OT: Joe Pa done

[I_am_1z]

Let's imagine for a second that McQueary didn't give Joe details. Let's say he went to Paterno and said

"Coach, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a kid that looked he was about 10."

and just left it at that. Doesn't Paterno have a responsibility, morally if not legally, to ask for a little bit more? I think it's more disturbing that Paterno allegedly didn't ask for details than if he did. If he didn't it's got to be for one of three reasons.

1. He wanted to protect his friend and, well, what you don't know can't hurt you.
2. He didn't care what was going on in the shower.
3. He already knew about Sandusky's perversion and didn't need the details.

If this were a multiple choice test, which of the above paints Paterno in the best light, fully acknowledging that the best light in this case is the rough equivalent to pond scum, but not quite the sum of the earth, as that is clearly Sandusky.

1. Well to protect his friend would be to keep it to himself. Telling two people with their own free wills, one of them who oversaw the campus police, doesn't lead me to believe that's the 'best' choice.

2. Hard to believe when he was loved by so many and changed so many lives for the better.

3. Three is the best choice. Who knew about the 1998 investigation? An important ingredient to the truth.

 

[NinerSickness]

2. Hard to believe when he was loved by so many and changed so many lives for the better.

You mean kind of like how Sandusky was loved by so many and changed so many lives?

 

[tomikcon1971]

Amazon.com: Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story (9781582613574): Jerry Sandusky: Books

 

[I_am_1z]

Your first two responses (JoePa not telling anyone Sandusky is not allowed in the locker room and "Blind faith. . . " reflect really poorly on JoePa.

If either of those are true, then he absolutely had to be fired. He is definitely liable in civil court and possibly in criminal court (endangering a minor etc).

Again, that's IF your suggestions above are correct.

Well you're not asking the right questions.

My quote earlier this thread:

I can imagine Joe had the impression that if any of this was true, that the Athletic Director would take care of it. And as a precautionary measure Joe told Sandusky to not bring children on campus anymore.

 

[I_am_1z]

2. Hard to believe when he was loved by so many and changed so many lives for the better.

You mean kind of like how Sandusky was loved by so many and changed so many lives?

Exactly.

 

[NinerSickness]

Exactly.

Did you completely miss the point or are you just PURPOSELY being a jackass now?

 

[tomikcon1971]

Exactly.

And with that....I'm done with this thread.

 

[imac_21]

1. Well to protect his friend would be to keep it to himself. Telling two people with their own free wills, one of them who oversaw the campus police, doesn't lead me to believe that's the 'best' choice.

2. Hard to believe when he was loved by so many and changed so many lives for the better.

3. Three is the best choice. Who knew about the 1998 investigation? An important ingredient to the truth.

1. Yet nothing came of it.

2. I should have thought more closely about option 2. Clearly he did care about what was going on in the shower. Unfortunately, he was concerned with the "in the shower" part than the "what was going on" part of the sentence. The implicit message is "do what you want, just don't do it in my house." That's disgusting in itself.

3. Does it matter who knew about 98? Does "raping a young boy," regardless of where, really seem like the kind of act that deserves a "don't do it here" scolding. It's not even a slap on the wrist.

The way you outline in above makes it seem like JoePa was simply trying to cover his own ass. The message that comes from simply telling him not to use the showers is "I don't want to get caught up in this if it ever comes to light, so do it under your own roof, not mine."

 

[imac_21]

Well you're not asking the right questions.

My quote earlier this thread:

I can imagine Joe had the impression that if any of this was true, that the Athletic Director would take care of it. And as a precautionary measure Joe told Sandusky to not bring children on campus anymore.

That's incredibly irresponsible on JoePa's part. He's absolutely liable in civil court and likely guilty in criminal court. He was told of what was going on and didn't follow up. The fact that he didn't follow up SUGGESTS that he knew it was true and didn't want to push it. If he didn't know, he likely goes to the AD and asks what's up with the "Sandusky thing."

I find it impossible to respect the Joe Paterno that you are describing in this thread. What I see is a man who is selfish and weak.

 

[Kinzu]

This. And let's not pretend this was a quick little two sentence conversation and they left it at that. McQueary & his dad CALLED Paterno and then went to his friggn' house. You don't call someone and then go to their house to vaguely imply an alleged something after which Paterno went to his boss the next day.

You also don't witness a 10 year old boy getting raped and run home like a spineless coward to tell daddy about it, but I mean hey shit happens that makes no sense right?

