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
Just quoting this for truth and how I also feel about this. Hope more people see this.
Do you really think that the NCAA is just gonna sit on its ass while Penn State's actions have completely tarnished the reputation of college football? The NCAA is ultimately a business, and when something is bad for business, something needs to go. Can you imagine the flak they will get if they do nothing and Penn State is hoisting a Rose Bowl next year?
Okay, so the NCAA did this to save face? As long as we are all on the same page - the NCAA is not a moral body meant to dispense justice - it's just a hypocritical greedy organization that doesn't care about raped children: just public outrage and lost revenue. As long as we're clear.
It's not a moral body meant to dispense justice but it's not a hypocritical greedy organization either. It's just a business organization, and it needs to do what is profitable(this is neither hypocritical nor greedy).
On July 24 2012 09:27 Sadist wrote: All the heat Paterno is taking is because he claimed he didnt know about the 98 incident but Freeh's report is concluding he did based on emails. He would likely be facing perjury charges if he were alive today.
Probably wouldn't. It has to be pretty flagrant to have a reasonable chance at perjury and it's not highly prosecuted to begin with.
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
Just quoting this for truth and how I also feel about this. Hope more people see this.
Do you really think that the NCAA is just gonna sit on its ass while Penn State's actions have completely tarnished the reputation of college football? The NCAA is ultimately a business, and when something is bad for business, something needs to go. Can you imagine the flak they will get if they do nothing and Penn State is hoisting a Rose Bowl next year?
Okay, so the NCAA did this to save face? As long as we are all on the same page - the NCAA is not a moral body meant to dispense justice - it's just a hypocritical greedy organization that doesn't care about raped children: just public outrage and lost revenue. As long as we're clear.
That being said, I feel as though the punishment is pretty much in line with the general and appropriate moral consensus; the cover up was systemic and far-reaching and Sandusky was a cornerstone of the team structure for many, many years. That the foundations of the program take a hit makes sense to me at least.
On July 24 2012 10:17 zev318 wrote: its sad the only people who are really punished are the student athletes.
With the sham that is amateurism in college football (read: basically slavery), they aren't being hurt. The ones on scholarship at PSU get to stay there for free and may choose to not play, or they can transfer to another school and play without penalty. The team will be bad for a few years but if it's your dream to play there, there will still be scholarships.
Also - as if college football is fucking important anyway. Not to rag on you personally, but that kind of attitude is what put PSU in this position in the first place. "Oh well if this gets out the team will be hurt!" You know someone said that or used it as a justification for the cover up.
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
Just quoting this for truth and how I also feel about this. Hope more people see this.
Do you really think that the NCAA is just gonna sit on its ass while Penn State's actions have completely tarnished the reputation of college football? The NCAA is ultimately a business, and when something is bad for business, something needs to go. Can you imagine the flak they will get if they do nothing and Penn State is hoisting a Rose Bowl next year?
Okay, so the NCAA did this to save face? As long as we are all on the same page - the NCAA is not a moral body meant to dispense justice - it's just a hypocritical greedy organization that doesn't care about raped children: just public outrage and lost revenue. As long as we're clear.
It's not a moral body meant to dispense justice but it's not a hypocritical greedy organization either. It's just a business organization, and it needs to do what is profitable(this is neither hypocritical nor greedy).
This would be absolutely fine, if the NCAA admitted to what it was. I don't disagree that they decided to butcher Penn State because it was a business decision. That's not even an argument. The argument is that the NCAA will wrap itself up in white robes of righteousness and condemn a university and football program for evil vile sins committed by a handful of terrible men. Mark Emmert will speak solemnly and offer his meaningless condolences. But no one will care because no one cares when DOWchemical says "Sorry, your kid was raped." or ExxonMobile says "Sorry. We'll make sure that gas station gets only one pump - it really is the moral thing to do."
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
Just quoting this for truth and how I also feel about this. Hope more people see this.
Do you really think that the NCAA is just gonna sit on its ass while Penn State's actions have completely tarnished the reputation of college football? The NCAA is ultimately a business, and when something is bad for business, something needs to go. Can you imagine the flak they will get if they do nothing and Penn State is hoisting a Rose Bowl next year?
Okay, so the NCAA did this to save face? As long as we are all on the same page - the NCAA is not a moral body meant to dispense justice - it's just a hypocritical greedy organization that doesn't care about raped children: just public outrage and lost revenue. As long as we're clear.
It's not a moral body meant to dispense justice but it's not a hypocritical greedy organization either. It's just a business organization, and it needs to do what is profitable(this is neither hypocritical nor greedy).
This would be absolutely fine, if the NCAA admitted to what it was. I don't disagree that they decided to butcher Penn State because it was a business decision. That's not even an argument. The argument is that the NCAA will wrap itself up in white robes of righteousness and condemn a university and football program for evil vile sins committed by a handful of terrible men. Mark Emmert will speak solemnly and offer his meaningless condolences. But no one will care because no one cares when DOWchemical says "Sorry, your kid was raped." or ExxonMobile says "Sorry. We'll make sure that gas station gets only one pump - it really is the moral thing to do."
Your analogy doesn't make sense.
Better: ExxonMobil is part of a group of oil companies. ExxonMobil does something awful, lets say they leak bad chemicals into drinking water. ExxonMobil gets prosecuted by the government. In addition to that, the group that exxonmobil is a part of says "hey, you are giving all of us in this group a bad name. Because of you, something really bad happened, and not only will that affect you, it's going to affect us, and all the people you hurt. We're going to punish you above and beyond the bad publicity and government, because you deserve it."
On July 24 2012 04:19 iGrok wrote: There are only two times in my life when I have supported vacating accomplishments.
The first is Barry Bonds. I'm a Braves fan. Anyone who knows baseball gets why.
The second is Joe Paterno. I was a long time Paterno supporter. I thought he should be allowed to die coaching. The man was a legend and an icon, someone who said "fuck you cancer (and broken pelvis or w/e), I'm going to keep doing what I love." But the moment the Sandusky thing came out, I knew he needed to step down. And once his involvement came out, every win he had was tainted.
The weird thing is, I still don't consider Bowden to be the wins leader either, because he didn't earn the #1 spot. In my mind, until someone tops Paterno's original record, there is no win leader, only a #2 (not that this will ever happen). I understand that this is illogical, but to me its like Bowden has the interim title until someone at least tops him.
This is like saying that Savior's bonjwa status was tainted by throwing games later in his career. It's a mind-numbingly stupid comment. His flawed actions off the field weren't related to on-the-field performance whatsoever; he wasn't bribing his opponents to lose, he wasn't gaining unfair information or advantages over his opponents, he wasn't getting his players to use steroids. He did something unrelated to the game, and taking away his wins is just stupid.
On July 24 2012 04:19 iGrok wrote: There are only two times in my life when I have supported vacating accomplishments.
The first is Barry Bonds. I'm a Braves fan. Anyone who knows baseball gets why.
The second is Joe Paterno. I was a long time Paterno supporter. I thought he should be allowed to die coaching. The man was a legend and an icon, someone who said "fuck you cancer (and broken pelvis or w/e), I'm going to keep doing what I love." But the moment the Sandusky thing came out, I knew he needed to step down. And once his involvement came out, every win he had was tainted.
The weird thing is, I still don't consider Bowden to be the wins leader either, because he didn't earn the #1 spot. In my mind, until someone tops Paterno's original record, there is no win leader, only a #2 (not that this will ever happen). I understand that this is illogical, but to me its like Bowden has the interim title until someone at least tops him.
This is like saying that Savior's bonjwa status was tainted by throwing games later in his career. It's a mind-numbingly stupid comment. His flawed actions off the field weren't related to on-the-field performance whatsoever; he wasn't bribing his opponents to lose, he wasn't gaining unfair information or advantages over his opponents, he wasn't getting his players to use steroids. He did something unrelated to the game, and taking away his wins is just stupid.
If this scandal hits in 1998 like it should have, how many of those players are still apart of PSU? How many wins does he actually achieve between 1998 and 2011 when its been revealed that his good friend and defensive coordinator is a pedophile who rapes children in the schools athletic facility? I highly doubt he holds that record today if this scandal comes out when it should have. So I have no issue with them vacating the wins (I also believe its the tamest part of the punishment).
On July 24 2012 04:19 iGrok wrote: There are only two times in my life when I have supported vacating accomplishments.
The first is Barry Bonds. I'm a Braves fan. Anyone who knows baseball gets why.
The second is Joe Paterno. I was a long time Paterno supporter. I thought he should be allowed to die coaching. The man was a legend and an icon, someone who said "fuck you cancer (and broken pelvis or w/e), I'm going to keep doing what I love." But the moment the Sandusky thing came out, I knew he needed to step down. And once his involvement came out, every win he had was tainted.
The weird thing is, I still don't consider Bowden to be the wins leader either, because he didn't earn the #1 spot. In my mind, until someone tops Paterno's original record, there is no win leader, only a #2 (not that this will ever happen). I understand that this is illogical, but to me its like Bowden has the interim title until someone at least tops him.
This is like saying that Savior's bonjwa status was tainted by throwing games later in his career. It's a mind-numbingly stupid comment. His flawed actions off the field weren't related to on-the-field performance whatsoever; he wasn't bribing his opponents to lose, he wasn't gaining unfair information or advantages over his opponents, he wasn't getting his players to use steroids. He did something unrelated to the game, and taking away his wins is just stupid.
The case can be made that him lying and covering things up allowed him to get players that might not have originally come aboard. When Paterno or Sandusky showed up to recruit a kid, tell the kid and his parents "We're going to help shape your kid into an upstanding man. Take him under our wing and show him how to win on the field as well as how to be a honorable man off the field." they were CLEARLY blowing smoke up asses. Think that same speech to a kid of parent would go so hot in recent light? "By the way I'm fucking kids on the side. I'm clearly of strong moral character! Think it's cool if I help shape your child? I can totally be trusted!"
