OT: Joe Pa done

[Crimsoncrew]

I am not a Penn State fan and I really don't care one way or another about JoePa BUT there are other legal risks for him in this case. So you wanted him to go to police over hearsay? if he did that and Sandusky was innocent then JoePa would have been under legal risk from Sandusky for slander. Joe is not a protected job class, as a football coach, in these types of cases unlike teachers or senior school officials. His legal options were to tell the person who actually saw the the incident to go to the police or tell the senior school officials of what he heard. Everyone has said that he did at least one if not both of those.

Your anger should be focused on the grad student and the senior school officials who failed to go to the police instead of forming a lynch mob to go after a coach who had limited legal options.

Reporting suspicion of a crime to the police is not slander.

There's little doubt that Paterno knew what was going on and chose to look the other way. It's a shame that his legacy is going down in flames as a result of this, but I have very little sympathy for him. There's very little doubt that he not only sheltered a child rapist, but allowed him to continue to find easy targets, for years, possibly decades.

 

[I_am_1z]

Curley testified that the graduate assistant reported to the that "inappropriate conduct" or activity had made him "uncomfortable" occurred in the Larsch Building shower in March 2002. Curley specifically denied that the graduate assistant had reported anal sex or anything of that sexual nature whatsoever and termed the conduct as merely "horsing around". When asked whether the graduate assistant had reported "sexual conduct" "of any kind" by Sandusky, Curley answered, "No" twice. When asked if the graduate student had reported, "anal sex between Jerry Sandusky and this child" Curley testified, "Absolutely not"


Schultz also testifies that the grad assistant made it seem like it was "Not that serious" and "...had no indication a crime had occurred"

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

So, I've read up to page nine in the article and had to actually type out a quote since I couldn't copy and paste, but from what I've read the grand jury report gives me little reason to believe Paterno was certain that a child molestation took place.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

It is hearsay unless Joe saw it himself.

People should be pissed that the grad student assistant did not stop a child r*pe. He was there!!!! he had the most power to stop this and he failed. you should be pissed at the school officials who are required to go to the police and are a protected job class. They had the 2nd most power to stop this and they failed!!!!

He had the most power to stop that one event. And yes, like JoePa, he should have gone to the police. Instead, he went to his boss, who looked the other way. At best, JoePa did the same thing the grad student did by going to his superiors instead of the authorities. But then again, JoePa allowed him to continue using school facilities, run his camp, etc.

 

[iHATEdodgers]

Curley testified that the graduate assistant reported to the that "inappropriate conduct" or activity had made him "uncomfortable" occurred in the Larsch Building shower in March 2002. Curley specifically denied that the graduate assistant had reported anal sex or anything of that sexual nature whatsoever and termed the conduct as merely "horsing around". When asked whether the graduate assistant had reported "sexual conduct" "of any kind" by Sandusky, Curley answered, "No" twice. When asked if the graduate student had reported, "anal sex between Jerry Sandusky and this child" Curley testified, "Absolutely not"


Schultz also testifies that the grad assistant made it seem like it was "Not that serious" and "...had no indication a crime had occurred"

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

So, I've read up to page nine in the article and had to actually type out a quote since I couldn't copy and paste, but from what I've read the grand jury report gives me little reason to believe Paterno was certain that a child molestation took place.

Just read the indictment, "Victim 2" in particular, 2nd and 3rd paragraph and then stop defending this guy.

 

[I_am_1z]

Just read the indictment, "Victim 2" in particular, 2nd and 3rd paragraph and then stop defending this guy.

Yes that's apart of the section I read. Graduate assistant tells Joe Pa something to the tune of, 'Sandusky's inappropriate activity made me feel uncomfortable, when I saw him horsing around in the shower with a boy'. It raises eyebrows certainly, which is why Joe Pa told the Athletic Director, but I still am not sure what Joe Pa made of these accusations because of the vagueness of the graduate assistant.

