Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Vogelsong Remains the Same, Melky Gets Another Three Hits

Breaking News: Hornets Land No. 1 Pick In '12 NBA Draft

Penn State, Jerry Sandusky, And Joe Paterno: The Law Only Covers So Much

Everyone involved in the Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse case is culpable for not acting upon their moral responsibility to alert the police in 2002. And as a result, they should all be fired, including legendary coach Joe Paterno.

Nov 7, 2011 - I don't really need outrage here. Facts should be enough for you. Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and VP of Finance and Operations Gary Schultz have been accused of perjuring themselves in a grand jury investigation of sexual abuse involving Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State defensive coordinator. Sandusky allegedly abused a child within the walls of the Penn State football facility with a third party witness looking on in horror in the year 2002. This was one of eight cases listed in the grand jury finding issued by the State of Pennsylvania. At least one happened.

In response, Penn State did not call the police. They did other things, but they did not call the police. Joe Paterno did not call the police, and Tim Curley did not call the police, and Gary Schultz did not call the police. The graduate assistant who witnessed the act did not call the police. Penn State President Graham Spanier did not call the police. A reported child molester and rapist was living and working in their midst, and working in a program that brought him into contact with boys, and not one person called the police.


RELATED: Complete Coverage of the Jerry Sandusky Case

The legal case here covers that which is legally enforceable. We live in a society of laws, and those laws have limits. All of the people involved here who should have called the police instead reported what they were supposed to under Pennsylvania law, to a certain extent. The failure came at the top of the chain of command. Curley and Schultz short-circuited the proper course of action, protected Sandusky and the reputation of the university, and behaved in a manner not consistent with the law in doing so and then lying about it to a grand jury. They are charged with third-degree felonies, and have already both lost their jobs over the matter. Sandusky will most likely die in prison.

That is what is covered by the law.

The rest is a matter of morality. The reporting occurred in 2002. At that point, if someone had called the police, Sandusky could have been caught. There is a section dated "Victim One" in the grand jury finding. This case of abuse unfolded from 2005 to 2009. This case happened after 2002, when Sandusky should have been reported, and then prosecuted, and then placed in prison after a fair trial. 

Not one person called the police.

This is not the army. There is a chain of command in places like Penn State, but ultimately a nation of laws is governed by citizens, not cogs in an institution. Every person who knew about this and passed it along is culpable in the ongoing abuse of children by Sandusky. That is a painful thing to write, but every person who knew something and turned away is culpable--even those not named in this case, whose names will never be known, and who let an institution's assumed weight blunt their moral sensibilities.

There is one person who did the right thing: Steven Turchetta, the high school football coach and assistant principal who reported Sandusky's inappropriate behavior, had him banned from the school district, and whose allegations led to a grand jury investigation.

Everyone else involved took half-measures. Those people include the grad assistant who reported the abuse to Paterno, but who never bothered to follow up with the case despite watching a young boy sodomized by someone he knew to be working with children on a regular basis. Paterno reported the allegations upward, but then seemingly forgot about them, allowing Sandusky to walk free. Schultz and Curley deliberately hid bad news from their superior like toddlers stuffing soiled pants behind furniture to avoid being caught with a mess on their hands.

The law only covers so much. Morality covers the rest. I tend to be very permissive with the definition of morality, but there are a few things that are non-negotiables. Your person is sacrosanct. Your property should be safe. Your basic rights should be guaranteed.

At the bare minimum, a child being raped by anyone should be reported to the police. This might make me a feather-headed idealist, but it seems like the least you can do for your fellow citizen. Consensus may be hard to come by in our nation, but this seems like something we can agree on as a people. If you see a child being raped, you should call the police.

This kind of bold thinking may seem obvious to some. It was not to more than one person at Penn State, people who assumed that the university had some kind of other law that overlapped with Jerry Sandusky law, and with Paterno law, or whatever other pseudo-legality they thought kept them from calling the police and saying, "I think we have a child molester working in and around our program."

And yet no one said anything. If everyone at Penn State is okay with this, then the heads stop rolling here. If you're not, then you demand the resignations of everyone involved. This includes Joe Paterno, who knew, but then abandoned his moral responsibility to the cold dictates of the org chart.

Do you like this post?

Spencer_medium

Spencer Hall

Featured Contributor

Spencer Hall is the editor of EDSBS.com and a contributor to SBNation.com. He focuses on college football and participatory pieces involving trying new sports. He does not excel in the latter and is... Read full bio


Comments

Display:

I got a better solution...

Let’s transfer ’em all to a different diocese!

by Skortchaser on Nov 7, 2011 9:57 AM EST reply actions   4 recs

Or our public schools

which are just as bad.

Google's homepage celebrates too much shit.

by meatybob on Nov 8, 2011 11:05 AM EST up reply actions  

tough but fair

and not really that tough after all.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 9:58 AM EST via mobile reply actions  

Thank you based god

It’s about goddamn time someone said this.

by Blue_in_NOLA on Nov 7, 2011 9:59 AM EST reply actions   2 recs

Its is truly a

sad day when we have to remind people to do their civic and moral duties and not hide behind the addage of “not my problem”. A tragedy like this was avoidable for so many involved.

Vandy Fan. Yankee by birth, Southern by choice.
The Twitterz Tag
Remember the 5!

by VUfanInNJ on Nov 7, 2011 9:59 AM EST reply actions  

the sad thing

is that a couple of people on the Penn state board were trying to convince the rest of the horrified Penn State fans that if you didn’t witness it, by law, you’re not allowed to go to the police and can be sued for defamation of character. Yep, some people are under the impression that you can’t legally report a crime if you didn’t witness it. Sad.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 10:04 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Schultz was the head of the University Police Dept

Reporting it to him is reporting it to the police.

Saying Gary Schultz did not report it to the police is like saying Obama is hiding news from the executive branch. Paterno and the grad assistant reported it to both their superiors and the police, then Paterno fired Sandusky. Short of impassioned by factually-challenged blog posts, I’m not sure what else he’s meant to have done.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 10:02 AM EST reply actions   2 recs

Schultz was not the head of the UPD

Schultz was the boss of the University Police Chief. He personally did not have any investigative powers. He should have turned it over to the actual University police (or police outside the University, since they would be unencumbered by conflicts of interest). Telling the boss of the police chief about something is not the same as filing a report with the police.

Also, Paterno did not fire Sandusky. Sandusky was already retired at the time that the incident witnessed by the GA happened. They continued to allow Sandusky on campus after the incident and in football buildings and offices. They simply put an unenforceable ban in place prohibiting him from bringing children on campus.

I’m with Spencer. There was a massive failure to meet moral obligations at Penn State.

by NoDak_jacket on Nov 7, 2011 10:09 AM EST up reply actions   3 recs

This is faulted reasoning at best

and a really poor attempt to explain away a horrible judgment call by all parties involved. Shultz position is similar to that of the Mayor of a town. Telling the Mayor is not the same as telling the police. The basis for informing the police when you believe a crime has been committed is to allow them to investigate, arrest if applicable and at the very least, determine if a crime has been committed. By telling his superiors, Paterno and grad asst. simply placed their moral and civic duties on someone else.

Vandy Fan. Yankee by birth, Southern by choice.
The Twitterz Tag
Remember the 5!

by VUfanInNJ on Nov 7, 2011 10:13 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

That's ridiculous

The problem is that they went too high up the chain of command?

Isn’t the whole point of having a police department and an administration that these are the people to “place your moral and civic duties” on? Am I abdicating my duties by calling the police when I see a robbery instead of stopping him myself?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Articulation of what joe pa has done wrong. He’s managex to avoid prosecution, but he should be fired.

- PlightGeist

by PlightGeist on Nov 7, 2011 4:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Not ridiculous at all

It’s a child being molested. Period.

It’s sad that you think this was handled correctly by Paterno.

Let’s say we agree that he doesn’t need to contact the police directly. Every day he saw Sandusky still around campus, he should have been storming the castle asking why a child predator was not being dealt with.

Even that’s not enough, but at least you could make a case that he did something tangible.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 10:22 AM EST up reply actions   3 recs

HUGE disparity between alerting the police assigned to the university

and the state police. huge.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 10:24 AM EST up reply actions  

A huge...

…difference that Joe Pa, who’s surely dealt with both kinds of police many times because of various player misdeeds over the decades had reason to know. The only possible moral defense Joe Pa might have is some kind of mental impairment.

by witless chum on Nov 7, 2011 2:32 PM EST up reply actions  

This, I could actually buy.

If he’s in some way suffering from mild dementia or something, then maybe.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Not at Penn State

Penn State has a legitimate police force, not the glorified security guards many other universities use. Anything that happens on-campus falls under their jurisdiction, just like you would report anything on your street to your local police force.

by bubba0077 on Nov 7, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Are you serious?

This is not a compliance issue. This is a crime. A CRIME. You are not expected to stop it because we have police to that. Your civil and moral duty is to do everything in your power (without risking your safety or the safety of others) in preventing a crime or assisting law enforcement in apprehending the criminals by NOTIFYING THEM. I sure as shit am not going to stand by and watch a grown man sodemize a child. I would hope you would not either.

Vandy Fan. Yankee by birth, Southern by choice.
The Twitterz Tag
Remember the 5!

by VUfanInNJ on Nov 7, 2011 10:24 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

What I would do

Is impossible to say sitting here as a keyboard jockey. Everyone imagines himself flipping shit, tackling the perpetrator, etc. But to either personally witness something that horrible, or be told that someone you knew/worked with for decades was witnessed doing something that horrible is not a situation you can stick yourself into as a hypothetical. Seems crazy to me that Paterno is suddenly the villain for reporting it to his superior and the exec responsible for university police.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 10:30 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Yes. I don’t know when or under what circumstances. I also don’t know whether he tried to follow up further or not. Neither do you.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 10:36 AM EST up reply actions  

Nah, Joe who?

I’m sure if he had called the county DA, or the Attorney General, each would have said, “Did you report this to the Athletic Director? Well then, Old Man, it’s in the system. Don’t worry about it. No, I’m not going to look into it. I’m also not taking your call again unless it’s to offer me tickets to the Wisconsin game.”

by Ardbeg on Nov 7, 2011 2:12 PM EST up reply actions  

As a PSU Fan

I can tell you that without question Paterno did see Sandusky on campus after this. In fact, Sandusky was on campus as recently as last week.

My wife (a PSU alum) and I are extremely disappointed in Paterno. He did not committ a crime but had the power to do much more than he did. In our opinion he should not be back as head coach next season.

tO$U sucks-ALWAYS the right choice!

by nits4ever on Nov 7, 2011 7:23 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

logic fail. morality fail as well…

Proud mini-Saban.

by Tidee Whitee on Nov 7, 2011 10:32 AM EST up reply actions  

Come on

No one is saying that he is the villan for telling his superior – they are saying that he failed his moral duties by NOT REPORTING THE CRIME TO THE PEOPLE TASKED WITH PROTECTING OUR LIVES AND SAFETY or at the very least, following up to make sure the people he told did the same thing.

Vandy Fan. Yankee by birth, Southern by choice.
The Twitterz Tag
Remember the 5!

by VUfanInNJ on Nov 7, 2011 10:32 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

You are not reading this objectively if you think that

Spencer is stating an opinion that many people agree with: Telling your superiors (and failing to tell the police) in a situtation involving the safety of those who cannot defend themselves is not enough. It is never enough. NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE.

Vandy Fan. Yankee by birth, Southern by choice.
The Twitterz Tag
Remember the 5!

by VUfanInNJ on Nov 7, 2011 10:37 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Only by a hair-splittingly legalistic definition of "the police"

Telling the man in charge of the police dept is easy to paint as the wrong decision in hindsight because he perpetrated the coverup. People are acting as if he went to Schultz because he would perpetrate a coverup.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 10:41 AM EST up reply actions  

no, people are saying he didnt do enough.

he followed the law, and did what he was supposed to do as a citizen. the fact that he knew of this (how much he knew is ultimately irrelevant) and didnt follow up is what he is supposed to do as a human being.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 10:43 AM EST up reply actions  

Admin in charge of the operations of the campus police =\= police. Same as asking the board of directors at a hospital to perform surgery. You tell the people you are supposed to but you also tell those you can do something tangible about it.