NCAA can be a sham, amateur athletics is a joke. But that's another topic for another day. I'm quite alright with the NCAA crucifying the team. The players can go elsewhere if they want, they're not getting screwed.
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
Just quoting this for truth and how I also feel about this. Hope more people see this.
Do you really think that the NCAA is just gonna sit on its ass while Penn State's actions have completely tarnished the reputation of college football? The NCAA is ultimately a business, and when something is bad for business, something needs to go. Can you imagine the flak they will get if they do nothing and Penn State is hoisting a Rose Bowl next year?
Okay, so the NCAA did this to save face? As long as we are all on the same page - the NCAA is not a moral body meant to dispense justice - it's just a hypocritical greedy organization that doesn't care about raped children: just public outrage and lost revenue. As long as we're clear.
It's not a moral body meant to dispense justice but it's not a hypocritical greedy organization either. It's just a business organization, and it needs to do what is profitable(this is neither hypocritical nor greedy).
This would be absolutely fine, if the NCAA admitted to what it was. I don't disagree that they decided to butcher Penn State because it was a business decision. That's not even an argument. The argument is that the NCAA will wrap itself up in white robes of righteousness and condemn a university and football program for evil vile sins committed by a handful of terrible men. Mark Emmert will speak solemnly and offer his meaningless condolences. But no one will care because no one cares when DOWchemical says "Sorry, your kid was raped." or ExxonMobile says "Sorry. We'll make sure that gas station gets only one pump - it really is the moral thing to do."
Dunno why the NCAA would even get involved in this really. Sets a terrible precedent and takes on a whole new role that I don't think they're prepared for. Even if they do say this is "unique circumstances" who's to say they won't say that in the future?
On July 24 2012 04:08 slyboogie wrote: I'm sure child molester everywhere will now think twice before raping kids because they don't want their college program to lose 70(!) scholarships and $60 million dollars. Won't someone think of the vacated wins?!
It's to serve as a detterent to those in power who might look the other way that your program and school will get skull fucked into oblivion if you cover up criminal shit to protect your image, recruiting ability and interests.
It's clear that this cover up was done, among other reasons, to protect the image of PSU football. Can someone provide a compelling reason why their program shouldn't get getting pounded in the ground right now? How is this any different than USC getting smashed over the head for the Bush recruiting violations? People who weren't even there when he played ate that shit.
They didn't violate NCAA by-laws, they systemically covered up rapes! And for that, they are going to go to prison. I, for some reason, find this to be different from hiding a slush fund or cheating Pell Grants to gain an "unfair" advantage at a game. The NCAA shouldn't even be involved in this, this is just sanctimonious showboating to make everyone feel better. Which, as I type that, doesn't actually seem wrong...
Just quoting this for truth and how I also feel about this. Hope more people see this.
Do you really think that the NCAA is just gonna sit on its ass while Penn State's actions have completely tarnished the reputation of college football? The NCAA is ultimately a business, and when something is bad for business, something needs to go. Can you imagine the flak they will get if they do nothing and Penn State is hoisting a Rose Bowl next year?
Okay, so the NCAA did this to save face? As long as we are all on the same page - the NCAA is not a moral body meant to dispense justice - it's just a hypocritical greedy organization that doesn't care about raped children: just public outrage and lost revenue. As long as we're clear.
It's not a moral body meant to dispense justice but it's not a hypocritical greedy organization either. It's just a business organization, and it needs to do what is profitable(this is neither hypocritical nor greedy).
This would be absolutely fine, if the NCAA admitted to what it was. I don't disagree that they decided to butcher Penn State because it was a business decision. That's not even an argument. The argument is that the NCAA will wrap itself up in white robes of righteousness and condemn a university and football program for evil vile sins committed by a handful of terrible men. Mark Emmert will speak solemnly and offer his meaningless condolences. But no one will care because no one cares when DOWchemical says "Sorry, your kid was raped." or ExxonMobile says "Sorry. We'll make sure that gas station gets only one pump - it really is the moral thing to do."
you've got a very exaggerated view of the world.
That's probably true. To be fair, I would have found fault with anything the NCAA did because I think they're awful.
Look, I agree with you in the reality of it all. The NCAA is a business. Does that mean that they hate children and aren't sad that these terrible things happened? No, it's still made up of humans - well intentioned, moral (I believe) humans. But let's be real. These men weren't Penn State. Even Joe Paterno wasn't Penn State. Does Penn State deserve sanctions? Sure, I guess - but do sanctions really mean anything in light of what we're even talking about? Does the severity of the sanctions make the healing any faster? Does it make what happened any more correctable?
On July 24 2012 11:20 RJGooner wrote: Dunno why the NCAA would even get involved in this really. Sets a terrible precedent and takes on a whole new role that I don't think they're prepared for. Even if they do say this is "unique circumstances" who's to say they won't say that in the future?
lack of institutional control is why im assuming they got involved and gave penalties.
On July 24 2012 10:17 zev318 wrote: its sad the only people who are really punished are the student athletes.
With the sham that is amateurism in college football (read: basically slavery), they aren't being hurt. The ones on scholarship at PSU get to stay there for free and may choose to not play, or they can transfer to another school and play without penalty. The team will be bad for a few years but if it's your dream to play there, there will still be scholarships.
Also - as if college football is fucking important anyway. Not to rag on you personally, but that kind of attitude is what put PSU in this position in the first place. "Oh well if this gets out the team will be hurt!" You know someone said that or used it as a justification for the cover up.
dont really care about college football, everything they have done today only punishes the students athletes. i dont see one thing being done about the people who covered it up (as of yet), that's what my comment is really about.
On July 24 2012 10:17 zev318 wrote: its sad the only people who are really punished are the student athletes.
With the sham that is amateurism in college football (read: basically slavery), they aren't being hurt. The ones on scholarship at PSU get to stay there for free and may choose to not play, or they can transfer to another school and play without penalty. The team will be bad for a few years but if it's your dream to play there, there will still be scholarships.
Also - as if college football is fucking important anyway. Not to rag on you personally, but that kind of attitude is what put PSU in this position in the first place. "Oh well if this gets out the team will be hurt!" You know someone said that or used it as a justification for the cover up.
dont really care about college football, everything they have done today only punishes the students athletes. i dont see one thing being done about the people who covered it up (as of yet), that's what my comment is really about.
who are the ones that get fucked any time there's a punishment levied in ncaa??
tired of PSU cult followers getting butt hurt over reasonable sanctions.
-60 million $/1.83 billion? REALLY not that bad. -Student athletes will be able to transfer and whatnot with no eligibility sanctions (it's unavoidable that the players will suffer, seeing as this was a FOOTBALL program and therefore an entire university problem) -Everything else is punishing the football program, yet all these PSU people still love Paterno and think they've been wronged.
How about next time, the most important people in your university have the balls to do the right thing and not be accessories to child rape?
On July 24 2012 10:17 zev318 wrote: its sad the only people who are really punished are the student athletes.
With the sham that is amateurism in college football (read: basically slavery), they aren't being hurt. The ones on scholarship at PSU get to stay there for free and may choose to not play, or they can transfer to another school and play without penalty. The team will be bad for a few years but if it's your dream to play there, there will still be scholarships.
Also - as if college football is fucking important anyway. Not to rag on you personally, but that kind of attitude is what put PSU in this position in the first place. "Oh well if this gets out the team will be hurt!" You know someone said that or used it as a justification for the cover up.
dont really care about college football, everything they have done today only punishes the students athletes. i dont see one thing being done about the people who covered it up (as of yet), that's what my comment is really about.
Well the people who actually did the covering up have been fired and some are under criminal investigation. Unfortunately there are still consequences for the school. I don't really feel like these penalties hurt any student who is truly passionate about football - they can transfer easily, stay at the school and play with their heart, or stay at the school and not play.
I think it sends a very good message. Yes, the penalty is harsh. But, look at it another way. Every school in the nation will now be more aware of what is happening on their campuses. And if any misconduct is found, it will be reported immediately. PSU could potentially be ruined, and no other school will want to risk that. I think it is very appropriate as a deterrent.
I have been scouring the internet to find the answer to a question I have, but I can find no information.
I want to know how the grand jury knew to subpoena Mike McQueary to testify. I see that he testified in December of 2010, but how did they know to ask him anything?
Had Penn State already turned over documents relating to the assault McQueary witnessed or had someone else told them they should talk to McQueary?
It was either coincidence or he was the initial whistleblower. Wikipedia says there was a "victim 1" who's case was under investigation for a while before Mike was called in.
Yeah, victim 1 was THE whistleblower, but then victim 2 was the one McQueary saw.
From there it seemed the victims came in the order they found out about them. Several times they would mention that one victim had suggested another as possible.
What is strange is that the 1998 case which police should have known about was listed towards the end so that would indicate that the ordering is not related to when they discovered them.
But did McQueary find out about an investigation and then volenteer information?
Also there was a janitor who saw similar stuff so I wonder how they knew to ask him.
On July 24 2012 10:17 zev318 wrote: its sad the only people who are really punished are the student athletes.
With the sham that is amateurism in college football (read: basically slavery), they aren't being hurt. The ones on scholarship at PSU get to stay there for free and may choose to not play, or they can transfer to another school and play without penalty. The team will be bad for a few years but if it's your dream to play there, there will still be scholarships.