I don't know how to more plainly say this, but it was Mike McQueary's duty as a witness to the crime to make sure the right thing was done and he failed.

If the school knew of Sandusky and his dark side then it had an obligation to stop him or at least distance themselves from him.

I still don't get why people can't understand that Joe Paterno was nothing more than a football coach who use to employee Sandusky. He was not the guys boss in 2002 and Sandusky was not even an employee of Penn State. Sandusky was allowed to use school facilities thanks to his 2nd Mile Foundation, but that is not Joe Paterno's fault because that would be a school based decision.

I get it Joe Paterno is the face of Penn State and one of the most respected men in all of college football. It's awful that something like this happened with a former employee and friend of his, but Joe Paterno is not the president of Penn State. He has no power to make executive decisions at the school. I'm sure he has pull with board members and people above him always seeking him for advice but at the end of the day his job title does not carry their responsibility. The only reason he is a target in this is because he is Joe Paterno. That point is made Oh so crystal clear by the fact that no one gives a shit that McQueary is still on the team. The majority of the media seems to act like now that Paterno is gone things are ok and Penn State can move on to better things. It's down right embarrassing to think people buy into such propaganda.

Penn State is no better without Joe Paterno. They will actually be worst for his loss and not just as a football team. Penn State is however better without Sandusky and men (God I use that word loosely) like McQueary, Schultz, Curley and any other school official that knew and allowed this type of action on school grounds.

Now look if it comes out Paterno knew anything that should suggest he was a player in this outside of what he was told by McQueary then I will re-adjust my views on him, but I think the fact that Paterno got fired should be all the proof anyone needs that while Paterno could mostly do as he wanted at Penn State he was not the boss.

 

[imac_21]

Exactly.

 

[imac_21]

You also don't witness a 10 year old boy getting raped and run home like a spineless coward to tell daddy about it, but I mean hey shit happens that makes no sense right?

I don't know how to more plainly say this, but it was Mike McQueary's duty as a witness to the crime to make sure the right thing was done and he failed.

If the school knew of Sandusky and his dark side then it had an obligation to stop him or at least distance themselves from him.

I still don't get why people can't understand that Joe Paterno was nothing more than a football coach who use to employee Sandusky. He was not the guys boss in 2002 and Sandusky was not even an employee of Penn State. Sandusky was allowed to use school facilities thanks to his 2nd Mile Foundation, but that is not Joe Paterno's fault because that would be a school based decision.

I get it Joe Paterno is the face of Penn State and one of the most respected men in all of college football. It's awful that something like this happened with a former employee and friend of his, but Joe Paterno is not the president of Penn State. He has no power to make executive decisions at the school. I'm sure he has pull with board members and people above him always seeking him for advice but at the end of the day his job title does not carry their responsibility. The only reason he is a target in this is because he is Joe Paterno. That point is made Oh so crystal clear by the fact that no one gives a shit that McQueary is still on the team. The majority of the media seems to act like now that Paterno is gone things are ok and Penn State can move on to better things. It's down right embarrassing to think people buy into such propaganda.

Penn State is no better without Joe Paterno. They will actually be worst for his loss and not just as a football team. Penn State is however better without Sandusky and men (God I use that word loosely) like McQueary, Schultz, Curley and any other school official that knew and allowed this type of action on school grounds.

Now look if it comes out Paterno knew anything that should suggest he was a player in this outside of what he was told by McQueary then I will re-adjust my views on him, but I think the fact that Paterno got fired should be all the proof anyone needs that while Paterno could mostly do as he wanted at Penn State he was not the boss.

So the kid that witnessed it is guilty for not pursuing it further, but the guy with the power to do something about it isn't? He may not have the power to ban Sandusky (I find that nearly impossible to accept) directly, but he absolutely could have gone to the president and said "something has to be done about this."

But that's not enough. Banning him from PSU is not enough. Once Paterno knew what the accusations were, he had the responsibility to see justice brought to Sandusky.

I don't see how McQueary can be responsible and not Paterno.

As for the part in bold, it's abundantly clear that one of the men that knew about and allowed this type of action is Joe Paterno. I'm disturbed by your inclusion of the clause "on school grounds" in that statement though. It seems to suggest that it would have been enough to stop Sandusky from raping boys on the Penn State campus would have been sufficient and then all who knew would be in the clear.

All who knew had the responsibility of seeing Sandusky brought to the authorities. And those authorities should not have a vested interest in protecting the school's image.