Vandy Fan. Yankee by birth, Southern by choice.
The Twitterz Tag
Remember the 5!

by VUfanInNJ on Nov 7, 2011 10:44 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

I’m pretty sure if you tell the head of the hospital that someone important needs surgery, they’ll have the surgeons actually perform it.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 10:45 AM EST up reply actions  

Pretty sure?

and what if they fail to? Don’t you think your failure to get the person medical assistance is a moral failure? Would you be able to say with a straight face that you have no blood on your hands?

Vandy Fan. Yankee by birth, Southern by choice.
The Twitterz Tag
Remember the 5!

by VUfanInNJ on Nov 7, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions  

This analogy’s been strained out of all usefulness, because in this case the head of the hospital didn’t fail to follow up, but rather conspired to keep the surgeons from knowing someone needed surgery.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 10:49 AM EST up reply actions  

nurse tells head of hospital that a man is dying in room 304 and needs surgery

head of hospital says ok, ill handle it

a few hours pass, nothing is done

nurse is aware nothing has been done, and doesnt say anything else about it to the hospital head, or anyone else.

in this scenario, the nurse is just as responsible as the hospital head. period.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 10:52 AM EST up reply actions   4 recs

Exactly

Can’t believe we are debating this…..

Vandy Fan. Yankee by birth, Southern by choice.
The Twitterz Tag
Remember the 5!

by VUfanInNJ on Nov 7, 2011 10:53 AM EST up reply actions  

The nurse doesn’t know that nothing’s been done. In fact, the nurse only has heard second-hand that the man is dying. Only in hindsight does the extent of the man’s illness appear. No, the nurse is not just as responsible as the hospital head, whether or not I add a “period” to the end of this.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 10:59 AM EST up reply actions  

so second hand knowledge is now defined as

enough to call the AD to your home and discuss it with him?

i would think that if it was merely second hand knowledge a phone call would have sufficed.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 11:01 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes?

That’s pretty disturbing shit, you don’t think an in-person meeting would be in order?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:03 AM EST up reply actions  

so if its that disturbing, then when nothing came of it he shoul dhave followed up!

you basically just contradicted yourself.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 11:04 AM EST up reply actions  

We don’t know that he didn’t follow up.

Me personally? If I got reports of something like that about someone I worked with/trusted/knew/etc., and then passed them on to be investigated, and heard nothing back, I’d probably convince myself that it was all a misunderstanding and the guy had been exonerated.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:06 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Sandusky was never questioned, arrested, or otherwsie brought up from 2002 until now

id say thats a pretty fucking good indicator that no one ever followed up on it.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 11:08 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

No, it’s a pretty fucking good indicator that no one with the power to question, arrest, or otherwise bring up Sandusky ever followed up on it.

You’re projecting a lot of hypotheticals on to what happened after where the testimony leaves off.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:09 AM EST up reply actions  

and you are leaving people who had the power to do something with it out of the equation

based on the excuse that “they may or may not have known enough to do something about it”

regardless of whats public so far or not, the GA and Paterno both knew enough to report it to their superiors. by law, they did the right thing. however, in a case so disturbing (as you yourself put it) they had a moral obligation to make sure that something was done, and they both had the power to do it with what they knew, no matter how minimal it was. at the very least, the police would have had to question sandusky, which could have nipped this in the bud back in 2002. instead, no one at any part of the chain of knowlegde said a damn thing, which allowed him to continue for years. only some of these people should be persecuted by the actual law, but every single one of them should be, and have opened themselves up to be, persecuted by the general public.

dont sit here and act like you or any one of us never said a thing about casey anthony, or OJ, or anyone else who has been accused of a major crime and not all of the details are known. we all judged those people freely. the fact that all of a sudden there is a different standard for Paterno because he is the face of your favorite university is ludicrous and hypocritical.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 11:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were accused of committing crimes, not of insufficiently following up their reports of crimes someone else actually witnessed. But if that’s the calm, rational standard by which you want to go about this, please be my guest.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:26 AM EST up reply actions  

i was merely pointing out that the defense of

“not everything is known, and i cant judge him based on that fact” is ridiculous. the details of everything are not known, but enough about the situation IS known that everyone involved in that situation can be held accountable for not doing enough. plain and simple. is PSU fans want to defend JoePa out of blind homerism, thats fine. but the simple part of this is the fact that he knew enough to live up to the standard of morality he openly promotes, and he didnt, regardless of what we all know or dont know.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 11:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Let me get this straight: “Regardless of what we all know or don’t know”?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:32 AM EST up reply actions  

You really ARE embarrassing yourself at this point, Elefantstn.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:32 AM EST up reply actions  

It’s the capital “ARE” that convinced me.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:33 AM EST up reply actions  

You're making yourself look like a fool.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

Hm, no capitals. Try again?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:36 AM EST up reply actions  

Keep going.

You’re proving it with every post.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:37 AM EST up reply actions  

your whole argument is based on saying "we dont know what joepa did or didnt do"

while this is true, we do know that according to what is in the grand jury report (that he was informed that a 58 year old man and a 10 year old boy were seen in the showers, and that something of a sexual nature happened), any living, breathing human being with any common sense would have done everything in their power to make sure that Sandusky was at the very least questioned by the police department. instead, he passed it along, the GA who told him about it was questioned a week and a half later, and there is no report of anyone contacting sandusky at all.

for all the morality and standards that joePa has preached about in his entire tenure of coaching, he threw that out the window by simply doing the minimum required by law.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 11:36 AM EST up reply actions  

My argument is based on “we don’t know what Paterno did or didn’t do.” Your argument based on “it doesn’t matter if we know what Paterno did or didn’t do.” I guess I can’t stop you.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:40 AM EST up reply actions  

We know one thing he "didn't do":

call the police to report the rape of a child. We know that for certain.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

We only “know” that by pretending he didn’t think the man who was the head of the police department at UP would represent the police. Why do people think Schultz was involved, to make sure that Sandusky’s pension was in order?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:46 AM EST up reply actions  

This is such a tired and failed canard.

Schultz was the VP of Budgeting and Finance, who happened to have budgeting for the UP under his purview. It would be akin to walking in on a former high-ranking city employee raping a little boy, and claiming that reporting it to the Comptroller was sufficient.

Just stop, please. You don’t report a rape to a bureaucrat, you report it to the police.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:54 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

I’m glad that we’re all experts on the PSU org chart now, but you really don’t think the reason Schultz was involved was in his capacity heading the police dept? Again, if that’s not the reason he was involved, what was?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Good god.

This isn’t about “the PSU org chart”! How can you not see that this is about what a human being should do when they see (or learn of, in Paterno’s case) a child being raped by an adult?!? This wasn’t a circumstantial case. McQ saw it taking place!!!

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 12:02 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

First, you didn’t answer the question: Why do you think Schultz was involved, if not his capacity at the head of the PSU police?

Of course this about what a person should do: I’m saying that we know that Paterno did at least some things you should do, such as notifying the AD and (again, because why else would Schultz be involved) the police. We don’t know whether he followed up, we don’t know what he was told if he did so, and we don’t know exactly how much he knew about the original incident.

As far as McQ, people seem to have grandiose notions about taking the law into their own hands and tackling Sandusky, etc. I’m not sure how I’d react in the situation (shock? disbelief? anger?), so I’m not willing to judge what he did in the heat of the moment. What he did afterwards is open to judgement.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 12:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Calling 911 when you've just seen a child being raped is not "taking the law into their own hands."

It’s being a rational human being. Also, Schultz was involved because he was technically Paterno’s superior. You are seemingly pretending that Schultz had some type of police authority. He didn’t, and there’s no way that a sharp guy like Paterno thought that talking to a high-ranking VP was the same thing as calling the police.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 12:23 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

You vigilantes...

with your 9-1-1. You rogues are no better than the thugs you aim to stop.

by AgAstraPerAspera on Nov 7, 2011 12:32 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I’m just going to keep asking until you figure out an answer:

If not because he was in charge of the police, for which reason was Schultz contacted?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I answered your question, dumbass.
Schultz was involved because he was technically Paterno’s superior. You are seemingly pretending that Schultz had some type of police authority. He didn’t, and there’s no way that a sharp guy like Paterno thought that talking to a high-ranking VP was the same thing as calling the police.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 12:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Curley was Paterno’s direct superior, not Schultz. Why, of all the different executives at the university, was Schultz involved?

Curley is Paterno’s and McQueary’s boss, and responsible for the dept that runs the building in which the incident happened. That’s why he’s involved.

Schultz is just in charge of finance, right? So why is he involved?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 12:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Have you simply ignored everyone explaining this to you?

Curley brought in Schultz (who was above him in the food chain) as a CYA. It’s like you’re being willfully obtuse about this for some reason.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m glad you’re not ignoring the question anymore, now that you found someone else to give you an answer you could use.

So if Paterno goes to Curley and Curley tells him “we are bringing in Schultz because he runs the university police,” is Paterno’s reaction to that supposed to be “oh now I need to call different police”? He thinks there’s an investigation. You (and I) know in retrospect that Curley used Schultz as a coverup. Paterno doesn’t know that ahead of time.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 1:05 PM EST up reply actions  

So now you're making up hypothetical conversations?

Fact: Paterno was told that his GA caught Sandusky at least doing sexual things to a 10 year old.

Fact: Paterno did not call the police.

Fact: Sandusky was allowed to conduct overnight children’s camps right up through 2009.

Fact: Sandusky wasn’t investigated until a high school coach contacted the actual police (not a VP of Finance and Business) and pressed the issue.

Any responses to these actual facts? Or are you more interested in concocting hypothetical conversations that try to make Paterno look less culpable?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Your fact about contacting the police is an opinion. From Paterno’s perspective, the head of the university police does know. He doesn’t have the same unshakeable moral conviction that Schultz has never so much as seen a university policeman as you do.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Bullshit.

Talking to a bureaucrat who happens to oversee the UP’s budget isn’t CLOSE to the same as filing a police report. My god, this some desperate shit.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 1:24 PM EST up reply actions  

He’s in charge of the police, whether you like it or not. Do you think Curley and Schultz, who lied (apparently) to the grand jury, told Paterno the truth about investigating Sandusky?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 1:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Utter rationalization, and nothing more on your part.

As for what C and S told Paterno, what does it matter? After a few months (hell, even a few weeks), he had to know they weren’t doing anything about it. Further, it should never have mattered, as any right-thinking person who hears a direct report of a rape (from an eyewitness to that rape) calls the police if the person reporting it hasn’t already done so.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 1:34 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

This is really moronic

I work in an organization that is very, very similar to Penn State. I am personally acquainted with our “version” of Schultz, as well as with our police chief (our police are state police with full investigative and arrest powers).

If I heard about an associate buggering a 10-year old on campus, I sure as heck would not be reporting it to the VP for Finance (who is my boss). I would be at the police HQ (and I would bring the Grad Assistant there) filing a formal report.

I cannot think of anyone I know who wouldn’t do the same.

Molecular gastronomy can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

by RoastBeefKazenzakis on Nov 7, 2011 7:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly.

This tired defense of “well Paterno probably thought he HAD got the police involved” needs to stop.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 7:40 PM EST up reply actions  

no, here is what we know, because its in the grand jury report.

Paterno reported it to Curley. based on whatever investigation they did, Sandusky was banned from bringing kids onto campus, and they informed his charity of the incident.

Paterno would have most definately known this, being who he is. so now the issue is, Paterno knew, again, according to grand jury reporting, that something of a sexual nature happened between sandusky and a child, and him being banned from campus was a good enough punishment for him.

thats intolerable.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 11:58 AM EST up reply actions  

the fact that you worded that as "convincing yourself" is the issue at heart here

this deals with children. you shouldnt have to convince yourself of anything. you report it, if nothing is done, you demand answers to it.

like you said, what Joe was told was disturbing enough to call the AD to his home, so i would have a hard time believing that if he called a month later to find out what happened and the AD said “nothing” he would have accepted that

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 11:10 AM EST up reply actions  

Your whole scenario is made up. You don’t know if Joe did or did not call the AD. You don’t know if the AD did or did not tell him “nothing” happened. You don’t know if he did or didn’t accept that answer.

