# Penn State Student Body - DISGRACE



## mrkleen

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282880/penn-state-student-bodys-disgrace-david-french

The Penn State Student Body's Disgrace
November 10, 2011 12:12 P.M.​
By https://www.nationalreview.com/author/39409/bio

Last night, a large number of Penn State students utterly disgraced themselves. It's bad enough that an estimated 2,000 students actually rioted over the firing of a football coach, but in this case they rioted over a coach who lost his job because he failed to adequately respond to credible allegations of _child molestation _by a longtime assistant coach.

Let's not forget that these rioting students are adults - adults whose actions are no doubt being watched by the incredulous, grieving families of victims. There's already much talk of the extended adolescence of modern young adults and their unwillingness or inability to face the rigors of "real life" until well into their twenties. But this conduct didn't even meet the standards of adolescence.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

At least it bumped OWS off the news!!


----------



## Starch

<shrug>

They're college students. Occasionally, they riot.

There's nothing new about that. It's even trad:

https://books.google.com/books?id=C...le ice cream riot&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Starch

Just to highlight the particularly ironic note that may be obvious to some: the participants in the Ice Cream Riot of 1952 were near-classmates with the founder of The National Review (about half, I guess, overlapped).


----------



## JDC

Penn State canned Paterno so they could save a fortune on his retirement benefits. Period. But it's a riot how sexual trysts between teachers/coaches and college students, not a single one of which involved Paterno, now qualify as "child molestation". You're confusing what Paterno didn't do with what the Roman Catholic Church hasn't been doing for the last 2000 years. Incredible how he's being held to a higher moral standard than priests.


----------



## Taken Aback

JDC said:


> But it's a riot how sexual trysts between teachers/coaches and college students, not a single one of which involved Paterno, now qualify as "child molestation".


A ten-year old undergrad?


----------



## Mike Petrik

JDC said:


> Penn State canned Paterno so they could save a fortune on his retirement benefits. Period. But it's a riot how sexual trysts between teachers/coaches and college students, not a single one of which involved Paterno, now qualify as "child molestation". You're confusing what Paterno didn't do with what the Roman Catholic Church hasn't been doing for the last 2000 years. Incredible how he's being held to a higher moral standard than priests.


This post is a breakthrough! It is now proven that a man can write without being able to read. Who'da thought?


----------



## JDC

Sorry Mike, what I meant isn't what I typed. Replace the "You're" with "They're" in my sentence.


----------



## Jovan

Since when are little boys college students? Maybe they are now, but they weren't when they were molested.

I heard a different version of the story where Paterno DID notify the administration, but they failed to act on it. Either way, yes, disgraceful of the students.

I'm fine with _protests_, but what's happened with many of the recent "We are the 99%" protests-turned-_riots_ is also ridiculous. In a recent one, streetside cart vendors were giving out free food to support the movement. Then they had to stop at a certain point because they, like anyone, have to make a living. Instead of thanking them for what they _could_ do, certain protestors-turned-rioters leveled their f***ing carts in appreciation. So they bite the hand that feeds them now? Additionally, people passing by some of these protests have been harassed or even assaulted just for wearing a business suit. It's people like this that are giving the "99%" movement (and protestors in general) a bad rap. They're just as bad as the idiot police officers who are using excessive force on non-violent protestors.


----------



## eagle2250

I think it worth noting that the OP suggests that a "riot" involving somewhat less that 3% of the total student body at Penn State, disgraces the institution. Last evening a candlelight vigil, involving more than ten times that number of students, was held focusing on the child victims and their families. Seems to me the acts of a few bad apples should not predispose one's judgement toward the vast majority (97%) of the student body or the institution. Deal with the acts of the bad apples (the rioting students, the Administrations decision makers, who didn't and yes, even Jerry Sandusky) and even with a sense of great vengence, if so inclined. When and if Sandusky should be found guilty of the crimes with which he is charged, a special circle of Hell should be reserved in which he might burn throughout eternity. However, at present, while we are focusing on victims, shouldn't we add due process to the list?


----------



## Jovan

Though we don't always agree on political issues (which this is not one IMO), you have a point there.


----------



## jeffdeist

What bothers me is how the national media intensifies things and dramatically changes how crimes and scandals are dealt with. Say what you will about Mr. Paterno's failures, he undoubtedly is a great man who helped hundreds of young people. His 60 year career and legacy have been utterly destroyed in a few short days.

Perhaps they deserve to be destroyed, but the crucible of our modern media spotlight makes me very uneasy. I would like to slow down and allow the local investigation to proceed.


----------



## Pentheos

JDC said:


> Penn State canned Paterno so they could save a fortune on his retirement benefits. Period. But it's a riot how sexual trysts between teachers/coaches and college students, not a single one of which involved Paterno, now qualify as "child molestation". You're confusing what Paterno didn't do with what the Roman Catholic Church hasn't been doing for the last 2000 years. Incredible how he's being held to a higher moral standard than priests.


Have you yet figured out what is wrong with what you wrote?


----------



## JDC

Pentheos said:


> Have you yet figured out what is wrong with what you wrote?


Yes. Did you miss my last post?

This is PA politics at its finest. To give a vague idea, Frank Noonan is the current state police commissioner. So far here is what everyone agrees happened:

1. In 2002, Paterno received a report that molestations were taking place by Sandusky.

2. Paterno immediately reported it to Penn St's administration, fulfilling his legal (and professional) obligation on the matter.

3. The school's administration continued to allow Sandusky access to Penn St., where he proceeded to molest more people. (I'm steering clear of the word "kids" here, because as far as what's been claimed no minors are involved in any of this, except the one case which Paterno had reported.)

4. Ten years later, the administration fires Paterno, claiming he(!) didn't do enough about the problem.

I'll bet Penn St reverses their decision once they hear from Paterno's attorneys.


----------



## JDC

Aaaaaand here it is:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011...l-jerry-sandusky-gay-adoption-_n_1090253.html

Frank Noonan indeed. Yep, hopefully this is the last gasp of Rick Santorum's "Sky Is Falling" School of Homophobia.


----------



## phyrpowr

JDC said:


> Penn State canned Paterno so they could save a fortune on his retirement benefits. Period. But it's a riot how sexual trysts between teachers/coaches and college students, not a single one of which involved Paterno, now qualify as "child molestation". You're confusing what Paterno didn't do with what the Roman Catholic Church hasn't been doing for the last 2000 years. Incredible how he's being held to a higher moral standard than priests.


The 84 year old Paterno's retirement benefits were fully locked in decades ago.


----------



## blue suede shoes

Unlike OWS, the Penn State students knew what they were rioting about. The Occupy Wall Street losers have no clue.

I'm with the Penn State students. Paterno never should have been fired. He gave his life and over four million dollars of his personal savings to that university and he did nothing wrong. He was much more than just a winning football coach; he was a mentor to thousands of students at a very unstable time in their lives. However, his firing will hold up because it is all about the public perception. The public wants Penn State to be cleansed, and they think that firing Paterno is needed. Keeping the public happy is all that matters so that the money can keep on rolling in.

As far as Penn State saving money on Paterno's retirement benefits, the real savings will come on the new coach's salary. I don't imagine they will pay this former assistant coach near what they were paying Paterno in salary or retirement.


----------



## blue suede shoes

Jovan said:


> I'm fine with _protests_, but what's happened with many of the recent "We are the 99%" protests-turned-_riots_ is also ridiculous. In a recent one, streetside cart vendors were giving out free food to support the movement. Then they had to stop at a certain point because they, like anyone, have to make a living. Instead of thanking them for what they _could_ do, certain protestors-turned-rioters leveled their f***ing carts in appreciation. So they bite the hand that feeds them now? Additionally, people passing by some of these protests have been harassed or even assaulted just for wearing a business suit. It's people like this that are giving the "99%" movement (and protestors in general) a bad rap. They're just as bad as the idiot police officers who are using excessive force on non-violent protestors.


Good point. That is why I call them losers.


----------



## JDC

phyrpowr said:


> The 84 year old Paterno's retirement benefits were fully locked in decades ago.


Locked in by whom? People were calling for his benefits to be stripped even before he was fired:

https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_state_coach_joe_paterno_l.html

So sad. Every month this country looks less like America and more like pre-war Germany.


----------



## Starch

JDC said:


> Locked in by whom?


Presumably by contract or law. People calling for benefits to be stripped is not an indication that they can be.

I have no idea what retirement benefits Joe Paterno might have in his contract, or that might be called for by Pennsylvania law (he is an employee of the state, presumably) or a collective bargaining agreement.

If they're not "locked in" (_i.e._ the state can just decide to pay them or not at their pleasure), that wouldn't create an incentive to fire him anyway. Just let him work as long as you or he wants, _then_ terminate the retirement benefits. The only way retirement benefits would create an incentive to fire him would be if he were right on the verge of becoming vested in some benefits ... not impossible, but unlikely when we're talking about someone who's had the same employer for 61 years.

In any event:
- Joe Paterno must be fairly wealthy, and should have ample funds for retirement in the form of savings and investments (retirement and otherwise).
- Any sort of defined-benefit retirement arrangement (~ a pension) isn't super-valuable (to the recipient) or super-costly (to the payer) when we're talking about someone who's already 84.


----------



## Taken Aback

JDC said:


> 2. Paterno immediately reported it to Penn St's administration, fulfilling his legal (and professional) obligation on the matter.


Do you feel McQueary fulfilled his legal and professional obligation as well?


----------



## JDC

Taken Aback said:


> Do you feel McQueary fulfilled his legal and professional obligation as well?


Based on what I know so far, yes he did. After the allegations in 2002, Penn State's administration continued to give Sandusky privileged access to the school, not McQueary, Paterno or other coaches. I don't even know what people believe should have been done by either man: they're not cops and only the school's administration has hiring/firing power.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
No, McQueary did not fulfill his obligations...professional or otherwise! If he heard and saw what he is reported to have heard and seen, based on testimony McQueary offered before the Grand Jury, he should have entered that shower and pulled the monster from the back of the 10 year old victim. Men don't observe such acts and then run off to call their Daddys to ask what they should do. They go tpo the aid of the victim and then report it. Offering a watered down version of his observations to someone "up the chain of command" (and waiting to do so until the morning after!) didn't go very far in terms of adequately resolving this issue...did it?


----------



## JDC

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> No, McQueary did not fulfill his obligations...professional or otherwise! If he heard and saw what he is reported to have heard and seen, based on testimony McQueary offered before the Grand Jury, he should have entered that shower and pulled the monster from the back of the 10 year old victim. Men don't observe such acts and then run off to call their Daddys to ask what they should do. They go tpo the aid of the victim and then report it. Offering a watered down version of his observations to someone "up the chain of command" (and waiting to do so until the morning after!) didn't go very far in terms of adequately resolving this issue...did it?


Oh I get it now: walk into a locker room shower, see two people having anal sex, yeah the first thing that pops into my head is, "let me check their ages and forcibly separate them". Give me a freaking break.

Here in America we're supposed to report crime to authorities, not enforce the laws ourselves. That's what McQueary and Paterno did.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
It was not just "two people", but rather an old man sexually assaulting a 10 year old male child and you are a healthy, fit 23 year old man...yes you stop the assault and then you notify the authorities! Not very complicated...seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## Taken Aback

Wow, I gave you an out, and you dug your hole deeper.

Ten years old is not a "judgement call". You stop what's happening, and call the cops before you even think of calling the administration.

If a wife saw her husband sodomizing her ten-year old son, don't you think she would call the cops? If _she_ would, shouldn't some employee?


----------



## JDC

Taken Aback said:


> Wow, I gave you an out, and you dug your hole deeper.
> 
> Ten years old is not a "judgement call". You stop what's happening, and call the cops before you even think of calling the administration.
> 
> If a wife saw her husband sodomizing her ten-year old son, don't you think she would call the cops? If _she_ would, shouldn't some employee?


That's a family situation where everyone knows one another. The proper analogy is the one I outlined. And for all you know both parties were enjoying themselves when they were interrupted. Not that it makes any difference morally, legally or technically -- it's still rape -- but again, when encountering a couple in a public or semi-public shower one does not barge into the proceedings and demand to see ID cards. Personally I would have done what McQueary did, reported it to my boss and if you people can get past this (imo) Monday-morning quarterbacking and hypocrisy you would have too.


----------



## Pentheos

JDC said:


> 3. The school's administration continued to allow Sandusky access to Penn St., where he proceeded to molest more people. (I'm steering clear of the word "kids" here, because as far as what's been claimed no minors are involved in any of this, except the one case which Paterno had reported.)


Go read the grand jury report if you can stomach it. Lots of "kids", lots of showering together in PSU facilities, wrestling, etc. You seem not to understand the full extent of the crimes Sandusky has been charged with.

What Paterno did or did not do is of little concern to me. In my opinion, PSU's football team needs to be disbanded and stay disbanded for ten years or so. It's the only way to be sure that the trash has been taken out. Unfair to the "student athletes"? Probably. But life is unfair.


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> It was not just "two people", but rather an old man sexually assaulting a 10 year old male child and you are a healthy, fit 23 year old man...yes you stop the assault and then you notify the authorities! Not very complicated...seems pretty clear to me.


Agreed. While we are under no legal obligation to intervene, an able-bodied man who does not intervene at the sight of a boy or woman being raped should be ashamed of himself. The assertion that it is morally acceptable (or even preferable!) to simply walk away and report the assault to the authorities is appalling.


----------



## JDC

I give up. It seems you all were there.

Parting shot in this thread and the Interchange: in 50 years Penn State's reputation will still be tarnished, by how they treated Joe Paterno and not by what Paterno didn't do.


----------



## dks202

I get a kick out of the notion " reporting it to the authorities" is fulfilled by telling your boss, your daddy, or your school president. The authorities are law enforcement, the police. It's plain and simple. When did that occur?


----------



## JDC

dks202 said:


> I get a kick out of the notion " reporting it to the authorities" is fulfilled by telling your boss, your daddy, or your school president. The authorities are law enforcement, the police. It's plain and simple. When did that occur?


Again you're assuming what didn't occur: nobody demanded to see ID cards, and my assertion is that few if any of us would have either. Promise that's my final shot.


----------



## dks202

JDC said:


> Again you're assuming what didn't occur: nobody demanded to see ID cards, and my assertion is that few if any of us would have either. Promise that's my final shot.


It's hard not to notice a 10 year old boy crying in the shower.....


----------



## eagle2250

^^
+1.



JDC said:


> I give up. It seems you all were there.
> 
> Parting shot in this thread and the Interchange: in 50 years Penn State's reputation will still be tarnished, by how they treated Joe Paterno and not by what Paterno didn't do.


Didn't have to be there. McQueary testified , under oath, before the Grand Jury that he heard water running and heard "slapping sounds" coming from the locker room showers. He went to investigate and observed "Coach Sandusky" engaging in anal intercourse with a young boy, pinned up against the shower wall." This is what McQueary said! Read the grand jury report. McQueary didn't need to check ID cards to identify the perp...Jerry Sandusky was the Defensive Coordinator on the Penn State football team that McQeary ws a member of from 1994 to 1997 and served as the starting QB for duringf the 1997 season. At present, this testimony stands unrefutted. If he indeed witnessed what he has testified that he saw, running off and calling his Daddy and then leaving the facility and waiting until the next day to report it to Coach Paterno, was a badly and sadly flawed initial response! McQueary should have been terminated for that fopa back in 2002, when it happened

I do agree that the action taken against Coach Paterno was premature. As I alluded earlier, due process also seems a victim in this scenario.


----------



## JDC

eagle2250 said:


> Didn't have to be there. McQueary testified , ubder oath, before the Grand Jury that he heard water running and heard "slapping sounds" coming from the locker room showers. He went to investigate and observed "Coach Sandusky" engaging in anal intercourse with a young boy, pinned up against the shower wall." This is what McQueary said! Read the grand jury report. McQueary didn't need to check ID cards to identify the perp...


How about the victim?


----------



## 127.72 MHz

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> No, McQueary did not fulfill his obligations...professional or otherwise! If he heard and saw what he is reported to have heard and seen, based on testimony McQueary offered before the Grand Jury, he should have entered that shower and pulled the monster from the back of the 10 year old victim. Men don't observe such acts and then run off to call their Daddys to ask what they should do. They go tpo the aid of the victim and then report it. Offering a watered down version of his observations to someone "up the chain of command" (and waiting to do so until the morning after!) didn't go very far in terms of adequately resolving this issue...did it?


This is the defining post of this thread. No adult, a person with strength in their body, sees a 54 year old man sodomizing a ten year old boy, which is exactly what McQueary saw, and runs away to call their Dad.

You do something, anything using all means at your disposal, to stop the monster. (You are witnessing a rape)

It's already coming out that this is what McQueary saw, and what he testified to in front of a grand jury.

Granted McQueary was a 28 year old graduate assistant which makes me feel for him. (I mean as a young man trying to work his way into a career it had to be disturbing.) None the less he was also a former division I NCAA quarterback with the physical strength to do something about the abomination he was witnessing. I truly hope McQueary's conscience has been bothering him everyday since and for the rest of his life.


----------



## Acct2000

JDC said:


> Oh I get it now: walk into a locker room shower, see two people having anal sex, yeah the first thing that pops into my head is, "let me check their ages and forcibly separate them". Give me a freaking break.
> 
> Here in America we're supposed to report crime to authorities, not enforce the laws ourselves. That's what McQueary and Paterno did.


This is one of the sickest posts I have ever seen, even in this Interchange. Are you saying that you would do nothing if you saw a man raping a child? Wow.


----------



## Acct2000

JDC said:


> How about the victim?


You seriously would not note that a small boy would have no choice in the sex, especially when he was being raped????


----------



## Starch

forsbergacct2000 said:


> This is one of the sickest posts I have ever seen, even in this Interchange. Are you saying that you
> would do nothing if you saw a man raping a child? Wow.


Yeah, that post does seem pretty wildly off-base.

The "check their ages" comment is bizarre: obviously everyone knew who the coach was, so presumably it's aimed at the notion that an observer wouldn't have been able to distinguish a 10-year-old boy from an adult.

That's patently absurd.

Which, I suppose, is the bottom line of the whole sorry mess: when people become overly dedicated - to an institution, a mentor, whatever - they become incapable of resolving the cognitive dissonance that arises when the irreproachable individual or institution does something reproachable. That's what happend, presumably, to McQueary and others here. It's happened quite a few times before, often with very tragic consequences, though I will avoid mentioning the most dramatic lest I Godwinize the thread.


----------



## Pentheos

Gentlemen, I do believe we've being trolled.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Perhaps, but I think there is still something worth talking about here, and that is the much-embattled McQueary.

It is easy for those of us on the proverbial sidelines to lambaste him for not stopping the rape in progress and calling the cops, and, indeed, that is what he should have done. But consider the culture here. In 1997, a mother of one of the victims did call the cops. Unfortunately, she chose to alert campus police. With cops listening in, she confronted Sandusky by telephone. He told her that he wished that he were dead and that he knew that there was no way that anything he could say would make her feel any better. And what happened? Nothing. Three years later, in 2000, a janitor, much like McQueary, walked in on Sandusky performing oral sex on a child in the shower. He told fellow janitors that it was more disturbing than killing that he'd seen during the Korean War. And what did these folks do about it? Nothing. They later said they were afraid they'd be fired if they came forward. As we all know, McQueary ended up with a permanent coaching job.

My point is, the culture at Penn State didn't allow anyone to do the right thing without sacrificing themselves. It is easy for those of us who weren't there to say what we would have done, but would we really have done it if we were actually there and knew the potential consequences? In three out of three cases, the same thing, essentially, happened. That speaks volumes. Sandusky was, de facto, above the law at Penn State. And that's just impossibly sick.

There is no silver lining here for anyone, no what-doesn't-kill-us-makes-us-stronger. Saturday's game against Nebraska didn't help in any way. No prayers before and after the whistles blow can help. Indeed, the signs in the stands praising Paterno still bear witness to the monster: There some things that trump anything positive a person has accomplished, and I would submit that this is the case at Penn State. Paterno created a monster in the culture that grew up around his football program and, at the end of the day, he's responsible for that. My lord: When he addressed his players for the last time, when he addressed fans outside his house, what did he say? Beat Nebraska.

That's so lame as to be legless.

Penn State needs to take a sabbatical from inter-collegiate football. When things have gone this far, the only way to eliminate the sickness that surrounds the program is to eliminate the program, at least for a few years. Will that happen? Not a chance. There is too much money to be made. It's all about the Benjamins, not about the boys, and it never will be.



Pentheos said:


> Gentlemen, I do believe we've being trolled.


----------



## JDC

"It is easy for those of us who weren't there to say what we would have done, but would we really have done it if we were actually there and knew the potential consequences?"