 

[SeattleNinersFan]

Wrong. My anger should be focused on every adult that did NOTHING after having knowledge that Sandusky was RAPING CHILDREN. Paterno is one of those adults. The end.

How NOBODY went to the police screams COVER-UP. How anybody can't see this is frightening, honestly. And it scares me that anybody is trying to play lawyer-ball here. Sandusky was RAPING CHILDREN, and Paterno knew about it for at least a decade. He is guilty as hell, and I STRONGLY question your moral compass for suggesting otherwise.
Should the grad assistant be public enemy number one? I don't care. Maybe. I don't understand how you find a grown man RAPING A CHILD and not beat him to death, but that doesn't excuse Paterno. Being fired isn't a strong enough penalty.

Sorry I missed this post. Feel free to question my moral compass, I really don't care. I see people forming a lynch mob for a guy who I view is a minor player in this case AND actually fulfilled his legal requirements and reported the case. Could he have done more, of course, but so could everyone in this case and to lay the blame for this at JoePa's feet is irresponsible.

Here are the facts that I am aware of in this case.

1) a student assistant sees a child r*pe, fails to stop it and instead goes to JoePa.
2) JoePa went to his leadership to report what he was told. by the way what I have heard is that the student was not specific with Joe in what he saw, only that Sandusky did something inappropriate to young boy.
3) What the student and the school officials did I have no idea but it was not enough. neither was what JoePa did and I think he should have followed up with school officials, at least asking if the issue had been reported to the police. Maybe he did, I don't know but since Sandusky was not on Joe's staff at the time of the report he would not have been priviledged to the outcome of any investigation. I really don't think that the police would tell Joe anything about an investigation that was ongoing, especially since Sandusky was a long time associate of his.


My biggest questions are if the grad student was so emotionally distraut over what he saw then why did he not go the police and why did he continued to work at a facility where he could see the same guy that he witnessed raping a child bring more kids to the school. What the FUCK! seriously WHAT THE FUCK!!

 

[iHATEdodgers]

Yes that's apart of the section I read. Graduate assistant tells Joe Pa something to the tune of, 'Sandusky's inappropriate activity made me feel uncomfortable, when I saw him horsing around in the shower with a boy'. It raises eyebrows certainly, which is why Joe Pa told the Athletic Director, but I still am not sure what Joe Pa made of these accusations because of the vagueness of the graduate assistant.

That's not the section I was referring to.

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF

"...Paterno testified... that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

The graduate student was hardly vague at all if you care to read the entire passage concerning "Victim 2".

 

[SeattleNinersFan]

He had the most power to stop that one event. And yes, like JoePa, he should have gone to the police. Instead, he went to his boss, who looked the other way. At best, JoePa did the same thing the grad student did by going to his superiors instead of the authorities. But then again, JoePa allowed him to continue using school facilities, run his camp, etc.

One is an eye witness to a crime and the other is going off what someone told him, there is a big difference.

 

[I_am_1z]

That's not the section I was referring to.

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF

"...Paterno testified... that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

The graduate student was hardly vague at all if you care to read the entire passage concerning "Victim 2".

Joe Pa doesn't really seem all that sure what he said in that non-quote. The word fondling could have easily been horsing around or many other phrases to describe awkward physical contact.

 

[SeattleNinersFan]

I also can't cut and paste from the grand jury report so here is the part I was refering to.

Pennsylvania's manditory reporting statute for suspected child abuse...Provides that when a staff member reports abuse, pursuant to statute, the person in charge of the school or institution has the responsibility and legal obilgation to report or cause such a report to be made... within 48 hours to the department of public welfare.

The two senior officials failed to do that even though their employees reported to them like they were required to do.

The part of the report where Curly told the assistant that they had reported the matter to the police, I did not see it in the report but do you think Curly could have also told JoePa that? He lied once about it, why not a second time.

 

[clyde_carbon]

It is hearsay unless Joe saw it himself.