 

[sayheykid1]

The Role of Educators in Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse and Neglect: Chapter 4 - Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect

I can't find that the exact protocol for reporting by a teacher in the state of Pennslyvania would be, but it looks like Georgia has more strict guidelines on it and they require teachers not to report it directly to the police themselves but instead to consular or administrator.

Also an interesting bit of information to those stating Paterno could have called it in without giving his name. The state on Pennslyvania requires anyone reporting a case of child abuse to give their name. They have to give either an oral or written report of what they know so it can be used in a criminal case.

Now then his identity is suppose to be protected under law as well, but that kinda of stuff does get out especially when you're Joe Paterno. Even if it did not his identity would've eventually be known because he probably would've been use against Sandusky in court.

This is why teachers are usually required not to report themselves but to pass the information on to someone higher up the chain of command. The states do not want the burden of these cases on the teachers. They want people higher up the chain representing the school to make these choices and carry the burden of them into any charges or lawsuits. That is part of their job for being in charge and in the case of Penn State Schultz and Curley failed at their job to protect their school and it's employees not to mention it's community.

Joe Paterno couldn;t report the incident to the State Police because he was too low on the food chain?

 

[sayheykid1]

Let's imagine for a second that McQueary didn't give Joe details. Let's say he went to Paterno and said

"Coach, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a kid that looked he was about 10."

and just left it at that. Doesn't Paterno have a responsibility, morally if not legally, to ask for a little bit more? I think it's more disturbing that Paterno allegedly didn't ask for details than if he did. If he didn't it's got to be for one of three reasons.

1. He wanted to protect his friend and, well, what you don't know can't hurt you.
2. He didn't care what was going on in the shower.
3. He already knew about Sandusky's perversion and didn't need the details.

If this were a multiple choice test, which of the above paints Paterno in the best light, fully acknowledging that the best light in this case is the rough equivalent to pond scum, but not quite the sum of the earth, as that is clearly Sandusky.

I cannot believe that some are suggesting Paterno was not outta line for his inaction just because it might have been a case of only naked horseplay between a 10 year old and a 50 year old in Paterno's locker room. Oh that Jerry is just crazy with his naked shower games!

 

[MHSL82]

This story is similar but worse, I read about it in my criminal law class in law school. Don't watch if easily upset (nothing graphic, just awful story). I'm glad that I'm not a prosecutor but I wish they would charge him anyway, scare him, make him defend himself - though that would be a waste of taxpayers' money and open them up to malicious prosecution claims if they knew they had no case and just wanted to scare him. His comments afterwards about not knowing people in Africa who die and not knowing this girl made it all the same to him makes me want someone to do something to him and have someone watch but do nothing.

 

[Kinzu]

Paterno would be out of line if he did not report what McQueary told him, but because he did the responsibility of it falls on the university officials that refused to look very deep into it. We don't know right now if Paterno ever tried to see how the investigation was going. I mean clearly whatever was decided by those officials was not only good enough for Paterno but McQueary as well.

Also again, it is not Joe Paterno's job to monitor things at that school outside of the football program especially when it pertains to a non-school employee.

Look maybe a bad example here but if you catch someone at work stealing what do you do?

1.) Call the cops a crime is taking place?
2.) Stop the person by any means necessary?
3.) Report the theft to a superior?

Now the right answer according to most any place of business is to report it to a superior. This is not so the person can get away with theft but to protect you from possibly making a false claim and/or putting yourself in a situation were making the claim causes unfavorable working conditions.

That does not mean option #1 and #2 are wrong though depending on the context of the situation. If that employee is robbing the store with gun you call the cops if able. If they are violently assaulting someone you step in and stop them.

Given the context of the Penn State situation McQueary should have done something more than report it to Joe Paterno if it was as serious as he claims. Paterno however was not in a situation were he really could have done a lot more than he did.

Yes he could have called the police himself. Hell he could have and should have advised McQueary to do so but by that admission so should have McQueary's father.

I know it does not sit well with people but Joe did what Joe had to do in that situation to protect himself. I'm sure in hindsight he wished he did more, but if he did lets say call the cops he could've been fired or worst had legal action taking against him if McQuearys' claim were untrue. You think Penn State would've been happy about their head coach getting involved in a criminal case without telling them first?

He is not a witness to a crime but his testimony I would think will be key to this case. Once we get these people under oath on the stand to testify what they each said to one another I hope we get a much more clear picture as to how this all happened.