Yes. That. It's Christianity 101 on my course list. 102 is to acknowledge I wasn't there, so I cannot finally judge McQueary's decision on how he handled it. Certainly not final enough to destroy the career of Paterno, a man who sent countless thousands of people to much better lives without molesting any of them. As far as I'm concerned nobody should lose their job (let alone a career like Paterno's) when they haven't broken any laws and aren't even accused of doing so.

I'm accused of trolling, from my perspective I honestly see this as mob mentality run amok, and America looking more and more like Germany c.1937. Now we're destroying lives not for what people did, but for what we think they should have done.


----------



## Starch

JDC said:


> As far as I'm concerned nobody should lose their job ... when they haven't broken any laws and aren't even accused of doing so.


Well ... there are something like 13 million people in the US who have, you know.


----------



## ada8356

JDC you are disgusting. 

You keep referencing nazi Germany. It is cowards like you who stood by watching evil that allowed the atrocities of WWII to occur.


----------



## Starch

> As far as I'm concerned nobody should lose their job ... when they haven't broken any laws and aren't even accused of doing so.


This notion is particularly absurd when applied to Paterno:
- football coaches are fired constantly without the slightest hint they've done something wrong (other than failing to win games): indeed, it's pretty much the usual way a coach leaves a job;
- people considerably younger than 84 are routinely forced to retire without having made a single misstep.


----------



## JDC

ada8356 said:


> JDC you are disgusting.
> 
> You keep referencing nazi Germany. It is cowards like you who stood by watching evil that allowed the atrocities of WWII to occur.


You'll need to elaborate, because imo the evil here is a college administration choosing to destroy a man's career (actually several) rather than admit they screwed up. When it gets to the point where Paterno's (or anyone's) 60+ years of service to people means this little, yes I will more than happy to defend comparisons to Nazi Germany.

Starch, what's absurd is hacking up my responses and responding to things I didn't say or mean. Which coach has ever been pegged a friend of child molesters because he lost too many games?

I've stated my point so I'll leave you all to your judgment fest.


----------



## dks202

JDC said:


> As far as I'm concerned nobody should lose their job (let alone a career like Paterno's) when they haven't broken any laws and aren't even accused of doing so.
> 
> .


You're way off here. Failing to report a crime like this IS against the law. McQueary should be prosecuted for failing to report what he personally observed (it doesn't count if he told someone other than the real police).


----------



## Starch

Here's the quote un- "hacked up":


> As far as I'm concerned nobody should lose their job (let alone a career like Paterno's) when they haven't broken any laws and aren't even accused of doing so.


Frankly, it's more embarrassing the way you wrote it, with the suggestion that Paterno's career exempts him from responsibilities that others have.

I will certainly agree that no-one should be accused of being a child-molester on the basis of anything other than suspicion of molesting children. So far as I can tell, nobody (at least nobody remotely responsible) is accusing Paterno of molesting children.

To the extent Paterno has been "pegged a friend of child molesters," that problem has nothing to do with anything Penn State's administration did in the last few weeks. It arises from Sandusky being a child molester, and Paterno being a friend of his. Unless you're saying that Sandusky wasn't a child molester (virtually impossible) or that Paterno wasn't his friend (possible, I suppose. though unlikely), what you're objecting to is people telling the truth. The great sin of the Penn State administration in all of this was their _failure_ to tell the truth over a period of years ... damning them for failing to sit on it further is entirely perverse.

All that the administration has done to Paterno is fired him from his job. People (especially, but not only, football coaches) get fired for all sorts of reasons, including:
- failing to win games, or meet sales targets, or keep up with a competitor,
- working for a division or company that didn't do well for reasons that had nothing to do with the guy being fired,
- reaching retirement age,
- allowing subordinates to misbehave,
- just not knowing what's going on.


----------



## Starch

For what it's worth, I actually feel some sympathy for McQueary - but it's for the reasons 32rollandrock describes.

McQueary, it seems, found himself in an environment where doing things that would hurt Sandusky, or the institution, or the program, or Paterno, were considered more evil than basic ethical imperatives, like stopping a guy from raping pre-adolescent boys.

Ironically, JDC's posts here are evidence of the perverse environment and attitudes that created the problem.


----------



## JDC

And in only-apparently-unrelated news:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/catholic-bishops-religious-liberty_n_1091221.html

Gosh, look who's leading this desperate effort to shove gay people back into their closets.


----------



## ada8356

this thread has nothing to do with homosexuality.


----------



## bjland4

:deadhorse-a:What bothers me is how the national media intensifies things and dramatically changes how crimes and scandals are dealt with. Say what you will about Mr. Paterno's failures, he undoubtedly is a great man who helped hundreds of young people. His 60 year career and legacy have been utterly destroyed in a few short days.
Based on what I know so far, yes he did. After the allegations in 2002, Penn State's administration continued to give Sandusky privileged access to the school, not McQueary, Paterno or other coaches. I don't even know what people believe should have been done by either man: they're not cops and only the school's administration has hiring/firing power.


----------



## Jovan

ada8356 said:


> this thread has nothing to do with homosexuality.


But don't you know? Gay people have a HIGHER RATE of molesting children! At least if you ask the ignorant, vocal minority in this country.


----------



## Taken Aback

Mike Petrik said:


> Agreed. While we are under no legal obligation to intervene...


Isn't there a Good Samaritan law in effect there?



32rollandrock said:


> Perhaps, but I think there is still something worth talking about here, and that is the much-embattled McQueary...


I do sympathize with a man in that position, but we know _today_ there was no defensible action other than to inform the police (either immediately, or once the administration/campus police quashed it). McQueary made his decision long ago, and it was the wrong one. Having personally benefited by his silence marks him as a criminal in my eyes.


----------



## harvey_birdman

Taken Aback said:


> Isn't there a Good Samaritan law in effect there?


You are confusing a "Good Samaritan Law" with a "duty to rescue". Pennsylvania does not have a general duty to rescue.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Taken Aback said:


> I do sympathize with a man in that position, but we know _today_ there was no defensible action other than to inform the police (either immediately, or once the administration/campus police quashed it). McQueary made his decision long ago, and it was the wrong one. Having personally benefited by his silence marks him as a criminal in my eyes.


I wouldn't disagree. He should be, at the very least, fired (and Paterno should--and hopefully will--be sued into insolvency). What I'm suggesting is, it's tough to say what any of us would have done if in the same position as McQueary was. The infamous Stanford Prison Experiment bears this out. Ordinary people placed in extraordinary situations do outrageous things. That he and others didn't come forward with what they knew only underscores just how depraved the program was. Coming soon, I'm sure, is the McQueary Apology Tour in which he'll dish on just what was going on behind the scenes that resulted in otherwise good folks ignoring the unconscionable.


----------



## JDC

ada8356 said:


> this thread has nothing to do with homosexuality.


It's got a lot to do with it. The timing has everything to do with it, if I can line my Taliban wannabees up correctly:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011...l-jerry-sandusky-gay-adoption-_n_1090253.html


----------



## Howard

Taken Aback said:


> Wow, I gave you an out, and you dug your hole deeper.
> 
> Ten years old is not a "judgement call". You stop what's happening, and call the cops before you even think of calling the administration.
> 
> If a wife saw her husband sodomizing her ten-year old son, don't you think she would call the cops? If _she_ would, shouldn't some employee?


Yes, she has a right to call the cops or child protective services.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Taken Aback said:


> A ten-year old undergrad?


Sandusky; "Ten?? I'm telling you that boy looked twelve if he looked a day. Besides, I mean, did you see what he was wearing?? That boy was practically begging for it!!"


----------



## JDC

Someone still needs to explain why Penn State allowed Jerry Sandusky access to the school after the shower incident with the 10 year-old was reported in 2002. I'm sure attorneys for Paterno and McQueary are demanding the same explanation.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JDC said:


> Someone still needs to explain why Penn State allowed Jerry Sandusky access to the school after the shower incident with the 10 year-old was reported in 2002. I'm sure attorneys for these two men will demand the same explanation.


College administrations have a long and successful history of scapegoating and deflecting blame. They get away with it because their sycophants allow them to.

See more in action;

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?112139-What-will-those-crazy-Yalies-do-next


----------



## eagle2250

32rollandrock said:


> I wouldn't disagree. He should be, at the very least, fired (and Paterno should--and hopefully will--be sued into insolvency). What I'm suggesting is, it's tough to say what any of us would have done if in the same position as McQueary was. The infamous Stanford Prison Experiment bears this out. Ordinary people placed in extraordinary situations do outrageous things. That he and others didn't come forward with what they knew only underscores just how depraved the program was. Coming soon, I'm sure, is the McQueary Apology Tour in which he'll dish on just what was going on behind the scenes that resulted in otherwise good folks ignoring the unconscionable.





JDC said:


> Someone still needs to explain why Penn State allowed Jerry Sandusky access to the school after McQueary and Paterno reported the shower incident in 2002. I'm sure attorneys for these two men will demand the same explanation. If Paterno wasn't supposed to give Sandusky access and did so anyway, I'll need to eat my entire defense of him.


First allow me to opine that 32R&R's post is absolute BS...indeed the depraved ravings of an Illini fan, still emotionally unbalanced by his anger over the Illini defeat at the hands of the Nittany Lions just a few short weeks ago! My advice to yo, sir...Get Over It!

In response to JDC's inquiry, here we go...Let's take an imaginary mental trip back to 2002:

After observing a child rape occurring at the hands of of a 58 year old, senior member of the PSU coaching staff and running back and locking himself in his office, as he called his Daddy, and being told by Daddy to "get out of there," McQueary left the building and returned home, where he and his 'Daddy' talked well into the night regarding his dilemma. Based on Daddy's misguided but well intended advice, McQueary went to Joe Paterno the next day and offered a decidedly watered down version of the previous evenings events (a version that conveniently accomodated his failure to act or to report at the time of his observation of the assault and a version that offered the slightest potential for adversely impact McQueary's future employment plans)..."I saw Coach Sandusky horsing around in the showers with a kid last evening"...just as JoePa has testified. When interviewed by Curley and Schultz, McQueary restated, "I saw Coach Sandusky horsing around with a young boy in the locker room showers last evening," just as reported by Curley and Sandusky in their testimony before the Grand Jury. Paterno, Curley and Schultz subsequently confronted Jerry Sandusky stating, "we heard you were seen horsing around with a young man in the locker room showers," after which Sandusky released a heavy sigh of relief, stating "yeah; the kids having a hard time at home and is in my Second Mile program. He needed someone to confide in and the conversation was getting pretty heavy...I was just trying to lighten the mood...ya khow, ease the tension a bit!"

Paterno, Curley and Schultz, hearing what they hoped to hear from a man they had coached and/or worked with for more than 36 years and who had donated hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money and raised millions more to create the Second Mile Organization, an organization whose core mission is to help at risk kids, (in all liklihood) accecpted Sandusky's explanation. They then imposed penalties, appropriate to the lack of poor judgement on Sandusky's part, but wholly inadequate to adress the realities of what it seems may have actually occurred! I suspect Coach Paterno. AD Curley and VP Schultz were misled by both McQueary and Sandusky and, as a result, reacted inadequately to address the seriousness of the actual situation.

Having spent four years as an undergraduate at Penn State's University Park campus in the 1960's, I am probably biased in favor of the university. One of my fonder memories of those years is walking across campus on several occassions and encountering Coach Paterno, headed for the Old Main Administration building or Rec Hall, and hearing the coaches response to our "Good Morning Coach" as, characteristically with a big smile he growled, "why aren't you kids in class!" Whether, in his role as a coach or as an educator his first priority has always been the best interest of the students. If he had known the true nature of the 2002 incident, he would not have allowed it to be handled as it was! Enough said.


----------



## JDC

Was it Paterno's job to fully investigate this report? Did he even have that power? I believe it was the administration's job. Then, almost ten years later, the college turns around and fires the coach who reported it!

Got it. I think. The protesting students are correct: Paterno took the fall for the college.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Absolutely not. The first bad decision was McQueary's failure to respond appropriately. Subsequently, Paterno, Curley and Schultz quite possibly heard what they wanted to hear from both McQueary and Sandusky and they acted on that information. Bad decision(s), but they do own them. To his credit, JoePa, after viewing those past decisions within the context of present day historical perspective, has had the courage to say as much! Curley and Schultz have not.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JDC said:


> The protesting students are correct: Paterno took the fall for the college.


...and anyone that doesn't fall for the administration's deflection is a child molesting sympathizer.

That's how they roll!!


----------



## Jovan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Absolutely not. The first bad decision was McQueary's failure to respond appropriately. Subsequently, Paterno, Curley and Schultz quite possibly heard what they wanted to hear from both McQueary and Sandusky and they acted on that information. Bad decision(s), but they do own them. To his credit, JoePa, after viewing those past decisions within the context of present day historical perspective, has had the courage to say as much! Curley and Schultz have not.


Interesting perspective on this whole thing.


----------



## mrkleen

Joe Paterno is the leader, the head, the CEO of the Penn State Football program. His statue is in front of the stadium, his NAME is on the building. The buck stops with him, Period. Full Stop.


----------



## Acct2000

Mr. Kleen is right here.

Paterno had the real power. If he had wanted any of the others removed, they would have been removed by the board at any time for any reason Paterno wanted. Many successful coaches (unfortunately) have that kind of power.

I do see Eagle's explanation as being plausible, especially that no one would have wanted to believe that Sandusky was a predator if there was any other way out (because of the damage the publicity would have done to the Football Team's public image.) I think Paterno should have wanted to learn more, but was more concerned about his "legacy."

This is what he got for it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Joe Paterno is the leader, the head, the CEO of the Penn State Football program. His statue is in front of the stadium, his NAME is on the building. The buck stops with him, Period. Full Stop.





forsbergacct2000 said:


> Paterno had the real power.
> 
> I think Paterno should have wanted to learn more, but was more concerned about his "legacy."


If the entire PS admin are/were puppets of JP, is anyone curious as to how that happened??

They are public/state employees.

How did the State let it happen??

I don't know if you are being to hard on JP, but don't lose sight of who is SUPPOSED to be in charge and if they are/were not, why not.


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> If the entire PS admin are/were puppets of JP, is anyone curious as to how that happened??
> 
> They are public/state employees.
> 
> How did the State let it happen??
> 
> I don't know if you are being to hard on JP, but don't lose sight of who is SUPPOSED to be in charge and if they are/were not, why not.


Any chance to take a cheap shot at unions / public employees huh?

No one is excusing the President of the University or anyone else at PSU that know about this. The point is that PSU = Football and Football at PSU = Joe Paterno.

Sandusky was first accused in 1998, and while the DA choose to not go forward with that investigation - clearly PSU thought the allegations were credible, as Joe Paterno himself relieved Sandusky of his duties in 1999 - yet he was still allowed to remain on staff at Penn State, and retain keys to the Penn State Football locker rooms, showers etc.

In 2002, an assistant coach WITNESSED another rape of a young boy - reported it to Joe Paterno, University Administration etc - but NO ONE brought it forward to the police.

I don't think it can be overstated the prestige and sheer clout that Paterno has at Penn State, but for whatever reason, he apparently never used any of that to further pursue the Sandusky matter or to inquire about the welfare of the alleged victims.
His legacy and that of his program will forever be tarnished.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> No one is excusing the President of the University or anyone else at PSU that know about this.





mrkleen said:


> Joe Paterno is the leader, the head, the CEO of the Penn State Football program. His statue is in front of the stadium, his NAME is on the building. *The buck stops with him, Period. Full Stop*.


Pardon me for misunderstanding.


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Pardon me for misunderstanding.


 Joe Paterno is probably the most popular person in the State of Pennsylvania...and most certainly the most important person in the history of Penn State University. You either know that and are choosing to ignore it, to make your anti public worker statement - or you are ignorant to the way things are in Happy Valley. Both render any opinion you have on the subject moot.


----------



## El_Abogado

It surprises me that none of you have brought up Sandusky's actions in 1998 and his retirement in 1999. If he is a pedophile, he didn't become one in 2002. The university police investigated his improper contact in 1998. What did JoePa know then? And the school administrators? 

As for JoePa, he may have helped thousands of college students, but if he turned a blind eye the abuse of one child all his prior good acts were meaningless. And there were more victims than the one boy in 2002. 

And, JDC, what if it were your 10-year-old boy in that shower? What if it were you as a 10-y.o.? Wouldn't you want an adult to rescue you as you were being brutalized by a 57-year-old man? Shame on you.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> ... to make your anti public worker statement -


I have no idea where you are getting this from. (In this particular instance)

There are multiple levels of responsibility for oversite in this matter. There appears to be a rush to get it over with, spare the administration at the expense of JP.

At it's conclusion, that may be where we end up, but it should be in no ones interest to begin there.

That's what upper management is trying to pull and it happens again and again in the higher education industry. (IMO)


----------



## eagle2250

mrkleen said:


> Joe Paterno is the leader, the head, the CEO of the Penn State Football program. His statue is in front of the stadium, his NAME is on the building. The buck stops with him, Period. Full Stop.


Joe Paterno's statue is in front of the stadium because he built an arguably 'botique' collegiate ball club into a national football power. His name is on the library because Paterno either personally donated or raised the millions of dollars it cost to build and outfit the Paterno Wing of the Patee Library. Should you choose to donate sufficient funds to add an additional wing, I suspect PSU (or any major institution for that matter!) could be persuaded to put your name on that wing.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Mr. Kleen is right here.
> 
> Paterno had the real power. If he had wanted any of the others removed, they would have been removed by the board at any time for any reason Paterno wanted. Many successful coaches (unfortunately) have that kind of power.
> 
> I do see Eagle's explanation as being plausible, especially that no one would have wanted to believe that Sandusky was a predator if there was any other way out (because of the damage the publicity would have done to the Football Team's public image.) I think Paterno should have wanted to learn more, but was more concerned about his "legacy."
> 
> This is what he got for it.


My friend, you over estimate Joe Paterno's influence at the University. However, PSU did take extreme advantage of JoePa's popularity, his love of the University and his concerns for the best interests of it's students. Every time they were raising funds for a project and contributions were lagging behind expectations and regardless of which program area was to benefit, they would trot out Coach Paterno and have him hawk the project. It is interesting to note that not one of Coach Paterno's public fund raising pitches was for the direct benefit of the football program. Back in 2002, JoePa might have wondered why Mike McQueary was so upset about some "horsing around in a locker room shower" and clearly a more thorough investigation should have been done to get to the crux of the matter. Paterno may have also been too quick to give a 36 year associate, whom he knew initially as a talented football player, later as perhaps the most talented defensive coordinator in collegiate football and who had shown himself throughout his life (at that pointin time) to be a selfless advocate of the downtrodden and unfortunate youth in Pennsylvania's various communities, the benefit of the doubt in dealing with that instance. However, Paterno did no such thing to preserve a sterling image of the football program or to avoid damaging his own legacy. People who knoe Joe Paterno know for a fact that that is not how he thinks or how he operates!


----------



## arkirshner

eagle2250 said:


> First allow me to opine that 32R&R's post is absolute BS...indeed the depraved ravings of an Illini fan, still emotionally unbalanced by his anger over the Illini defeat at the hands of the Nittany Lions just a few short weeks ago! My advice to yo, sir...Get Over It!
> 
> In response to JDC's inquiry, here we go...Let's take an imaginary mental trip back to 2002:
> 
> After observing a child rape occurring at the hands of of a 58 year old, senior member of the PSU coaching staff and running back and locking himself in his office, as he called his Daddy, and being told by Daddy to "get out of there," McQueary left the building and returned home, where he and his 'Daddy' talked well into the night regarding his dilemma. Based on Daddy's misguided but well intended advice, McQueary went to Joe Paterno the next day and offered a decidedly watered down version of the previous evenings events (a version that conveniently accomodated his failure to act or to report at the time of his observation of the assault and a version that offered the slightest potential for adversely impact McQueary's future employment plans)..."I saw Coach Sandusky horsing around in the showers with a kid last evening"...just as JoePa has testified. When interviewed by Curley and Schultz, McQueary restated, "I saw Coach Sandusky horsing around with a young boy in the locker room showers last evening," just as reported by Curley and Sandusky in their testimony before the Grand Jury. Paterno, Curley and Schultz subsequently confronted Jerry Sandusky stating, "we heard you were seen horsing around with a young man in the locker room showers," after which Sandusky released a heavy sigh of relief, stating "yeah; the kids having a hard time at home and is in my Second Mile program. He needed someone to confide in and the conversation was getting pretty heavy...I was just trying to lighten the mood...ya khow, ease the tension a bit!"
> 
> Paterno, Curley and Schultz, hearing what they hoped to hear from a man they had coached and/or worked with for more than 36 years and who had donated hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money and raised millions more to create the Second Mile Organization, an organization whose core mission is to help at risk kids, (in all liklihood) accecpted Sandusky's explanation. They then imposed penalties, appropriate to the lack of poor judgement on Sandusky's part, but wholly inadequate to adress the realities of what it seems may have actually occurred! I suspect Coach Paterno. AD Curley and VP Schultz were misled by both McQueary and Sandusky and, as a result, reacted inadequately to address the seriousness of the actual situation.
> 
> Having spent four years as an undergraduate at Penn State's University Park campus in the 1960's, I am probably biased in favor of the university. One of my fonder memories of those years is walking across campus on several occassions and encountering Coach Paterno, headed for the Old Main Administration building or Rec Hall, and hearing the coaches response to our "Good Morning Coach" as, characteristically with a big smile he growled, "why aren't you kids in class!" Whether, in his role as a coach or as an educator his first priority has always been the best interest of the students. If he had known the true nature of the 2002 incident, he would not have allowed it to be handled as it was! Enough said.