I can just as easily fabricate a scenario where Joe calls the AD, the AD says “we went to the police, but we couldn’t identify the victim so they didn’t think they could convict so all we can really do is be extra vigilant with him in case he sues.” That paints Paterno in the most favorable light possible, but it’s just as much fantasy as what you’re describing.

I’m not sure why a house-based meeting (Curley and Joe live about 6 blocks from each other, at least until Curley lives in the state prison) holds so much significance in your head either.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:22 AM EST up reply actions  

In your best case scenario for Paterno

Does extra vigilance leave room for Sandusky to run youth camps at other Penn State campuses, and allowing Sandusky to bring one of his alleged victims to a preseason Penn State practice five years after the fact of Paterno knowing whatever it was that he was told?

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 12:45 PM EST up reply actions  

This story just gets worse and worse.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 12:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Just like those in charge at PSU conspired to keep the authorities from knowing a CHILD needed help?

We are talking about the RAPE of CHILDREN here. Do you really not understand that?

Would Paterno’s actions be enough for you if it was your own child? T

On Wisconsin.

by Carly on Nov 7, 2011 10:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Sorry, that doesn't cut it

If you can’t see the conflict of interest here, you’ve got your Penn St. blinders on. This is like the corrupt mayor of the southern town saying, “Report it to the Police? Son, I am the Po-lice!”

He may have executive oversight over the university police department, but this case required actual police involvement.

by C.Togar on Nov 7, 2011 10:15 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

The question isn’t (as far as I can tell) whether Schultz and Curley covered it up — unless a lot of people lied to the grand jury, they did. The question is whether Paterno and the grad asst witness should have believed that reporting it to them would have resulted in the right thing being done.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 10:21 AM EST up reply actions  

Wow
The question is whether Paterno and the grad asst witness should have believed that reporting it to them would have resulted in the right thing being done.

That’s really a debatable question?

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 10:24 AM EST up reply actions  

It’s a foregone conclusion that Curley and Schultz were going to cover up child molestation? Really? From Paterno’s/the grad asst’s perspective?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 10:26 AM EST up reply actions  

Did Sandusky continue to show up on campus?

Do you think Paterno didn’t realize nothing was being done on this issue?

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 10:27 AM EST up reply actions  

Sandusky had been investigated before

and no charges were filed. What would make Paterno believe that the same thing hadn’t happened again?

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 4:05 PM EST up reply actions  

No one saw him in the physical act of raping a little boy the first time.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 7:41 PM EST up reply actions  

He could have called the police

Everybody needs to be fired, this isnt even a debate

by Jonesy24 on Nov 7, 2011 11:01 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

You are loathsome

I am ashamed you’re apparently a fellow alum.

University police are not real cops – they’re barely above mall cops on the scale of law enforcement. Grow up.

by M1EK on Nov 7, 2011 11:55 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

I have my off days

But I like to think that “loathsome” might be a little bit hyperbole here.

I don’t see how trying to out-outrage each other is productive.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 11:59 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

No, the fact that you think that not calling the police when you learn of a rape is okay,

makes “loathsome” not all that hyperbolic at all.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 12:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Again, if Paterno/McQ didn’t think Schultz represented the police, why was he contacted?

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 12:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Because it was a way for Curley to CYA without actually notifying the police.

by GCS on Nov 7, 2011 12:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly.

He was Curley’s next step up the bureaucratic food chain.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 12:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Because he was VP Finance/Business and having a pederast coach emeritus threatened the #1 business at PSU.

"[Phil Kessel]'s as streaky as a flipped coin" - Shift

by The '67 Sound on Nov 7, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly

No one in their right mind reports a felony to the VP for Finance, unless they are more interested in CYA than stopping the criminal.

Having worked for a long time in a organization of similar size and character to that of Penn State, I can say with confidence that the idea of reporting a crime to the VP for Finance because he is “in charge” of the police is laughable – no one would ever, even for a moment, think the VP was law enforcement simply because he controlled their budget.

Of course, I sincerely hope (and believe) that my VP would have reacted by saying “Why haven’t you called the police?” and picking up the phone.

Molecular gastronomy can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

by RoastBeefKazenzakis on Nov 7, 2011 7:05 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Why am I not surprised that you’re a Penn State fan? Let me guess—you thought Tressel deserved to be fired for turning a blind eye to Tattoo-gate, right? But turning a blind eye to a child rapist is OK. I’m sorry, but the rationalization exercise you’re engaging in here sickens me and is exactly the same kind of “reasoning” that led to Sandusky raping further children after Paterno and others were on notice they had a monster in their midst.

"[Phil Kessel]'s as streaky as a flipped coin" - Shift

by The '67 Sound on Nov 7, 2011 12:50 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m guessing you’re not surprised because anyone who’s not a PSU fan only recognizes the name “Paterno” out of all of this, and doesn’t feel like a bunch of nameless/faceless dudes in the university administration going down really satisfies the outrage they feel over the magnitude of the crimes committed.

Tressel’s punishment was moving from one high-paying high-prestige job to another. The people who were involved with covering up the Sandusky case are going to go to jail. They’re clearly very different cases with very different stakes.

Paterno isn’t lasting until the 2012 season physically anyway. Eventually we’ll know what he did or didn’t do to follow up on the Sandusky case, or what he knew or didn’t know, and that’ll be far more important than whether Tressel is kind of a cheater.

by elefantstn on Nov 7, 2011 12:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Well said, Chris


Tomahawk Nation Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!

by Bud Elliott on Nov 7, 2011 10:35 AM EST up reply actions  

Excellent statements. They all must go.

And my attitude about this has zero to do with football alliegence. It has to do with unacceptable sexual behavior towards a minor. Zero tolerance. Period.

We should all call on the PSU authorities to do the right thing, finally.

For JoePa, this is terrible. His record will be tarnished, as well it should, by the off-field clusterf*ck.

Proud mini-Saban.

by Tidee Whitee on Nov 7, 2011 10:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Chris is right

Curley worked for Paterno more than Paterno worked for Curley. Any idiot who knows the first thing about Penn State football can tell you that much. Paterno is not some middling manager. He is Joe Paterno, the face of the University. For him to report it (to an administrator) and wash his hands and allow this pederast in and around the facility, running youth football camps and administering the Second Mile is morally inexcusable. If it were your son, would you be satisfied with how far Paterno went? Would you be lauding him for doing the right thing? I have a ten year old boy and I would have to be talked down from getting a couple of pipe hitters and a couple of blow torches and getting medieval.

by weyun on Nov 7, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions  

Perfect.

As was your take on BSD. I’ve frankly been rather surprised how many people have taken to defending Paterno’s inaction on informing the actual police (not the VP of Finance, who happened to have the UP as part of his oversight).

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:14 AM EST up reply actions  

It's sort of amazing.

There’s always been a segment of the fanbase that will defend Joe Paterno no matter what, but I never imagined “no matter what” extended to this. It’s shameful.

Know that the vast, vast majority of Penn State fans are outraged. But holy shit, I take back everything I said about Ohio State fans defending Jim Tressel or SEC fans defending, you know, anything.

by Chris Grovich on Nov 7, 2011 10:13 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

If your local sheriff/police chief won't do something about a crime

you can contact the attorney general, who has his own investigative staff and the right to superintend on the case. You can call the DA, who, if he believes you, can tell the local sheriff/chief to get off his ass. You can call Child Protective Services, who even if they can’t prosecute, can investigate and take civil measure to ensure the perp can’t get near the child, and will present any findings indicating abuse to police. You can call the principals of local schools and warn them to be vigilant. If all that goes nowhere, you can call the ghawdamn newspaper, who, if they find anything, will publish a story that will set the entire state on fire.

Or you can do the bare minimum, cover your ass, and go hand out the Joseph V. Paterno Award, which considers, among other criteria, “the coach’s overall impact on the community, including philanthropic and volunteer efforts.”

Joe’s actions here certainly had an impact on the community.

by Ardbeg on Nov 7, 2011 2:25 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Thank you for saying this.

Paterno apparently followed the law. He did not follow basic human morality.

Oh, come on. Don't leave your uncle T-bag hangin'.

by Troll2Troll on Nov 7, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions  

I think it's strange that even one of our SBN PSU bloggers gets this,

while other non-PSU folks don’t.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions  

There is no excuse whatsover for no one calling the police.

A Grad Assistant witnessed the act. He saw it in person. He told Paterno. That immediately should have prompted a phone call to police. The PSU Campus Police had first jurisdiction, but it could have been the State College City Police, or county or state police. Anyone.

by USCndaATL on Nov 7, 2011 10:12 AM EST reply actions   2 recs

You report it...

to your supervisor. The head of an institution has the responsibility and it is the LAW that he inform authorities when he receives the credible report. Disagree if you want as to what should have happened when the institution did nothing, but in Pennsylvania, this is how you do things.

Maybe the GA or Coach Paterno should have done something more. But to suggest that they did the wrong thing first by not going to the police immediately displays ignorance of how the reporting process is supposed to work.

Of course, maybe this gets the law changes in Pa.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:27 AM EST up reply actions  

Did you read the article?

You seem hung up on “legal” responsibility.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 10:28 AM EST up reply actions  

It addressed...

the way you do things after you witness a suspected sex crime. That is clearly defined in Pa. law. The article is right, I believe, in the procedural understanding.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:37 AM EST up reply actions  

It addressed other options

I don’t see anything saying that Paterno violated any legal obligations.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 10:40 AM EST up reply actions  

if thats the way all people roll in PA

when witnessing a crime, remind me to not go again. But, I think you’re in the minority.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 10:41 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

It's not a personal thing...

it’s the law. I could certainly see the law changing in this fiasco.

You’re welcome in Pa. anytime. Don’t think for a minute everyone (including me) isn’t horrified by this unspeakable blot on its reputation and are mortified that at least eight kids allegedly were violated.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions  

there's no law

that says you can’t report a suspected crime. If there is, show it to me.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 10:51 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

I'm trying to find that out...

But the law is, that you report a suspected child abuse crime in an institution by reporting it to the head of the institution. The GA and Paterno did their part. Curley and Schultz did not. I don’t think there is a law that covers what happens if that crime is not reported. Again, I think this case demands a reexamination of Pa. law.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:58 AM EST up reply actions  

right

Like I said below, that’s the bare minimum that you must do. There’s nothing stopping you from reporting it to police on your own. I think in my state, that’s the law anyway.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 11:01 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

You posted this at BSD. You are still wrong.

I set out the applicable laws in this post:

http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2011/11/6/2541500/jerry-sandusky-allegations-and-obligations

You posted the first comment to it. You still don’t get it, so let’s try again.

There are people who are REQUIRED to report such incidents to their supervisors at certain institutions.

© 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.

There are other people who are PERMITTED to report such incidents to the police. That is a special class of people I like to refer to as EVERYBODY:

§ 6312. Persons permitted to report suspected child abuse.
In addition to those persons and officials required to report suspected child abuse, any person may make such a report if that person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is an abused child

The law is fine. The law is not the breakdown here.

by Chris Grovich on Nov 7, 2011 11:03 AM EST up reply actions   3 recs

i dont think the state police would have turned paterno away

because they hadnt yet heard from the AD on the matter.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 10:54 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

Not sure.

I’m trying to find some of this out.

But the moral course for me here is to get back to work.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:59 AM EST up reply actions  

If you see a rape happen, you call the police.

Period. End of story.

For the love of god! An old man was seen anally raping a 10 year old boy! This wasn’t someone seeing a few bruises on the boy when he changed for gym class. The man was caught in the damn act!

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:18 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

Wins > child safety

Had this been just some random professor (or even some highly-respected prof) on campus, would those defending Paterno’s lack of action be saying the same things?

“Oh come on, it was reported to the Dean! I’m not sure what else he’s meant to have done.”


"Pursue happiness... with diligence."

by Bucketochicken on Nov 7, 2011 10:12 AM EST reply actions  

don't be that guy

It wasn’t about wins it was about Penn state protecting its own. His could’ve happened in a textile mill. Don’t make it about wins.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 10:16 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Right.