People should be pissed that the grad student assistant did not stop a child r*pe. He was there!!!! he had the most power to stop this and he failed. you should be pissed at the school officials who are required to go to the police and are a protected job class. They had the 2nd most power to stop this and they failed!!!!

That's ridiculous. It's not hearsay or slander. All what Joe had to do was pick up the phone, call the local police station and say, "Hey, I got a word that this happened. I didn't see it myself, but look into it."

That's not slander. That's doing what he was supposed to do.

 

[Kinzu]

That's ridiculous. It's not hearsay or slander. All what Joe had to do was pick up the phone, call the local police station and say, "Hey, I got a word that this happened. I didn't see it myself, but look into it."

That's not slander. That's doing what he was supposed to do.

Yeah but that's assuming you know he was told a child was being anal raped in the shower. It all comes down to exactly how the Graduate Assistant presented what he saw and the indictment is vague in the details on that.

Even then it's easy to look back and say well I should've would've could've once you know the full details of a situation. Joe Paterno acted accordingly based on what we know he knew. I expect more to come out on this later

Is that Graduate Assistant still the WR coach for the team? Please don't tell me they fire Joe Paterno but let that piece of shit still walk around in the state. That's one the person that should be ashamed of themselves if what they said in that indictment is true.

 

[SeattleNinersFan]

That's ridiculous. It's not hearsay or slander. All what Joe had to do was pick up the phone, call the local police station and say, "Hey, I got a word that this happened. I didn't see it myself, but look into it."

That's not slander. That's doing what he was supposed to do.

It might be "ridiculous" but but that is the definition of hearsay and filing a report with the police that is untrue is slander.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Yeah but that's assuming you know he was told a child was being anal raped in the shower. It all comes down to exactly how the Graduate Assistant presented what he saw and the indictment is vague in the details on that.

Even then it's easy to look back and say well I should've would've could've once you know the full details of a situation. Joe Paterno acted accordingly based on what we know he knew. I expect more to come out on this later

Is that Graduate Assistant still the WR coach for the team? Please don't tell me they fire Joe Paterno but let that piece of shit still walk around in the state. That's one the person that should be ashamed of themselves if what they said in that indictment is true.

He was told that his DC was in the shower naked with a young boy. Both naked, after hours, slapping sounds, and what looked like anal intercourse. That's enough information to report to the police. All he would have to say is that this is what he heard, and the police would handle it accordingly if they find any substance in their investigation.

For God's sakes people call the cops for the stupidest reasons. This isn't one of them? Give me a break.

 

[clyde_carbon]

It might be "ridiculous" but but that is the definition of hearsay and filing a report with the police that is untrue is slander.

That's why Joe would have to say, "Hey, this is only what I heard, not saw". If the police chose not to pursure the allegation then at least Joe Pa did his part.

Plenty of school attacks were foiled based on "hearsay" reports. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and Sandusky would have absolutely no ground to sue.

 

[Kinzu]

Ok just found out Mike Mcqueary (aka the graduate assistant that testified he witnessed a 10 year old boy being raped) is still employeed and will be on the sideline as a coach for Penn State on Saturday. Seriously Penn State? You fire your coach of 60+ years even though he reported the incident only to have you fail to act upon it, but you decide to keep the guy that knew full well what was going on?

I don't know what to say to that. I think just further proves the poor judgement surrounding people at that university.

 

[SeattleNinersFan]

That's why Joe would have to say, "Hey, this is only what I heard, not saw". If the police chose not to pursure the allegation then at least Joe Pa did his part.

Plenty of school attacks were foiled based on "hearsay" reports. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and Sandusky would have absolutely no ground to sue.