Eagle,

This is the best comment on this affair I have seen anywhere. While he had no legal obligation to do anything, McQueary's failure to stop a child rape in progress was a complete moral failure. He may have been a quarterback but he certainly is not a man. You have pinpointed the key to responsibility, which is what exactly did McQueary say to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz ? Until that is known, other than targeting Sandusky and McQueary, reasonable men should stop casting stones.


----------



## El_Abogado

arkirshner said:


> Eagle,
> 
> This is the best comment on this affair I have seen anywhere. While he had no legal obligation to do anything, McQueary's failure to stop a child rape in progress was a complete moral failure. He may have been a quarterback but he certainly is not a man. You have pinpointed the key to responsibility, which is what exactly did McQueary say to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz ? Until that is known, other than targeting Sandusky and McQueary, reasonable men should stop casting stones.


What did JoePa and Penn State know in 1998? Why did Sandusky retire at 55, at the peak of his abilities as a coach? I'm not casting stones. I am looking for answers and suspecting that when the rocks of the past are overturned some very ugly facts are going to come to light.


----------



## mrkleen

eagle2250 said:


> Joe Paterno's statue is in front of the stadium because he built an arguably 'botique' collegiate ball club into a national football power. His name is on the library because Paterno either personally donated or raised the millions of dollars it cost to build and outfit the Paterno Wing of the Patee Library. Should you choose to donate sufficient funds to add an additional wing, I suspect PSU (or any major institution for that matter!) could be persuaded to put your name on that wing.


 So what? Does the fact that he did good work on the field excuse the fact that he was privy to children being raped in his locker room and he did nothing about it? Guess I am missing your point.


----------



## Acct2000

I'll admit it looks bad. We had an incident at Michigan State University where a football coach got the board to back him in a dispute with the president of the University. After being so publicly humiliated, the president moved on to another university. (I felt the president was right.) 

I did not attend Michigan State University and the following story has nothing to do with that school.

I guess I have a different perspective; where I went to college, the football team won a Division II Football National Championship when I was a sophomore. The players themselves were constantly involved in bar fights and other trouble. No one did anything about it.

I'll admit, I think McQueary should have done a lot more to stop the incident he saw. I'm ashamed to admit that once, (as an 18 year old college freshman), I backed down in a similar situation. One of the football players (starting offensive lineman) was starting to beat up his girlfriend (he was totally drunk) because she was talking to me while I was sitting at a piano. We were the only ones in the room. (I was somewhat pissed at the girlfriend for involving me - - it was obvious once he came that her motivation was to piss him off for some reason.) He told me to keep playing the piano. 

I lied and told him I needed to go to my room to get some music. (I almost never bother with reading music.) I locked myself in my room and left her to her fate. He was at least 60 pounds heavier than me and probably three times as strong. He had a reputation for putting people in the hospital and I would have surely been beaten to a pulp and gone to the hospital had I tried to intervene. (Besides, his reputation was well-known and she should have known he was a viscious, violent bully.)

I do not think that my situation was as anywhere as bad as McQueary's. (The boy was just ten and should not have been expected to keep himself out of harm. People who hung out with football players knew how violent they were and I did not feel sorry for them when bad things happened.)

I guess I'm no hero either. (And the football player is in my college's sports hall of fame.)

Maybe that explains my attitude about a lot of the football thing. I enjoy attending games, but have little respect for a lot of what happens in colleges related to football and do not hero-worship those involved. 

I admit I don't know Mr. Paterno personally. However, a lot of bad things are condoned and swept under the rug when people help a football team win big. I think it says a lot of bad things about our priorities as a society.


----------



## arkirshner

El_Abogado said:


> What did JoePa and Penn State know in 1998? Why did Sandusky retire at 55, at the peak of his abilities as a coach? I'm not casting stones. I am looking for answers and suspecting that when the rocks of the past are overturned some very ugly facts are going to come to light.


Very relevant questions indeed.


----------



## eagle2250

arkirshner said:


> Eagle,
> 
> This is the best comment on this affair I have seen anywhere. While he had no legal obligation to do anything, McQueary's failure to stop a child rape in progress was a complete moral failure. He may have been a quarterback but he certainly is not a man. You have pinpointed the key to responsibility, which is what exactly did McQueary say to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz ? Until that is known, other than targeting Sandusky and McQueary, reasonable men should stop casting stones.


Thank you. I very much appreciate your comments.



El_Abogado said:


> What did JoePa and Penn State know in 1998? Why did Sandusky retire at 55, at the peak of his abilities as a coach? I'm not casting stones. I am looking for answers and suspecting that when the rocks of the past are overturned some very ugly facts are going to come to light.


All charges against Jerry Sandusky in the 1998 incident were dropped, without prejudice. Interestingly, the prosecutor who dropped the charges went missing after the fact and he was just declared dead this past summer. Sandusky's 1999 retirement reflects his election to accept an early retirement buyout offer made by the State of Pennsylvania (not one made by the university). He was paid a lump sum and received a reduced monthly retirement payment, with additional negotiated benefits to include continued access to an office and other PSU facilities for his personal use and for use by Sandusky's "Second Mile" charity. Sandusky's stated reason for retiring early was to "be able to devote full time to the Second Mile organization." Hence, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the retirement election was Sandusky's decicion and not the university's.



mrkleen said:


> So what? Does the fact that he did good work on the field excuse the fact that he was privy to children being raped in his locker room and he did nothing about it? Guess I am missing your point.


No, Paterno's good work would not excuse his being aware of acts of depravity occuring on his watch and not doing anything about it. However, we do seem to disagree on what Paterno knew and when he learned of it! It strikes me as odd that all of the testimony prior to the calling of today's grand jury, all seems to point to "horsing around in a locker room shower" and McQueary's grand jury testimony is ever so much more graphic and specific, but then he only thinks he "was more specific" when the incident was first brought to Coach Paterno's attention back in 2002. Seems to be some pretty convenient memory lapses there, that serve to benefit one person and one person only!


----------



## El_Abogado

eagle2250 said:


> All charges against Jerry Sandusky in the 1998 incident were dropped, without prejudice. Interestingly, the prosecutor who dropped the charges went missing after the fact and he was just declared dead this past summer. Sandusky's 1999 retirement reflects his election to accept an early retirement buyout offer made by the State of Pennsylvania (not one made by the university). He was paid a lump sum and received a reduced monthly retirement payment, with additional negotiated benefits to include continued access to an office and other PSU facilities for his personal use and for use by Sandusky's "Second Mile" charity. Sandusky's stated reason for retiring early was to "be able to devote full time to the Second Mile organization. Hence, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the retirement election was Sandusky's decicion and not the university's.


From the New York Times Timeline of Events https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/sandusky.html:

*May 1999*
Penn  State Coach Joe Paterno informs Sandusky at a meeting that he will not become the team's next head coach. Victim 4 testifies that Sandusky appeared emotionally upset after the meeting and that he was told by Sandusky to not tell anyone about the meeting.

*June 1999*
Sandusky announces he will retire as defensive coordinator after the season. He says he wants to work full time for the Second Mile. Sandusky retains extensive privileges on campus, including an office in the athletic facility and keys to the locker rooms.

Further, Mark Madden was out in front of this story and the earlier events with an article seven months ago. If you haven't read it, you should. He has some interesting thoughts on 1998 and 1999: .


----------



## El_Abogado

From the Patriot-News: Who knew what about Jerry Sandusky?" https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html:



> *WHAT DID McQUEARY SAY? *
> 
> Two years later, there was yet another missed opportunity.
> 
> And this is the incident that, according to testimony, eventually involved Paterno and Spanier.
> 
> This is the second case, in which the victim hasn't been identified.
> 
> It was about 9:30 at night on a Friday before spring break. McQueary testified that he came to the football building in order to drop off a pair of new sneakers and pick up recruiting tapes. Instead, he testified that he walked in on Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy, estimated to be about 10 years old, in the shower.
> 
> McQueary testified that the boy was pinned with his hands against the shower wall - just like Jim Calhoun had seen two years earlier - as Sandusky stood behind him.
> 
> McQueary was shocked. Both Sandusky and the boy - who remains unidentified - saw him, he testified.
> 
> Instead of taking action to stop what he was watching, McQueary testified that he left immediately and told his father. The next morning, McQueary said, they went to see Paterno.
> 
> And what did McQueary say?
> 
> We don't know. The grand jury presentment that has been given to the public, simply says that McQueary "reported what he had seen."
> 
> According to Paterno's testimony, McQueary told the coach he had witnessed Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature" to the boy.
> 
> Two days after the report was released, Paterno issued a statement saying he wanted to correct the impression left by the presentment.
> 
> Even though Paterno himself had told the grand jury that McQueary saw "something of a sexual nature," Paterno said this week that he had stopped the conversation before it got too graphic. Instead, he told McQueary he would need to speak with his superior, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and with Schultz.
> 
> That meeting did not happen for 10 days.
> 
> What was said at that meeting is in dispute.
> 
> McQueary testified he told the men in specific detail exactly what he'd seen, and what he testified to before the grand jury.
> 
> Curley and Schultz say nothing criminal was described. Instead, Curley says, it was characterized as "inappropriate conduct" or "horsing around.
> 
> Schultz said it seemed like "not that serious."
> 
> But Schultz also admitted to the grand jury that McQueary had reported seeing "inappropriate sexual conduct" between the older man and the young boy, and possibly Sandusky "inappropriately grabbing the young boy's genitals."
> 
> Neither man called the police. Instead, they decided to tell former President Graham Spanier.
> 
> Spanier testified that he was only told there was "horsing around" in the shower - between Sandusky and a boy. And that had made a member of Curley's staff "uncomfortable." Spanier told the grand jury he didn't hear that the incident was sexual.
> 
> Spanier never asked to speak with McQueary.
> 
> Spanier signed off on their decision to ban Sandusky from bringing children from his charity, The Second Mile, into the Penn State football building.


I'm not defending McQueary, but it would appear that he was pretty clear about what he saw. It was administrators who chose not to listen or to overlook his eyewitness account.


----------



## JDC

El_Abogado said:


> And, JDC, what if it were your 10-year-old boy in that shower? What if it were you as a 10-y.o.? Wouldn't you want an adult to rescue you as you were being brutalized by a 57-year-old man?


I would. Not sure where I claimed I wouldn't.


----------



## JDC

El_Abogado said:


> I'm not defending McQueary, but it would appear that he was pretty clear about what he saw. It was administrators who chose not to listen or to overlook his eyewitness account.


Is there an echo in this room?


----------



## El_Abogado

JDC said:


> Is there an echo in this room?


Not sure what you mean. My point is that until all the facts come out, focusing on one or two individuals or excluding others is not appropriate. Sandusky allegedly did bad things in 1998 and 2002, yet he wasn't stopped, the police weren't called in 2002, and no one at Penn State quit their jobs in protest. That should raise questions about all involved. And I suspect we'll be getting answers in the coming days and months.


----------



## eagle2250

El_Abogado said:


> From the Patriot-News: Who knew what about Jerry Sandusky?" https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html:
> 
> I'm not defending McQueary, but it would appear that he was pretty clear about what he saw. It was administrators who chose not to listen or to overlook his eyewitness account.


Mike McQueary seems to have gotten a lot more specific/decisive in his grand jury testimony, than he was back in 2002. Now that he's getting all the bad press about his failure to intercede immediatly when he discovered Sandusky and the 10 year old, he is circulating emails claiming recent recountings of the grand jury testimony are misleading and do not reflect what he intended to say. The inconsistency of his claims seems disturbingly revealing to me! The fact that he is the single primary player (in this little drama) whose story keeps changing is revealing as well.

PS: I have not said, nor do I believe that Paterno (and others) would not have eventually had to go. I simply wish that due process (for all) had been allowed to occur before such actions were taken!


----------



## El_Abogado

Eagle, I suspect there is much more coming. 2002 wasn't the start. 1998, or even 1995, perhaps. You raise good points about McQueary. He's on administrative leave, unlike many of the others. Unlike some of the other players, he was an eyewitness to the sodomy of a child. Merely complying with the law in Pennsylvania on reporting child abuse at an educational institution, which he did, is insufficient to save his job or his reputation. He has acknowledged what he saw. He continued his employment with the university. He didn't talk to authorities about what he saw until the grand jury investigation. And he had to know about Sandusky's involvement with recruiting up until last year, Sandusky's 2007 graduation address, and his other ties to to the university, post-2002. It's hard to see good in the man. As for the administrators and JoePa, they may well be indicted and they will get a jury of their peers.


----------



## Bjorn

I have to say that the way the matter was handled by McQuerys superiors is completely substandard. Any management involved in that should be summarily sacked by the state. 

I also think perhaps we are a little fast to judge McQuery since there's probably a fairly big amount of shock and disbelief involved in that kind of situation, in a place one often frequents involving people you know. If McQuery had seen a boy or woman being assaulted in the park, he may have acted differently. I think here he got rattled enough for it to completely throw him off. Which is human, although not preferable. 

And he did bring it up with his superiors, which is key. It transfers responsibility up the chain of command, where it was obviously completely mismanaged. They have an obligation to investigate, and to take into account that McQuery may be hesitant to speak freely. 

In these situations, to preserve trust in the organisation, it is important to decisively remove people who mismanaged. A management position, whether as coach or board member, need to meet a higher standard than the bare minimum imposed by law.


----------



## Regillus

The problem is this: McQueary saw the boy being raped. That's one witness. The boy victim was another witness. That's two witnesses against Sandusky. Easy case to win in court, but no police investigation, no medical examination of the boy, no court hearings, no criminal trial, so no conviction. Once again the justice system failed a child sexual assault victim. The problem started with McQuearys poor handling of the situation. He should have at least called the police on the spot and reported a rape in progress. IMO, he should also have snatched Sandusky away from the boy and decked him with a roundhouse right. The problem was compounded by Joe Paternos failure to call police, and then the school administrators who failed to call police. McQueary, Paterno and the school administrators should be found guilty of accessory after the fact and sentenced to prison. As for Sandusky; he should be drawn and quartered.


----------



## JDC

IMO this thread, and most of the criticism being leveled at Paterno and McQueary are Monday morning quarterbacking. If there was some way of knowing for sure, I would bet my entire life savings not two out of 100 of you would have actually done any of the heroic things you claim you would have done in that situation, and the bottom line is that none of us know for sure because we are not the ones who were there. What we have is a college administration who should have fully investigated a report of "horse play" with a 10 year-old child, did not do so, and almost ten years later fired the people who reported it.

IMO (please bear with me, this isn't any easier to write than read) the idea that Sandusky would have gotten away with outright rape (with the victim attempting to flee with all his might, screaming etc) is downright ridiculous: it's the image some people want you to have, but based on known facts it's not what occurred. From what I've read the incident wound up being reported not by the victim, but because McQueary had stumbled on them. He said the kid was crying, was it because of what was being done to him or because they had been discovered? The overall point is, we weren't there and it's conjecture.

Also, the standard in America, at least as far as I was raised, is not for co-workers to be doing their own law enforcement. Paterno had a legal and professional obligation to report the incident. HE DID SO. End of story IMO as far as he's concerned. As for McQueary, again if he broke any laws he should be prosecuted IMO, beyond that it's the same scapegoat story. By all accounts he's an amazing coach and person, and I suspect most of us would have been so surprised and/or stunned by that scene, given our "I-don't-want-to-get-involved" culture, we would have reacted precisely as he did. In fact as Paterno did as well. This is why I level the claim of hypocrisy at their critics.


----------



## El_Abogado

JDC, if your point is we are all innocent until proven guilty, it is a point well taken. Beyond that, your post above is silly and disrespectful, and ignorant of the others posting here, their experiences and their responsibilities. Some of us would have stopped an act of sodomy involving a minor and some of us would not have let the matter go after reporting up the chain of command. Some of us have taken oaths to defend the weak and the helpless and we take our oaths seriously.


----------



## Mike Petrik

JDC said:


> IMO this thread, and most of the criticism being leveled at Paterno and McQueary are Monday morning quarterbacking. If there was some way of knowing for sure, I would bet my entire life savings not two out of 100 of you would have actually done any of the heroic things you claim you would have done in that situation, and the bottom line is that none of us know for sure because we are not the ones who were there. What we have is a college administration who should have fully investigated a report of "horse play" with a 10 year-old child, did not do so, and almost ten years later fired the people who reported it.
> 
> IMO (please bear with me, this isn't any easier to write than read) the idea that Sandusky would have gotten away with outright rape (with the victim attempting to flee with all his might, screaming etc) is downright ridiculous: it's the image some people want you to have, but based on known facts it's not what occurred. From what I've read the incident wound up being reported not by the victim, but because McQueary had stumbled on them. He said the kid was crying, was it because of what was being done to him or because they had been discovered? The overall point is, we weren't there and it's conjecture.
> 
> Also, the standard in America, at least as far as I was raised, is not for co-workers to be doing their own law enforcement. Paterno had a legal and professional obligation to report the incident. HE DID SO. End of story IMO as far as he's concerned. As for McQueary, again if he broke any laws he should be prosecuted IMO, beyond that it's the same scapegoat story. By all accounts he's an amazing coach and person, and I suspect most of us would have been so surprised and/or stunned by that scene, given our "I-don't-want-to-get-involved" culture, we would have reacted precisely as he did. In fact as Paterno did as well. This is why I level the claim of hypocrisy at their critics.


In other words, the boy was probably a willing and eager participant, so move on folks -- nothing here.


----------



## JDC

Mike Petrik said:


> In other words, the boy was probably a willing and eager participant, so move on folks -- nothing here.


That's an intentional misstatement of my opinion, with an agenda.


----------



## eagle2250

El_Abogado said:


> Eagle, I suspect there is much more coming. 2002 wasn't the start. 1998, or even 1995, perhaps. You raise good points about McQueary. He's on administrative leave, unlike many of the others. Unlike some of the other players, he was an eyewitness to the sodomy of a child. Merely complying with the law in Pennsylvania on reporting child abuse at an educational institution, which he did, is insufficient to save his job or his reputation.  He has acknowledged what he saw. He continued his employment with the university. He didn't talk to authorities about what he saw until the grand jury investigation. And he had to know about Sandusky's involvement with recruiting up until last year, Sandusky's 2007 graduation address, and his other ties to to the university, post-2002. It's hard to see good in the man. As for the administrators and JoePa, they may well be indicted and they will get a jury of their peers.





El_Abogado said:


> JDC, if your point is we are all innocent until proven guilty, it is a point well taken. Beyond that, your post above is silly and disrespectful, and ignorant of the others posting here, their experiences and their responsibilities. Some of us would have stopped an act of sodomy involving a minor and some of us would not have let the matter go after reporting up the chain of command. Some of us have taken oaths to defend the weak and the helpless and we take our oaths seriously.


+1 regarding both posts. Couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## JDC

El_Abogado said:


> JDC, if your point is we are all innocent until proven guilty, it is a point well taken. Beyond that, your post above is silly and disrespectful, and ignorant of the others posting here, their experiences and their responsibilities.


Time will tell who is being disrespectful, and I'd appreciate it if you'd speak for yourself and not other members. Please don't create the same mob mentality here that has resulted in this Paterno nonsense: I bend over backwards to not personally attack anyone in debates. My comments are directed toward Paterno's critics as a group.



El_Abogado said:


> Some of us would have stopped an act of sodomy involving a minor and some of us would not have let the matter go after reporting up the chain of command. Some of us have taken oaths to defend the weak and the helpless and we take our oaths seriously.


This issue is a near-perfect hot button: nobody in their right mind would argue with you, yet none of us were actually there. Amazing isn't it?


----------



## mrkleen

eagle2250 said:


> No, Paterno's good work would not excuse his being aware of acts of depravity occuring on his watch and not doing anything about it. However, we do seem to disagree on what Paterno knew and when he learned of it! It strikes me as odd that all of the testimony prior to the calling of today's grand jury, all seems to point to "horsing around in a locker room shower" and McQueary's grand jury testimony is ever so much more graphic and specific, but then he only thinks he "was more specific" when the incident was first brought to Coach Paterno's attention back in 2002. Seems to be some pretty convenient memory lapses there, that serve to benefit one person and one person only!