But as it is about protecting their own and preserving the sanctity of the football program, ultimately that is what it’s about. Regardless, it’s disgusting and indefensible.


"Pursue happiness... with diligence."

by Bucketochicken on Nov 7, 2011 10:33 AM EST up reply actions  

its an institutional thing

If it was a professor, it might’ve gone down the same way (minus the AD involvement). Its about flawed reasoning in moral vs. organizational imperatives. It wouldn’t have really affected on field results or affected recruiting (in my opinion, you can obviously never know for sure.) College sports gets correctly and incorrectly blamed for so many things that I don’t want this added to the “evils” of college athletics. I’m not gonna beat the catholic church thing over the head, but its a reasonable enough parallel to show that its a problem about how we view our obligations to society vs our company. And the problem that almost everybody faces, whether to get involved in these situations even if it could be to our individual detriment.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 10:49 AM EST via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

Absolutely true

This is the clearest, most effective piece I have seen written about this case. You succinctly sum up exactly what I felt about this when I learned, with horror, about it yesterday. The grand jury report strongly suggests some people covered this whole thing up. I think that the graduate assistant (a man of 28) and the janitor (an older man) who witnessed crimes firsthand should have contacted police directly, but instead, they went to their supervisors. Who apparently did not do much about it – it sounds like they merely encouraged Sandusky to commit his crimes off their property. It sounds like both men were afraid of losing their jobs or were afraid of confronting someone powerful. The mother of one of these young boys did call the police, and the cops listened in on a phone call with Sandusky where she questioned him and he supposedly said “I wish I were dead.” Likely he will get his wish.

by SusanB on Nov 7, 2011 10:16 AM EST reply actions   2 recs

The GA and Joe Paterno went to their supervisors

because Pa. Law requires them to, as members of an institution. But let this case be tried in the Twitterverse, and the Media, just as the Duke lacrosse scandal was.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Stop.

No one is claiming they broke the law. But the law only covers so much.

by Panamahuh on Nov 7, 2011 10:28 AM EST up reply actions  

bringing the Duke thing into this is ludicrous.

that case wasnt handled by Duke police. it was handled by state police, the lax coach resigned his position, and everyone involved was treated the way they should have. not one part of that case was ever covered up or swept under a rug. it was a TOTALLY different animal than this

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 10:34 AM EST up reply actions  

nevermind that it severely affected the lives of several young men.

men who didn’t break the law; innocent men. the difference between public opinion and a court of law is that you have a constitutional right to confront your accusers and defend yourself in court. but before the trial even happened, the reputations of those boys was tarnished, for no good reason. with less than all the facts. and that is precisely what is happening here.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 1:51 PM EST up reply actions  

What. The. Fuck.

How is that (“the reputations of those boys was tarnished, for no good reason”) what is happening here?!?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

because Paterno didn't commit a crime,

but is being skewered as though he did. and he has no recourse to defend himself.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 2:05 PM EST up reply actions  

He's not "being skewered as though he did", goddammit!

He’s being skewered for not reporting the rape of a child!

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:09 PM EST up reply actions  

except the part

where he did report it, exactly as the law required him to do.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 2:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Except the part

where he didn’t make sure the police had actually been brought in on the case.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions  

football coaches

don’t check up on the police to make sure they’re doing their jobs. especially in Pennsylvania, one of the most restrictive states in the nation with regard to access to information.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

I see,

JoPa is a powerless figure in State College.

That’s your story and you’re sticking to it.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

if you've seen him in the pressbox

“coaching,” you’d know the answer to that…

but whatever his clout is within the University, he is still, at the end of the day, a football coach, and no one in the police department would have any reason to tell him anything.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Yup.

No connections, no friends in high places. Poor powerless JoPa. I believe you, I really do.

Hard to imagine that you believe yourself, but please, do continue.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Except that all he had to do was call the police to report the crime.

Had he done that, an investigation (a REAL one, not the bureaucratic coverup performed by C & S) would have been opened.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions  

wait

those are separate things. the idea that Joe Paterno can call up the police department to check up on them and make sure they’re investigating a crime that his boss was supposed to have reported is different from the ability to report a crime.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Seriously?

I’m saying Paterno should have called the police the second he knew that McQ did not do so.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Both

he should have reported it immediately, and he should have followed up on the actual pathetic excuse of a solution he resorted to (reporting it to his superiors only).

He DID see Sandusky on campus again after that, and STILL Sandusky was allowed to continue his access to the campus, etc.

he should have moved heaven and earth, raised hell with anyone that had ears to get that bastard out of the light of day and behind bars. And that says nothing about McQueary, who actually WITNESSED an instance of assault.

by mdlusk on Nov 10, 2011 2:39 AM EST up reply actions  

Perfect analogy.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Actually

In most of this discussion, the legality of what Joe did or didn’t do is a red herring foisted mostly by Joe-Pa supporters. The title of this story says it all – “The Law Only Covers So Much”.

This is about his moral obligation.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

I agree.

There’s a whole lot of conflating what’s legal with what’s moral going on here.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

so,

moral obligation includes reporting an alleged rape of a child that you didn’t witness? which you heard about from someone who said they saw it with their own two eyes, and did nothing to stop it, and who wasn’t sure enough it his own conviction to go to the police himself?

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 2:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes.

When a frantic GA comes to you and tells you that your former top assistant was raping a child in your football facilities, you call the police. Period.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:25 PM EST up reply actions  

I can't buy that.

You’re imputing the failure of the GA to live up to moral obligations on someone else.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 2:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh. My. God.

So, let’s say you work in the Parks & Rec Dept. You’re the head guy, and one of your assistants comes and tells you that he saw a guy who worked for you raping a 10 year old boy in the bathroom. What should you do?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Tell him to tell the police.

And then report it to your superiors.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:35 PM EST up reply actions  

And if he hadn't already called the police?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Tell him to.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions  

No, that is not your job.

Your job is to cooperate with an investigation if they need any information from you. Otherwise you just get in the way and could jeopardize any case against him.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:40 PM EST up reply actions  

No

That could be seen as attempting to influence an investigation and could be used against the prosecution at a hypothetical trial.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Really?

You are really reaching now. Asking a witness who admitted to seeing a crime if he’s gone to the police is “influencing an investigation”?

Do you really believe what you’re typing? Or am I being trolled?

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

It would be portrayed

as trying to get him to come forward with evidence that he otherwise would not want to come forward with.

It could then be expanded upon that the reason he did not want to come forward is because he didn’t actually see anything, and that Paterno was just trying to get at this guy for some reason.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Interesting definition of trolling tha tI have not heard before.

Sorry for having an opinion and stating my case as best I can.

I’ll just be quiet from now on since you called me a troll.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Chris, if I didn't know you from our blog,

I would be thinking the same thing. It’s hard to believe you think that could actually happen in a court of law.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions  

I guess I don't know what trolling is, then

Good to know that it is simply disagreeing with someone.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Sorry

My bad for calling you a troll.

Honestly though, I think I’d rather be considered a troll than defending Paterno and Co. here (and in the manner you’re doing it – by parsing the consequences of JoePa asking a simple question of his GA).

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions  

How could following up to make sure he'd called the police,

“be used against the prosecution at a hypothetical trial”?!?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Even if the world is crazy enough for this to be true

I’m supposed to believe JoePa was considering the sanctity of the prosecution’s case when he didn’t follow up?

And let’s say I really stretch and believe that – when I see Sandusky still around campus, I think I still make sure the police have been notified, since we’re talking about allegations of rape against a child.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions  

How can there be an "investigation",

if no law enforcement was ever called?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions  

And if he didn't call the police, for whatever reason?

Would you just keep telling him to, or would you finally say, “Dammit, I’m calling them myself!”?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:47 PM EST up reply actions  

If someone tells me something that heinous

But then can’t call the police about it, why would I believe them? Unless they’ve intimated that they fear for their life if they come forward, which I don’t believe that was the case in this instance.

So if the eyewitness is not willing to talk to the police, why should I be? The only thing I can give them is hearsay, which is inadmissible.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

JoePa seemed to believe him enough to run it up the administration flagpole

It’s a serious enough charge to make sure the police are notified (so innocents are protected).

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

That's what you do, since it involves your institution.

You tell the eyewitness to call the police and then you inform your superiors. That is your only legal AND moral obligation, if you are Paterno.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

This is an incredible reach.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:55 PM EST up reply actions  

No

You can start the investigation and get the police to begin asking questions. If its nothing, you’ve prompted the police to make an investigation which produced nothing (you know, part of their jobs) from pure motives. If they find something, then they can proceed with the investigation further. They would never use you in a court, they would use the witness so the hearsay point is moot.

by SccrHskr on Nov 7, 2011 10:29 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

This is very true,

and it holds for professionals in all fields.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 10:31 PM EST up reply actions  

You don't worry about hearsay in the instance of a crime

you report what you know to the POLICE (not some bureaucrat), and you point the POLICE to any possible other leads and evidence that you can possibly think of.

Let the prosecutors worry about the possibility of hearsay in the actual presentation of evidence in a trial.

The vastly overriding that you seem to completely miss, is that as a human being expected to have certain morals, your FIRST, MAIN obligation is seeing that this child rapist is investigated by the POLICE. Now how is that so damn hard to understand?

by mdlusk on Nov 10, 2011 2:45 AM EST up reply actions  

the GA was a witness to a crime

who somehow didn’t feel morally obligated to go to the police with that information. if someone came to me with that sort of claim, but didn’t feel immediately obliged to report it, I’m taking a second to figure out why before I call the police myself.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 2:40 PM EST up reply actions  

He was frantic and hysterical, from the GJ report.

Paterno even admits as much. Perhaps that should have been Paterno’s clue that the police needed to be called.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

The failure of everyone who was aware of this

Not just the person owning the eyeballs that witnessed the event.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 2:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Though the person with those eyeballs isn't absolved either.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions  

You, sir

are an idiot. Also, ethically retarded in the literal sense of the word, not descriptive.

by SccrHskr on Nov 7, 2011 10:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes

And if you don’t think so, you’re not allowed within a 1000 feet of my kids.

by Ardbeg on Nov 7, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

True, but ...

The GA should have called the police to report a crime in progress that night.

Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.

by mdak06 on Nov 7, 2011 11:10 AM EST up reply actions  

Going ballistic in 5...4...3...2...1...

Are you fucking kidding me?!? The fucking pervert was caught with his junk in a little boy!!! This isn’t some case of a few mysterious bruises or whatever. He was caught in the act, dammit! The law does not require that someone who interrupts a damn rape not call the police. Think of it this way: you walk into a public restroom in your child’s school. You see a teacher with his pants around his knees raping a little boy. What do you do?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:24 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

They very well may...

I’m not ruling that out. But so many people are saying that they should have contacted police themselves immediately, not reflecting or investigating what their responsibilities are under Pa. law. If information comes up that says that they covered it up, let them go down as well. But all the info. thus far said that they did the right thing.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:28 AM EST reply actions  

"The right thing"

sometimes encompasses more than following the law

by Panamahuh on Nov 7, 2011 10:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Agreed.

But so many people are jumping to a conclusion that there is clear malfeasance on Coach Paterno’s part, or the GA’s, and saying that it is clear that they should have contacted the police themselves, that I feel compelled at least at this point to keep saying something like, “They acted according to the law (which is indeed a moral thing to do) and we don’t know whether there was a clear situation afterwards in which they would have come to the realization that they had to do more.”

Paterno is now saying he didn’t know details from the GA. Do you believe him or not? That will be the determining factor as to whether you think he is culpable as well.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:35 AM EST up reply actions  

whether he knew every detail is a weak excuse

he was informed by the GA that a 58 year old man was in the showers with a 10 year old boy, and “something” happened. he was informed of enough to call the AD to his house on a sunday. to just tell him and leave it there, without so much as following up at all, goes against all morality, regardless of PA law.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 10:37 AM EST up reply actions  

Thank God for the criminal justice system...

…because in America you’re entitled to a trial by an impartial jury. Not the partial ones on the Internet. They may not work perfectly, but I’ll take them any day over what I see here.

If Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, are found guilty, let them rot in jail. If Paterno can be charged with a crime, if he covered it up, let him rot too, and let me turn the key. But let me not judge a man for what more he might or might not have done, when I am not authorized to judge and when I do not know the facts.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:43 AM EST up reply actions  

Facts are pesky things. A jury will hear the case.

When innocent children are involved, adults are expected, nay required, to do more than just “send it up the chain of command”.

Proud mini-Saban.

by Tidee Whitee on Nov 7, 2011 10:45 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

im not labeling Joe as a criminal, or saying he should be locked up.

what im saying is it doesnt matter if all the GA told him was “hey i saw sandusky standing in the shower with a boy, but thats all i saw. just thought you should know” that gets reported to someone outside of the university, period. there should never be a situation where a man and a child that does not belong to him should ever be in a university shower. period.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions  

At the risk of beating this death...

I absolutely agree with you. But the way that this gets reported to the police in Pa., IF you are a member of an institution, is that you go to the head of the institution. They MUST report it to the police. Where that apparently failed was with Curley and Schultz, not Paterno.

What is open to debate and I don’t think can be assumed is that Paterno had clear evidence that the matter was not being handled appropriately. There’s an awful lot of crystal-ball gazing going on. Sexual abuse cases take years to prosecute.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:55 AM EST up reply actions  

whats being debated is that Paterno knew SOMETHING happened.

whether he knew exactly what happened is irrelevant, because he knew enough to report it to the AD. where the issue is coming in, is that YEARS passed and nothing was done except sandusky was “banned” from campus. regardless of what the law states, paterno, or anyone else who had knowledge of it, should have brought it to the state police, not the university police, and informed them of what was going on. just because the law doesnt state that is what should be done, doesnt mean its not what needed to be done

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 10:58 AM EST up reply actions  

the law says

That’s the minimum you have to do to avoid prosecution. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do anymore.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 10:59 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

He's on a "Defend JoePa" roll here, MM.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:26 AM EST up reply actions  

No, the information so far says...

that they did thelegal thing. Whether they did the right thing is very much in doubt; they’re going to have a tough time convincing many people that they acted morally in this case.

by C.Togar on Nov 7, 2011 10:32 AM EST up reply actions  

anyone trying to say that everyone involved in this shouldnt be held responsible need to imagine their child was the one in that locker room

You have a 10 year old kid, YOUR kid, and you learn that this happened. You see that a GA told Paterno, who followed PA law and reported it to their supervisors, where the issue promptly, for lack of a better word, disappeared. As a parent, do you honestly think that you would be able to sit there and justify the GA or Paterno not doing anything outside of that? you really think “they did what they were supposed to do” would cut it in your parental position? if you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that you honestly wouldnt be hounding every single person who had knowledge of this to get them to go outside the University so that the police could do their jobs, and you would settle as the parent of this kid or any of the other kids and say “well he did enough” you are absolutely insane.

this isnt like Sandusky was stealing from the local Wal-Mart and he was found out, and it got reported up the chain. this is not only a felony, but it involves someones kids. anyone defending paterno for not doing the obvious thing has been completely brainwashed by PSU fandom. should they be held to the same standard as sandusky and the two admins? no. should they be treated as law breakers? no. but to say that they shouldnt be held to the standard that they themselves promote is ridiculous at best.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 10:32 AM EST reply actions   2 recs

I have an 8 year old nephew.

If this happened to him, there would be no trial.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:27 AM EST up reply actions  

It all is going to come down to...

…whether or not people believe Joe Paterno when he says he had no detailed knowledge of the incident from the GA, and reported a reasonable suspicion of something of a sexual nature to his superior. That’s fine. If you doh’t, you don’t. If you think he knew everything, and he did the minimum necessary, then of course he is guilty too.

by Dr Screenpass on Nov 7, 2011 10:40 AM EST reply actions  

Right now it’s his word against two guys arrested for perjury and another arrested for crimes I won’t repeat. I’ll go with Paterno at least until more information comes out.

by nuftw on Nov 7, 2011 10:42 AM EST up reply actions  

From a moral standpoint, it's Paterno's word against himself

His own testimony was that he heard of a sexual assault, found the report credible, reported up, and did nothing else.

by Ardbeg on Nov 7, 2011 2:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Not even close

I believe JoePa possibly might not have known much. BUT I DO BELIEVE HE KNEW ENOUGH TO MAKE IT HIS #1 PRIORITY TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH, FIND OUT ENOUGH, FIND OUT SO THAT 10 YEARS LATER HE DOESN’T HAVE TO PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE THAT INCLUDES THE WORDS “…IF TRUE…”

HIS JOB AS A LEADER OF THE COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE THE BOY WAS OK, THAT NO OTHER BOYS WERE HARMED.

UNREAL. SIMPLY UNREAL.

Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!

by gamedaytribe on Nov 7, 2011 5:32 PM EST up reply actions  

this board is full of peopld arguing about whether or not paterno is a criminal because of this.

that is not necessarily what is at stake here. he broke no laws. he is not a criminal.

what it appears he is, however, is a hypocrite.

he followed the letter of the law as a citizen, but failed in his unwritten duties as a moral human being.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 11:00 AM EST reply actions   4 recs

Agreed

Time and again Joe Paterno has made decisions that painted him as upstanding person. The only explanation I can think of for this situation (which does not excuse Paterno’s lack of action) is that he simply could not accept that someone he had known for so long could do something this horrific.

by Tractorr on Nov 7, 2011 11:05 AM EST up reply actions  

self-imposed ignorance is NEVER an excuse.

I AM BECOME JC001, THE DESTROYER OF BOARDS
"Always the corn, never the hole"

by Lt. Philip Nolan on Nov 7, 2011 11:06 AM EST up reply actions  

Exactly right

That’s what this whole damn article is about. Not about legal responsibilities, but about moral responsibilities.

10
YEAR
OLD
BOY

A ten year-old boy who was violated, and a situation where if one morally responsible human being in that institution had an ounce of backbone, further children could have been spared from Sandusky.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 11:29 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

Actually the board is filled with people pointing out JoePa's moral failure

While his defenders scream “NO NO HE DIDN’T BREAK THE LAW!” This is what we call a Strawman.

Molecular gastronomy can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

by RoastBeefKazenzakis on Nov 7, 2011 7:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Thank you Spencer

Someone needed to call for this.

I’m sorry but this just tainted an otherwise near-perfect legacy for JoePa.

by hoyaeagle on Nov 7, 2011 11:06 AM EST reply actions  

Its occured to me the past few days

That every American should get a visit from a police officer informing them that they have the right to report a suspected crime. I get more and more shocked that people think you have to go to magement instead. Just to be clear for those reading REPORTING A CRIME TO THE POLICE IS NOT ITSELF A CRIME.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 11:24 AM EST via mobile reply actions   3 recs

Completely agree. Don’t let Management “manage” the situation. Take action into your own hands.

by hoyaeagle on Nov 7, 2011 11:27 AM EST up reply actions  

its not even about

what you should do. There are people who think that its mandated by law that you CAN’T go to police. They think going to management is their only option apparently.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 11:30 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

It's true, we don't know the full extent of what Joe Patero knew. But, to me, that isn't enough.

Joe Paterno knew that something inappropriate occurred between Sandusky and a young child in his locker room and that what occurred was of a sexual nature. That much is in the Grand Jury report.

Say the G.A. was too worked up to tell Joe Paterno the details. If you’re Joe Pa, does that sit well with you? I believe that should have made Paterno absolutely, 100% demand to know what happened.

Paterno either KNEW the full extent of what happened or knew that something illicit, inappropriate, and quite likely downright horrifying took place in his locker room.

Either way, he knew or he CHOSE not to know.
Both horrify me equally.

On Wisconsin.

by Carly on Nov 7, 2011 11:30 AM EST reply actions  

How can you mouthbreathers

have such a hard time understanding the difference between legal and moral obligation. The law does a terrible job of dictating morality, and anybody with a conscience should see that how this case was handled was (1) illegal & immoral by the administration and (2) bare minimum legal & immoral by those reporting it. The GA had the same moral obligation as JoePa: once they saw that the administration wasn’t following up with law enforcement, they needed to report it to the police.

Full Stop.

"Don't cuss. Don't argue with the officials. And don't lose the game."

by wfguiteau on Nov 7, 2011 11:33 AM EST reply actions   1 recs

My only disagreement with this,

is that they had a moral obligation to call the police BEFORE notifying administration—particularly McQueary. The more I think about this, the less sympathy I have for that guy. He interrupted a grown man who was raping a little boy. I understand the call to his dad, but the next call (and really the FIRST call) should have been 911.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

No, he failed when he walked out

Phone calls be damned, you don’t walk out when a child is being raped. You stop it, at the risk of your life if necessary. There is simply no excuse, none. No job, school or reputation is worth leaving a child in such a state. You save children from predators, first and foremost. The legal crap comes later.

by sullivan013 on Nov 7, 2011 11:47 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

I read the grand jury indictment (nearly threw up while doing so) for a story I wrote on our SBN blog.

I could’ve sworn it said that Sandusky and the boy ran away, but I just checked and it didn’t say that. Knowing this, I completely agree with you here.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 12:00 PM EST up reply actions  

This is getting worse and worse for all involved.

KSB, I’m reading this thread Rec’ing your comments, and others.

It is a complete breakdown of morality, and at the least empathy for a child.

WHICH IS SHOULD NEVER GET TO THE POINT OF “the least”. FUCK!

It isn’t a damning thing to report it to your supperiors, it isn’t a damning thing for telling your head coach.

The most damning; the continuation of non-action against this person, by people in the exact position to do something in a very swift way.
 ALL need to be fired at PSU. All.

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Nov 7, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Totally agree, MVPRC.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:32 PM EST up reply actions  

When my unborn son...

someday asks me if monsters really exist, I’ll remember to say that they do, and that they look just like the rest of us.

Fortunately for JoePa, there’s no such thing as criminal indifference, but he has to go.

by AgAstraPerAspera on Nov 7, 2011 12:26 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Add to that list

Heath Evans Foundation

All of the groups above do some fantastic work. Beyond chest thumping on a sports website, making a donation to any of them is a far better way to pass the time.

"Clever got me this far, and tricky got me in"

by DrBundy on Nov 7, 2011 12:56 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

And I rec all of you - because this is the truth.

I'm not really a CPA, I just play one on television.

by BamaTaxMan on Nov 7, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

Feather-headed idealism...

In the 23 page Grand Jury Presentment, there are two eyewitnesses who apparently saw Sandusky performing sexual acts with young boys, a janitor in 2000 and the GA in 2002. Neither one reported the situation to police, despite having seen something with their own eyes.

I may be firmly in the minority, but I can’t accept that Paterno, who was not an eyewitness, who did not see Jerry Sandusky abuse a child, carries the same moral culpability that they do, or that Schultz and Curley do for not reporting as they were legally required (and for apparently actively trying to cover-up the 2002 incident).

Call me a cynic, but if an eyewitness to the rape of a child wasn’t gungho about going to the police immediately, I’d be concerned about why. If the consensus is that witnesses to the rape of a child immediately respond by calling police or intervening, doesn’t the fact that they didn’t immediately intervene or alert police raise an alarm?

If somebody calls me late at night and says they witnessed the rape of a child, the first thing I would ask them is whether they called the police. And if they say no, I’d ask why the fuck not. And unless their answer is something on the order of “I’m in fear for my life,” I would really question why they called me instead of 911.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 1:05 PM EST reply actions  

Do you think Paterno asked that question?

If he did, then the answer was “no”, and he should have asked “why not?”, right? If he didn’t, then what does that say about him? I don’t absolve the two eyewitnesses of their own culpability, but they were guppies in the food chain. Paterno was a pirranha, who could (and should) have done whatever it took to get the police involved.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 1:12 PM EST up reply actions  

I can't agree.

Being an eyewitness puts you at the top of the list for culpability. Getting the story from an eyewitness and passing it on is, in the best of circumstances, accurate and verifiable hearsay.