Also - as if college football is fucking important anyway. Not to rag on you personally, but that kind of attitude is what put PSU in this position in the first place. "Oh well if this gets out the team will be hurt!" You know someone said that or used it as a justification for the cover up.
dont really care about college football, everything they have done today only punishes the students athletes. i dont see one thing being done about the people who covered it up (as of yet), that's what my comment is really about.
The people who covered it up have criminal charges against them.
Have you ever heard a company dump toxic waste into a river, cook their books, hide a dangerous product defect, etc. and only the executives who signed off on the decisions get punished? With no consequences to the company whatsoever? That's essentially what you and everybody decrying the Penn State sanctions is arguing. Because those companies have innocent shareholders, employees and other business partners who will be negatively affected by punitive damages and other sanctions.
The Freeh report includes internal e-mails between PSU admins following the 2001 incident, which McQueary reported to Paterno. Officials probably obtained those documents during the investigation, which would lead back to him. It's also possible McQueary went to investigators directly.
As for the NCAA sanctions, I can't find anything in the NCAA bylaws that authorizes this sort of punishment. Not only are the purported "violations" razor thin (the letter to PSU cites the "ethical conduct" section, which really has nothing to do with child abuse if you read it), but the way the NCAA handed down the punishment went totally outside the normal process for infractions. That said, PSU decided to take it, so I guess that's moot.
Morally, I think the punishment is the right thing to do. I'm just skeptical whether the NCAA really had the authority to do it...
I do not understand keeping all the wins during the 30 years Sandusky coached, and then taking the wins away once he retired. Also, I would rather the NCAA give some money back than just take Penn State's money.
But I still want to know who blew the whistle to the grand jury on what McQueary saw.
The grand jury's report found McQueary to be very credible. They did not suggest charges for Paterno and they did suggest charges for the AD and VP of Police who they thought lied to the grand jury.
Also, it sounds like AD and VP of Police gave grand jury testimony that conflicted with the emails. Presumably they would not have done this if they had already turned over emails. It seems more likely the emails were gathered later.
If the Grand Jury asked Paterno if he knew anything about Sandusky and he said "Ask McQueary" then that would indicate that Paterno is sort of the whistleblower.
If instead they went to the AD and the AD said "Ask McQueary" then it was the AD etc.
Maybe it was the Penn State's lawyer who release internal documents.
The point is there is some whistleblower here and they seem to be keeping their identity secret.
Based on the grand jury's conclussions it seems very unlikely that the whistleblower was either AD or VP of Police.
Furthermore, the President claims he knew nothing and was surprised to be called so it is unlikely to be him.
This leaves the lawyer, McQueary and Paterno. Paterno would obviously have been interviewed since he was Sandusky's boss in the past, but it seems to me that McQueary would be pretty far down the list of people to interview.
On July 25 2012 03:16 gh0st wrote: Morally, I think the punishment is the right thing to do. I'm just skeptical whether the NCAA really had the authority to do it...
They sanction all college athletics in the country. Of course they do.
It's a nice little mirror to governments. Of course they don't have the power. They just gave themselves the power. Incidents in which there is a large public outcry is an excellent opportunity to subvert the law.
Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed about people using this as an excuse to talk like savages and check their brains out on vacation.
I'm curious where the $60million is going to end up going. I haven't heard. But the logical choice to me would be giving it to some sexual assault victims charity. It'd go a long way to helping a lot of people I'm sure. May as well try and do some right with this whole thing.
On July 25 2012 04:18 OuchyDathurts wrote: I'm curious where the $60million is going to end up going. I haven't heard. But the logical choice to me would be giving it to some sexual assault victims charity. It'd go a long way to helping a lot of people I'm sure. May as well try and do some right with this whole thing.
On July 25 2012 03:16 gh0st wrote: The Freeh report includes internal e-mails between PSU admins following the 2001 incident, which McQueary reported to Paterno. Officials probably obtained those documents during the investigation, which would lead back to him. It's also possible McQueary went to investigators directly.
As for the NCAA sanctions, I can't find anything in the NCAA bylaws that authorizes this sort of punishment. Not only are the purported "violations" razor thin (the letter to PSU cites the "ethical conduct" section, which really has nothing to do with child abuse if you read it), but the way the NCAA handed down the punishment went totally outside the normal process for infractions. That said, PSU decided to take it, so I guess that's moot.
Morally, I think the punishment is the right thing to do. I'm just skeptical whether the NCAA really had the authority to do it...
So let me get this straight. You're saying that, in order to have the mandate to hand down this punishment, the NCAA has to explicitly state:
1: Don't rape children.
2: Don't cover up for other people raping children.
That's... an interesting way to think about it. One would think that these would be common sense and assumed.
And technically, the NCAA doesn't allege that PSU broke any rules; this wasn't handed down by the usual NCAA resolution system. This was essentially a decree from the highest levels of the NCAA saying that "these are now the rules that PSU operates under within the NCAA." The NCAA makes those rules, and therefore they are well within their rights to change them.
Also, as I understand, the sanctions were negotiated between the NCAA and PSU. Basically, the NCAA wanted to institute the "death penalty" (which again, they are well within their rights to do, as they sanction collegiate sports activity), and PSU argued them down to this.
On July 25 2012 04:18 OuchyDathurts wrote: I'm curious where the $60million is going to end up going. I haven't heard. But the logical choice to me would be giving it to some sexual assault victims charity. It'd go a long way to helping a lot of people I'm sure. May as well try and do some right with this whole thing.
I thought it was stated that the $60 million was going to charities that the victims of child abuse. Im not sure if that is 100% accurate but I was pretty sure I had heard the money was going to charities at one point.
On July 25 2012 03:16 gh0st wrote: The Freeh report includes internal e-mails between PSU admins following the 2001 incident, which McQueary reported to Paterno. Officials probably obtained those documents during the investigation, which would lead back to him. It's also possible McQueary went to investigators directly.
As for the NCAA sanctions, I can't find anything in the NCAA bylaws that authorizes this sort of punishment. Not only are the purported "violations" razor thin (the letter to PSU cites the "ethical conduct" section, which really has nothing to do with child abuse if you read it), but the way the NCAA handed down the punishment went totally outside the normal process for infractions. That said, PSU decided to take it, so I guess that's moot.
Morally, I think the punishment is the right thing to do. I'm just skeptical whether the NCAA really had the authority to do it...
So let me get this straight. You're saying that, in order to have the mandate to hand down this punishment, the NCAA has to explicitly state:
1: Don't rape children.
2: Don't cover up for other people raping children.
That's... an interesting way to think about it. One would think that these would be common sense and assumed.
And technically, the NCAA doesn't allege that PSU broke any rules; this wasn't handed down by the usual NCAA resolution system. This was essentially a decree from the highest levels of the NCAA saying that "these are now the rules that PSU operates under within the NCAA." The NCAA makes those rules, and therefore they are well within their rights to change them.
Also, as I understand, the sanctions were negotiated between the NCAA and PSU. Basically, the NCAA wanted to institute the "death penalty" (which again, they are well within their rights to do, as they sanction collegiate sports activity), and PSU argued them down to this.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Of course, the NCAA could have- they didn't- make a justification based on an institutional aspect, but that would be like Blizzard banning you because you downloaded music illegally on the same computer you play Starcraft.
A punishment like this should have been handed down from The State of Pennsylvania or their Education Board. Or, hey, we can even get the DoEducation to blackmail them because they're good at that. The NCAA did it because they wanted to look tough and because people don't care/are ignorant. That people were even looking to the NCAA for a response is just a testament to the stupidity of college sports at the moment.
On July 25 2012 03:16 gh0st wrote: The Freeh report includes internal e-mails between PSU admins following the 2001 incident, which McQueary reported to Paterno. Officials probably obtained those documents during the investigation, which would lead back to him. It's also possible McQueary went to investigators directly.
As for the NCAA sanctions, I can't find anything in the NCAA bylaws that authorizes this sort of punishment. Not only are the purported "violations" razor thin (the letter to PSU cites the "ethical conduct" section, which really has nothing to do with child abuse if you read it), but the way the NCAA handed down the punishment went totally outside the normal process for infractions. That said, PSU decided to take it, so I guess that's moot.
Morally, I think the punishment is the right thing to do. I'm just skeptical whether the NCAA really had the authority to do it...
So let me get this straight. You're saying that, in order to have the mandate to hand down this punishment, the NCAA has to explicitly state:
1: Don't rape children.
2: Don't cover up for other people raping children.
That's... an interesting way to think about it. One would think that these would be common sense and assumed.
And technically, the NCAA doesn't allege that PSU broke any rules; this wasn't handed down by the usual NCAA resolution system. This was essentially a decree from the highest levels of the NCAA saying that "these are now the rules that PSU operates under within the NCAA." The NCAA makes those rules, and therefore they are well within their rights to change them.
Also, as I understand, the sanctions were negotiated between the NCAA and PSU. Basically, the NCAA wanted to institute the "death penalty" (which again, they are well within their rights to do, as they sanction collegiate sports activity), and PSU argued them down to this.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Of course, the NCAA could have- they didn't- make a justification based on an institutional aspect, but that would be like Blizzard banning you because you downloaded music illegally on the same computer you play Starcraft.
A punishment like this should have been handed down from The State of Pennsylvania or their Education Board. Or, hey, we can even get the DoEducation to blackmail them because they're good at that. The NCAA did it because they wanted to look tough and because people don't care/are ignorant. That people were even looking to the NCAA for a response is just a testament to the stupidity of college sports at the moment.
This is correct. The NCAA WAY overstepped their boundaries here, it is not their prerogative to deal with criminal matters such as this one, and they aren't equipped to do it even if it was in their mandate. All these sanctions do is open up a massive Pandora's box.