One of the aspects of slander is that it causes the person being slandered some harm. child sexual assualt is a whole different class crime than a mugging and even more of a vile crime than a r*pe. So much so that even an unfounded report can completely change a persons life. it could prevent people from getting jobs, make them a pariah in society, the person would be guilty with no chance of being innocent. Look at this board, people are calling for violence against people who were not the perpetrator becuase it is such a vile crime and Sandusky has not even been convicted yet. JoePa is such a big figure that if it got out that he had called the cops and reported he had heard someone was sexually abusing a child, that persons life in PA would be over regardless of the fact if that person was actually innocent. It is my understanding that police reports become public record unless they are ordered sealed by a judge and if that is the case then his phone call would make front page news eventually and again the accused persons life would be over in PA even if that person was innocent. That is definitely harm that JoePa could create on hearsay.

On a side note, was Schultz the head of the campus police when JoePa told him and Curly?

 

[NinerSickness]

It might be "ridiculous" but but that is the definition of hearsay and filing a report with the police that is untrue is slander.

This is bullshit! Hearing an eye witness account of a crime and reporting that account to the police is not heresay! That is knowlege of EVIDENCE of a crime. If a guy runs up to you and says, "I just saw a woman being raped! Call the police!" It's not heresay nor slander to report that! If someone actually WITNESSED a r*pe and told a bunch of people those scum bags should have told the police! That's 100 times more than what should be necessary to alert the police about a friggn' CHILD r*pe!

 

[MHSL82]

That's why Joe would have to say, "Hey, this is only what I heard, not saw". If the police chose not to pursure the allegation then at least Joe Pa did his part.

Plenty of school attacks were foiled based on "hearsay" reports. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and Sandusky would have absolutely no ground to sue.

Yes! I am not authorized to give legal advice yet but being in law school has helped me understand some of these things that are bandied about. If anyone believes Pennsylvania has a different law, let me know with a citation/link.

Defamation (aka libel and slander) consists of the following:

(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

Key word: And. You can't get two out of three.

Defamatory statement - The law seems to focus on the result more than the intent. Sexual conduct has been deemed a serious enough allegation that it could be determined to be defamatory. Even if Paterno said I was told "xxxxx" but did not see it, it could still be defamatory but all elements must be met for a plaintiff to win. Again, you can't get two out of three.

Published - This, of course, has nothing to do with publishing like in a paper, but rather making the statement to a third party, which in the case of a paper, the newspaper company and the public who read it are the third party. Or in this case, to the police.

Falsity - Truth is an absolute defense with some exceptions. So if the allegations are true, Paterno could not be liable for slander unless a limited exception is met (along the lines of a blatant disregard of the likelihood of falsity) and even then, the recklessness may still not amount to a legal theory that survives in practice. (I.E. if the allegation were merely that Sandusky was naked in the shower when a boy happened to walk by and Paterno reported r*pe for no reason) Element #3 is the hardest to prove. If Sandusky is innocent like in the hypothetical given by SeattleNiner, then, Paterno did not know that what was reported to him did not happen, did not have reason to know that it did not happen, and obviously, the fact that he was told what the grad assistant saw did happen - so none of this is something that the falsity was an issue- even if Sandusky was innocent.

THEN!

With Sandusky possibly being a Public Figure under the definition of Pennsylvania law, there are stricter requirements to be met in order for him to prove slander. It's a bit of a double standard, but public figures have harder times arguing slander.

The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense.

You can't just sue because your reputation isn't as good as it was before. There has to be some culpability of the person who made the statement to survive. It is true that harm is a factor - it is necessary but not sufficient - meaning that reputation has to be harmed to claim it but just because it was harmed does not make it an actionable offense. The fact that he cannot go home without a bodyguard would not make it actionable per se.

This is all moot. I doubt Paterno was worrying about slander and looked up the requirements- he either thought he did enough by telling the higher ups or he wanted to win with Sandusky, in which the reasons was far from civil liability. (I.E. you are not criminally held for slander, that's a civil ($$$) offense)

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

So... do you guys just never leave the 49ers forum?


Why don't you guys come out to the CFB forum or the General Discussion forum when you have an "OT" thread?


You guys are welcome any time.