I hate to say it, because there’s every indication that Paterno is an upright human being, but I wonder if the dead-end investigation that occurred in 1998 affected Paterno’s reactions. Remember that despite the 1998 police investigation into Sandusky not leading to any criminal charges (despite those incidents now being included in charges stemming from the Grand Jury investigation), the investigation and allegations effectively ended Sandusky’s coaching career. It’s not difficult for me to imagine that Paterno, seeing how the previous allegations killed the career of someone he’d known for around 50 years, would be unsurprised when he didn’t hear back after passing the allegations on to Curley and Schultz (although I’m certain the GA told Paterno the response he’d gotten from the administration).

I just can’t get behind skewering someone for not acting on something they didn’t see, especially when the actual eyewitness doesn’t act on it. Because if you’re going to play the “you should’ve known” card, then the blame should focus on the 1998 investigation that somehow managed to not charge Sandusky.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 1:38 PM EST up reply actions  

This whole damn thing stinks.

The DA who declined to prosecute in 1998 went “missing” in 2005, and was declared “dead” in the last year or two.

As for the other issues you raise, I just find it hard to blame a 28 year old GA more than a 75 year old icon. I’m not saying McQ has LESS blame, just that I don’t think that his culpability lessens that of Paterno.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 1:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow

First… I am a Syracuse fan, so I hate Penn State. There is my bias.

Second… I am missing how this is directly Paterno’s fault. This Sandusky was no longer a coach. Paterno couldn’t fire him or have him fired, right? The proper thing to do is let the people with the responsibility do what they need to do. It is the ADs job in this situation to work with the campus police, attorneys, and all outside parties to get the investigation done directly. Paterno is not obligated—legally OR morally—to follow up on his superiors to ensure that some sort of punishment occurs. Maybe Paterno DID check in on the situation, but was told that it was handled. Is he supposed to demand it in writing? That being said, information could come out that makes it Paterno’s problem. I just don’t think we have heard it yet.

Third… I think Paterno needs to step down at the end of the season. His coaching from the press box is a mockery of coaching. Part of coaching is being at field level, interacting with the players, refs, etc. But this whole fiasco shows part of the problem. Who are people supposed to report incidents to? The guy in the press box or the guys really running the team on a day-to-day basis. Who is concerned about the image of the program? Who is monitoring which individuals associate themselves with the program? If it was not this incident, it was going to be a booster issue soon enough. Paterno has done wonderful things at Penn State, but he is no longer capable of running this program the way an elite, modern-day program needs to be run. The whole thing is weird.

Fourth, people saying “what would you do if it was a relative” are missing the point. If it was a relative broken down on the highway, you would stop. How many people stop to help a stranger. How many people pick up strangers hitchhiking? You would if it was a relative. We all comport ourselves differently depending on the situation. With a non-relative like this, most people would be more comfortable with letting the people in charge do the proper reporting/investigating. This doesn’t make them morally corrupt or bankrupt. I think it makes them morally normal.

Finally, the AD is in deep trouble. The buck stopped with him and nothing got done. He may be able to deflect on the janitor, the GA, Paterno, and others… but it was his responsibility to get this handled properly. That’s his job. That’s his legal responsibility. In deep trouble.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 2:15 PM EST reply actions  

I stopped reading here
The proper thing to do is let the people with the responsibility do what they need to do.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Makes sense

Not getting the explanation prevents you from challenging your assumptions.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

That sentence invalidates every damn word that came after it.

You don’t only go through the bureaucratic food chain when it’s regarding the rape of a child.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:25 PM EST up reply actions  

According to you.

I’m glad we have you here to tell us how morally bankrupt we all are for not subscribing to your definition of moral.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions  

This is just wrong, Chris.

We’re talking about the rape of a child, here.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions  

No, we are talking about the rporting of an eyewitness account of a rape of a child

You are blending the issues together and it is making you angry at Paterno.

And Paterno DID report it. What is so hard to comprehend about this?

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Paterno had a frantic GA come to him with this report.

Instead of calling the police to report it, he called his “bosses.”

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions  

..then after witnessing

NOTHING BEING DONE. He continued to do..NOTHING.

Paterno may not be as culpable as say the GA, but that doesn’t mean he should still have a job after this. He should be fired and thankful for that.

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Nov 7, 2011 2:34 PM EST up reply actions  

The more I think about it, the more I agree with this.

At first, I kind of absolved the GA mostly, but I’m not sure why I did so. How does he see what he saw and not call the police?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions  

For that matter, why didn't he run in and punch Sanduky in the face

A colleague of mine says he thinks this will be used to attack the GA’s credibility, and I agree, even if I tend to think the GA is probably telling the truth.

by Ardbeg on Nov 7, 2011 2:40 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I think that's pretty easily countered, though.

I can’t imagine how horrifying that scene would be. Do I think I would have responded differently than McQ did in that moment. I would hope so. But I think that’s a losing line for a defense attorney.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

We could assume he was scared about losing his job...

ok, so now he put a price on the saftey of a child.

What’s that price? What was his predicted assention up the ranks of coaching? What are those potential saleries?

These are all retorical because the answer to all of them is it is not worth allowing this to continue, or sit idle and do nothing.

Look, I am not angry that the GA did nothing right at the moment, I think perhaps shock would come into play, and sometimes…
it is what happened after that is shocking. Nothing.

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Nov 7, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly.

No calculus in this equation = don’t call the police.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

I mean, seriously,

what part of this statement do you disagree with?

You don’t only go through the bureaucratic food chain when it’s regarding the rape of a child.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Assuming that is what happened

What else do you do? Paterno told the top of the chain. That person covered it up, probably in a way that would placate Paterno.

From what we know at this time there is no evidence that Paterno is morally culpable for anything. All these accusations are made from ASSUMPTIONS.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:33 PM EST up reply actions  

You call the police, Chris.

This isn’t a suspected case, it’s a case where an eyewitness saw it happening.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:35 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

And the eyewitness is the one the police need to talk to, not you.

You have no actual bearing on the case, because YOU DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING. You are worthless as evidence.

Any more involvement than that would be hampering an investigation and potentially getting evidence thrown out as inadmissible.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions  

An accusation

even for something as heinous as child rape, is only as good as the witness who alleges it. and Joe Paterno is no sort of witness because he didn’t see anything happen.

all Paterno has is hearsay, the ability to retell the testimony of another person, the actual witness. if that witness isn’t up to going to the police…

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe the ten year old might be a good witness. If, you know, anyone had bothered to find out who he was.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

maybe the eyewitness

could’ve asked him before he left?

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t absolve the GA whatsoever. His was not the only failure here.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

He could have however

fostered a feeling of secruity and support to the GA and push him to tell his eyewitness.

The fack that he did not is shocking, sad, and irresponsible.

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Nov 7, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

We don't know if he did that or not.

My main problem with the attack Paterno crowd is that all of this is based off of incomplete information.

“We only have some of the information? Great! Let’s bring him down!”

Why don’t we sit back and see what information comes out and let the law follow it’s due course before we jump to conclusions? Unless we are investigators involved in the case or reporters, that is all we should be doing.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Paterno's own son said he didn't do that.

Scott Paterno said that his dad basically just reported it and did no follow up at all.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Again

What is his responsibility to follow up on a criminal investigation that he did not witness and did not involve a current employee of his? I don’t mean legally… I mean morally. What exactly is he supposed to do in your world?

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

How is he hanging around?

That is an assumption. He runs a camp. When does that camp run? Is JoePa even in town when it is running?

How does he know that it is not handled… maybe there was a plea bargain, a civil settlement, and a lot of counseling.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Have you not read any of the updates?

He ran camps on PSU’s campuses up through 2009, and was working out on campus as recently as a few days ago.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Only barred from campus, what, yesterday?

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Looks like it.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Again

Is that hanging around JoePa? All I ever said was that I don’t get the criticism of JoePa on the facts known yet.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Hanging around campus.

I think you knew what he meant, though.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:23 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think you know what I mean

How are you assuming that JoePa was engaged in what was going on? If you read what I wrote… it says quite a bit. Unfortunately, because I did not also say JoePa should be fired today you automatically disagree with it.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:42 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't know what should happen to Paterno "today."

I do, however, know what he should have done 9 years ago: call the police.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:45 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

KSB

You’re just making incredibly too much sense.

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Nov 7, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Shocking, isn't it?

/BOTCboogeyman
//missyouRMNersoveratBOTC

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Soon only a fond, and slightly sad, memory.

Kind of like a best friend from 5th grade that you thought was the coolest guy, but now you’ve pretty much lost track of.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Good grief

Have you read the details?

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions  

IDK

form a lynch mob?

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Calling the police is all I am saying he should have done.

Report what the GA told him. How hard would that have been?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions  

..but we do have information.

Whatever Paterno did or did not do resulted in the contiuned non-reporting of the incident by the GA.

Why? Because he didn’t report it.

So….yeah, there is some blame at his feet that at the least is irresponsible, and shocking, and sad.

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Nov 7, 2011 3:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Calling the police to report the crime, and identify the eyewitness,

would not “hamper the investigation”, Chris.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:52 PM EST up reply actions  

I sense

Based on that sentence that there’s nothing earthshattering that hasn’t been covered in the prior 200 posts.

I guess I can blame myself if I missed out on anything that would have “challenged my assumptions”. I’ll take my chances.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions  

The proper thing to do is call the police to report the rape of a child.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

OK

And when that happens on a campus, do you report to the university police or an external police department?

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 2:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Either one is better than neither.

Both is better still.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Sure

And then when you see this man on campus repeatedly over the next half-decade, maybe you inquire as to why he’s still around?

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions  

That was my point

I think that Paterno is disengaged with the program—which is part of the problem.

I mean, really, who is running Penn State? Who is making decisions? Who do people even report minor violations to? Penn State is allowing Paterno to have complete immunity. He has nobody looking over his shoulder because of all that he has done. In a good situation, you have a clearly defined hierarchy. The employees know what to do in situations. To me, this is all just a clusterf**k.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 2:32 PM EST up reply actions  

It's definitely a clusterf**ck

It makes me sad and angry when I think about the incident in 2002. It’s hard to fathom how those types of things can actually happen. But when there’s evidence the same man committed atrocities later on because nobody had the stones to get the police involved…well, “sad and angry” doesn’t even cover it.

I can’t imagine how mad I’d be if I had a child that attended one of Sandusky’s camps after 2002.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions  

I thought it before, but I'll state it now.

that particular word “cluster****” is probably the worst possible euphemism for this whole situation that could possibly be said.

by mdlusk on Nov 10, 2011 3:55 AM EST up reply actions  

Paterno is the ultimate authority at Penn State

He is a political and financial power unto himself. He didn’t need to consult anyone prior to contacting the police.

Plus, Sandusky wasn’t just another assistant, he was one of Paterno’s closest personal and professional confidants. It’s highly unlikely he didn’t know about the allegations that happened in the 90s.

He needs to resign yesterday.

by JasonM71 on Nov 7, 2011 2:26 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Thank you, Spencer

For stating what should be obvious but isn’t. And doing so eloquently. Thank you. It’s a sad testimony on our country today that so many people need to have it explained to them.

Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!

by gamedaytribe on Nov 7, 2011 2:39 PM EST reply actions   2 recs

And also that so many people, after it's explained, still don't get it.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 2:53 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

We're just stupid, I guess.

Or morally bankrupt. Take your pick.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh, stop.

No one’s persecuting you here. We’re trying to get you to understand why we think the first reaction to (A) I just saw a child being raped; or (B) My employee just informed me that they just saw a child being raped, should be CALL THE POLICE!

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

This is a direct attack at the people who are arguing in defense of Paterno.
It’s a sad testimony on our country today that so many people need to have it explained to them.
And also that so many people, after it’s explained, still don’t get it.

So something about my argument is a sad testimony about myself. I guess it could be something else, but the two most obvious explanations are that I am stupid or that I am morally bankrupt.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

No, it's that you're refusing to give any ground even when shown that your position is untenable.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

One could say the same of you

It is a matter of perspective.

But I am not calling you stupid or morally bankrupt for disagreeing with me.

But I guess I am engaging in troll behavior, because I don’t agree with you, or something.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Here is my postion:

1) If you see a child being raped, you should call the police immediately.

2) If your employee tells you they saw a child being raped, you should call the police immediately.

How is my position untenable in any way?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions  

If my employee sees a non-employee doing something

My employee can do whatever he/she wants. I am not about to call to report hearsay that, if untrue, would subject me to civil/criminal penalties.