The NCAA, as the post above has noted, is there to ensure that schools maintain an equal playing field. The reason they gave SMU the death penalty was because they paid players to come to the school and thus obtained an unfair advantage over others.
The NCAA just sent the wrong message on this one. PSU's football program itself did nothing wrong and did not violate any NCAA rules. In fact, PSU's program was one of the most highly regarded in the country, not only because it was successful but also because the players graduated. For the NCAA to step in here and basically destroy the football program with one fell swoop is just wrong. It won't send any messages about the "football first" culture to any other schools I'll tell you that much. Alabama, Texas, Michigan, all those schools will continue to place heavy emphasis on football just like they always have.
On July 25 2012 04:18 OuchyDathurts wrote: I'm curious where the $60million is going to end up going. I haven't heard. But the logical choice to me would be giving it to some sexual assault victims charity. It'd go a long way to helping a lot of people I'm sure. May as well try and do some right with this whole thing.
I thought it was stated that the $60 million was going to charities that the victims of child abuse. Im not sure if that is 100% accurate but I was pretty sure I had heard the money was going to charities at one point.
It very well could have been I just hadn't heard anything. Well I'm glad that's the case.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition.
The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up.
And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place.
So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved.
The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade.
On July 25 2012 03:16 gh0st wrote: The Freeh report includes internal e-mails between PSU admins following the 2001 incident, which McQueary reported to Paterno. Officials probably obtained those documents during the investigation, which would lead back to him. It's also possible McQueary went to investigators directly.
As for the NCAA sanctions, I can't find anything in the NCAA bylaws that authorizes this sort of punishment. Not only are the purported "violations" razor thin (the letter to PSU cites the "ethical conduct" section, which really has nothing to do with child abuse if you read it), but the way the NCAA handed down the punishment went totally outside the normal process for infractions. That said, PSU decided to take it, so I guess that's moot.
Morally, I think the punishment is the right thing to do. I'm just skeptical whether the NCAA really had the authority to do it...
So let me get this straight. You're saying that, in order to have the mandate to hand down this punishment, the NCAA has to explicitly state:
1: Don't rape children.
2: Don't cover up for other people raping children.
That's... an interesting way to think about it. One would think that these would be common sense and assumed.
And technically, the NCAA doesn't allege that PSU broke any rules; this wasn't handed down by the usual NCAA resolution system. This was essentially a decree from the highest levels of the NCAA saying that "these are now the rules that PSU operates under within the NCAA." The NCAA makes those rules, and therefore they are well within their rights to change them.
Also, as I understand, the sanctions were negotiated between the NCAA and PSU. Basically, the NCAA wanted to institute the "death penalty" (which again, they are well within their rights to do, as they sanction collegiate sports activity), and PSU argued them down to this.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Of course, the NCAA could have- they didn't- make a justification based on an institutional aspect, but that would be like Blizzard banning you because you downloaded music illegally on the same computer you play Starcraft.
A punishment like this should have been handed down from The State of Pennsylvania or their Education Board. Or, hey, we can even get the DoEducation to blackmail them because they're good at that. The NCAA did it because they wanted to look tough and because people don't care/are ignorant. That people were even looking to the NCAA for a response is just a testament to the stupidity of college sports at the moment.
This is correct. The NCAA WAY overstepped their boundaries here, it is not their prerogative to deal with criminal matters such as this one, and they aren't equipped to do it even if it was in their mandate. All these sanctions do is open up a massive Pandora's box.
The NCAA, as the post above has noted, is there to ensure that schools maintain an equal playing field. The reason they gave SMU the death penalty was because they paid players to come to the school and thus obtained an unfair advantage over others.
The NCAA just sent the wrong message on this one. PSU's football program itself did nothing wrong and did not violate any NCAA rules. In fact, PSU's program was one of the most highly regarded in the country, not only because it was successful but also because the players graduated. For the NCAA to step in here and basically destroy the football program with one fell swoop is just wrong. It won't send any messages about the "football first" culture to any other schools I'll tell you that much. Alabama, Texas, Michigan, all those schools will continue to place heavy emphasis on football just like they always have.
I don't know how someone can possibly be so wrong about the role of the NCAA and why they would just make things up at random. By being a member of the NCAA, you agree to abide by their rules. Part of their rules is that you don't harm the reputation of the organization or the sports you represent. PSU decidedly harmed the reputation of the organization and the sport. They knowingly colluded to hide criminal activity in order to protect their football team. The NCAA is well within their rights to punish them.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition.
The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up.
And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place.
So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved.
The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade.
Do you honestly think that these sanctions are going to have ANY effect on other programs around the country? I mean, the message of "don't cover up for a child rapist on the staff" is certainly driven home here but do you really think the message they sent was "change the culture"? Look at the money that Penn State is losing from this. You're naive to think that Alabama, Michigan, LSU etc. won't continue to place a massive emphasis on the football program.
On July 25 2012 03:16 gh0st wrote: The Freeh report includes internal e-mails between PSU admins following the 2001 incident, which McQueary reported to Paterno. Officials probably obtained those documents during the investigation, which would lead back to him. It's also possible McQueary went to investigators directly.
As for the NCAA sanctions, I can't find anything in the NCAA bylaws that authorizes this sort of punishment. Not only are the purported "violations" razor thin (the letter to PSU cites the "ethical conduct" section, which really has nothing to do with child abuse if you read it), but the way the NCAA handed down the punishment went totally outside the normal process for infractions. That said, PSU decided to take it, so I guess that's moot.
Morally, I think the punishment is the right thing to do. I'm just skeptical whether the NCAA really had the authority to do it...
So let me get this straight. You're saying that, in order to have the mandate to hand down this punishment, the NCAA has to explicitly state:
1: Don't rape children.
2: Don't cover up for other people raping children.
That's... an interesting way to think about it. One would think that these would be common sense and assumed.
And technically, the NCAA doesn't allege that PSU broke any rules; this wasn't handed down by the usual NCAA resolution system. This was essentially a decree from the highest levels of the NCAA saying that "these are now the rules that PSU operates under within the NCAA." The NCAA makes those rules, and therefore they are well within their rights to change them.
Also, as I understand, the sanctions were negotiated between the NCAA and PSU. Basically, the NCAA wanted to institute the "death penalty" (which again, they are well within their rights to do, as they sanction collegiate sports activity), and PSU argued them down to this.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Of course, the NCAA could have- they didn't- make a justification based on an institutional aspect, but that would be like Blizzard banning you because you downloaded music illegally on the same computer you play Starcraft.
A punishment like this should have been handed down from The State of Pennsylvania or their Education Board. Or, hey, we can even get the DoEducation to blackmail them because they're good at that. The NCAA did it because they wanted to look tough and because people don't care/are ignorant. That people were even looking to the NCAA for a response is just a testament to the stupidity of college sports at the moment.
This is correct. The NCAA WAY overstepped their boundaries here, it is not their prerogative to deal with criminal matters such as this one, and they aren't equipped to do it even if it was in their mandate. All these sanctions do is open up a massive Pandora's box.
The NCAA, as the post above has noted, is there to ensure that schools maintain an equal playing field. The reason they gave SMU the death penalty was because they paid players to come to the school and thus obtained an unfair advantage over others.
The NCAA just sent the wrong message on this one. PSU's football program itself did nothing wrong and did not violate any NCAA rules. In fact, PSU's program was one of the most highly regarded in the country, not only because it was successful but also because the players graduated. For the NCAA to step in here and basically destroy the football program with one fell swoop is just wrong. It won't send any messages about the "football first" culture to any other schools I'll tell you that much. Alabama, Texas, Michigan, all those schools will continue to place heavy emphasis on football just like they always have.
I don't know how someone can possibly be so wrong about the role of the NCAA and why they would just make things up at random. By being a member of the NCAA, you agree to abide by their rules. Part of their rules is that you don't harm the reputation of the organization or the sports you represent. PSU decidedly harmed the reputation of the organization and the sport. They knowingly colluded to hide criminal activity in order to protect their football team. The NCAA is well within their rights to punish them.
What specific NCAA rule did the PSU football program break? Can you point that out to me please?
And since when did the NCAA have the right to get involved in criminal matters? If the Alabama football coach went drunk driving tomorrow and killed someone you think the NCAA has a right to get involved in that too?
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition.
The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up.
And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place.
So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved.
The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade.
Do you honestly think that these sanctions are going to have ANY effect on other programs around the country? I mean, the message of "don't cover up for a child rapist on the staff" is certainly driven home here but do you really think the message they sent was "change the culture"? Look at the money that Penn State is losing from this. You're naive to think that Alabama, Michigan, LSU etc. won't continue to place a massive emphasis on the football program.
They certainly might. How do we know that any particular punishment for any particular crime will act as a deterrant for it?
We don't know it for certain. But I'd say that this is a good try. It shows that the NCAA is serious about not letting college football culture get out of control. And if they take other steps in addition to this, then things can improve.
Remember: the problem isn't with having a heavy emphasis on a football program. The problem is deifying it to the point where you're covering up horrible crimes to protect it.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition.
The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up.
And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place.
So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved.
The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade.
And so the message that needs to be sent is that it's the NCAA that needs to be feared and respected as the hander down of judgments? That's the wrong message. That's the message that only makes people try to hide more from the NCAA.
A judgment coming down from the state would have been a message that the university as an institution is more important than their fantasy land of college athletics.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition.
The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up.
And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place.
So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved.
The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade.
And so the message that needs to be sent is that it's the NCAA that needs to be feared and respected as the hander down of judgments? That's the wrong message. That's the message that only makes people try to hide more from the NCAA.
A judgment coming down from the state would have been a message that the university as an institution is more important than their fantasy land of college athletics.