So you think that Penn State fired the guy they were grooming to take over for Joe Paterno back in 1999 without cause?

The evidence presented to the grand jury was clear and graphic. How ANYONE can still be defending Sandusky after that and the creepy interview he gave to NBC last night is beyond me.


----------



## eagle2250

^^JDC post #96:
I suspect that every one of us, who has lived to and through our 20's and beyond, has been confronted with defining moments/challenges/opportunities (you pick the word) in our lives. How we have handled those moments may be known only by us, but it is also we who must live with the knowledge and consequences of those decisions and resultant actions. In the end, we must ultimately be able to live with ourselves!


----------



## JDC

mrkleen said:


> So you think that Penn State fired the guy they were grooming to take over for Joe Paterno back in 1999 without cause?
> 
> The evidence presented to the grand jury was clear and graphic. How ANYONE can still be defending Sandusky after that and the creepy interview he gave to NBC last night is beyond me.


I think Eagle is saying there was quite a bit of CYA going on at Penn State, and somehow it was the responsibility of football coaches to rid the school of its alleged child molesters.


----------



## eagle2250

mrkleen said:


> So you think that Penn State fired the guy they were grooming to take over for Joe Paterno back in 1999 without cause?
> 
> The evidence presented to the grand jury was clear and graphic. How ANYONE can still be defending Sandusky after that and the creepy interview he gave to NBC last night is beyond me.


I have not defended Sandusky. I have suggested that his life long personal and professional association(s) and a lifelong record of giving back for the apparent benefit of others (How many of us can claim charitable contributions totaling well into six figures as demonstrations of our personal sense of benevolence?), have enabled Sandusky to pull the wool over a lot of very bright and truely good peoples eyes! Truth be known, the alleged crimes he has commited and Sandusky himself, crepes me out.


----------



## JDC

Eagle, go eat breakfast.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> ...crepes me out.





JDC said:


> Eagle, go eat breakfast.


LOL!!


----------



## mrkleen

JDC said:


> I think Eagle is saying there was quite a bit of CYA going on at Penn State, and somehow it was the responsibility of football coaches to rid the school of its alleged child molesters.


I have said this before....I will say it again. Joe Paterno is the boss. When bad **** happens, the buck stops with the boss. PERIOD.

If he was as big on integrity and honestly and honor as he claims to be, he would have rid his house of this kind of behavior...and if necessary, taken the fall for it. Instead he denied it, he tried to hide it, and even after being fired - has not taken any responsibility for the mismanagement of his operation.


----------



## Taken Aback

harvey_birdman said:


> You are confusing a "Good Samaritan Law" with a "duty to rescue". Pennsylvania does not have a general duty to rescue.


Thanks for the information. It's seems unconscionable that merely calling the police would fall under such a law, and that someone is absolved from doing so.



arkirshner said:


> While he had no legal obligation to do anything..


Again, if nothing else, I hope this incident spurs a re-examination of Pennsylvania's lack of this _duty to rescue_.



Bjorn said:


> I also think perhaps we are a little fast to judge McQuery since there's probably a fairly big amount of shock and disbelief involved in that kind of situation, in a place one often frequents involving people you know. If McQuery had seen a boy or woman being assaulted in the park, he may have acted differently. I think here he got rattled enough for it to completely throw him off. Which is human, although not preferable.
> 
> *And he did bring it up with his superiors, which is key*. It transfers responsibility up the chain of command, where it was obviously completely mismanaged. They have an obligation to investigate, and to take into account that McQuery may be hesitant to speak freely.
> 
> In these situations, to preserve trust in the organisation, it is important to decisively remove people who mismanaged. A management position, whether as coach or board member, need to meet a higher standard than the bare minimum imposed by law.


If he had the presence of mind to make that decision, he had the same faculties necessary to make a call to the police directly. We can sympathize with him at the moment, but, again, there was but one correct decision.



JDC said:


> If there was some way of knowing for sure, I would bet my entire life savings not two out of 100 of you would have actually done any of the heroic things you claim you would have done in that situation, and the bottom line is that none of us know for sure because we are not the ones who were there.


Knowing full well that it would end my career, not just that it was a _possibility_, I would at least call the police. I like to think I would have physically interceded, but I know for certain that I could not live with the fact that I did not act in the moment. I have a conscience, and it's quite healthy.



JDC said:


> I suspect most of us would have been so surprised and/or stunned by that scene, given our "I-don't-want-to-get-involved" culture, we would have reacted precisely as he did. In fact as Paterno did as well. This is why I level the claim of hypocrisy at their critics.


You suspect incorrectly.



JDC said:


> What we have is a college administration who should have fully investigated a report of "horse play" with a 10 year-old child, did not do so, and almost ten years later fired the people who reported it.
> 
> IMO (please bear with me, this isn't any easier to write than read) the idea that Sandusky would have gotten away with outright rape (with the victim attempting to flee with all his might, screaming etc) is downright ridiculous: it's the image some people want you to have, but based on known facts it's not what occurred. From what I've read the incident wound up being reported not by the victim, but because McQueary had stumbled on them. He said the kid was crying, was it because of what was being done to him or because they had been discovered? The overall point is, we weren't there and it's conjecture/





Mike Petrik said:


> In other words, the boy was probably a willing and eager participant, so move on folks -- nothing here.





JDC said:


> That's an intentional misstatement of my opinion, with an agenda.


JDC, it's my opinion, but I cannot believe that you specifically address that the child may have been a willing participant to the act without desiring to spur the response you have been receiving. That specific point, more than any other, is the one that colors your posts. I'm certain it's why you were labeled a troll by another member.

You know full well that even what you theorize possible is a moot point due to the child's age. There seems no point in raising it but to infer the possibility, and that it could somehow lessen the severity of the crime. It could not, and never will.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> I have said this before....I will say it again. Joe Paterno is the boss. When bad **** happens, the buck stops with the boss. PERIOD.





eagle2250 said:


> All charges against Jerry Sandusky in the 1998 incident were dropped, without prejudice. Interestingly, the *prosecutor* who dropped the charges went missing after the fact and he was just declared dead this past summer. Sandusky's 1999 retirement reflects his election to accept an early retirement buyout offer made by the *State of Pennsylvania* (not one made by the university). He was paid a lump sum and received a reduced monthly retirement payment, with additional negotiated benefits *to include continued access to an office and other PSU facilities for his personal use and for use by Sandusky's "Second Mile" charity*. Sandusky's stated reason for retiring early was to "be able to devote full time to the Second Mile organization." Hence, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the retirement election was Sandusky's decicion and not the university's.


Right.

Look no futher.

It's all JP!!


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Right.
> 
> Look no futher.
> 
> It's all JP!!


You don't get to have it both ways my friend.

You don't get to run the show, build statues to yourself, and walk around like a holier than thou deity for 50 years - AND THEN, when the SH!T hits the fan - walk away pointing the finger at others, refusing to take your share of the blame.

The chancellor, the board of trustees, the chief of campus police, the assistant coaches - all have to share in the blame, but in the end - the buck stops with Paterno. Trying to run away from that now shows what a coward he is, and makes his apologist sound sad and pathetic.

Joe Paterno ran a dirty program and allowed a child rapist to hang around his locker room and campus. That's it. Period. End of story.

You can put a fork in his legacy and Penn State wont rebound for a very long time. Good Job Jo Pa


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Joe Paterno ran a dirty program and allowed a child rapist to hang around his locker room and campus. That's it. Period. End of story.


JP will get his as it should be.

But ending it there is short sighted.

I'm sure we don't dissagree as much as it appears here.


----------



## JDC

Taken Aback said:


> JDC, it's my opinion, but I cannot believe that you specifically address that the child may have been a willing participant to the act without desiring to spur the response you have been receiving. That specific point, more than any other, is the one that colors your posts. I'm certain it's why you were labeled a troll by another member.
> 
> You know full well that even what you theorize possible is a moot point due to the child's age. There seems no point in raising it but to infer the possibility, and that it could somehow lessen the severity of the crime. It could not, and never will.


Obviously minors cannot give legal consent to sex with adults, but we're in a public debate not court of law. I simply made the obvious point that McQueary's (or anyone's) reaction would have depended on precisely what he encountered.


----------



## eagle2250

JDC said:


> Eagle, go eat breakfast.


Two eggs, easy over
and an English muffin with home made peach jam. 
A second cup of Joe washed everything down, very nicely.

Great suggestion, JDC!


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #91: "...I would bet my entire life savings not two out of 100 of you would have actually done any of the heroic things you claim you would have done in that situation,...."

You would lose your life's savings. I work in security. Protecting people is what I get paid to do. I would have grabbed Sandusky by the hair and yanked him away from the boy, put myself between him and the boy, and called 911. If Sandusky made a move toward me I would've knocked him down.

"...the idea that Sandusky would have gotten away with outright rape (with the victim attempting to flee with all his might, screaming etc) is downright ridiculous...."

You know quite well that a ten-year old boy can't consent to sex with an adult man. McQueary said the boy was crying, so clearly the boy was an unwilling participant in the sexual act and was experiencing pain from it. That makes it rape; plain and simple.

"From what I've read the incident wound up being reported not by the victim, but because McQueary had stumbled on them. He said the kid was crying,...."

And do ten-year old rape victims typically run to the police? No they don't. They generally don't tell anyone. Wouldn't be the first time a rape victim decided that they didn't want the whole world knowing what had happened to them

"Also, the standard in America, at least as far as I was raised, is not for co-workers to be doing their own law enforcement."

A nonsensical statement. So no neighborhood watches, no Guardian Angels?

"Paterno had a legal and professional obligation to report the incident. HE DID SO."

HE DIDN'T CALL THE POLICE.

"...given our 'I-don't-want-to-get-involved' culture,..."

I'm not a member of that culture. Speak for yourself, JDC.

"This is why I level the claim of hypocrisy at their critics."

You're out of touch with the majority of people in this country. The majority expects adults to protect children from sexual attacks. If you don't know that; then you've been living sealed up in a bomb shelter since the '50s.


----------



## Mike Petrik

JDC said:


> That's an intentional misstatement of my opinion, with an agenda.


"He said the kid was crying, was it because of what was being done to him or because they had been discovered?"

My characterization of your speculation above was hyperbolic, yes, but warranted given the disgusting nature of your statement.


----------



## JohnRov

FYI, McQueary is being interviewed tonight, ABC I believe.


----------



## tower10

Let's hope that interview isn't as awful as Sandusky's. I wanted to throw something at my TV last night.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #27: "And for all you know both parties were enjoying themselves when they were interrupted."

That's one of the sickest things I've ever read. You're saying a ten-year old boy was a willing participant in anal sex with a fifty-something year old man. You know that an under-age child can't legally consent to sex with an adult.

Re Post #42: "I'm accused of trolling,...."

What you said in post #27 supra makes you a troll and worse.

"Now we're destroying lives not for what people did, but for what we think they should have done."

This is nonsense. McQueary, Paterno, et als lives are being destroyed for what they DID. They didn't act to stop Sandusky from sexually molesting young boys.

There is a standard of conduct that civilized people expect of each other. Reporting a child rape in progress _to the police_ is part of it.



JDC said:


> That's an intentional misstatement of my opinion, with an agenda.


No it isn't. That's what you said in post #27.


----------



## JDC

Re-read the thread. I've already answered your points. Nobody is questioning whether minors can give legal consent to sex with adults, I was talking about people (like you), who weren't there, second-guessing McQueary's reaction to what he encountered.

Is it coincidental that both of the apparently most rabid Paterno haters in this thread are from Boston?


----------



## 32rollandrock

eagle2250 said:


> First allow me to opine that 32R&R's post is absolute BS...indeed the depraved ravings of an Illini fan, still emotionally unbalanced by his anger over the Illini defeat at the hands of the Nittany Lions just a few short weeks ago! My advice to yo, sir...Get Over It!


First things first.

I'm not an Illini fan. Secondly, I would hope that you are not serious in your remarks here and in ensuing posts, and, if you are, I would, gently, suggest that you seek psychiatric help.

You and other apologists seem to be forgetting something here, which is, the incident involving McQueary wasn't the first time. It was the THIRD time, the first one being in 1997 when a mom called the campus cops, who did nothing, even though Sandusky told her that he wished that he was dead and that nothing he could say would make her feel any better. It's not clear whether the "We Are Penn State!" cops called in child protective authorities, but it is certainly clear, in hindsight--and to all but the most diehard Paterno apologists who likely also believe in leprechauns and unicorns--that somebody didn't do their job. The second time was in 2000, when a janitor saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a boy he had pinned to the wall of the shower. The janitor told co-workers, but neither he nor anyone else called 911. Why? According to the grand jury report, they were afraid they would be fired. And then we have McQueary.

Now, I'm not defending inaction here--of course McQueary should have done something, as well as the janitors--but when nothing happens three out of three times and the abuse goes on and on, the problem isn't with the individual but with the institution. Nothing happened because, by all appearances, everyone knew the unwritten rule, which was football above all else, and that unwritten code was internalized by everyone and rigidly enforced.

None of us really know, I think, what McQueary told Paterno--all we know is what folks say was said, but let's assume that McQueary did say "Uh, I saw Sandusky horsing around with a boy in the shower last night, they were all alone and they were both naked and it was disturbing enough that I'm here now to tell you about it." That in itself should have been a five-alarm fire, that in itself should have triggered an interview with the boy to see just what happened. But no. Of course not. After all, we all wrestled naked in showers at age ten with men in their 50s after everyone else had gone home, right? Of course. Everyone does that. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

To hear you or anyone else go into this sis, boom, bah mode--fond college years schtick, if you will--is nauseating. You are part of the problem here. You are a part-and-parcel architect of a university gone collectively mad, where the only thing the coach can think of to say to the students outside his house and the players in final meeting is Beat Nebraska.

Some things eclipse everything that a man has done in his life, and this, in my view, is true of Paterno. The only thing he deserves now is to have the shower and sauna area re-named The Joe Paterno Memorial Bath House so that future generations will remember and, hopefully, not allow anything like this to happen again.

In the event I haven't been clear here, I see absolutely, positively no humor or merit in anything that you have written. It's asinine, disgusting, vile--pick an adjective. It is the kind of drivel that has the rest of the nation looking at Penn State in disbelief and wondering when an adult will step into the room.

Now, bring it. I'm sure that you will.


----------



## JDC

Mike Petrik said:


> "He said the kid was crying, was it because of what was being done to him or because they had been discovered?"
> 
> My characterization of your speculation above was hyperbolic, yes, but warranted given the disgusting nature of your statement.


I would much prefer an answer to this question instead of a sidestep.


----------



## dks202

arkirshner said:


> Eagle,
> 
> While he had no legal obligation to do anything, McQueary's failure to stop a child rape in progress was a complete moral failure.....


He absolutely positively had a legal obligation to report the crime to the police. In Texas anyway, it's the law. He could be prosecuted for failing to report it to the police (it doesn't count if you tell someone else)/


----------



## arkirshner

dks202 said:


> He absolutely positively had a legal obligation to report the crime to the police. In Texas anyway, it's the law. He could be prosecuted for failing to report it to the police (it doesn't count if you tell someone else)/


Apparently the law is different in PA. per an interview with a Penn prosecutor. In Ohio, teachers and health care workers are required to report child abuse. While it may be apocryphal, I liked the Texas law that if you caught your wife in bed with a boyfriend, you could shoot them.


----------



## JDC

Can someone explain where all this rage is for the thousands of children who're molested every year by Roman Catholic priests around the world? The church has been shielding these people for 1500 years, I can show you complaints about it from the 9th Century! Forget Paterno's legal and professional responsibilities on this matter, because nobody is claiming he didn't fulfill them. Morally, the fact he's being held to a higher standard of conduct than even Catholic priests is beyond absurd IMO, and it exposes the real motivation for and timing of this action by Penn State.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Here's what a stand-up guy Paterno is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/sports/ncaafootball/in-july-paterno-transferred-ownership-of-home-to-his-wife-for-1.html?_r=1&hpAn excerpt:

"Coach Paterno wants to tell his side of the story and answer questions, and I am hopeful he will be able to do so down the road," said Sollers, Paterno's lawyer.

That's your hero, Eagle2250. What was it they say at Linebacker University, "When the going gets tough, the tough hide behind lawyers?" Of course, Paterno could tell his story now if he wanted. But he, apparently, knows some things that you either do not or refuse to admit. He's going down big time, at least financially, and he should. Same thing for Penn State. Tell me, has the alumni association established a lawsuit-settlement fund yet? I'm guessing you'll be first in line to donate. By the time this is over, Penn State will lose more money--and even more prestige--than JoePa generated in his entire career.

Now, get busy with the rationalizations and blame-those-greedy-plaintiffs'-lawyers obfuscations. I can't wait to hear them.


----------



## eagle2250

Regillus said:


> Re Post #91: "...I would bet my entire life savings not two out of 100 of you would have actually done any of the heroic things you claim you would have done in that situation,...."
> 
> You would lose your life's savings. I work in security. Protecting people is what I get paid to do. I would have grabbed Sandusky by the hair and yanked him away from the boy, put myself between him and the boy, and called 911. If Sandusky made a move toward me I would've knocked him down.
> .....


Regillus and JDC: Count me as the second poster who would have definitely reacted. Having retired with almost 31 years in the USAF (12 active duty and 19 in the reserves) and just short of 32 years (includes a buy back of the 12 years active duty USAF time) in law enforcement with the Federal Govt., I have no doubt that I would have done all in my power to stop the assault. Shrapnel scars just below the jaw bone on the right side of my neck and on my left calf, just below the knee; a five inch scar on my left forearm where a bad guy cut me with a straight razor and an inch and a half scar at the base of the thumb on my right hand, where a bad guy tried to wack it off with a buck knife on the 9th Street Plaza of the Federal Building in Cleveland, OH; and a small caliber GSW scar on my upper right thigh would all seem to attest to the fact that I am one to get involved! Frankly I'm convinced that at least 98 out of the 100 people in the sample JDC referred to would have aggressively interceded. Just thinkin 



32rollandrock said:


> Here's what a stand-up guy Paterno is:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/sports/ncaafootball/in-july-paterno-transferred-ownership-of-home-to-his-wife-for-1.html?_r=1&hpAn excerpt:
> 
> "Coach Paterno wants to tell his side of the story and answer questions, and I am hopeful he will be able to do so down the road," said Sollers, Paterno's lawyer.
> 
> That's your hero, Eagle2250. What was it they say at Linebacker University, "When the going gets tough, the tough hide behind lawyers?" Of course, Paterno could tell his story now if he wanted. But he, apparently, knows some things that you either do not or refuse to admit. He's going down big time, at least financially, and he should. Same thing for Penn State. Tell me, has the alumni association established a lawsuit-settlement fund yet? I'm guessing you'll be first in line to donate. By the time this is over, Penn State will lose more money--and even more prestige--than JoePa generated in his entire career.
> 
> Now, get busy with the rationalizations and blame-those-greedy-plaintiffs'-lawyers obfuscations. I can't wait to hear them.


32R&R: LOL. You really ought ot do something about all that rage you have built up in you...it's just not healthy! Rather than a legal defense fund for Coach Paterno, perhaps we should take aup a collection to get you some help. I could send you my old copy of Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance....a very calming read, if I might say so!


----------



## 32rollandrock

Due respect, you're a blowhard. It's too bad the folks who shot at you didn't have better aims, if, in fact, anyone took a shot at you at all. Me thinketh you braggeth too much to be taken seriously--you probably own a great-big pickup truck, too. So get your John Wayne wanna-be butt to a couch. And if you did, in fact, suffer all those wounds, it's likely because you acted the way you've acted on this thread--someone tried to shoot you because, as they say in Texas, he needed killing.

Wow, the Air Force. Glad you didn't wuss out and join some limp-wrist outfit like the Marines.

Cut the you-know-what about what you woulda done. You don't know. You can't know. You weren't there. All you can do now is sing JoePa's praises and say you're better than everyone else when, so far as I can tell, you're just an ignorant braggart and ass.

Am I outraged at the things you've said? You bet. Some things are worth getting outraged over, and remarks such as yours on a forum where I've come to expect intelligent discussion makes it all the more disappointing. Freakin' pathetic.



eagle2250 said:


> Regillus and JDC: Count me as the second poster who would have definitely reacted. Having retired with almost 31 years in the USAF (12 active duty and 19 in the reserves) and just short of 32 years (includes a buy back of the 12 years active duty USAF time) in law enforcement with the Federal Govt., I have no doubt that I would have done all in my power to stop the assault. Shrapnel scars just below the jaw bone on the right side of my neck and on my left calf, just below the knee; a five inch scar on my left forearm where a bad guy cut me with a straight razor and an inch and a half scar at the base of the thumb on my right hand, where a bad guy tried to wack it off with a buck knife on the 9th Street Plaza of the Federal Building in Cleveland, OH; and a small caliber GSW scar on my upper right thigh would all seem to attest to the fact that I am one to get involved! Frankly I'm convinced that at least 98 out of the 100 people in the sample JDC referred to would have aggressively interceded. Just thinkin
> 
> 32R&R: LOL. You really ought ot do something about all that rage you have built up in you...it's just not healthy! Rather than a legal defense fund for Coach Paterno, perhaps we should take aup a collection to get you some help. I could send you my old copy of Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance....a very calming read, if I might say so!