I just find it so hard to believe McQueary could witness a child being raped and not clearly get his point across and make sure that man was behind bars, and if he thought the school was covering it up how could he stay on and work with that school for all these years?

 

[MHSL82]

For those who can't or don't want to watch but want to know what happened: he saw his friend follow a 7 year old into the bathroom, followed him inside, start the r*pe and murder, wait for his friend to come out, went to other casinos and rollercoasters after being told of his friend's actions, and drove back to California. He said he didn't know his friend was going to do anything and had nothing to do with it but no one seemed to ask why he went into a woman's bathroom and didn't think anything of the fact that his friend went in. Asked why he didn't do anything he basically said that he didn't want to get involved. Why he didn't turn his friend in - because he knew he'd be caught anyway. Asked if he felt bad for the girl or her family - he said he didn't know her so it wasn't any different than any person in Africa who died. He said it was worse for him than the girl because he lost his best friend and had to live without him, bringing up that his friend was there with him for AP English. Someone should have mercy on his lonely life without his friend by killing him.

Asked whether he was bugged by the attention - he said that everyone gets their 15 minutes and he'd be a fool not to use his. It was like how Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon so he could "be somebody everyone remembered". If John had to die like that, I wish Chapman was somehow made anonymous and serve jail time - that's not practical as everyone would want to know, it would leak, and the conspiracy theorists would say it was the government. (I know it's ironic that I shared this with you when I want them anonymous, but I'm not accomplishing anything by avoiding names here.) It's also possible that he framed his friend, didn't say anything about it, and because his friend was too drunk, made the story up. His friend pled guilty for life without parole to avoid the death penalty. He acts like he didn't turn his friend in because of his loyalty when he could have been the one who did it. His friend, who doesn't remember any of it, shows remorse, but this guy doesn't - I wouldn't be surprised if the murderer was switched. Sometimes I hate this world. I have a daughter so this stuff scares me. I don't own a gun but it makes me want to, though that's a topic for another day.

 

[Kinzu]

For those who can't or don't want to watch but want to know what happened: he saw his friend follow a 7 year old into the bathroom, followed him inside, start the r*pe and murder, wait for his friend to come out, went to other casinos and rollercoasters after being told of his friend's actions, and drove back to California. He said he didn't know his friend was going to do anything and had nothing to do with it but no one seemed to ask why he went into a woman's bathroom and didn't think anything of the fact that his friend went in. Asked why he didn't do anything he basically said that he didn't want to get involved. Why he didn't turn his friend in - because he knew he'd be caught anyway. Asked if he felt bad for the girl or her family - he said he didn't know her so it wasn't any different than any person in Africa who died. He said it was worse for him than the girl because he lost his best friend and had to live without him, bringing up that his friend was there with him for AP English. Someone should have mercy on his lonely life without his friend by killing him.

Asked whether he was bugged by the attention - he said that everyone gets their 15 minutes and he'd be a fool not to use his. It was like how Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon so he could "be somebody everyone remembered". If John had to die like that, I wish Chapman was somehow made anonymous and serve jail time - that's not practical as everyone would want to know, it would leak, and the conspiracy theorists would say it was the government. (I know it's ironic that I shared this with you when I want them anonymous, but I'm not accomplishing anything by avoiding names here.) It's also possible that he framed his friend, didn't say anything about it, and because his friend was too drunk, made the story up. His friend pled guilty for life without parole to avoid the death penalty. He acts like he didn't turn his friend in because of his loyalty when he could have been the one who did it. His friend, who doesn't remember any of it, shows remorse, but this guy doesn't - I wouldn't be surprised if the murderer was switched. Sometimes I hate this world. I have a daughter so this stuff scares me. I don't own a gun but it makes me want to, though that's a topic for another day.

Good story, quite disturbing but not all things in this world follow along with social order. It would be nice if we all saw things the same way though.

 

[I_am_1z]

Officially giving up on this thread. It would seem that wanting to create a verdict trumps knowing the details. As for Joe and Curley, whether guilty or innocent, all I want is the truth.

 

[Kinzu]

Officially giving up on this thread. It would seem that wanting to create a verdict trumps knowing the details. As for Joe and Curley, whether guilty or innocent, all I want is the truth.

LOL welcome to the world of 21st Century social media. I said it several pages ago but in todays world we are all Guilty until proven Innocent in the eyes of the public and by then it does not matter because you're still Guilty.