The NCAA is basically the parents of all the schools. The schools lie about things because they don't want to get in trouble, but then when they got caught the parents punish them for lying just as much if not more than the actual issue.
Arkansas' Coach Petrino was sleeping with a young woman and got her a Job over a much more qualified candidate. When the Arkansas AD found out, Petrino was fired. No NCAA sanctions, not even a slap on the wrist, because they took care of business.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition.
The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up.
And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place.
So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved.
The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade.
And so the message that needs to be sent is that it's the NCAA that needs to be feared and respected as the hander down of judgments? That's the wrong message. That's the message that only makes people try to hide more from the NCAA.
A judgment coming down from the state would have been a message that the university as an institution is more important than their fantasy land of college athletics.
That people are willing to take up the cause of critiquing the NCAA system predicated on the PSU scandal is beyond me. There may be many instances of two-faced applications of NCAA-brand morality that are worth taking a look at, but this is not such an instance. I'm a hardcore OSU fan, and have been a Big10 boy all my life, and I definitely think the NCAA's handling of the PSU case has been appropriate thus far.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition.
The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up.
And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place.
So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved.
The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade.
And so the message that needs to be sent is that it's the NCAA that needs to be feared and respected as the hander down of judgments? That's the wrong message. That's the message that only makes people try to hide more from the NCAA.
A judgment coming down from the state would have been a message that the university as an institution is more important than their fantasy land of college athletics.
The NCAA is basically the parents of all the schools. The schools lie about things because they don't want to get in trouble, but then when they got caught the parents punish them for lying just as much if not more than the actual issue.
Arkansas' Coach Petrino was sleeping with a young woman and got her a Job over a much more qualified candidate. When the Arkansas AD found out, Petrino was fired. No NCAA sanctions, not even a slap on the wrist, because they took care of business.
What. The NCAA- a league of the schools- is not the parent of the schools- state run institutions. The NCAA has no authority other than what the schools agree to. If PSU never wanted to hear from the NCAA again, they could simply withdraw.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition.
The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up.
And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place.
So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved.
The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade.
And so the message that needs to be sent is that it's the NCAA that needs to be feared and respected as the hander down of judgments? That's the wrong message. That's the message that only makes people try to hide more from the NCAA.
A judgment coming down from the state would have been a message that the university as an institution is more important than their fantasy land of college athletics.
That people are willing to take up the cause of critiquing the NCAA system predicated on the PSU scandal is beyond me. There may be many instances of two-faced applications of NCAA-brand morality that are worth taking a look at, but this is not such an instance. I'm a hardcore OSU fan, and have been a Big10 boy all my life, and I definitely think the NCAA's handling of the PSU case has been appropriate thus far.
Because some of us didn't go 'herp derp child abuse time to shut the brain down'.
On July 25 2012 03:16 gh0st wrote: The Freeh report includes internal e-mails between PSU admins following the 2001 incident, which McQueary reported to Paterno. Officials probably obtained those documents during the investigation, which would lead back to him. It's also possible McQueary went to investigators directly.
As for the NCAA sanctions, I can't find anything in the NCAA bylaws that authorizes this sort of punishment. Not only are the purported "violations" razor thin (the letter to PSU cites the "ethical conduct" section, which really has nothing to do with child abuse if you read it), but the way the NCAA handed down the punishment went totally outside the normal process for infractions. That said, PSU decided to take it, so I guess that's moot.
Morally, I think the punishment is the right thing to do. I'm just skeptical whether the NCAA really had the authority to do it...
So let me get this straight. You're saying that, in order to have the mandate to hand down this punishment, the NCAA has to explicitly state:
1: Don't rape children.
2: Don't cover up for other people raping children.
That's... an interesting way to think about it. One would think that these would be common sense and assumed.
And technically, the NCAA doesn't allege that PSU broke any rules; this wasn't handed down by the usual NCAA resolution system. This was essentially a decree from the highest levels of the NCAA saying that "these are now the rules that PSU operates under within the NCAA." The NCAA makes those rules, and therefore they are well within their rights to change them.
Also, as I understand, the sanctions were negotiated between the NCAA and PSU. Basically, the NCAA wanted to institute the "death penalty" (which again, they are well within their rights to do, as they sanction collegiate sports activity), and PSU argued them down to this.
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport.
Of course, the NCAA could have- they didn't- make a justification based on an institutional aspect, but that would be like Blizzard banning you because you downloaded music illegally on the same computer you play Starcraft.
A punishment like this should have been handed down from The State of Pennsylvania or their Education Board. Or, hey, we can even get the DoEducation to blackmail them because they're good at that. The NCAA did it because they wanted to look tough and because people don't care/are ignorant. That people were even looking to the NCAA for a response is just a testament to the stupidity of college sports at the moment.
This is correct. The NCAA WAY overstepped their boundaries here, it is not their prerogative to deal with criminal matters such as this one, and they aren't equipped to do it even if it was in their mandate. All these sanctions do is open up a massive Pandora's box.
The NCAA, as the post above has noted, is there to ensure that schools maintain an equal playing field. The reason they gave SMU the death penalty was because they paid players to come to the school and thus obtained an unfair advantage over others.
The NCAA just sent the wrong message on this one. PSU's football program itself did nothing wrong and did not violate any NCAA rules. In fact, PSU's program was one of the most highly regarded in the country, not only because it was successful but also because the players graduated. For the NCAA to step in here and basically destroy the football program with one fell swoop is just wrong. It won't send any messages about the "football first" culture to any other schools I'll tell you that much. Alabama, Texas, Michigan, all those schools will continue to place heavy emphasis on football just like they always have.
I don't know how someone can possibly be so wrong about the role of the NCAA and why they would just make things up at random. By being a member of the NCAA, you agree to abide by their rules. Part of their rules is that you don't harm the reputation of the organization or the sports you represent. PSU decidedly harmed the reputation of the organization and the sport. They knowingly colluded to hide criminal activity in order to protect their football team. The NCAA is well within their rights to punish them.
What specific NCAA rule did the PSU football program break? Can you point that out to me please?
And since when did the NCAA have the right to get involved in criminal matters? If the Alabama football coach went drunk driving tomorrow and killed someone you think the NCAA has a right to get involved in that too?
Can you read? I don't understand why this has to be explained on every page of the topic. The NCAA has rules regarding "institutional control" - basically when I said:
By being a member of the NCAA, you agree to abide by their rules. Part of their rules is that you don't harm the reputation of the organization or the sports you represent. PSU decidedly harmed the reputation of the organization and the sport. They knowingly colluded to hide criminal activity in order to protect their football team.
this is what I'm referring to. You can go read up the NCAA bylaws on your own time if you like. If Penn State and every pundit I've read on the subject agrees, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
The NCAA is NOT getting involved in criminal matters. Don't you understand that? They are punishing Penn State because they did something really bad and then lied about it for 10 years. Once the criminal proceedings were finished (read: the NCAA did not engage in any type of investigation into criminal matters, they relied on official, public records of criminal activity), they added their punishment based on their rules of membership.
Your drunk driving football coach example - if the school decided not to take their own action, then yes, the NCAA would have reason to take action depending on the circumstances. If the school is not policing themselves, the NCAA may step in and impose a punishment.
Just like if I was convicted of drunk driving or another serious misdemeanor outside of my job, I might face consequences at work. Your actions outside of your job, the person you are in your private time, matter if they becomes public.
I hear a lot of opinion about the NCAA role and its rules and not much fact. Here are the relevant bylaws that were cited in the NCAA's letter to PSU the day before the sanctions were handed down:
BYLAW, ARTICLE 10 ethical Conduct 10.01 general principle 10.01.1 Honesty and sportsmanship. Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports. 10.02 DeFiniTions AnD APPLiCATions 10.02.1 sports wagering. [#] Sports wagering includes placing, accepting or soliciting a wager (on a staff member’s or student-athlete’s own behalf or on the behalf of others) of any type with any individual or organization on any intercollegiate, amateur or professional team or contest. Examples of sports wagering include, but are not limited to, the use of a bookmaker or parlay card; Internet sports wagering; auctions in which bids are placed on teams, individuals or contests; and pools or fantasy leagues in which an entry fee is required and there is an opportunity to win a prize. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07) 10.02.2 wager. [#] A wager is any agreement in which an individual or entity agrees to give up an item of value (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) in exchange for the possibility of gaining another item of value. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07) 10.1 Unethical Conduct Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following: (Revised: 1/10/90, 1/9/96, 2/22/01, 10/5/10) (a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual’s institution; (b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete; (c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid; (Revised: 1/9/96) (d) Knowingly furnishing or knowingly influencing others to furnish the NCAA or the individual’s institution false or misleading information concerning an individual’s involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation; (Revised: 1/16/10) (e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a studentathlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., “runner”); (Adopted: 1/9/96, Revised: 8/4/05) (f) Knowing involvement in providing a banned substance or impermissible supplement to student-athletes, or knowingly providing medications to student-athletes contrary to medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care in sports medicine practice, or state and federal law. This provision shall not apply to banned substances for which the student-athlete has received a medical exception per Bylaw 31.2.3.5; however, the substance must be provided in accordance with medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care and state or federal law; (Adopted: 8/4/05, Revised: 5/6/08) (g) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or an institution’s admissions office regarding an individual’s academic record (e.g., schools attended, completion of coursework, grades and test scores); (Adopted: 4/27/06, Revised: 10/23/07) (h) Fraudulence or misconduct in connection with entrance or placement examinations; (Adopted: 4/27/06) (i) Engaging in any athletics competition under an assumed name or with intent to otherwise deceive; or (Adopted: 4/27/06) (j) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or the institution’s athletics department regarding an individual’s amateur status. (Adopted: 1/8/07, Revised: 5/9/07)
The bolded portion makes it very clear that member institutions have a responsibility to conduct themselves honestly and in a sportsmanlike manner for the purpose of promoting fair play and the "high standards" of competitive sports. What does child sex abuse have to do with "fair play" and competitive sports? Not much.