----------



## JDC

eagle2250 said:


> Regillus and JDC: Count me as the second poster who would have definitely reacted. Having retired with almost 31 years in the USAF (12 active duty and 19 in the reserves) and just short of 32 years (includes a buy back of the 12 years active duty USAF time) in law enforcement with the Federal Govt., I have no doubt that I would have done all in my power to stop the assault. Shrapnel scars just below the jaw bone on the right side of my neck and on my left calf, just below the knee; a five inch scar on my left forearm where a bad guy cut me with a straight razor and an inch and a half scar at the base of the thumb on my right hand, where a bad guy tried to wack it off with a buck knife on the 9th Street Plaza of the Federal Building in Cleveland, OH; and a small caliber GSW scar on my upper right thigh would all seem to attest to the fact that I am one to get involved! Frankly I'm convinced that at least 98 out of the 100 people in the sample JDC referred to would have aggressively interceded. Just thinkin


You keep missing my point: show your war scars in any court of law, the judge will first thank you for your service to humanity, then inform you that your claim about what you (or Regillus, MrKleen, or anyone) "definitely would have" done is absolute conjecture. Unless you were actually there you don't know for sure. Period.


----------



## Regillus

JDC said:


> You keep missing my point: show your war scars in any court of law, the judge will first thank you for your service to humanity, then inform you that your claim about what you (or Regillus, MrKleen, or anyone) "definitely would have" done is absolute conjecture. Unless you were actually there you don't know for sure. Period.


And the judge would be absolutely wrong. I know what I would have done. No conjecture to it. I don't have to be in every possible situation to know what I would have done. There's a procedure to follow. See a crime in progress, call 911 - minimum. If someones life is in danger or someone is being subjected to serious bodily harm you make your best judgement about what to do and act. And you ALWAYS protect children who are crying while being anally raped by an older man.

"You keep missing my point...." I understand your point perfectly. You keep pretending to know things that you don't know; i.e. how I would have acted.

Sandusky's been charged with 40 crimes. Costas did a great job of exposing him in his interview.

See https://bleacherreport.com/articles/941952-bob-costas-sandusky-interview-why-costas-questions-will-seal-villains-fateAnd the stonewalling and cover-up begins; 
From Slate:

"Late last week, the university's trustees announced they would conduct their own 'full and complete' investigation into the matter. The probe will be headed, though, by a man with a track record of protecting powerful institutions from the consequences of their inaction: the chairman and CEO of the Merck pharmaceutical company, Kenneth C. Frazier. A Penn State alum and Harvard-trained lawyer, Frazier is best known for his phenomenal success in defending a sordid chapter in Merck's recent past-its years-long silence about the safety problems of the popular painkiller Vioxx.

There are parallels between the situations at Merck and Penn State. Merck had a legal duty to warn patients that Vioxx could cause heart attacks, and Penn State had at the very least an ethical duty to tell police that Jerry Sandusky may be a pedophile. Neither institution fulfilled its responsibilities, with devastating consequences for those on the outside. According to research published in the Lancet, a British medical journal, Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 140,000 cases of serious heart disease in the United States before Merck withdrew the drug in 2004. Roughly one-half those cases ended in death.

Tens of thousands of former Vioxx users sued Merck after it withdrew the drug, alleging Vioxx had caused them to suffer heart attacks and strokes. Frazier, then the company's general counsel, declared Merck had done nothing wrong and refused to settle. 'We'll fight every case,' he declared, and hired top-flight law firms in several East Coast cities, in the South, in Chicago, and Los Angeles, as well as a prominent New York firm to coordinate the overall strategy. It took three years and $2 billion in legal expenses for Frazier's hard-nosed tactics to pay off. Merck settled in late 2007 for a relative pittance, resolving some 50,000 Vioxx cases for just under $5 billion. It was a far cry from the $25 billion to $50 billion in liability that analysts had predicted when Merck withdrew the drug."


----------



## eagle2250

32rollandrock said:


> Due respect, you're a blowhard. It's too bad the folks who shot at you didn't have better aims, if, in fact, anyone took a shot at you at all. Me thinketh you braggeth too much to be taken seriously--you probably own a great-big pickup truck, too. So get your John Wayne wanna-be butt to a couch. And if you did, in fact, suffer all those wounds, it's likely because you acted the way you've acted on this thread--someone tried to shoot you because, as they say in Texas, he needed killing.
> 
> Wow, the Air Force. Glad you didn't wuss out and join some limp-wrist outfit like the Marines.
> 
> Cut the you-know-what about what you woulda done. You don't know. You can't know. You weren't there. All you can do now is sing JoePa's praises and say you're better than everyone else when, so far as I can tell, you're just an ignorant braggart and ass.
> 
> Am I outraged at the things you've said? You bet. Some things are worth getting outraged over, and remarks such as yours on a forum where I've come to expect intelligent discussion makes it all the more disappointing. Freakin' pathetic.


32R&R: First knock it off with the derogatory and homophomic referrences to our military services. Those sorts of comments are unacceptable in these fora. Think or type what you will about me, but the membership of AAAC includes many veterans who have honorably served and quite frankly, they (even if not I) deserve better than that!

Secondly, I truely am befuddled by the apparent degree of your anger, indeed your apparent outrage, at what I have posted in this thread. I went back and reread this entire thread, to include my postings and the comments I have offered are all taken from public source news articles or are my interpretations of what was said in those articles and from the State of Pennsylvania's website revelations from the Grand Jury report of the Sandusky investigation. Many of my referrences have dealt with comments raised by others and while I have commented in contridiction to some of those comments/opinions offerd by others, I have not personally attacked or intentionally insulted any of the originators of those comments. However, in reference to one of your postings, I did respond with a reference to such as "the depraved rantings of a frustrated Illini fan." It was offered with humorous intent, hopefully to reduce the frustration that appeared to be building in these exchanges, but my reply could have been more clearly and less confrontationally written and if that is what served as the source of your outrage, I do appologize.

As for your comments to the effect that I am a "blowhard," that is you opinion and you certainly have a right to it. I have made no claims that are not based in fact (and LOL have the 'careers in a box' walls in my man cave/study to prove it). I take no undue pride in anything that my life represents at this point...it has just been, what it has been. These days the only vocational accomplishments I can claim would be a couple of days (make that nights!) of volunteer work at a men's homeless shelter and an additional day or so volunteering at a local food pantry (sounds pretty darn exciting, Huh!). Our grand kids seem pretty impressed with Papa and I can't think of a thing that means more to me than that at this point in my life, than that!

Do try to relax a bit and have a great day!


----------



## JDC

Totally unrelated comment: the above is one of the most admirable acts of moderator discipline I've seen in 30+ years. I think your attempt at humor went awry. Or awrong. Or whatever that word is.


----------



## Acct2000

32rollandrock said:


> Due respect, you're a blowhard. It's too bad the folks who shot at you didn't have better aims, if, in fact, anyone took a shot at you at all. Me thinketh you braggeth too much to be taken seriously--you probably own a great-big pickup truck, too. So get your John Wayne wanna-be butt to a couch. And if you did, in fact, suffer all those wounds, it's likely because you acted the way you've acted on this thread--someone tried to shoot you because, as they say in Texas, he needed killing.
> 
> Wow, the Air Force. Glad you didn't wuss out and join some limp-wrist outfit like the Marines.
> 
> Cut the you-know-what about what you woulda done. You don't know. You can't know. You weren't there. All you can do now is sing JoePa's praises and say you're better than everyone else when, so far as I can tell, you're just an ignorant braggart and ass.
> 
> Am I outraged at the things you've said? You bet. Some things are worth getting outraged over, and remarks such as yours on a forum where I've come to expect intelligent discussion makes it all the more disappointing. Freakin' pathetic.


Um, I'm not in agreement with Eagle about Paterno's firing, but I have met him and know him. He is telling the truth about his military and police experiences. Eagle has displayed a great deal of courage many times and does not deserve your personal attack.

Since Eagle did not infract you himself, I will leave this alone, but this is not the kind of behavior and posting we encourage on the site.


----------



## 32rollandrock

The point about Merck and Penn State is interesting. I'm hard-pressed to think of an example of an institution that did a self-investigation that didn't come out sugar coated (a college that knows it's going to get investigated, then blasted, by the NCAA for violations doesn't count), although that must surely have happened at some point.

As for what any of us would have done, at the risk of repeating myself, you need to check out the Stanford Prison Experiment. Honest, right-thinking folks who are absolutely positive that they would do the right thing end up not doing the right thing when the context shifts and they are in the middle of things. Heck, an entire nation--Germany--once did that.



Regillus said:


> And the judge would be absolutely wrong. I know what I would have done. No conjecture to it. I don't have to be in every possible situation to know what I would have done. There's a procedure to follow. See a crime in progress, call 911 - minimum. If someones life is in danger or someone is being subjected to serious bodily harm you make your best judgement about what to do and act. And you ALWAYS protect children who are crying while being anally raped by an older man.
> 
> "You keep missing my point...." I understand your point perfectly. You keep pretending to know things that you don't know; i.e. how I would have acted.
> 
> Sandusky's been charged with 40 crimes. Costas did a great job of exposing him in his interview.
> 
> See https://bleacherreport.com/articles/941952-bob-costas-sandusky-interview-why-costas-questions-will-seal-villains-fateAnd the stonewalling and cover-up begins;
> From Slate:
> 
> "Late last week, the university's trustees announced they would conduct their own 'full and complete' investigation into the matter. The probe will be headed, though, by a man with a track record of protecting powerful institutions from the consequences of their inaction: the chairman and CEO of the Merck pharmaceutical company, Kenneth C. Frazier. A Penn State alum and Harvard-trained lawyer, Frazier is best known for his phenomenal success in defending a sordid chapter in Merck's recent past-its years-long silence about the safety problems of the popular painkiller Vioxx.
> 
> There are parallels between the situations at Merck and Penn State. Merck had a legal duty to warn patients that Vioxx could cause heart attacks, and Penn State had at the very least an ethical duty to tell police that Jerry Sandusky may be a pedophile. Neither institution fulfilled its responsibilities, with devastating consequences for those on the outside. According to research published in the Lancet, a British medical journal, Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 140,000 cases of serious heart disease in the United States before Merck withdrew the drug in 2004. Roughly one-half those cases ended in death.
> 
> Tens of thousands of former Vioxx users sued Merck after it withdrew the drug, alleging Vioxx had caused them to suffer heart attacks and strokes. Frazier, then the company's general counsel, declared Merck had done nothing wrong and refused to settle. 'We'll fight every case,' he declared, and hired top-flight law firms in several East Coast cities, in the South, in Chicago, and Los Angeles, as well as a prominent New York firm to coordinate the overall strategy. It took three years and $2 billion in legal expenses for Frazier's hard-nosed tactics to pay off. Merck settled in late 2007 for a relative pittance, resolving some 50,000 Vioxx cases for just under $5 billion. It was a far cry from the $25 billion to $50 billion in liability that analysts had predicted when Merck withdrew the drug."


----------



## mrkleen

JDC said:


> Is it coincidental that both of the apparently most rabid Paterno haters in this thread are from Boston?


Why would anyone from Boston give two second thoughts to Joe Paterno?

Another nonsensical comment.


----------



## mrkleen

32rollandrock said:


> It's too bad the folks who shot at you didn't have better aims


One of the most over the top, disrespectful things I have ever read out here. Stay classy 32.


----------



## Jovan

The Interchange has sunk to new lows. I'm pretty disappointed in 32, as I usually like what he has to say on the Trad Forum.


----------



## sirchandler

UPDATE: According to McQueary he stopped the assault, reported this to the police, then reported it to Joe Pa. 

Joe Pa then reported it up the chain, and knew the report was given to the police. 

I'm having a hard time trying to understand what has happened in this story.


----------



## JDC

sirchandler said:


> UPDATE: According to McQueary he stopped the assault, reported this to the police, then reported it to Joe Pa.
> 
> Joe Pa then reported it up the chain, and knew the report was given to the police.
> 
> I'm having a hard time trying to understand what has happened in this story.


The plot thickens:

I'll be curious to see if this changes anyone's opinion of the Paterno firing.


----------



## sirchandler

JDC said:


> I'll be curious to see if this changes anyone's opinion of the Paterno firing.


Funny enough, I'd never even heard of Joe Paterno up until this incident, but then again I don't follow college sports.

Doesn't change my opinion. Firing Paterno, I think was the right thing to do.

It's a good thing McQueary did not catch Sandusky "late at night in the locker room after everyone's gone home" embezzling large sums of money from the team or he'd be in really big trouble.


----------



## JDC

This is looking increasingly like a Corbett/Noonan production (their explanation of the timing of this is worthy of any SNL sketch imo), and I think a teaspoon of digging might uncover the names Santorum and a few others. Give it a few days.


----------



## mrkleen

JDC said:


> The plot thickens:
> 
> I'll be curious to see if this changes anyone's opinion of the Paterno firing.


Does it change that fact that Sandusy was raping children in 1998 - and Paterno knew about it and let him keep his position on the faculty and his key to the PSU Football facilities?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
The Grand Jury investigation has been ongoing for an extended period of time and Paterno did appear on multiple occassions to provide testimony. It's pretty clear that he knew a storm was brewing and it certainly appears that he was taking some prepatory moves to reduce his vulnerability to personal harm, when the worst of the storm hit. It is certainly reasonable to assume selfish motivation based on such or to question why he didn't immediatly ban Sandusky from PSU's football facilities as he learned more about his (Sandusky's) alleged crimes, but keep in mind that people callled to testify before a grand jury, with a sensitive investigation ongoing, frequently have restrictions on what they can reveal or do after providing that testimony!

Again, I am not saying the Coach should not have been fired, but there may be at least partial explanations for his actions/inaction.


----------



## JDC

mrkleen said:


> Does it change that fact that Sandusy was raping children in 1998 - and Paterno knew about it and let him keep his position on the faculty and his key to the PSU Football facilities?


I'd be the last to claim Paterno was immune from CYA mode. It's a requirement of employment at any school, and disgustingly enough at most levels. But imo we should also be fair: in 1998 Paterno "knew" nothing, because he never witnessed anything first-hand and he had no formal complaints. I think it's ridiculous to expect any head coach would have the time to play morality detective with their assistant coaches in absence of any complaints.

Can you please answer a question honestly, and I'm not looking for a specific answer: what was your opinion of Joe Paterno prior to this story breaking?


----------



## mrkleen

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> The Grand Jury investigation has been ongoing for an extended period of time and Paterno did appear on multiple occassions to provide testimony. It's pretty clear that he knew a storm was brewing and it certainly appears that he was taking some prepatory moves to reduce his vulnerability to personal harm, when the worst of the storm hit. It is certainly reasonable to assume selfish motivation based on such or to question why he didn't immediatly ban Sandusky from PSU's football facilities as he learned more about his (Sandusky's) alleged crimes, but keep in mind that people callled to testify before a grand jury, with a sensitive investigation ongoing, frequently have restrictions on what they can reveal or do after providing that testimony!
> 
> Again, I am not saying the Coach should not have been fired, but there may be at least partial explanations for his actions/inaction.


The current grand jury investigation has nothing to do with the actions which transpired in 1998 and caused Sandusky to step down on 1999. The guy who was groomed to take over for Paterno - stepped down 12 years ago and you think Paterno has a leg to stand on?

If Joe Pa had gone public with the allegations in 1998 when they first were reported, Sandusky would be in jail and scores of young people would have been spared his evil indiscretions. There is NO EXCUSE for Paterno letting this go on after 1998, and what happened in his locker room in 2002 is DIRECTLY due in part to his inaction 12 years earlier.


----------



## mrkleen

JDC said:


> in 1998 Paterno "knew" nothing, because he never witnessed anything first-hand and he had no formal complaints.


That is flat WRONG. He was fully informed of what happened, he was interviewed by the District Attorney, AND he asked for Jerry Sandusky's resignation. In what alternate universe can you do all that and "know nothing" of what was happening?



JDC said:


> I think it's ridiculous to expect any head coach would have the time to play morality detective with their assistant coaches in absence of any complaints.


Again, you are speaking without bothering to read the transcripts of the Grand Jury nor any of the accounts from the 1998 investigation. Do you honestly think his friend of more than 30 years - who was personally groomed to take over as PSU coach someday, resigned over a sex scandal and Joe Pa was unaware of the details? Give me a break.



JDC said:


> Can you please answer a question honestly, and I'm not looking for a specific answer: what was your opinion of Joe Paterno prior to this story breaking?


 Before this, I thought Joe Paterno was a great coach, who's was larger than life and whose time has long passed&#8230;.he should have stepped down years ago. Personally, I don't know the guy - so I cant speak to his attitude, character etc.

But not sure how that has ANY relevance to this discussion. Someone that he managed, raped numerous children and he turned a blind eye to it. THAT says it all.


----------



## JDC

mrkleen said:


> That is flat WRONG. He was fully informed of what happened, he was interviewed by the District Attorney, AND he asked for Jerry Sandusky's resignation


Thank you.


----------



## eagle2250

mrkleen said:


> The current grand jury investigation has nothing to do with the actions which transpired in 1998 and caused Sandusky to step down on 1999. The guy who was groomed to take over for Paterno - stepped down 12 years ago and you think Paterno has a leg to stand on?
> 
> If Joe Pa had gone public with the allegations in 1998 when they first were reported, Sandusky would be in jail and scores of young people would have been spared his evil indiscretions. There is NO EXCUSE for Paterno letting this go on after 1998, and what happened in his locker room in 2002 is DIRECTLY due in part to his inaction 12 years earlier.


Sorry. I had read a news article earlier today that revealed some realestate and estate planning moves that Joe Paterno had completed this past summer that might have a limiting impact on his personal liability in a civil action! I guess I got my referrence confused in my earlier post and my comments in the post you commented on were in response to what was contained in that article. Sorry about that!


----------



## 32rollandrock

I do not appreciate it when someone's first comment in response to a post I (or anyone else, for that matter) has made is "this is complete BS." That, in my view, is poor manners. Secondly, I, obviously strongly, disagree with what I see as Eagle's minimizing of a dead-serious subject, to wit, that Paterno et al should be let off the hook because Sandusky didn't come clean. My lord: Didn't anyone think to speak with the boy in question before going on their merry ways? And this chest-thumping about how things would have gone differently if only I had been present seems, at best, overly self-promotional and dismissive of the realities of the situation. It is, essentially, saying that everyone involved in the three incidents is less human, less of a man, than me. I find that distasteful. To his credit, Eagle did disclose that his status as a Penn State alum could color his opinions, and I think that has been the case.

This Penn State situation can provoke strong emotions, and I plead guilty. It rubbed me the wrong way when Eagle's first response to my posting began as an ill-advised-for-the-situation reference to Illinis vs. Nittany Lions (and, again, I'm not an Illini fan, I just happen to live in Illinois). That, I thought, was wholly inappropriate given the subject matter. There is no room here, I think, for remarks about what teams are worth rooting for. It's my opinion that what happened at Penn State would not have happened if college football had not eclipsed value systems throughout the nation, but that's what has happened. Penn State is just the latest, and by far ugliest, chapter.

Finally, I value the decorum practiced on the forum and will strive to comport myself with this value system in the future.



Jovan said:


> The Interchange has sunk to new lows. I'm pretty disappointed in 32, as I usually like what he has to say on the Trad Forum.


----------



## JDC

32rollandrock said:


> Penn State is just the latest, and by far ugliest, chapter.


Maybe latest, unfortunately it's far from the ugliest. No one in this thread has yet justified or even explained why Paterno is being held to a higher standard of morality and conduct than even Catholic priests. He reported (eventually) his child molesters, the RCC has been shuffling and protecting theirs for centuries.


----------



## Bjorn

JDC said:


> Maybe latest, unfortunately it's far from the ugliest. No one in this thread has yet justified or even explained why Paterno is being held to a higher standard of morality and conduct than even Catholic priests. He reported (eventually) his child molesters, the RCC has been shuffling and protecting theirs for centuries.


You don't believe in giving managers the sack when a situation has gotten out of hand? No matter the legal side, there's a reason that top managers earn more money. They have to take responsibility. Part of taking responsibility is getting sacked when a situation that should have been managed was not, and the results threaten the organisation.

I agree that churches should comply and assist law enforcement and ensure that criminal law is upheld. But so should football coaches.

If it was the janitors getting sacked, I could sympathise with your viewpoint. But Penn has not 'adopted' there football coach. He is paid a salary, and may be asked to leave and not be paid anymore at their discretion.