HOWEVER, if JoePa told the GA not to call the police, this is a different story. But I have not heart that yet. That is why my post says what it does.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Odd.

So if your employee came into your office, and told you that he saw a man raping a 10 year old boy, you wouldn’t call the police?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Why would I call the police?

I didn’t witness anything. I have never employed anyone incapable of making a phone call. Presumably, if they are capable of telling me about the incident, they are capable of telling the police. And if they are not confident enough of what they saw to call the police themselves, why would I get involved?

If he asked to use my phone, go ahead. Here is my cellphone. Whatever. But why would I need or want to get involved?

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions  

That’s a pretty tight corner you’ve painted yourself into.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

That's just--wow.

So, you’ve just finished a conversation with a frantic employee who saw a child being raped, and your response is, “Here is my cellphone. Whatever. Bush why would I need or want to get involved?”


BECAUSE A CHILD JUST GOT FUCKING RAPED, THAT’S WHY!!!!!!

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Whose employee was frantic?

When did we decide that the GA was “frantic” when discussing this with JoePa the next day???

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 4:10 PM EST up reply actions  

You're parsing as an excuse to avoid the real debate

I believe the term JoePa used to relay his GA’s emotions was “distraught”.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 4:13 PM EST up reply actions  

No

Everyone is confusing a situation where the GA sees the rape… runs upstairs to JoePa… and then JoePa does nothing.

In an emergency situation, you call 9-1-1. In a non-emergency situation, you report it to your supervisor immediately who then makes an immediate report.

For all of you on your moral soapbox, you have to keep in mind that following this law is designed to protect victims, but also to protect people to encourage them to report. By setting forth a protocol, it ensures that people are not singled out if the criminal investigation does not pan out. The employee reports to the supervisor because they have to. The supervisor reports to the police because they have to. The police investigate because they have to.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 4:18 PM EST up reply actions  

No.

Paterno didn’t do nothing. Neither did he respond correctly to the immensity and immediacy of the situation.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 4:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Again, you are wrong.

The protocols are there to ensure the bare minimum is done.

The right thing was for the GA to call the police.

The next best “right thing” was for the first person he told (Paterno) to call the police.

The last resort was for Paterno’s “bosses” (a ridiculous idea in itself) to call the police.

None of them did. They’re all bastards.

Oh, come on. Don't leave your uncle T-bag hangin'.

by Troll2Troll on Nov 7, 2011 4:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Paterno was the second person he told.

His father was the first, and he should have talked his son off whatever ledge he was on and called the cops also.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 4:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Isn't he more responsible than JoePa?

I guess he should be fired too. Add him to the list.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 4:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Happy to.

There’s at least 8 young men who’d be overjoyed to hand them their pink slips. And that’s probably just the tip of the iceberg.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 4:31 PM EST up reply actions  

I think that this is what they will find

Many people knew about this and did nothing. This is going to get much worse before it gets better.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 4:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly right.

It’s intended to ensure AT LEAST THE MINIMUM GETS DONE.

IT IN NO WAY PRECLUDES YOU FROM DOING THE RIGHT THING - GOING TO THE COPS, WHICH PRESUMABLY EVERYBODY TOOK FOR GRANTED WOULD BE THE NORMAL RESPONSE.

Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!

by gamedaytribe on Nov 7, 2011 5:20 PM EST up reply actions  

So if he was calm

Paterno was right to not call the police? Paterno knew enough to call it an incident of a “sexual nature” to the AD. As soon as he knew it was of a “sexual nature” between a 58 year old man and a 10 year old boy, the moral responsibility is to call the police and have the sick fuck arrested.

Oh, come on. Don't leave your uncle T-bag hangin'.

by Troll2Troll on Nov 7, 2011 4:14 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't know whether he was right or not.

If Paterno told him not to report it, he is dead wrong. if Paterno tried to cover this up, he is dead wrong.

If he said, we need to report this to the AD immediately and they did… I fail to see how that is wrong. Following the letter of the law.

You people make it sound like it is so easy… just ignore the law. They probably had seminars and documents about how this is supposed to be reported by following the law.

The better solution is to just get rid of the law and replace it with a “if you have a reason to suspect abuse, or unreported abuse, you shall call 9-1-1 immediately (and no later than 15 minutes after hearing the report).”

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 4:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Dammit, stop!

No one’s saying he should have just “ignored the law”! There is no law in any state of these United States that precludes a person from calling the police when they learn that a 10 year old boy has been forced to engage in anal sex by an 58 year old man. I’m sorry to be so graphic, but that’s what fucking happened, and I’m tired as hell of people pretending that Paterno’s hands were somehow tied, and that the guy just couldn’t call the police.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 7:46 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I read the grand jury report

I am not saying his hands were tied. I just don’t get the venom at him. The grand jury placed the blame where it belongs most… the perp, the AD, and Schultz. The last two had the same moral responsibility, as well as a legal responsibility.

Next on the list is the GA who waited until the next day to tell Paterno. Why not call the police within 10 seconds of seeing it? Where is the ambiguity here? The guy could have been arrested on the spot. This matter could have been resolved long before it even got to the next day and Paterno.

Only after that do you get to Paterno. He is 5th on the list. And by the time he finds out about it, nobody had done anything. He follows the statute and reports it to his supervisors.

I don’t even like Paterno. I just need to see a lot more facts before rushing to the conclusion that this is his fault. I’d like to know what Paterno was really told by GA and the AD.

Either way, Paterno is going down. If he didn’t know more, he should have. And that leads to a conclusion that he is not fit to be in charge.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 8:25 PM EST up reply actions  

See, I can sort of agree with some of this.
Next on the list is the GA who waited until the next day to tell Paterno. Why not call the police within 10 seconds of seeing it? Where is the ambiguity here? The guy could have been arrested on the spot. This matter could have been resolved long before it even got to the next day and Paterno.

The more I think about it, I have less and less sympathy for that GA.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 8:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Despicable.

Oh, come on. Don't leave your uncle T-bag hangin'.

by Troll2Troll on Nov 7, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

geesh

I think you just said something you really don’t believe. Take a step back, its just the internet.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 3:42 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

You should get involved

because you need to identify that YOU are in a position of power, that many employees will sit back and only do what you advise them to do.

I mean, fuck a duck with swine flu in the goat ear.

Oh, hi! I didn’t witness my wife getting rapped but I’ll just let my 4 year old son call the cops, or not, you know whatever.

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Nov 7, 2011 3:45 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

holy shit dude

everybody don't have any relaxes

by Big Boutros on Nov 7, 2011 7:45 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Yep.

Someone actually wrote that post, and is now defending it.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 7:47 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Enough to change my mind

Paterno should resign immediately.

Thanks to everyone for engaging in the debate. You were all correct.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 9:28 PM EST up reply actions  

You are dodging the point

Which is that you have attacked the character of people who disagree with your position, simply on the basis that they disagree with you.

And the argument is whether Joe Paterno was morally wrong for reporting it to the administration instead of the police. I say he wasn’t, you say he was. Both sides aren’t budging on their argument, therefore both sides are refusing to give any ground.

Would you like some Freys with that?

by ChrisP Wildcat on Nov 7, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, let's have a police investigator have his say:
“I have never been involved with a case like this where police weren’t called,” Noonan said, “This is not a case about football or universities. It’s about children having innocence stolen and lack of action being taken.”

Noonan called for anyone with information to contact police.

Here.

I guess he’s not to concerned about people with less than eyewitness information mucking up the prosecution’s case.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Thank you.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:25 PM EST up reply actions  

perhaps

because the law requires the people at the top to report to the police, and an active cover-up is the most unfathomable thing he could imagine?

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 3:31 PM EST up reply actions  

If he only meant the people at the top were morally responsible to report.

He would have said so. He said “anyone” with information. So one might suppose that was a workable option for Joe Paterno lo those many years and kids ago.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 3:37 PM EST up reply actions  

I've done nothing of the sort,

and you’ve incorrectly summarized the crux of the argument. I don’t have any problem at all with his reporting it up the ladder. I have a serious problem with the fact that neither he nor the GA called the police.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I guess it's easier to argue over whether you are being treated unfairly

Than to argue the facts of this case.

That’s my bad, I called you a troll so I’ll take the blame for that.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 3:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Let me be the first to directly attack your character.

You are failure of a moral human being.

Oh, come on. Don't leave your uncle T-bag hangin'.

by Troll2Troll on Nov 7, 2011 3:31 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

Yes, yes he was

He should be ashamed of himself and you should be ashamed of yourself for defending him. This goes way beyond sports and is far beyond the typical scandal involving steroids or tattoos.

by Pig.Pen on Nov 7, 2011 3:32 PM EST up reply actions  

QUESTION:

if Paterno had done exactly the same thing, but Curley and Schultz HAD actually done what they were supposed to do, and the system worked how it is designed to work, and Sandusky is nailed to the wall that afternoon, how would that constitute a moral failing on Paterno’s part?

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 3:03 PM EST reply actions  

It wouldn't

People just like to see people get fired because it makes them feel better about their own said lot in life.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Define "enable"

If “not calling the police” about something you did not witness is enabling, then I guess we are all guilty of a lot of criminal enabling.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions  

yes

a thousand times over

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 3:16 PM EST up reply actions  

In this specific instance

Where a child has allegedly been raped, there’s no question what you do.

Let’s put the cards on the table. You’re essentially saying that if a friend or employee of yours came to you, in an upset state, and said he saw another friend of yours raping a ten-year old child, you wouldn’t call the police and you wouldn’t follow up to make sure the witness reported it?

And when you find out ten years later that the witness never reported it and the guy went on to abuse a half dozen more children – you wouldn’t think you made a mistake?

I just want to make sure I understand your morality on this issue.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

you wouldn't question

why your friend hadn’t reported it?

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Evidently I wouldn't

Because that would mess up the prosecution’s “potential case”.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't know what that's about either...

but the system is supposed to result in the police being notified. in a school or hospital or YMCA, the person with the suspicion “shall” notify the “people in charge,” who in turn notifies police.

I don’t know the legislative history, but it’s probably that way for a reason.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions  

It has been clearly pointed out, particularly at the BSD article on the issue,

that the legislation doesn’t preclude an employee from directly contacting the police. This should be common sense ("Yeah, that old dude’s raping the kid? Maybe I should call the cops?), but I guess not.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:34 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

sure

and if the moral obligation was as universally held as you claim it is, the statute wouldn’t say a person “may” it would say “shall.”

the fact that that’s NOT the case should be a clue that there might be reasons why a person wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) call the police themselves.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 3:42 PM EST up reply actions  

you're

confusing moral and legal. The statute handles legal, society handles moral.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 3:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

So morals are governed by statutes now?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions  

when things are universally held to be morally wrong

they’re generally held to be crimes. society makes statutes based on moral values. it’s pretty much universally held that killing, stealing, rape, etc are morally wrong and so our laws make that illegal.

by bj1888 on Nov 7, 2011 3:52 PM EST up reply actions  

So as long as you don't break the law

you’re morally correct?

You really want to take that stance?

Oh, come on. Don't leave your uncle T-bag hangin'.

by Troll2Troll on Nov 7, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

so if something

is legal, its moral. Got it.
/cheats on wife
/tells old woman she’s gonna die soon
/protests veterans funeral

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 3:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

I'd ask if he had, and if he hadn't, I would.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Depends on the circumstances

I could see myself doing a lot of things.

I have never had a friend capable of doing that. And if one of my friends was capable of that, they would not be a friend.

I still don’t see why I would call the police. I didn’t see anything. The only reason to do that would be if the witness had decided not to call. But if the witness decides not to call… why? Is it because they are no doubting that they saw what they originally thought? If that’s the case, maybe it shouldn’t be reported. Is it because they are timid… I might give them the encouragement to see it through.

The bottom line is that every circumstance in life is different. That is what civil lawsuits resolve—whether someone acts reasonably under the circumstances. You can’t set up all-encompassing rules about what you are supposed to do and what you are not supposed to do.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:31 PM EST up reply actions  

No one thinks they have a friend capable of doing that.