If you continue reading, you'll note some of the examples the NCAA gives for ethical misconduct. Sports wagering, doping, falsifying grades, paying players etc. While it states that it is not an exhaustive list, there is nothing mentioned that remotely resembles what we're talking about here. Instead it's about preventing institutions from gaining unfair competitive advantages. One must stretch this language quite a bit to cover child sex abuse and the resulting coverup.
Someone mentioned that PSU might have violated the section on institutional control. That section does several things: It outlines how authority within the institution should flow. It outlines how the school's athletic budgets should be handled. It creates an obligation on the part of the institution to monitor itself and routinely assess whether it is in compliance with NCAA regulations. It defines anyone who is acting in the interests of the university or its athletic programs to be an agent of the institution and makes the institution responsible for their conduct. (E.g. a booster). None of this really supports what the NCAA did to Penn State...
Again, I think morally some sort of institutional punishment is necessary. I just don't think the NCAA really has the authority to impose the punishment given how its setup and what it's supposed to do... But the point is kinda moot since Penn State decided to accept the judgment.
1. "Includes but is not limited to." - that statement is broad and non-specific for a reason. I think the coverup of illegal activity clearly qualifies as unethical.
2. "10.01.1 Honesty and sportsmanship. Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports." - The entire point of this is that at ALL TIMES, even when not engaged in sport, they represent the sport, school, and NCAA with honesty and sportsmanship. Is lying to cover up a crime and protecting a rapist an exemplar of sportsmanship and honesty?
3. The institution engaged in broad coverup of a heinous crime with knowledge of several members of the coaching staff and the administration. The bylaws state that the administrators are responsible for preventing this exact kind of thing to the best of their ability. The school did not properly handle their finding of unethical behavior, in fact they actively engaged in unethical behavior. Clearly there was a lack of institutional control, therefore the NCAA punished them.
tl;dr - I honestly don't even know why people are attacking the NCAA over this. How can you read the bylaws and think that they don't have this authority? NCAA punishment doesn't preclude a Department of Education or state punishment, nor does it pretend to be a criminal punishment.
In Warcraft there was a saying - "Your actions reflect the guild." If you did something wrong, even outside a guild event or whatever, there were consequences. Even if you got an official suspension from Blizzard, there were still consequences on top of that from your guild. The principle is the same here, as it is in many areas of life.
Do you think that pro sports teams should not punish athletes who drive drunk, get caught with drugs, and beat women just because it's "off the field, nothing to do with sports?" Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but it's pretty much wrong. Their negative actions are harmful to the team and the sport as a whole, and there are consequences for that.
Bigtony: No, I don't think Penn State's conduct is an "exemplar of sportmanship and honesty.*" I didn't say it was... My point is that the section on unethical conduct focuses on behavior related to gaining an unfair competitive advantage in intercollegiate sports (e.g. doping players, manipulating elgibility etc). Extending this section of the bylaws to include what occurred at Penn State is an unprecedented, and in my opinion, unwarranted expansion of the NCAA's power. They don't have the jurisdiction to do something like this. And the only reason the NCAA isn't in court right now fighting an injunction is because Penn State agreed to the punishment.
*And to be clear, the bylaws calls on member institutions to be honest "so that" (i.e. "for the purpose of") promoting fairplay and high quality competitive sports. Subtle distinction but worth making because it goes back to what the NCAA was created to do, namely, to ensure that collegiate athletics is safe and fair and supports the overarching academic mission of the university. If you look at the bylaws, the NCAA has a very clear, specific scope, and I believe what happened at Penn State is outside that scope.
I don't know about your Warcraft example because I play real games (j/k). But in the case of NFL players, they sign a contract that clearly stipulates the consequences of off-the-field misconduct (not only with the NFL but with the team). In this case, no where in the NCAA bylaws does it say what happened at PSU constitutes an NCAA violation. To my knowledge, there is no previous example of the NCAA handing down sanctions for anything remotely similar to this. So it makes sense to me why some of us might be skeptical of whether the NCAA really has the authority to punish PSU.
The reason no one really cares one way or another is that this situation involves kids, and that changes stuff for everybody (myself included). But the NCAA DID set a new precedent with this decision, one that could have far-reaching effects for the NCAA and its member institutions. I'll give you a hypothetical. I'll use OU, my alma mater, as the example:
Let's pretend Coach Stoops (head football coach) has a penchant for sexually harassing the secretaries working in the athletic dept. Internal complaints are made and evidence of wrongdoing is presented to the athletic director and OU's president, who promptly decide to sweep it all under the rug because, hey, Coach Stoops is a winner. (thankfully this would never happen because David Boren is a smart man). Thanks to the work of some intrepid journalists and a police investigation, Stoops, the AD and the president are ousted from their positions. They face potential criminal charges as well as rather hefty civil lawsuits to boot.
Well after the fact, the NCAA steps in and strips OU of its wins during the Stoops era, including the 2000 national championship, prohibits OU from playing in bowls for 4 years, cuts its scholarships in half and levies a big fine. Do you think that's justified?
See, unlike the PSU situation, I would have a real problem with the NCAA stepping in that hypothetical, and not just because it's my team that's getting hurt. The bad actors are gone. They're getting their just dessert. The only people getting penalized at that point are the players and the school. You better believe people would fight that.
In a perfect world, I think PSU should've been able to announce the sanctions themselves (punishing themselves basically) and leave the NCAA out of it. The NCAA could then issue a statement I guess in support. But that solution would've been much better from a PR point of view and wouldn't put the NCAA out on such a precarious limb.
I don't know why I expect people on the Internet to follow a logical thought process and read with an open mind.
The section on unethical behavior is purposefully non-specific. Just because the enumerated examples focus on "on the field" cases does not exclude other things. Even if the coverup itself doesnt fall under their purview, the fsct is that PSU used their unethical behavior to maintain a competitive advantage using a false facade.
"bringing the sport/organization into disrepute" is a perfectly valid reason for sanction. Even when criminal actions are not committed, organizations can punish their members. It happens in many leagues across the world (formula 1 team orders in 2010 and 2002 I think are good examples of this).
There's no precedent for something like this because no school has covered up (for at least 10 years) a sexual abuse scandal that stretches back at least 20 years. In your hypothetical situation I'd be siding with you, but it's nowhere near the magnitude of the PSU case. So you're right, there's no precedent for this because the magnitude of this is insane. Fuck, I can think of very few mass molestation cases like this anywhere (other than the catholic church scandal).
Furthermore, I don't see how this kind of precedent is a bad thing. "if you coverup crimes to protect your sports teams were going to punish you in addition to whatever criminal/civil punishments you receive, so keep your shit straight." how is that a bad precedent? It's not like the NCAA made an arbitrary judgement here.
On July 25 2012 16:05 gh0st wrote: Bigtony: No, I don't think Penn State's conduct is an "exemplar of sportmanship and honesty.*" I didn't say it was... My point is that the section on unethical conduct focuses on behavior related to gaining an unfair competitive advantage in intercollegiate sports (e.g. doping players, manipulating elgibility etc). Extending this section of the bylaws to include what occurred at Penn State is an unprecedented, and in my opinion, unwarranted expansion of the NCAA's power. They don't have the jurisdiction to do something like this. And the only reason the NCAA isn't in court right now fighting an injunction is because Penn State agreed to the punishment.
They're not in court fighting because 'included but not limited to' in the ethical section is pretty goddamn broad for shit like this and you OU hypothetical. If they were to fight, it would be over whether or not the severity of the punishmenti s warranted (which is what you're bitching about) not whether or not the NCAA has the authority because it pretty damn clearly does. That language gives them final say in what is and isn't ethical.
So this whole argument boils down to this: is an institution covering up a sex scandal for more than a decade ethical, or is it not?
On July 25 2012 16:05 gh0st wrote: Well after the fact, the NCAA steps in and strips OU of its wins during the Stoops era, including the 2000 national championship, prohibits OU from playing in bowls for 4 years, cuts its scholarships in half and levies a big fine. Do you think that's justified?
See, unlike the PSU situation, I would have a real problem with the NCAA stepping in that hypothetical, and not just because it's my team that's getting hurt. The bad actors are gone. They're getting their just dessert. The only people getting penalized at that point are the players and the school. You better believe people would fight that.
In a perfect world, I think PSU should've been able to announce the sanctions themselves (punishing themselves basically) and leave the NCAA out of it. The NCAA could then issue a statement I guess in support. But that solution would've been much better from a PR point of view and wouldn't put the NCAA out on such a precarious limb.
The NCAA only looks to be on a precarious limb to those who either think the punishment was harsh (an opinion) or those who are unable to comprehend a very straight forward bylaw that gives the NCAA the power to do this.
Penn State has the absolute 100% right to tell the NCAA & Big 10 to GFY and not pay.
And the NCAA and Big 10 have the absolute right to kick them out and bar any other NCAA affiliated team from setting foot there, and remove them from any revenue sharing agreement(s).
On July 25 2012 16:05 gh0st wrote: Bigtony: No, I don't think Penn State's conduct is an "exemplar of sportmanship and honesty.*" I didn't say it was... My point is that the section on unethical conduct focuses on behavior related to gaining an unfair competitive advantage in intercollegiate sports (e.g. doping players, manipulating elgibility etc). Extending this section of the bylaws to include what occurred at Penn State is an unprecedented, and in my opinion, unwarranted expansion of the NCAA's power. They don't have the jurisdiction to do something like this. And the only reason the NCAA isn't in court right now fighting an injunction is because Penn State agreed to the punishment.