Also, if behavioural ethical and moral conduct is below standards in the world of pro and university sports (which I am of the opinion it is) then sacking a head coach would be in line with changing that, would it not? Punishing bad behaviour, sycophancy and raising the bar for what is ok (and perhaps getting a reality check as far as what sports 'should' mean in the academic world) seems healthy.

For a manager in this situation it's not a matter of asking 'why should he be sacked' but rather 'why shouldn't he be sacked'. If you are in charge, the bar is higher.


----------



## Acct2000

JDC said:


> Maybe latest, unfortunately it's far from the ugliest. No one in this thread has yet justified or even explained why Paterno is being held to a higher standard of morality and conduct than even Catholic priests. He reported (eventually) his child molesters, the RCC has been shuffling and protecting theirs for centuries.


I'm pretty sure 32RollandRock was saying this is the ugliest incident ever in College Football. I agree that I can not think of anything worse.


----------



## JDC

Bjorn said:


> You don't believe in giving managers the sack when a situation has gotten out of hand?


Define out of hand. Paterno immediately forwarded the only formal complaint he ever got on Sandusky, and aside from that it was CYA time like everyone else. As I mentioned earlier I think this adds up to a near-perfect hot button: who wouldn't come charging out with both guns against child molestation? And yet none of us were there, in fact none of us even knew McQueary was claiming he had in fact stopped the assault and contacted police. It's absolute conjecture based on near absolute ignorance.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Yes, that's right. I meant college football, and would extend this to other inter-collegiate sports.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm pretty sure 32RollandRock was saying this is the ugliest incident ever in College Football. I agree that I can not think of anything worse.


----------



## arkirshner

Interesting that the prosecutor did not make the indictments public until after Coach P set the all time record for most wins in a career.


----------



## 32rollandrock

This just in, and in my estimation, pretty damning stuff, about Penn State's institutional culpability. An excerpt:

State College is a close-knit community. Word would get around that a Penn State coach had met with investigators. So investigators set up a meeting in an out-of-the-way parking lot, according to those with knowledge of the case.There, one day a little over a year ago, McQueary unburdened himself, the two people said. He needed little prompting.

The full story:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/...posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html?hp​


----------



## mr.v

32rollandrock said:


> Finally, I value the decorum practiced on the forum and will strive to comport myself with this value system in the future.


i was moved by jovan's way of reaching out to 32, and i was happy to read 32's response. well done


----------



## Regillus

32rollandrock said:


> ...As for what any of us would have done, at the risk of repeating myself, you need to check out the Stanford Prison Experiment. Honest, right-thinking folks who are absolutely positive that they would do the right thing end up not doing the right thing when the context shifts and they are in the middle of things. Heck, an entire nation--Germany--once did that.


Ah, but not everyone. Don't forget the White Rose and von Stauffenberg.

Did you watch "Sophie Scholl"?

BTW I did read about the Stanford Prison Experiment in college, and the one about giving electric shocks to people (the Milgram Experiment).

Godwin was right.:icon_study:


----------



## JDC

32rollandrock said:


> This just in, and in my estimation, pretty damning stuff, about Penn State's institutional culpability. An excerpt:
> 
> State College is a close-knit community. Word would get around that a Penn State coach had met with investigators. So investigators set up a meeting in an out-of-the-way parking lot, according to those with knowledge of the case.There, one day a little over a year ago, McQueary unburdened himself, the two people said. He needed little prompting.
> 
> The full story:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/...posting-helped-sandusky-investigators.html?hp​


Great article, 32. Thanks. Two things caught my eye:

"The district attorney in Centre County, where Sandusky was alleged to have molested the boy, passed the case on to the attorney general. The district attorney, Michael Madeira, said Wednesday that his wife's biological brother had been adopted by Sandusky years before.

But prosecutors, lacking physical evidence of an assault, worried about the fortunes of a case that might end up with little more than competing claims - by the boy and by Sandusky.

"You can charge it, but getting a conviction is going to be difficult," said one person with direct knowledge of the deliberations among prosecutors. "And getting a conviction in State College against someone of Jerry Sandusky's stature is going to be 10 times more difficult."

...so let's fire Paterno? I still don't get it. Wait, I think I do. Also this:

"You have to understand those statements in context - there is nothing that happens at State College that Joe Paterno doesn't know, or that Graham Spanier doesn't know," one person involved in the investigation said."

The above is a self-evident lie, told by "one person involved in the investigation". And why is the focus on whether Paterno knew about the investigation, instead of the investigation itself? Good grief, Sandusky was adopted family to the prosecutor!


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> You don't believe in giving managers the sack when a situation has gotten out of hand? No matter the legal side, there's a reason that top managers earn more money. They have to take responsibility. Part of taking responsibility is getting sacked when a situation that should have been managed was not, and the results threaten the organisation.


So the entire Board of directors at the college should be gone and not just Coach P. If we're going to use that argument, USE that argument.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JDC said:


> And why is the focus on whether Paterno knew about the investigation, instead of the investigation itself? Good grief, Sandusky was virtual family to the prosecutors!


There will be more.

The more culpable will keep deflecting!!


----------



## JDC

It ain't so, Joe.

If the phrase has never been coined (highly doubtful) I hereby do so.


----------



## mrkleen

JDC said:


> And yet none of us were there, in fact none of us even knew McQueary was claiming he had in fact stopped the assault and contacted police. It's absolute conjecture based on near absolute ignorance.


Have you READ the grand jury transcript?

You are going to sit here and tell us that dozens of people LIED UNDER OATH to make Sandusky look bad?

Right.


----------



## JDC

mrkleen said:


> Have you READ the grand jury transcript?
> 
> You are going to sit here and tell us that dozens of people LIED UNDER OATH to make Sandusky look bad?
> 
> Right.


Of course not. But it seems your "buck stops here" theory about Paterno is out the window. One of Sandusky's long-term "adoptions" was a brother of the prosecutor's wife. So if you'd like to know why Sandusky had access to the campus after 2002 (in fact, after 1998) you'll need to ask them not Paterno.


----------



## mrkleen

JDC said:


> Of course not. But it seems your "buck stops here" theory about Paterno is out the window. One of Sandusky's long-term "adoptions" was a brother of the prosecutor's wife. So if you'd like to know why Sandusky had access to the campus after 2002 (in fact, after 1998) you'll need to ask them not Paterno.


So now the DA has more pull on the PSU campus then Joe Paterno? LOL

ANYONE that Paterno wanted off that campus, would have been gone. Anyone that he didnt want to explicitly have access to his locker room and showers - would be gone. To suggest otherwise is beyond ridiculous

Sandusky was forced to "retire" in 1999 - everyone INCLUDING Joe Paterno knew why. For Joe Pa to allow him to continue to have keys to areas of the sports facilities 3 years later shows his inaction makes him incompetent and complicit in the rapes that took place on his campus in HIS showers.


----------



## JDC

mrkleen said:


> So now the DA has more pull on the PSU campus then Joe Paterno? LOL
> 
> ANYONE that Paterno wanted off that campus, would have been gone. Anyone that he didnt want to explicitly have access to his locker room and showers - would be gone. To suggest otherwise is beyond ridiculous
> 
> Sandusky was forced to "retire" in 1999 - everyone INCLUDING Joe Paterno knew why. For Joe Pa to allow him to continue to have keys to areas of the sports facilities 3 years later shows his inaction makes him incompetent and complicit in the rapes that took place on his campus in HIS showers.


You just don't get it. Paterno is not a law enforcement official and had no hiring/firing power over Sandusky. Paterno asked for Sandusky's resignation and did not receive it. What more, specifically, do you think he should have done? You must fancy yourself one heck of a hero.


----------



## Acct2000

No, JDC, you just don't get it.

Paterno could easily have put a stop to all this. He was so popular on that campus, that he could almost certainly have gotten his way with the trustees or anyone in that area by threatening to publicly resign and "tell who upset him."

He would be able to count on a public backlash so he could get what he wanted (barring something this extreme, like a pedophilia scandal, I suppose.)

Other famous big-time coaches have used this tactic to get (in their mind) meddlesome Athletic Directors and Presidents removed. Michigan State University had one that was only marginally famous and he was able to topple a University President after just one trip to the Rose Bowl in the 1980s.

At this point, JDC, I honestly think you are just seeking attention and rabble-rousing; on this issue you are too avant-garde for even some of our more liberal posters.


----------



## JDC

Forsberg, it's been repeatedly mentioned that would haves and could haves are conjecture.

And I stand by my Nazi Germany analogy to this whole affair. I haven't been this embarrassed for my country since we denied entry to Cat Stevens.


----------



## Acct2000

I stand by my post. You will notice I avoided the word "troll". I have no intention of doing anything as a moderator.

Carry on pretending that you can't see the obvious; I'll leave others to spar with you.


----------



## mrkleen

JDC said:


> You just don't get it. Paterno is not a law enforcement official and had no hiring/firing power over Sandusky. Paterno asked for Sandusky's resignation and did not receive it. What more, specifically, do you think he should have done? You must fancy yourself one heck of a hero.


You dont even know the story you are standing up on a soap box defending. So sad.

Sandusky DID resign in 1999. At that time he was Joe Paterno's Offensive Coordinator. In what world does the head coach not have hiring / firing power over his staff? You have no clue what you are talking about

Joe Paterno was the BOSS of the PSU football program. A person who was his lifelong friend was forced out due to molestation charges yet Joe Paterno allowed him to keep a key and keep access to his team's practice areas and locker room for 13 YEARS - are you kidding me?

You dont have to be a hero to stand up and say that raping a child is a sick and heinous crime. Guess you were absent the day they were teaching morality.


----------



## Acct2000

Mrkleen, I believe in what you were saying. However, Sandusky was the Defensive Coordinator. (Nit-picking, I know.) Everything else you said was right on.


----------



## mrkleen

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Mrkleen, I believe in what you were saying. However, Sandusky was the Defensive Coordinator. (Nit-picking, I know.) Everything else you said was right on.


I stand corrected. I should know that, because that was around the time the PSU was called "Linebacker U".

Come to think of it, why haven't any of his ex players come to his aid?

The lack of past players stepping up to defend Jerry Sandusky is deafening


----------



## JDC

mrkleen said:


> You dont even know the story you are standing up on a soap box defending. So sad.
> 
> Sandusky DID resign in 1999. At that time he was Joe Paterno's Offensive Coordinator. In what world does the head coach not have hiring / firing power over his staff? You have no clue what you are talking about
> 
> Joe Paterno was the BOSS of the PSU football program. A person who was his lifelong friend was forced out due to molestation charges yet Joe Paterno allowed him to keep a key and keep access to his team's practice areas and locker room for 13 YEARS - are you kidding me?
> 
> You dont have to be a hero to stand up and say that raping a child is a sick and heinous crime. Guess you were absent the day they were teaching morality.


Again with the deliberate misrepresentation. Who wouldn't stand up and say that?

Look guys, with all due respect this story continues to change almost by the hour, but MrKleen, Forsberg and others have already made their decisions about it. Ok. We're all learning here. So can I ask, why did none of us know McQueary is claiming he had stopped the assault and contacted police in 2002? Does this differ from what he's claimed before?


----------



## Acct2000

Until a day or two ago, only McQueary knew this IF he's telling the truth now. We don't know. We do know that Sandusky had access to most of his privileges even after 2002.

(As I kick myself for being drawn back into your little web.)


----------



## JDC

Forsberg, thank you. I'm sincerely trying to gauge Paterno's culpability like (most) everyone else, and so far I think the headrolling decisions made by Penn State are right on, except for Paterno. Last I heard McQueary is on administrative leave, which I also don't understand -- if he contacted police in 2002. That's where it's at imo.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Actually, Matt Millen came close to defending Paterno early on in an ESPN broadcast, essentially saying let's wait for all the facts. At one point, he wept. Said he couldn't imagine Sandusky diddling kids and opined that Paterno had to be thinking the same thing. He also said good things, such as this is about human beings, which is more important than football. Clearly, he was shaken up and torn.



mrkleen said:


> I stand corrected. I should know that, because that was around the time the PSU was called "Linebacker U".
> 
> Come to think of it, why haven't any of his ex players come to his aid?
> 
> The lack of past players stepping up to defend Jerry Sandusky is deafening


----------



## mrkleen

JDC said:


> Again with the deliberate misrepresentation. Who wouldn't stand up and say that?
> 
> Look guys, with all due respect this story continues to change almost by the hour, but MrKleen, Forsberg and others have already made their decisions about it. Ok. We're all learning here. So can I ask, why did none of us know McQueary is claiming he had stopped the assault and contacted police in 2002? Does this differ from what he's claimed before?


You are a joke JDC. You are the one that said Paterno had no direct hiring / firing power....I showed you to be wrong. No Response from you

I asked you how you let a known child molester keep a key to your locker room - No response from you.

As for this latest back peddle from McQuery, he is a liar too and should be the next one to lose his job.

The chief of the PSU campus police, the chief of the Happy Valley Police, and the Chief of the PA State Police have all said HE DID NOT report the incident to them. In fact, if he did report it to them...then he lied to the grand jury. But of course you already know that since you read the Grand Jury transcript.


----------



## mrkleen

32rollandrock said:


> Actually, Matt Millen came close to defending Paterno early on in an ESPN broadcast, essentially saying let's wait for all the facts. At one point, he wept. Said he couldn't imagine Sandusky diddling kids and opined that Paterno had to be thinking the same thing. He also said good things, such as this is about human beings, which is more important than football. Clearly, he was shaken up and torn.


So one guy....out of how many thousands?

If anyone on this board was accused of such a heinous act, I can guarantee you that EVERY ONE of your friends would coming running to your aid. The fact that so few have done that for Sandusky says is all.


----------



## JDC

MrKleen, again time will tell who's hating here unjustifiably. In the meantime what would happen if I had called you a joke?

Here's a bottom line for you: until one of you (ok, other than WouldaShoulda) can muster some kind of response as to why the focus should be on Paterno, when Sandusky's prosecutor was his FREAKING FAMILY, I'm absolutely done here. Because if I don't force myself to stop it'll likely end anyway.


----------



## mrkleen

JDC said:


> MrKleen, again time will tell who's hating here unjustifiably. In the meantime what would happen if I had called you a joke?


 What makes you a joke is you make a claim&#8230;.people show you that your claim is wrong - and instead of defending your original claim, you just move on to make more claims.



JDC said:


> Here's a bottom line for you: until one of you (ok, other than WouldaShoulda) can muster some kind of response as to why the focus should be on Paterno, when Sandusky's prosecutor was his FREAKING FAMILY, I'm absolutely done here. Because if I don't force myself to stop it'll likely end anyway.


Show me ONE POST here where people are saying Paterno's inaction is the focus "above" what Sandusky did? You wont be able to find one.

The point is that Paterno was an enabler to Sandusky and his sexual deviance. He aided and abetted the guy by his inaction, yet now is trying to play the holier than thou - I am Joe Pa card&#8230;which is BS.

No one thinks that Paterno standing on the sidelines while Sandusky used his locker room to rape kids - is as bad as the guy who did the actually acts. But to suggest that Paterno is not a big part of the problem is moronic.


----------



## mrkleen

JDC said:


> I would give anything to get you in a court of law. Good lord almighty the only thing worse than unfocused hatred is focused hatred, and the issue of child molestation hits home to a lot of people. Eleven years experience here just for the record. I'd appreciate y'all bearing it in mind when calling me a joke.


A court of law. You cant even defend your positions here. Yeah, I bet you would just outwitt us all. LOL

Maybe you should go represent Sandusky. Clearly his attorney needs a little help after that Bob Costas fiasco the other night.


----------



## JDC

Thanks for the charity. I'm wondering if Andy has any feeling on this thread.


----------



## 32rollandrock

This will be interesting:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/...-same-tough-call-well-not-quite.html?_r=1&hpw

I strongly suspect that the Yale coach will be dismissed forthwith. Which goes to show the difference between true college sports and the money-is-everything monstrosity that Division One has become.


----------



## Acct2000

It's a shame about the Yale coach. Although, if you are at all prominent, it is so easy to Google anything nowadays, that I can't see why anyone would even try such a fabrication.


----------



## 32rollandrock

So right. My guess is, he'll be allowed to coach The Game and then shown the door.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> It's a shame about the Yale coach. Although, if you are at all prominent, it is so easy to Google anything nowadays, that I can't see why anyone would even try such a fabrication.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC

Some would say that 11 years as a laywer means you are just a puppy. Remember that, and not to forget the counsel of your senior partners. Most senior lawyers I know are far more calm, courteous and reserved than the puppies, and that's not just old age. They all realize that it works better. Perhaps there's a lesson there.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Excuse me while I throw up:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/...-assistant-is-accused-of-sexual-abuse.html?hp


----------



## JDC

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Some would say that 11 years as a laywer


That's not what I said, or meant. Which seems to be a consistent theme in this thread. I keep extending a hand of civility or levity to MrKleen and others, it keeps being summarily bitten. I even tried PMs, nada. It's like being stuck in a lesser (much lesser) Twilight Zone episode.. What is wrong with you people?

It's been disclosed Sandusky's prosecutor was also his family. So tell us what options Paterno, any of us or anyone else had in that situation. I dare to bring that point up and voila, I'm "rabble rousing" and trolling.


----------



## JDC

32rollandrock said:


> Excuse me while I throw up:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/...-assistant-is-accused-of-sexual-abuse.html?hp


From the article:

"I've known Bernie Fine for 45 years, and there's absolutely no way that I believe any of this could possibly have happened," he said. "That's the bottom line."

This "bottom line", "absolutely" conjecture works both ways.


----------



## eagle2250

32rollandrock said:


> Excuse me while I throw up:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/...-assistant-is-accused-of-sexual-abuse.html?hp





JDC said:


> From the article:
> 
> "I've known Bernie Fine for 45 years, and there's absolutely no way that I believe any of this could possibly have happened," he said. "That's the bottom line."
> 
> This "bottom line", "absolutely" conjecture works both ways.


JDC makes an excellent point, by the example he cites form the article. It's all too easy to just jump on the band wagon and load in with the lynch mob mentality that seems to have taken over in this thread as well as throughout the natioal media. Just yesterday Sarah Pailin stated publicly that Jerry Sandusky should be hung by the neck (until dead?) and that she would bring the rope. Dosen't that strike any of you as irresponsible. As noted by at least two (somewhat more mature/responsible) journalists is other articles, many in the media and of our citizenry seem to have forgotten that Sandusky has yet to see the inside of a courtroom to address the charges against him. Yes, even I am pretty certain he will be found guilty on at least some of the charges, but, even the Pennsylvania State Police and the State Attorney General have screened out several of the accusers against Sandusky and one of the accusers whose claims were found to have lacked foundation was interviewed on national TV the other night. Others will fall out during the trial process. Even though he will be convicted (though at this point none of us know which specific charges), is this what we consider responsible journalism or due process these days? Are defendants no longer considered innocent until proven guilty?

Just because so many of us were frustrated high school jocks, who couldn't make the cut to play in college sports and consequently hate the very idea of atheltics being in the college experience, does that give us the right to discount the countless positive accomplishments incorporated in the 61 year body of work represented by a man's life work. Gosh, I hope not...that is certainly not what I was taught that this country stood for! Hell, I guess that's what we call social progress, in todays world!


----------



## JDC

Thanks Eagle. I'm through making points in this particular thread, because what I did here amounted to thread-shitting, or whatever the current term for that is. MrKleen started a discussion about how Penn State's students were protesting.

Apologies all around. I'll read a lot more first before participating.

"Even though he will be convicted (though at this point none of us know which specific charges)"

Legally you need to rephrase that imo. Quickly. Or else never read our Constitution again.  (Joke, it's a joke, like me.)


----------



## The Rambler

A good note on which to lay this thread to rest. Amazing how the ugliness of the (alleged) deed has spread contamination. "Gone viral," as they say.


----------



## mrkleen

eagle2250 said:


> Just because so many of us were frustrated high school jocks, who couldn't make the cut to play in college sports and consequently hate the very idea of atheltics being in the college experience, does that give us the right to discount the countless positive accomplishments incorporated in the 61 year body of work represented by a man's life work. Gosh, I hope not...that is certainly not what I was taught that this country stood for! Hell, I guess that's what we call social progress, in todays world!


If anyone tarnished Paterno's legacy - it was Joe Pa himself. The moment you put the friendship of a child molester over the well being of defenseless children, your legacy is destroyed.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Mrkleen: I'm wasting my breath, or wearing out my poor fingertips (considering that this is cyber-space) without any hope of making my point to you and several others, but JoePa and Jerry Sandusky were not considered very close (as friends). Indeed, Sandusky, on multiple occassions, expressed substantial frustration...yes even anger...over Paternos "stubborn unwillingness to hang it up adn move on." I seriously doubt there are any grounds on which to base an assertion that Coach Paterno failed to take action against Sandusky, based on friendship. However, you are right...JoePa's legacy is terribly damaged, if not totally destroyed, regardless of the reason.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Here's a modest proposal:

Eliminate athletic scholarships. The Ivy League has no athletic scholarships, but what do they know about education?