They're not in court fighting because 'included but not limited to' in the ethical section is pretty goddamn broad for shit like this and you OU hypothetical. If they were to fight, it would be over whether or not the severity of the punishmenti s warranted (which is what you're bitching about) not whether or not the NCAA has the authority because it pretty damn clearly does. That language gives them final say in what is and isn't ethical.
So this whole argument boils down to this: is an institution covering up a sex scandal for more than a decade ethical, or is it not?
On July 25 2012 16:05 gh0st wrote: Well after the fact, the NCAA steps in and strips OU of its wins during the Stoops era, including the 2000 national championship, prohibits OU from playing in bowls for 4 years, cuts its scholarships in half and levies a big fine. Do you think that's justified?
See, unlike the PSU situation, I would have a real problem with the NCAA stepping in that hypothetical, and not just because it's my team that's getting hurt. The bad actors are gone. They're getting their just dessert. The only people getting penalized at that point are the players and the school. You better believe people would fight that.
In a perfect world, I think PSU should've been able to announce the sanctions themselves (punishing themselves basically) and leave the NCAA out of it. The NCAA could then issue a statement I guess in support. But that solution would've been much better from a PR point of view and wouldn't put the NCAA out on such a precarious limb.
The NCAA only looks to be on a precarious limb to those who either think the punishment was harsh (an opinion) or those who are unable to comprehend a very straight forward bylaw that gives the NCAA the power to do this.
Thisx1000, when Jerubaal claimed that Penn State could simply forego NCAA membership and avoid the penalties it was made clear just how little he understands the strictures of conference and NCAA membership. As if a school so firmly entrenched in the commercial world of collegiate athletics could just up and leave, lol.
I found it amusing that the President of the NCAA said "we decided not to give them the death penalty". Seriously? I am pretty sure this is going to kill the program. They will be under sanctions for 5 years then it will be another 5 years before they can rebuild any that resembles a contending football program.
On July 26 2012 01:02 Damien Kirojo wrote: I found it amusing that the President of the NCAA said "we decided not to give them the death penalty". Seriously? I am pretty sure this is going to kill the program. They will be under sanctions for 5 years then it will be another 5 years before they can rebuild any that resembles a contending football program.
Big fuckin whoop. Tons of colleges throughout the entire country have football teams that can't contend, but they still have teams. PSU doesn't deserve a bowl-contending team at the moment, plain and simple.
The section on unethical behavior is purposefully non-specific. Just because the enumerated examples focus on "on the field" cases does not exclude other things. Even if the coverup itself doesnt fall under their purview, the fsct is that PSU used their unethical behavior to maintain a competitive advantage using a false facade.
I agree it is purposefully non-specific. That's because the NCAA doesn't want to define cheating too narrowly. At it's core, that's what all the examples of ethical misconduct are about, and to my knowledge, what all past NCAA infractions cases have been about. Now, if you're argument is that PSU covered up the abuse to maintain a competitive advantage (i.e. cheating) then we're getting somewhere, because I think that might bring the scandal under the NCAA's purview.
So how did Penn State's action create an unfair competitive advantage? How did the cover-up help Penn State score more touchdowns on the field? How did it help them win? We can speculate that some players might have transferred after the scandal broke had PSU done the "right thing." Or that star recruits might have gone somewhere else... But we're just guessing what might have happened. It's not concrete. I'm also unclear why PSU would be responsible for what recruits/transfer students decide to do...
"bringing the sport/organization into disrepute" is a perfectly valid reason for sanction. Even when criminal actions are not committed, organizations can punish their members. It happens in many leagues across the world (formula 1 team orders in 2010 and 2002 I think are good examples of this).
OK so what about adultery? Former football coach A has a reputation for cheating on his wife. He retires after a long, successful career at the school, during which his exploits are kept quiet. Coach B comes in and starts recruiting and gives the usual boilerplate about how he'll build good, upstanding young men blah blah blah. Does Coach B have an obligation to disclose his predecessor's past behavior? If he fails to do that, does the NCAA get involved? I mean, where do you draw the line? Like you said, "unethical conduct" can be construed very broadly... (So broad, in fact, I'd say it's almost meaningless for the purposes of setting up rules for people/organizations to follow, but that's a separate issue).
There's no precedent for something like this because no school has covered up (for at least 10 years) a sexual abuse scandal that stretches back at least 20 years. In your hypothetical situation I'd be siding with you, but it's nowhere near the magnitude of the PSU case. So you're right, there's no precedent for this because the magnitude of this is insane. Fuck, I can think of very few mass molestation cases like this anywhere (other than the catholic church scandal).
We don't know that it hasn't happened before. It's possible something like it has occurred at other schools. OK, so you agree that the NCAA has no business getting involved in my sexual harassment hypothetical. Why? What's the difference? Sexual harassment is illegal in most places. It's clearly unethical conduct. And in the hypothetical, school admins cover it up to protect the (current!) coach and program. The difference is kids are involved in the Penn State case and for you, that makes it a much bigger deal. On a purely emotional level, I agree with you. But where does it say in these bylaws that you're interpreting so broadly that the NCAA will only involve itself in cases that deal with kids? Where does it say it will only pile on schools that cover-up "really bad" stuff, but will let "lesser" things go? Yeah, it doesn't. So how can you say the NCAA hasn't set a new precedent?
Furthermore, I don't see how this kind of precedent is a bad thing. "if you coverup crimes to protect your sports teams were going to punish you in addition to whatever criminal/civil punishments you receive, so keep your shit straight." how is that a bad precedent? It's not like the NCAA made an arbitrary judgement here.
Because if you have a guy like Mark Emmert in charge you could get situations like the sexual harassment hypothetical I gave you, and that's bad. The NCAA isn't supercop.
On July 25 2012 23:01 Hawk wrote: They're not in court fighting because 'included but not limited to' in the ethical section is pretty goddamn broad for shit like this and you OU hypothetical. If they were to fight, it would be over whether or not the severity of the punishmenti s warranted (which is what you're bitching about) not whether or not the NCAA has the authority because it pretty damn clearly does. That language gives them final say in what is and isn't ethical.
You apparently don't know many lawyers. A good lawyer could do a lot more with less. And yeah, part of it hinges on how you interpret "ethical" conduct. But it wouldn't be looked at in a vacuum. Look, NCAA has a job to do. That job isn't to stop child abuse. It isn't to ensure all persons affiliated with collegiate athletics do "good stuff." It's to ensure the safety and fairness of collegiate athletics and make sure it promotes the academic mission of the university. The link between that mission and what happened at Penn State is tenuous at best.
The NCAA only looks to be on a precarious limb to those who either think the punishment was harsh (an opinion) or those who are unable to comprehend a very straight forward bylaw that gives the NCAA the power to do this.
I never said I thought the punishment was too harsh. Please don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I said the opposite, that some sort of institutional punishment was the right thing to do. I just don't agree that the NCAA has the power to do this, and I disagree that the bylaw is "very straight-forward."
Not that I think the sanctions against Penn State add up to the death penalty. Obviously they don't. But the coach of Penn State kinda has a reason to be optimistic about his team's chances, dontyathink?
Is there a sane goddamn person in this world who would interpret a systematic cover up of crimes by a school employee/associate on school grounds ( a crime in itself) to be ethical?? It is literally as simple as that. There isn't a lawyer on earth who could argue the actions of the school as ethical.
It's not at all like your ridiculous straw man of adultry between two consenting adults (not a crime) being something that would even cross this threshhold. And even if it did, what does it even have to do with the above statement about the interpretation of what happened at PSU?
rather than quoting the manual, check the statement from the ncaa which clearly references several of the above bylaws, making very specific reference to the ethical one
I didn't say adultery was a crime. Lots of people would say it's unethical though. It's relevant because I was talking about precedents, which you apparently missed. It's really easy to look at this situation and say "herp-derp, child abuse bad, sanction those guys" And not think about what the consequences of that action might be.
But OK, you don't like that hypothetical. What about the earlier one I gave involving sexual harassment (is a crime in most circumstances)?
yeah crime and cover up same thing, that falls under the jursidiction of their ethical clause as clearly outlined...
but rather than going down another strawman route, why not answer my original question of whether or not what transpired at PSU was ethical? That seems pretty clear cut?
it also sets no precedent because the NCAA would not be stupid enough to hand out punishments for adultry. Are you kidding me????
Why do you completely ignore what I said about magnitude? It's not JUST about child abuse. It's about a TEN YEAR coverup of crimes stretching g back AT LEAST 20 years. So in your sexual harassment case if there was a comparable cover up of crimes of similar magnitude, I would say the NCAA has the right to step in. However, we can also say pretty objectively that child molestation is a crime more serious than sexual harassment.
Your argument has no substance at all. You say we are interpreting the ethics clause too loosely, but the reality is that you are interpreting it too narrowly. Look at similar scandals in other sports, where there wasn't even a criminal conviction and penalties were given out! Roethlesberger and the F1 examples come to mind.
What's with the sudden influx of arrogant internet lawyers trying to lawyer up everything and then accusing other people of "herp derp"? I thought we don't use that kind of crap language on this site.
Precedent is a common law principle. Business organizations are not bound by such principles when they administer discipline among their members. Adapting to market conditions is far more important. There is no need to list every single possible violation under the sun because it is understood that members of the organization have a duty to look out for other members and for the organization at large. The Penn State scandal is a huge blow to the integrity of college athletics, the activity that the NCAA was created to represent.
It's the same argument as Goodell's enforcement of NFL discipline. Why some people think that the process should exactly mimic the US judicial system is beyond me. Continued membership in an organization and the privileges that membership accords is a separate matter from the judicial process.