----------



## sirchandler

32rollandrock said:


> Here's a modest proposal:
> 
> Eliminate athletic scholarships. The Ivy League has no athletic scholarships, but what do they know about education?


"STOP CHILD ABUSE - ELIMINATE ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS"

Classic!


----------



## Acct2000

Wow, can you imagine if Paterno had retired and Sandusky been promoted?? Yikes!!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

sirchandler said:


> "STOP CHILD ABUSE - ELIMINATE ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS"
> 
> Classic!


It would also have the added benefit of decreasing departmental income disparity.

Sure, there would be no more money for the English, Poly Sci, or Women's Studies, but at least Big Sports won't get theirs!!


----------



## 32rollandrock

Actually, it makes sense, at least in the instant case. No athletic scholarships=no elevation-of-coach-to-God-status=no-culture-of-secrecy-to-keep-program-looking-good-to-keep-money-rolling.

Or, more simply put, if athletics were put in the proper perspective and scholarships were based on financial need and intellectual ability instead of who can run the fastest 40-yard-dash, this thread wouldn't exist and Sandusky would have been in jail a long time ago.



sirchandler said:


> "STOP CHILD ABUSE - ELIMINATE ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS"
> 
> Classic!


----------



## sirchandler

32rollandrock said:


> Actually, it makes sense, at least in the instant case. No athletic scholarships=no elevation-of-coach-to-God-status=no-culture-of-secrecy-to-keep-program-looking-good-to-keep-money-rolling.
> 
> Or, more simply put, if athletics were put in the proper perspective and scholarships were based on financial need and intellectual ability instead of who can run the fastest 40-yard-dash, this thread wouldn't exist and Sandusky would have been in jail a long time ago.


Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Bjorn

32rollandrock said:


> Here's a modest proposal:
> 
> Eliminate athletic scholarships. The Ivy League has no athletic scholarships, but what do they know about education?


The purpose of higher education is higher education. I don't really get the point of athletic scholarships. We don't have them in Sweden. But then we don't have 'college' as an intermediary between university education and basic education. I'm not sure I understand exactly how that works.

Of course, for some educations an active performing role in sports is a merit. As well as for jobs.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> The purpose of higher education is higher education. I don't really get the point of athletic scholarships. We don't have them in Sweden. But then we don't have 'college' as an intermediary between university education and basic education. I'm not sure I understand exactly how that works.
> 
> Of course, for some educations an active performing role in sports is a merit. As well as for jobs.


College isn't "intermediary" education between University and Standard education. It's just a term we use for Higher Education schools that don't offer "Post graduate" studies. It's the standard degree conferal program in the US. Masters Degrees & Doctorates are *advanced* studies, which take place at Universities.

It's like going to Starbucks, and getting a coffee. The middle size is called a Grande (Large), and the one after that is a Venti (20). It's a matter of terminology.

The purpose of education is learning. Physical education is just another part of that. Should it have the dominance it does, in perception, no. But does it bring in the money it does, yes. Without money, no school.

Scholarships give the chance for someone to increase their education. There are race based scholarships. There are background base scholarships. There are merit based scholarships. Sports scholarships are just another form. If a group can give them out for community service, there is absolutely no reason why they can't be given out for sports.


----------



## sirchandler

Bjorn said:


> But then we don't have 'college' as an intermediary between university education and basic education..


'college' as an intermediary between uni and basic education I believe is the British definition.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> College isn't "intermediary" education between University and Standard education. It's just a term we use for Higher Education schools that don't offer "Post graduate" studies. It's the standard degree conferal program in the US. Masters Degrees & Doctorates are *advanced* studies, which take place at Universities.
> 
> It's like going to Starbucks, and getting a coffee. The middle size is called a Grande (Large), and the one after that is a Venti (20). It's a matter of terminology.
> 
> The purpose of education is learning. Physical education is just another part of that. Should it have the dominance it does, in perception, no. But does it bring in the money it does, yes. Without money, no school.
> 
> Scholarships give the chance for someone to increase their education. There are race based scholarships. There are background base scholarships. There are merit based scholarships. Sports scholarships are just another form. If a group can give them out for community service, there is absolutely no reason why they can't be given out for sports.


So I'm guessing it's anything up to a bachelors degree?

Higher education for me is physics, medicine, law, philosophy etc. Physical education it is not. You can play football, but it's not science.

There are alternative ways to fund higher education. I could say taxes but lets not go there 

I don't see the point of scholarships for community service either. Race scholarships can be debated, if higher education is free or really cheap. Otherwise they serve a purpose. The point of mixing sports with higher education is lost on me, unless it's an athletic college dealing specifically with research on sports and athletics etc. But to each his own, and it's good we don't do things the same way everywhere.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> So I'm guessing it's anything up to a bachelors degree?
> 
> Higher education for me is physics, medicine, law, philosophy etc. Physical education it is not. You can play football, but it's not science.
> 
> There are alternative ways to fund higher education. I could say taxes but lets not go there
> 
> I don't see the point of scholarships for community service either. Race scholarships can be debated, if higher education is free or really cheap. Otherwise they serve a purpose. The point of mixing sports with higher education is lost on me, unless it's an athletic college dealing specifically with research on sports and athletics etc. But to each his own, and it's good we don't do things the same way everywhere.


Exactly. Bachelors degree.

You mention the hard Sciences, Applied Sciences (Medicine), and even Philosophy. Sports is actually just as much a philosophy (keeping in mind that this is just a portion of their education) or an applied science. Keep in mind that Sports medicine would not be available without sports. We've had major advances in reconstructive surgery because of sports.

The idea of community service, and even sports at least when I was going through my standard education for determining scholarships was determining whether someone was "well rounded" or as a "tie breaker" between similar candidates.


----------



## JDC

For what it's worth, yesterday the NCAA pulled the Sandusky investigation from Penn State, because of the obvious conflict of interest that existed in 1998:



Please forward any future rabble rousing accusations directly to the NCAA.

From the article:

"I reviewed it and I made the decision it needed to be investigated further," Madeira told the AP in a phone interview. "But the apparent conflict of interest created an impediment for me to make those kinds of decisions."

If I understand English, that's a direct admission they not only didn't do their jobs, they were unable to.



I'll be first to predict Paterno will have his reputation returned to him (if he lives long enough -- he announced today he has lung cancer), unlike his former employer, the apparently entirely corrupt criminal justice system in Pennsylvania, or anyone imo who chooses to trample on our Constitution instead of follow it. As time goes on, and this is the other reason I brought up pre-war Germany, we find ourselves dealing with more and more people in that first group and fewer in the second, and it kills me to see this trickle down to people I otherwise respect very highly. Maybe it is the end of our country, to me at least this thread has proven it's the end (or something very close to it) of civility and constitutional law (including due process) in America.

Good grief I almost forgot: you'll never guess who had access to Penn State's campus as of today.

Sandusky was suspended "for the weekend". If you think I'm making this up, look it up. Paterno's been fired and Sandusky is STILL on campus. Someone please call the police. Oops, never mind. The police is his brother-in-law.


----------



## Regillus

JDC said:


> I'll be first to predict Paterno will have his reputation returned to him....


Paterno isn't getting his reputation back.

First, 23 Pa C.S. 6311 & 6313:

SUBCHAPTER B
PROVISIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
REPORTING SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE

Chapter Heading. The heading of Subchapter B was amended
December 16, 1994, P.L.1292, No.151, effective July 1, 1995.
§ 6311. Persons required to report suspected child abuse.
(a) General rule.--A person who, in the course of
employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into
contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made
in accordance with section 6313 (relating to reporting
procedure) when the person has reasonable cause to suspect, on
the basis of medical, professional or other training and
experience, that a child under the care, supervision, guidance
or training of that person or of an agency, institution,
organization or other entity with which that person is
affiliated is a victim of child abuse, including child abuse by
an individual who is not a perpetrator. Except with respect to
confidential communications made to a member of the clergy which
are protected under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5943 (relating to confidential
communications to clergymen), and except with respect to
confidential communications made to an attorney which are
protected by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5916 (relating to confidential
communications to attorney) or 5928 (relating to confidential
communications to attorney), the privileged communication
between any professional person required to report and the
patient or client of that person shall not apply to situations
involving child abuse and shall not constitute grounds for
failure to report as required by this chapter.
(b) Enumeration of persons required to report.--Persons
required to report under subsection (a) include, but are not
limited to, any licensed physician, osteopath, medical examiner,
coroner, funeral director, dentist, optometrist, chiropractor,
podiatrist, intern, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse,
hospital personnel engaged in the admission, examination, care
or treatment of persons, Christian Science practitioner, member
of the clergy, school administrator, school teacher, school
nurse, social services worker, day-care center worker or any
other child-care or foster-care worker, mental health
professional, peace officer or law enforcement official.
(c) Staff members of institutions, etc.--Whenever a person
is required to report under subsection (b) in the capacity as a
member of the staff of a medical or other public or private
institution, school, facility or agency, that person shall
immediately notify the person in charge of the institution,
school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person
in charge. Upon notification, the person in charge or the
designated agent, if any, shall assume the responsibility and
have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made
in accordance with section 6313. This chapter does not require
more than one report from any such institution, school, facility
or agency.
§ 6313. Reporting procedure.
(a) General rule.--Reports from persons required to report
under section 6311 (relating to persons required to report
suspected child abuse) shall be made immediately by telephone
and in writing within 48 hours after the oral report.
(b) Oral reports.--Oral reports shall be made to the
department pursuant to Subchapter C (relating to powers and
duties of department) and may be made to the appropriate county
agency. When oral reports of suspected child abuse are initially
received at the county agency, the protective services staff
shall, after seeing to the immediate safety of the child and
other children in the home, immediately notify the department of
the receipt of the report, which is to be held in the pending
complaint file as provided in Subchapter C. The initial child
abuse report summary shall be supplemented with a written report
when a determination is made as to whether a report of suspected
child abuse is a founded report, an unfounded report or an
indicated report.

(Note: The report must be made to the county child protective services office.)
------------------------------------------------------
From the grand jury report:

Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with *Joe Paterno* and Tim Curley, in which *Paterno reported "disturbing" and "inappropriate" conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him* *by a student or graduate student.* Schultz was present in a subsequent meeting with Curley when the graduate assistant reported the incident in the shower involving Sandusky and a boy. Schultz was very unsure about what he remembered the graduate assistant telling him and Curley about the shower incident. He testified that he had the impression that Sandusky might have inappropriately grabbed the young boy's genitals while wrestling and agreed that such was inappropriate sexual conduct between a man and a boy. While equivocating on the definition of "sexual" in the context of Sandusky wrestling with and grabbing the genitals of the boy, Schultz conceded that the report the graduate assistant made was of inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky. 
-----------------------------------
From (a) supra: "...shall report or cause a report to be made...."

So Paterno had a legal obligation to make sure that a report was made to county child protective services; which he didn't. That's why he was fired and why he lost his reputation. Paterno portrayed himself as an honorable man who looked out for the best interests of the young, and when he encountered a report of child rape in the shower room - he didn't follow the law and call protective services and the police immediately. He passed the report on, which was ok, but he had a legal responsibility to make sure county protective services knew about it, and he didn't.
---------------------------
From The Times Leader:

Harrisburg attorney Ben Andreozzi said he represents a client who will testify against Sandusky,....
--------------------------
So with one victim and McQueary, a witness, Sandusky's toast.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
JDC: While I think you may have overstated your conclusions somewhat, you do offer several very valid points that could and perhaps should be expanded upon. Specifically, let's focus on the Pennsylvania Department of Child Services. How many contributors to this thread have served as foster parents, within your respective comunities? How many of you have adopted children? In the interest of full disclosure, I have not (wouldn't want anyone to accuse me of being a liar!), but our youngest daughter and her husband have done both, in the State of Indiana. Do any of you realize the extent the background investigations/screening process goes to in these cases? Jerry Sandusky and his wife have done both, over the course of several decades. At least one news article pegged the number of children the Sanduskys had fostered at "more than thirty." Sandusky and his wife also adopted six children. In each case, might we reasonably assume criminal histories were run, background checks were conducted, unannounced home visits were a way of life in the foster home scenarios and up to the point that the adoptions were finalized? At least that is what the Pennsylvania laws/reulations require. We have been told by posters in this thread that there were at least two instances, prior to the 2002 incident in which Sandusky was investigated for pedophilic behavior, but prosecution was declined or policing authorities deny that reports were ever filed with them. 

Can we really not see how there just might be legitimate reason for Penn State authorities to tread cautiously in these waters of accusation against Sandusky, given the repeated and spotless bills of health multiple State regulatory agencies, agencies whose entire reason for being was/is safeguarding the welfare of children, had given the Sanduskys in the course of their apparent acts of humanity and societal goodwill that everyone assumed was characteristic of their core character? Take a moment, ratchet back your emotions and invest but a moments thought into this posibility. I think you are right JDC...when emotions die down and the legal proceedings are complete, I too think history will largely vindicate many of the PSU officials whose good names and reputations have been besmirched by this tragedy.

PS: Alas, one of the hazards of being a two finger typist...JDC you deleted your post while I was typing mine! You should have left it up!


----------



## JDC

Regilius, considering you've been one of the two main tramplers on our Constitution in this thread, right now I feel like Toto watching the last vestiges of Margaret Hamilton melt onto the floor. Any claims that Paterno (and anyone else at the college who didn't tell outright lies about Sandusky) "should have done more" have been rendered all but meaningless by this admission of the prosecutor. Or in other words, which "more" might have kept these kids from being allegedly molested, when the criminal justice system itself was corrupt? The prosecutor has just admitted going after Sandusky wasn't an option because of a conflict of interest, and never mind about the victims. How many complaints about Sandusky did they not follow through on over the years? The current number was three or four last I heard. Who do you think would have handled Paterno's complaint to county child protective services even if he had filed one?

If you expected Paterno or any football coach to forcibly intrude themselves into this situation, and between two members of somebody else's family, imo you've somehow managed to eclipse even MrKleen's levels of armchair heroism and Monday-morning quarterbacking.


----------



## JDC

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> JDC: While I think you may have overstated your conclusions somewhat


Eagle, I'm curious how you think these conclusions are overstated. I mean I'm not sure what's unclear about it. Prosecution wasn't an option, so what's Plan B? Start organizing public protests?

Tap. Tap. Tap. Let me tell you, if Sandusky is charged and convicted I'll personally write him off as one of the "smoothest" (what's the equivalent of that on the human garbage side? "slimiest" doesn't begin to cut it imo) operators ever. And if we're looking to assign blame for and explain how he allegedly was able to openly carry on with these kids after 1998, in public showers etc, and last I heard even continues to this day, can we please, PLEASE not first dive headlong into MrKleen's repeated but proven delusional image of Joe Paterno standing immediately next to a gym where children are being raped by Jerry Sandusky? Paterno is not even on campus any more and Sandusky is.

Uh, speaking of MrKleen, where'she been since these recent stories? I think I may have nailed a majorly nasty one if we don't hear from him again.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
JDC: Your question as to which of your comments/conclusions I think to be overstatements is fair enough and in respone:
1) I find your assessment of Regilius's offerings in this thread to constitute "trampling over our Constitution" to seem a bit of a broad brush approach to redressing an arguably finishing brush issue, sort of like killing a fly with a sledge hammer! 
2)Your terming the Pennsylavnia "criminal justice system as being corrupt" also is also a leap or two too extreme. Flawed, indeed. Self serving, perhaps. But I don't see that anyone has made an adequate case for it being termed corrupt!

Also, if you took the time to read my post, I think you might see that I am supporting the overall conclusion that you seem to be promoting. There is more than enough disconfirming information out there to raise questions as to the fairness of the actions taken against JoePa and other PSU officials to date. At the time Paterno and Curley, Shultz and Spannier made the decisions for which they are being castigated at this point in time, 99% or more of the feedback available was saying Sandusky was a law abiding, upstanding, public spirited and involved member of the community and a loving, dedicated parent of six adopted children to boot, all of whom (as far as I am aware) are proclaimimg their father's innocence. Considering that McQueary has changed his story on at least three occassions, It seems there is considerable doubt as to what he told Paterno, Curley and Schultz back in 2002. While he claims he reported the 2002 acts of Jerry Sandusky to the police, we cannot seem to find a police department that can recall of find copies of those reports. Typically, as seems to be the case with the present criticisms of this 360 degree cycle of human tragedy at Penn State, hindsight stands to improve all of our judgements! Such will certainly be the case when we look back upon the recent actions taken against Coach Paterno!


----------



## JDC

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> JDC: Your question as to which of your comments/conclusions I think to be overstatements is fair enough and in respone:
> 1) I find your assessment of Regilius's offerings in this thread to constitute "trampling over our Constitution" to seem a bit of a broad brush approach to redressing an arguably finishing brush issue, sort of like killing a fly with a sledge hammer!


Eagle, I appreciate and thank you for your support in this thread. I told Andy in a PM that imo it's riddled with what can only be called explicit and outright libel: imo it easily meets the required criteria for a defamation lawsuit from any bored attorney who stumbles on this forum. I don't give a flying fajita about my account here, my main concern is the legal liability the mods have (imo) opened Andy up to. I stated these concerns and Andy has made his decision.

Look, it's bad enough I was made fun of in this thread for being a victim of sexual abuse, or being called "a joke" (with apparent full blessings from both Andy and his mods) simply for being right in my claim that Paterno was not, in fact, "the bottom line" wrt Sandusky. It's not the first this has happened in the Interchange and hopefully it won't be the last.


----------



## Jovan

Where did you disclose that you were a victim of sexual abuse? I don't recall seeing that or people making fun of you for it.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #201: "For what it's worth, yesterday the NCAA pulled the Sandusky investigation from Penn State, because of the obvious conflict of interest that existed in 1998."

Eh? You linked to an article that doesn't say anything about the NCAA investigation. Oh I see. You're getting your articles mixed up. The second link is the NCAA investigation and it does not say that the investigation has been pulled. In fact it says:

From Fox Carolina; the 2nd link you posted:

"The NCAA in the letter asked Penn State to respond to various questions, including:

- How did Penn State exercise 'institutional control over the issues identified in and related' to the grand jury report? Did the school have procedures in place that were, or were not, followed?

- The NCAA also wants to know if 'each of the alleged persons to have been involved or have notice of the issues identified in and related' to the grand jury report behaved according to the school's policies on honesty and ethical conduct.

- The NCAA also asked Penn State to explain its policies and procedures that are 'in place to monitor, prevent and detect the issues identified in and related to the Grand Jury Report.'

Paterno, Division I's winningest coach with 409 victories, was fired by university trustees Nov. 9, the same night then-president Graham Spanier also left his job under pressure. School leaders faced mounting criticism that more should have done to prevent the alleged abuse.

*Emmert in his letter cited an NCAA bylaw that says coaches or athletic staffers must 'do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger ... will be influenced by a fine example.* *Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.'"* [Emphasis added].

Clearly Paterno didn't meet this standard.
---------------------------------------------
"If I understand English, that's a direct admission they not only didn't do their jobs, they were unable to."

Are you even reading the articles that you linked to?

From Fox Carolina; the 1st link you posted:

"A former Pennsylvania county prosecutor said Wednesday that he referred an allegation that former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky had sexually abused a child to state prosecutors because his wife's brother was Sandusky's adopted son.

Former Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira told The Associated Press that he cited the possible conflict of interest in passing the 2009 report to the state attorney general's office, which at the time was headed by now-Gov. Tom Corbett."

So the prosecutor followed standard procedure. He had a conflict of interest, and so he passed the case on to a prosecutor who could handle it.
-----------------------------------
"Good grief I almost forgot: you'll never guess who had access to Penn State's campus as of today.
[Today being 19November2011]

Sandusky was suspended 'for the weekend'. If you think I'm making this up, look it up. Paterno's been fired and Sandusky is STILL on campus."

I think you're making this up. I checked and I don't see any news articles stating that Sandusky has been allowed access to the Penn State campus.
--------------------------
Re Post #204: "The prosecutor has just admitted going after Sandusky wasn't an option because of a conflict of interest,...." The county prosecutor had a conflict of interest so he passed the case on to the state prosecutors office like he was supposed to. The state prosecutors failed to follow up and investigate the report.
---------------------------------
Re Post #205: "Uh, speaking of MrKleen, where's he been since these recent stories? I think I may have nailed a majorly (sic) nasty one if we don't hear from him again." Dream on, JDC. Don't overestimate yourself.
------------------------------------
Re Post #207: "Look, it's bad enough I was made fun of in this thread for being a victim of sexual abuse, or being called 'a joke'... simply for being right in my claim that Paterno was not, in fact, 'the bottom line' wrt Sandusky."