By any reasonable standard what happened at PSU was "unethical". But was it the same sort of unethical conduct discussed in the NCAA bylaws? The bylaws require member institutions to conduct themselves in an ethical manner to promote "fair play," "sportsmanship," and "the high standards of competitive sports." Again, what does child sex abuse have to do with fair play or sportsmanship? Besides the scandal involving ppl affiliated with the athletics program, what does it have to do with competitive sports?
The "unethical conduct" discussed in the NCAA bylaws have to do with actions that seek to gain an unfair competitive advantage. The examples it gives all have to do with some form of cheating: doping players, altering grades, pay-to-play schemes, etc. And if you look at past infractions cases, the NCAA has never sanctioned a school for anything remotely similar to this. Y'know if Sandusky had been doping players with performance-enhancing drugs, and there was a cover-up, I could understand why the NCAA gets involved. But that's not what happened.
Yeah, pick a guy off the street and ask him whether PSU acted ethically and the answer is clearly "no." But that's not the question. The question is whether what happened at PSU fits the description of "unethical conduct" in the bylaws. If you read the language and the examples of unethical conduct it gives and you look at the past infractions cases in which this clause has been used to sanction a school, it's seems to me that we're talking about different things. Prior to this week's announcement it was very clear that the NCAA had never done anything like this before. So to say the NCAA sanctions against Penn State represents a new precedent (for good or ill) and an expansion of NCAA power should not be that controversial...
As for the hypothetical, it's not a strawman. It's a very comparable situation. Kudos to you for staying consistent (if I understood your last post correctly), but I think you'd find a lot more push back from folks if the NCAA got involved in that situation. The NCAA opened the door to a discussion of hypothetical cases, and it's perfectly fair game.
On July 26 2012 03:34 gh0st wrote: By any reasonable standard what happened at PSU was "unethical". But was it the same sort of unethical conduct discussed in the NCAA bylaws? The bylaws require member institutions to conduct themselves in an ethical manner to promote "fair play," "sportsmanship," and "the high standards of competitive sports." Again, what does child sex abuse have to do with fair play or sportsmanship? Besides the scandal involving ppl affiliated with the athletics program, what does it have to do with competitive sports?
The "unethical conduct" discussed in the NCAA bylaws have to do with actions that seek to gain an unfair competitive advantage. The examples it gives all have to do with some form of cheating: doping players, altering grades, pay-to-play schemes, etc. And if you look at past infractions cases, the NCAA has never sanctioned a school for anything remotely similar to this. Y'know if Sandusky had been doping players with performance-enhancing drugs, and there was a cover-up, I could understand why the NCAA gets involved. But that's not what happened.
Yeah, pick a guy off the street and ask him whether PSU acted ethically and the answer is clearly "no." But that's not the question. The question is whether what happened at PSU fits the description of "unethical conduct" in the bylaws. If you read the language and the examples of unethical conduct it gives and you look at the past infractions cases in which this clause has been used to sanction a school, it's seems to me that we're talking about different things. Prior to this week's announcement it was very clear that the NCAA had never done anything like this before. So to say the NCAA sanctions against Penn State represents a new precedent (for good or ill) and an expansion of NCAA power should not be that controversial...
As for the hypothetical, it's not a strawman. It's a very comparable situation. Kudos to you for staying consistent (if I understood your last post correctly), but I think you'd find a lot more push back from folks if the NCAA got involved in that situation. The NCAA opened the door to a discussion of hypothetical cases, and it's perfectly fair game.
That's because no staff has been dumb enough to cover up and further enable something like this for over a decade.
Furthermore: "Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:"
So seeing as Sandusky, the original perp, was on the football team, and the coach and AD helped cover it up with the help of administrators, that is statisfied. It is in the realm of athletics. If that wasn't enough, think for a second why it was covered up.
And again, ethics, 'may include, but is not limited to'... Covering up crimes that took place in your athletic facilities is absolutely non ethical. And it doesn't have to be spelled out for that to work. There doesn't need to be an apples to apples precedent for them to get punishment, and it's not a court of law.
On July 26 2012 03:21 andrewlt wrote: Precedent is a common law principle. Business organizations are not bound by such principles when they administer discipline among their members. Adapting to market conditions is far more important. There is no need to list every single possible violation under the sun because it is understood that members of the organization have a duty to look out for other members and for the organization at large. The Penn State scandal is a huge blow to the integrity of college athletics, the activity that the NCAA was created to represent.
It's the same argument as Goodell's enforcement of NFL discipline. Why some people think that the process should exactly mimic the US judicial system is beyond me. Continued membership in an organization and the privileges that membership accords is a separate matter from the judicial process.
"Herp derp" was economical word choice.
Precedent isn't just important in a court of law. If you run an organization with rules, it should go without saying that how you enforce those rules has consequences. With the announcement this week, the NCAA broke new ground. That's a fact. And yeah, it will have consequences. If you set a precedent and then apply it arbitrarily, you open yourself up to charges of hypocrisy and maintaining a double standard. That's true if you're talking about the criminal justice system, a business or the NCAA. Also, no matter what kind of institution you're talking about, setting clear rules and expectations is important. Whenever you enforce a rule differently than you have in the past it creates confusion for those who have to abide by it, and that creates problems.
Again, this is really moot for Penn State since A) they accepted the punishment the NCAA handed down and B) for most people this situation is so heinous and so terrible that people don't care what happens to Penn State. I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. But after we finish patting ourselves on the backs for a job well done, maybe we ought to pause for a second and think about the NEXT case and what all of this means down the line.
These comparisons to other sports associations are irrelevant. The NFL is setup differently than the NCAA. I don't care what they do in Formula 1 racing. That has nothing to do with the NCAA.
That's because no staff has been dumb enough to cover up and further enable something like this for over a decade.
Furthermore: "Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:"
So seeing as Sandusky, the original perp, was on the football team, and the coach and AD helped cover it up with the help of administrators, that is statisfied. It is in the realm of athletics. If that wasn't enough, think for a second why it was covered up.
And again, ethics, 'may include, but is not limited to'... Covering up crimes that took place in your athletic facilities is absolutely non ethical. And it doesn't have to be spelled out for that to work. There doesn't need to be an apples to apples precedent for them to get punishment, and it's not a court of law.
Unfortunately, we don't know that... It's possible similar situations have happened before and are ongoing. We really don't know TT. I'm sure there have been similar situations involving "lesser" offences getting covered up. And I'm pretty confident the NCAA was made aware of such incidents and chose to do nothing about it. But because of how publicized this scandal was and emotionally charged it was, the NCAA decided to get involved.
Again, the definition you guys are using for "ethical" is reasonable if we're just having a conversation, but I don't think it's what the guys who wrote the NCAA bylaws intended when they created that section. That's pretty clear based on the examples it gives (yes I know it's not exhaustive, I pointed that out in my first post) and all past infractions cases involving violations of that section. Whether you go for the broader view or a more narrow view is really fair game, imo. I see good arguments on both sides.
BigTony: I didn't mean to ignore your point on the "magnitude" of the crimes here. The question I put to you was where in the NCAA bylaws does it distinguish between "unethical conduct" and "REALLY REALLY BAD unethical conduct?" It doesn't. Since you kind of changed your tune about the sexual harassment example, let's take it in another direction (and I put this to the rest of you too): Suppose the coverup involves a coach using illegal drugs (a "victim-less" crime). This goes on for years. The school decides to keep it quiet to protect the program. NCAA sanctions? Why not?
I didn't change my tune, you just suck at reading.
In your hypothetical situation I'd be siding with you, but it's nowhere near the magnitude of the PSU case.
The question I put to you was where in the NCAA bylaws does it distinguish between "unethical conduct" and "REALLY REALLY BAD unethical conduct?" It doesn't.
Whatare you even saying? The bylaws say to conduct themselves ethically IN ALL AREAS, NOT JUST ON THE FIELD. Period, there is no arguing that. Where does it distinguish between magnitudes? It doesn't, just like it doesn't list every possible different infraction. They evaluate different situations individually and give a punishment as necessary, depending on the severity.
Your argument has been the same for several posts now and multiple people have pointed out why it's wrong. Everyone understands the point you're making, it's just wrong. Peace.
On July 26 2012 03:21 andrewlt wrote: What's with the sudden influx of arrogant internet lawyers trying to lawyer up everything and then accusing other people of "herp derp"? I thought we don't use that kind of crap language on this site.
Precedent is a common law principle. Business organizations are not bound by such principles when they administer discipline among their members. Adapting to market conditions is far more important. There is no need to list every single possible violation under the sun because it is understood that members of the organization have a duty to look out for other members and for the organization at large. The Penn State scandal is a huge blow to the integrity of college athletics, the activity that the NCAA was created to represent.
It's the same argument as Goodell's enforcement of NFL discipline. Why some people think that the process should exactly mimic the US judicial system is beyond me. Continued membership in an organization and the privileges that membership accords is a separate matter from the judicial process.
Off topic, but if I see a Penn State student cry on television again because their precious football program was penalized I'm going to rage. How retarded do you have to be to not recognize when something is bigger than amateur football? Here, I'll even detail a short list of stuff that's more important than football.
Molestation ^ | | |EVERYTHING |ELSE | | College football
EPT
![[image loading]](http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg686/scaled.php?tn=0&server=686&filename=va1rk.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1mLj9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZosDy.png)
![[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){kind=icon}
![[image loading]](http://p.twimg.com/AeBiKRhCEAA3xpW.jpg:large)
![[image loading]](http://bigbabyjones.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/sandusky-meets-pedobear.jpg?w=1024&h=505)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Nlf7d.jpg)