JDC : I have very carefully read every word you wrote in this thread up to this point and nowhere do you state that you've been a victim of sexual abuse.

"imply for being right in my claim...." You aren't right. Paterno was the very prestigious and influential head coach at a highly-rated football powerhouse. If he had wanted anyone transferred or fired for misconduct in his athletic department all he had to do was ask the higher-ups to do so and it would have been done. In point of fact; it's beginning to look like the reason that Paterno did not promote Sandusky to head coach in 1999 is BECAUSE of the 1998 incident. In light of the failings of the Pa. justice system to act; Paterno did what he could; he effectively ended Sanduskys career at PSU by not allowing him to move up to the head coach position.

From the Altoona Mirror:

"Sandusky retired at the end of the 1999 season; his retirement was announced prior to the season - on July 1.

All of which makes me think it's fair to wonder: Was Sandusky told to retire from the Nittany Lion coaching staff?

Here's another strange caveat: In late 1998-early 1999, Sandusky held discussions with Penn State Altoona about the possibility of starting a Division III football program here.

'If it's possible [to sponsor a program], I'd be interested,' Sandusky told the Mirror in a story published Jan. 22, 1999. 'I think it [football] would be great for Penn State Altoona.'

Joe Paterno fully endorsed the idea. According to the Jan. 22 report, Paterno told then PSU Altoona Chief Executive Officer Allen Meadors, 'it was time for football at Altoona.'

Paterno thought Altoona could support a program and believed 'eventually a lot of our branch campuses will have football.'

The university sanctioned a feasbility study and determined it would take at least $7 million to endow it.

A fund-raising effort, though, never started, and the idea eventually fizzled. Six months later, Sandusky announced his retirement from coaching. He was just 55 years old at the time.

Sandusky said then he was retiring to devote more time to his passion, The Second Mile, an organization he founded in 1977 to help mentor underprivileged children and one reason he said he turned down opportunities to become a head coach at Maryland in 1991 and Virginia - after his PSU retirement - in 2000."

So did Sandusky pass up the chance to be head coach at Maryland & Virginia because he feared that a background investigation would reveal some hint of his pedophiliac activities?

"It's not the first this has happened in the Interchange and hopefully it won't be the last."

This statement is just illogical and nonsensical.

From 17November2011 PennLive.com:

"Many people were surprised that Sandusky did the interview and stunned by what he said. But those who are working with the victims said it actually might have been a good thing. 


Since the interview, attorneys who represent crime victims have been fielding phone calls from people who say they were victims of Sandusky. Hearing him proclaim his innocence, 'I bet we've gotten close to half-dozen to a dozen,' Andreozzi said. 


One of them is a man in his 30s who talked to police earlier this week. He will probably end up testifying before the grand jury, Andreozzi said. At least one has alleged abuse dating back to the 1970s. 


'I think that Mr. Sandusky's decision to speak to the media may have backfired,' Andreozzi said."

If one more victim comes forward, him plus Andreozzi's client and McQueary will make an airtight criminal case against Sandusky with resulting civil liability for Penn. State and the State of Pennsylvania for failing to follow up on the county prosecutors referral.

Cont. Post #207:

"I told Andy in a PM that imo it's riddled with what can only be called explicit and outright libel: imo it easily meets the required criteria for a defamation lawsuit from any bored attorney who stumbles on this forum. ...my main concern is the legal liability the mods have (imo) opened Andy up to."

This is more nonsense. In the Costas interview Sandusky admitted to 99% of the accusations against him. It isn't libel or defamation to publicly discuss charges made in a published grand jury report. Andy has no legal liability to worry about, rest assured.

From Post #176:

 Originally Posted by *JDC* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1254303#post1254303
_I would give anything to get you in a court of law. Good lord almighty the only thing worse than unfocused hatred is focused hatred, and the issue of child molestation hits home to a lot of people. Eleven years experience here just for the record. I'd appreciate y'all bearing it in mind when calling me a joke._

Ah, it just dawned on me JDC. You aren't a lawyer. PM me your state bar association number.

​


----------



## JDC

Regilius, the NCAA is not the only independent body who's now investigating this story, because of the obvious and admitted (see above) conflict of interest between Sandusky and his supposed prosecutor. So I regret to inform you (not really), this pathetic attempt at character assassination of a man who's been one phone call away for me since the day I was born, and has been confessing his sins to my uncle for the last 58 years, has failed. Utterly and completely.

Outright public libel of Joe Paterno might fly in Sarah Palin's camp. Not mine. It's painful to see it here.


----------



## Regillus

JDC said:


> Regilius, the NCAA is not the only independent body who's now investigating this story, because of the obvious and admitted (see above) conflict of interest between Sandusky and his supposed prosecutor. So I regret to inform you (not really), this pathetic attempt at character assassination of a man who's been one phone call away for me since the day I was born, and has been confessing his sins to my uncle for the last 58 years, has failed. Utterly and completely.
> 
> Outright public libel of Joe Paterno might fly in Sarah Palin's camp. Not mine. It's painful seeing it here.


So now it becomes clear. You're a friend of Sanduskys and your defending him in this forum. You're wasting your time. You just don't get it. You can't have this many people claiming Sandusky molested them and have a witness - McQueary - to at least one incident without at least some of it being true. So you're having your illusions shattered - painful I'm sure - but you'll have to deal with reality. So you're finding out that you've known a child molester for all these years. Don't feel bad; they fool lots of people. Sandusky will have his day in court, and I wonder if you'll keep denying the truth even after he gets convicted and sentenced to a long prison term. The Pennsylvania state prosecutors office has egg on its face for failing to pursue this case years ago, and you can be sure they'll throw the book at Sandusky in an attempt to save face. And since this is such an embarrassment to the Pennsylvania justice system you can be sure that come sentencing day the judge will sentence Sandusky to a long term of incarceration in an attempt to restore public confidence in the system.

"Outright public libel"; that's a laugh. The evidence is already there; you just don't want to believe it. In saying that this is libel; you're at least implying that the 40 charges against Sandusky aren't true. The state wouldn't have made those charges unless it was virtually certain it would win in court. You've stated this "trampling on the constitution" stuff before - yes I know you mean innocent until proven guilty - but between multiple victims willing to testify, McQueary as a witness, and the Costas interview the state has an excellent case against Sandusky. It's hard to see how they could lose. I'm sure that in the days to come there'll be even more victim statements and news leaks that will further solidify the case against Sandusky. He did it. It's all over but the hanging.


----------



## JDC

Regillus said:


> So now it becomes clear. You're a friend of Sanduskys and your defending him in this forum.


Yikes. That's not helping.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> The purpose of higher education is higher education. I don't really get the point of athletic scholarships.


If I can go to college to be a dentist, why not go to be a pro football player??


----------



## WouldaShoulda

32rollandrock said:


> Actually, it makes sense, at least in the instant case. No athletic scholarships=no elevation-of-coach-to-God-status=no-culture-of-secrecy-to-keep-program-looking-good-to-keep-money-rolling.
> 
> Or, more simply put, if athletics were put in the proper perspective and scholarships were based on financial need and intellectual ability instead of who can run the fastest 40-yard-dash, this thread wouldn't exist and Sandusky would have been in jail a long time ago.


Like I said...



WouldaShoulda said:


> It would also have the added benefit of decreasing departmental income disparity.
> 
> Sure, there would be no more money for the English, Poly Sci, or Women's Studies, but at least Big Sports won't get theirs!!


This attitude seems to be contagious!!


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Well now wait just a moment and think...the purpose of a scholarship is to fund a students academic participation at a university. Along with that participation comes the expectation that program requirements will be met and degrees will be achieved. Looking at reported graduation rates for college football scholarship recipients, for most institutions, one sees a pretty disappointing history of failure in terms of these fellows receiving their degrees. Indeed, one dosen't have to look very hard to find Division I schools who have reported graduation rates below 50%. Actually it's the accomplishment of scholar athletes in programs like Joe Paterno's at PSU and Pat Fitzgerald's at Northwestern that give what academic credability athletic scholarships for football could lay claim to!

These days our scholar athletes do not even fulfill their contractual requirements to represent their universities on the field of play, departing their schools before completing four years of attendance to join the NFL/NBA/etc...name your poison. Bottom line, it's not fair to the school, nor is it fair to the students!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Indeed, one dosen't have to look very hard to find Division I schools who have reported graduation rates below 50%. (for the student body population in general)


That will only serve to have the usual suspects blame football even harder to deflect from their own failing.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
You have added "for the student body population in general" to the portion of my post that you have quoted. My post addresses graduation rates for the student athletes in question. If we don't have a reasonable expectation that they will graduate, how can we claim any academic credability for athletic scholarship programs...why don't we call the monies spent what they really are...pay for play, or perhaps...salaries?


----------



## Bjorn

WouldaShoulda said:


> If I can go to college to be a dentist, why not go to be a pro football player??


I think that goes to the point of what you put into the word "college" or "higher education" for that matter.

It's perfectly ok to tell kids that they can be pro football players, but I don't see where a college or higher education factors in to that.

Do you go to college to become a clown, a fisherman or a plumber? Then why should you be able go to college to become a pro football player?

There's a point where higher education is no longer higher education.


----------



## Bjorn

Regillus said:


> So now it becomes clear. You're a friend of Sanduskys and your defending him in this forum. You're wasting your time. You just don't get it. You can't have this many people claiming Sandusky molested them and have a witness - McQueary - to at least one incident without at least some of it being true. So you're having your illusions shattered - painful I'm sure - but you'll have to deal with reality. So you're finding out that you've known a child molester for all these years. Don't feel bad; they fool lots of people. Sandusky will have his day in court, and I wonder if you'll keep denying the truth even after he gets convicted and sentenced to a long prison term. The Pennsylvania state prosecutors office has egg on its face for failing to pursue this case years ago, and you can be sure they'll throw the book at Sandusky in an attempt to save face. And since this is such an embarrassment to the Pennsylvania justice system you can be sure that come sentencing day the judge will sentence Sandusky to a long term of incarceration in an attempt to restore public confidence in the system.
> 
> "Outright public libel"; that's a laugh. The evidence is already there; you just don't want to believe it. In saying that this is libel; you're at least implying that the 40 charges against Sandusky aren't true. The state wouldn't have made those charges unless it was virtually certain it would win in court. You've stated this "trampling on the constitution" stuff before - yes I know you mean innocent until proven guilty - but between multiple victims willing to testify, McQueary as a witness, and the Costas interview the state has an excellent case against Sandusky. It's hard to see how they could lose. I'm sure that in the days to come there'll be even more victim statements and news leaks that will further solidify the case against Sandusky. He did it. It's all over but the hanging.


I think it's called the trial. Not the hanging. Where he is innocent until proven guilty. Small but very valid point previously made.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> You have added "for the student body population in general" to the portion of my post that you have quoted. My post addresses graduation rates for the student athletes in question.


However, the graduation rate for the student population in general is less than 50%. Why are student athletes held to a higher standard??

I suspect a bunch of jealous and rage-filled academics who thought the answer was to flood Universities with underperforming students in order to fill their tenured retirments with Federally guaranteed student loan money are behing it.

The higher education bubble is about to burst leaving tens of thousands of rabble rousers holding 50k+ in debt qualified to work as nothing but coffee barristas (provided they actually show up on time and stay off the phone long enough to serve customers) So now we have someone to blame.

Big Football and the 1%

I'm not falling for it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> There's a point where higher education is no longer higher education.


Yep!!


----------



## mrkleen

Regillus said:


> So now it becomes clear. You're a friend of Sanduskys and your defending him in this forum. You're wasting your time. You just don't get it. You can't have this many people claiming Sandusky molested them and have a witness - McQueary - to at least one incident without at least some of it being true. So you're having your illusions shattered - painful I'm sure - but you'll have to deal with reality. So you're finding out that you've known a child molester for all these years. Don't feel bad; they fool lots of people. Sandusky will have his day in court, and I wonder if you'll keep denying the truth even after he gets convicted and sentenced to a long prison term. The Pennsylvania state prosecutors office has egg on its face for failing to pursue this case years ago, and you can be sure they'll throw the book at Sandusky in an attempt to save face. And since this is such an embarrassment to the Pennsylvania justice system you can be sure that come sentencing day the judge will sentence Sandusky to a long term of incarceration in an attempt to restore public confidence in the system.
> 
> "Outright public libel"; that's a laugh. The evidence is already there; you just don't want to believe it. In saying that this is libel; you're at least implying that the 40 charges against Sandusky aren't true. The state wouldn't have made those charges unless it was virtually certain it would win in court. You've stated this "trampling on the constitution" stuff before - yes I know you mean innocent until proven guilty - but between multiple victims willing to testify, McQueary as a witness, and the Costas interview the state has an excellent case against Sandusky. It's hard to see how they could lose. I'm sure that in the days to come there'll be even more victim statements and news leaks that will further solidify the case against Sandusky. He did it. It's all over but the hanging.


Perfectly Said.

JDC is a bit confused here - When someone quotes from a "Grand Jury Transcript" - that isnt libel.

Seems his vast courtroom experience is letting him down. :smile:


----------



## JDC

mrkleen said:


> Perfectly Said.
> 
> JDC is a bit confused here - When someone quotes from a "Grand Jury Transcript" - that isnt libel.
> 
> Seems his vast courtroom experience is letting him down. :smile:


Tell us how many instances of the word "Paterno" you see in Regilius' post. And then point me to where I've made any kind of defense of Jerry Sandusky. If I'm not mistaken there has been defense of him, or at least a call for proper due process specifically for him, but it wasn't from me. My interest in this thread is and always has been Paterno, I challenge anyone to read it and reach another conclusion.


----------



## eagle2250

WouldaShoulda said:


> However, the graduation rate for the student population in general is less than 50%. Why are student athletes held to a higher standard??
> .....
> I'm not falling for it.


Some might consider it 'a return on our investment of scholarship dollars.' The contract I signed when I accepted an AFROTC scholarship to attend college, very clearly advised that if I didn't complete my education or satisfy all requirements for commissioning, I could be required to satisfy my service obligations in an enlisted status. The contract further advised, if I completed all academic and commissioning requirements, that I would be required to serve six years of active duty, after the completion of flight training!

Simply, what I am saying is that it is pretty common practice for functionall focused scholarships, there are contractual obligations that are expected to be and generally do have to be met! Why shouldn't this be the case with athletic scholarships?


----------



## eagle2250

JDC said:


> Tell us how many instances of the word "Paterno" you see in Regilius' post. And then point me to where I've made any kind of defense of Jerry Sandusky. If I'm not mistaken there has been defense of him, or at least a call for proper due process specifically for him, but it wasn't from me. My interest in this thread is and always has been Paterno, I challenge anyone to read it and reach another conclusion.


JDC: You are referring to my post #206 and you offer a convenient misrepresentation of the content of that post. I offered some background information pertaining to Sandusky that could tend to support apparent conclusions on the part of various PSU officials that Sandusky was an upstanding member of the community. The comments were clearly not offered in defense of Sandusky, but rather in defense of due process for all concerned! Try to be a little more factual in your referrences. Thank-you.

Now if you people will excuse me, I have an 0930 hrs appointment with a universal gym and an elliptical machine!


----------



## Andy

Anyone else getting a little tired of a discussion of alleged child rape and cover up by an establishment (athletic and educational) plus (also alleged, of course) a student body who doesn't seem to know that child rape is wrong, not to mention this thread turning one member somehow into a wounded victim of forthright discussion?

I'm going back to start a thread on "Cuffs or nocuffs".:icon_smile:


----------



## Jovan

I'm sorry but this talk about eliminating athletic scholarships altogether is silly. They might need some reformation perhaps, but it would deal a serious blow to the universities to eliminate them outright.

As a fine arts major, I could be predictable and say a lot of mean things about college sports, but the facts are: I like seeing the Gators play, even if I'm not a total football fanatic, and I can't say anything since some don't consider theatre "real" higher education either. While I still think it's ridiculous that the football team gets gold plated lockers, I can see the parallels in theatre. Certain productions sucking money from others because the directors whine until they get what they want, etc. It's not perfect, no, but it happens.

I think I digressed though. Carry on.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> I think that goes to the point of what you put into the word "college" or "higher education" for that matter.
> 
> It's perfectly ok to tell kids that they can be pro football players, but I don't see where a college or higher education factors in to that.
> 
> *Do you go to college to become a clown, a fisherman or a plumber? Then why should you be able go to college to become a pro football player? *
> 
> There's a point where higher education is no longer higher education.


Excluding fishermen (and maybe even that), Americans do go to college to become all those things.

Professional Football Players generally (90%+ in modern times) have 4years of college level experience playing their chosen sport, and the education that comes with it. They need it to be competitive with other professional players.

Plumbers, and others in technical trades have several years of advanced training, whether it be in "on the job" or in technical schools, but both qualify as higher education, than the standard education.

Even clowns, rodeo or traditional, have years invested in their craft. As for fishermen, who is to say they they don't as well.


----------



## Regillus

JDC said:


> Tell us how many instances of the word "Paterno" you see in Regilius' post. And then point me to where I've made any kind of defense of Jerry Sandusky. If I'm not mistaken there has been defense of him, or at least a call for proper due process specifically for him, but it wasn't from me. My interest in this thread is and always has been Paterno, I challenge anyone to read it and reach another conclusion.


Are you paying attention? I already covered Paterno in Post #202. Re-read that and the first part of Post #209. Paternos conspicuous failure to follow NCAA bylaws with respect to personal conduct i.e. not relaying McQuearys report of anal rape by Sandusky upon a 10-year old boy to county child protective services put Penn State in serious trouble with the NCAA - which PSU can't afford to have. An NCAA suspension would cost PSU millions.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> Excluding fishermen (and maybe even that), Americans do go to college to become all those things.
> 
> Professional Football Players generally (90%+ in modern times) have 4years of college level experience playing their chosen sport, and the education that comes with it. They need it to be competitive with other professional players.
> 
> Plumbers, and others in technical trades have several years of advanced training, whether it be in "on the job" or in technical schools, but both qualify as higher education, than the standard education.
> 
> Even clowns, rodeo or traditional, have years invested in their craft. As for fishermen, who is to say they they don't as well.


I totally agree. I see that college is a lot broader a term than I figured it to be.


----------



## helo-flyer

Bjorn said:


> The purpose of higher education is higher education. I don't really get the point of athletic scholarships. We don't have them in Sweden. But then we don't have 'college' as an intermediary between university education and basic education. I'm not sure I understand exactly how that works.
> 
> Of course, for some educations an active performing role in sports is a merit. As well as for jobs.


The difference with general schooling in Europe (I'm assuming this is true in Sweden) and in the US is the prevalence of school sports. Beginning as early as primary school, most schools, whether public or private, field sports teams. Like colleges and universities, many private schools do give athletic scholarships. Often, these scholarships are more prevalent then academic scholarships. To an American who grew up wearing his school colors on the sports field, it seems only natural that colleges field teams and give scholarships as well.

Much of what I know about European schooling is through a general knowledge of the system in Italy so forgive me if I'm making erroneous generalizations, but my impression throughout much of Europe is that schools are purely academic and that all the sports and student clubs, termed extra-curricular activities, are not present... or more accurately they are present, but without any connection to the school.

Also, in an attempt to clear up some terminology issues, the words "university" and "college" are somewhat synonymous in the U.S. When referring to the name of an institution, (i.e. Penn state University vs Amherst College) Universities tend to be larger, and there are specific requirements to become a university, however, you can pursue hard sciences for both your bachelor's as well as graduate degrees at a "college." ...When speaking generally about higher education in the U.S. no one, unless they're trying to affect a European air, ever says they are "going to university" or talks about what they studied at university. Instead the refer to higher education as college. For example, whether attending the local community college or Harvard University, you are still "going to college."


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> Some might consider it 'a return on our investment of scholarship dollars.' The contract I signed when I accepted an AFROTC scholarship to attend college, very clearly advised that if I didn't complete my education or satisfy all requirements for commissioning, I could be required to satisfy my service obligations in an enlisted status. The contract further advised, if I completed all academic and commissioning requirements, that I would be required to serve six years of active duty, after the completion of flight training!
> 
> Simply, what I am saying is that it is pretty common practice for functionall focused scholarships, there are contractual obligations that are expected to be and generally do have to be met! Why shouldn't this be the case with athletic scholarships?


Because the NCAA doesn't have a Ft Leavenworth to put drop outs!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> Because the NCAA doesn't have a Ft Leavenworth to put drop outs!!


No, we leave that to the NFL....


----------



## Regillus

From the Huffington Post:

Just days after Sandusky's interview with the _Times_ 
over the weekend, ABC News reported that all eight alleged victims
identified in the 23-page grand jury report will testify against him in the preliminary hearings next week.
-----------------------------
The noose tightens. Now we'll see what the victims stories are and will be able to assess their credibility.


----------