Until they do. And it’s chilling that you wouldn’t call the police if you had a credible eyewitness report of a child being raped.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Just so that everyone who visits this knows

About 85% of children never report the abuse and while false allegations are made from time to time, most false allegations are painfully apparent, but even still if anyone is ever told by a child that they have been abused or if you even suspect it you have to take it seriously. Please, please, please take it seriously. Most rational human beings would welcome an opportunity to exonerate themselves vs. being whispered about behind their backs and false allegations by pre-teens are very very rare and are usually the result of coaching from an adult.

by Pig.Pen on Nov 7, 2011 3:39 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

If a CHILD told me that they were abused?

I would report it.

If a woman told me that she was abused? Again, that’s the victim speaking.

Report it (unless it was Karen Syphers).

If a grown man witness tells me he sees something, why would I report it? The grown man should report it. If the grown man does not want to report it, the issue becomes why. Once the issue becomes why, then it becomes a maybe/maybe not. If the witness is scared, too emotional, you certainly can do the physical reporting. But if the witness doubts the accuracy, that makes it tougher. In that circumstance, you might consult others… i.e. the guy who put the guy in the position to abuse (i.e. the AD).

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:47 PM EST up reply actions  

So the fact that what you're saying here actually DID happen

And Sandusky was allowed to rape additional children – it doesn’t sway you that maybe your viewpoint is incorrect?

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

NO

what i said was that I needed to hear more to know whether Joe Paterno is directly responsible for this. I also said that his lack of engagement means that he has to go at the end of the season. But I am just not persuaded that it is a lack of morals. I think it is a lack of being able to do what a consummate leader should do.

The bottom line is that, in an ordinary situation, emergencies are reported immediately. If an employee runs in and says “There is rape, call 9-1-1 and I’ll go back down there and make sure the kid is OK,” I call 9-1-1. It all depends on the facts of the situation.

Why weren’t the police called long before JoePa was involved?

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 3:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Your last line doesn't matter.

If he asks the question, “Did you call the police?” and the answer is “No”, then he should have called them right then. If he didn’t even ask the question, and also didn’t call them himself, he’s still wrong.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:58 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

From what I have read

JoePa did not discuss this with the GA until the next day. Where is the emergency here?

In that situation, I fail to see what is wrong with reporting it to the person in charge—the athletic director—to see it through to a conclusion. The athletic director was the person who—as per what I have read elsewhere—is the one responsible for contacting the police… logically and legally. In this instance, JoePa is in the middle.

If this was an assistant coach or player, now JoePa has more responsibility. And so on.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 4:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Your arguments are making me borderline physically ill.

Where’s the emergency? Are you fucking serious?

Did Paterno know where Sandusky was at the moment? Sandusky had near-unlimited access to children. You really don’t see how time was imperative?

EVERYONE WHO KNEW HAD A MORAL DUTY TO CALL THE POLICE. THE GA, THE AD, PATERNO. ALL OF THEM.

They all failed, and they should all be fired. Unfortunately only a couple are going to prison.

Oh, come on. Don't leave your uncle T-bag hangin'.

by Troll2Troll on Nov 7, 2011 4:11 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Geez

i hate to think that Uncle T-Bag is physically ill.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 4:31 PM EST up reply actions  

He's right.

Asking “where’s the emergency” is completely insane. The answer to that question is, “THERE’S A FUCKING PERVERT WHO RAPED A KID THE NIGHT BEFORE IN YOUR FUCKING SHOWER!!!!”

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 7:48 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Probably

Because McQueary (wrongly) was concerned about the effects of what he saw on his own personal fortunes. Which is why he called his father first for advice.

That failure doesn’t absolve Paterno. In fact, in his position, it increases his moral responsibility to make sure that the matter was followed through to a just conclusion.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 4:06 PM EST up reply actions  

This makes no sense.

So, if your obviously hysterically upset employee reports a child’s rape to you, you grill the witness, instead of erring on the side of protecting an innocent child by calling the police?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Sure.

Because the first thing that comes to mind when someone reports a crime to me is why they might be making it up.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Wrong. Wrong.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

You don’t fucking start doubting the veracity of a witness before you even go to the police. A witness, by the way, who’s your own employee and who you know personally.

Someone comes to you with information that someone is raping children, and your first thought is to question the witness? Unbelievable.

Oh, come on. Don't leave your uncle T-bag hangin'.

by Troll2Troll on Nov 7, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

And a witness who probably idolized the very many he says he saw raping a child.

McQueary played for the Nittany Lions for 4 years.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:55 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Exactly. Why would he make it up????

I’m having a hard time understanding the level of denial that reflects and blind loyalty to a man and program over and above everything.

Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!

by gamedaytribe on Nov 7, 2011 5:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Let me add on to this because some people don't get it

If another adult, or even a dog, or a voice in your head tells you that a child has been abused, report it. I’m not trying to be a smart ass, but please, please, please report these things. As awful as this incident is, maybe it will finally help people wake up to this epidemic in America.

by Pig.Pen on Nov 7, 2011 4:52 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Not calling the police when you have a credible report that a child has been raped is wrong, yes.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 3:07 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Ridiculous question

If Curley and Schultz do their jobs, Paterno doesn’t need to follow up.

His decision making was flawed from the beginning, and I think he’d still look bad for not going directly to the police, but at least Sandusky might have been prevented from inflicting additional damage on innocent children.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

The system is designed to do the bare minimum.

Paterno would still be a moral coward for not calling the police immediately.

Because he did not call the police, and no one did, Paterno is an absolute bastard. He had direct information that Sandusky was raping children, and he never went to the police. Sandusky continued to rape children after the 2002 incident, and Paterno did nothing.

Paterno, the AD, GA, and everyone else who knew are despicable failures.

Oh, come on. Don't leave your uncle T-bag hangin'.

by Troll2Troll on Nov 7, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

It's the part where he didn't call the police

and then just forgot about it that makes it that much worse.

by Gator Cub on Nov 7, 2011 7:53 PM EST up reply actions  

A way to help

As someone who has been involved with working with children who have been the victim’s of abuse, I’d like to encourage you to make a donation to Stop It Now an organization dedicated to stopping child sexual abuse. While this has risen to the forefront in the last few days, it is quietly a huge problem in America. I’m not very good at asking others for help, especially at a time like this, but I’d encourage you to make a donation to this or a similar organization in your area.

http://www.stopitnow.org/donate

by Pig.Pen on Nov 7, 2011 3:31 PM EST reply actions   3 recs

Current Penn State assistant Mike McQueary

If Mike had walked into Sandusky’s house and saw a child chained up in the basement, would he have done the same….

Dikaia Upotheke - Justice Our Foundation

by Lord Willie on Nov 7, 2011 5:06 PM EST reply actions  

This whole thing is incredibly unfortunate for everyone involved.

Even if Sandusky dies in jail he won’t get 1/10th of what he deserves.

by HawkeyeRecon on Nov 7, 2011 7:23 PM EST reply actions  

Give me a break

if the crimes perpetrated were so horrific, why didn’t the “victims” report them? Were they unable to operate a phone? Then the writer claims that everybody ELSE should get in trouble for non reporting? I’m not even a PSU fan, or Paterno fan, and I can see the logic in that line of thinking.

by Toby H on Nov 7, 2011 7:50 PM EST reply actions  

They were 10 year old kids who were anally raped.

Are you fucking SERIOUS????

Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!

by gamedaytribe on Nov 7, 2011 7:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Haven't seen this line of argument so far

“Perhaps the anal raping of a ten year-old boy wasn’t as bad as everyone’s making it out to be!”

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 8:08 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

my favorite part is

the quotation marks for “victims”.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 8:30 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

It's very sad.

I actually wrote a piece last night about this, in which I criticized Paterno and Spanier’s roles, particularly. Not too controversial, I didn’t think. But the feedback loop is such that now the Paterno apologists are actually convincing people that he had no moral obligation to report the rape to the police.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 8:34 PM EST up reply actions  

based on the fact

That he appears to be an Oklahoma fan, I choose to believe that Toby H is actually a kid himself. When I was a 13 year old kid, I probably would’ve said the same thing. When you’re a kid, you think of kids as being as competent as adults. So if Toby H is under 16, I give him a pass for his statement. Otherwise I hope he has nightmares tonight.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 8:50 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

I can go with that.

It helps me to think that there are no functioning adults who would write that.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 9:05 PM EST up reply actions  

LOL

Coming from somebody calling himself “Mark Mandingo” no less, lol. Oh btw, yeah, ALL sooner fans are 13 years old, brilliant observation on your part.

by Toby H on Nov 7, 2011 10:14 PM EST up reply actions  

what I meant by the Oklahoma

thing was that you’re not a Penn State fan. If I was wrong about your age I apologize. You’re not 13, just an idiot that thinks that kids are capable of protecting themselves from sexual predators. Good luck to Toby Jr I guess. I hope somebody’s around to help him besides you should the unthinkable occur.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 10:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Paraphrased Maher quote, comparing the fact that he was bullied as a child to Jackson molesting boys.

“Would you rather be beat up every day by some big lug of a kid or gently fondled by a pop star?”

To his credit, Ferguson looked at him like he had 3 heads, and said, “You don’t have kids, do you? BILL MAHER, EVERYBODY!” And ended the interview after only maybe 90 seconds.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 8:31 PM EST up reply actions  

And not 90 seconds later, right then.

The interview only lasted maybe 90 seconds total up to that point, when he usually goes about 6-9 minutes, depending.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 8:32 PM EST up reply actions  

You seem pretty knowledgeable

I haven’t heard anything about “anal raping” here. Plus from what I understand the group was mostly teen boys. Also, are you implying it’s okay for somebody else to be raped, as long as they aren’t ten?

by Toby H on Nov 7, 2011 10:13 PM EST up reply actions  

You clearly don't even have a grasp on the facts of the case.

Most of the boys were 7-12 years old, and he molested them up through their early teen years. As for anal rape, just read the grand jury report. All the horrible awfulness is right there.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 10:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh?

And what PROOF do you have that any of this happened? How do you know it’s not another smearjob like the “daycare molestation” scandal from a few years ago? The fact is you don’t know a damn thing other than what the cops felt fit to release to the media. They are under no obligation, btw, to tell the TRUTH or facts.

If this crime happened as stated, yes it’s a terrible thing. But you people are convicting people in the public eye with no hard evidence whatsoever.

by Toby H on Nov 7, 2011 10:30 PM EST up reply actions  

READ THE FUCKING GRAND JURY REPORT YOU STUPID FUCKING MORON!!!!!

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 10:32 PM EST up reply actions  

And clearly, this is trolling.
Also, are you implying it’s okay for somebody else to be raped, as long as they aren’t ten?

I shouldn’t have even replied.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 10:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Are you implying the child consented to the sexual intercourse

Have you bothered to read the grand jury testimony here? http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Presentment.pdf

He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.
As to this:
Also, are you implying it’s okay for somebody else to be raped, as long as they aren’t ten?
Are you actually looking for relevant discourse? Because that’s really weak, junior high school message boarding you just threw out.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 10:34 PM EST up reply actions  

This is the world we live in, I guess.

The crimes probably weren’t that bad because 7 to 12 year old boys were too scared to tell on him.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 8:25 PM EST up reply actions  

aaaannnnnddddd

There it is. We can close this thread now. Turns out its the kids’ fault.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 8:27 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Damn them for being from the wrong side of the tracks and dragging the fine name of Penn State through the mud. Should have taken their buggering like the trash they are.

by maysian on Nov 7, 2011 8:39 PM EST up reply actions  

This has to be a bit, right?

Reading it again, no one can REALLY believe this… right?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 8:40 PM EST up reply actions  

i think it’s a bit

everybody don't have any relaxes

by Big Boutros on Nov 7, 2011 8:50 PM EST up reply actions  

like I said above

I think its a kid. I hope so.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 8:52 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

can we ban this guy please?

"Don't talk about me like I'm not here!" Shelby

Twitter

by dmbmeg on Nov 7, 2011 10:26 PM EST up reply actions  

If I had a banhammer for SBN's main site, he'd be gone already.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 10:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Just got to this.

Well done, sir. Agree with every word.

by Gator Cub on Nov 7, 2011 7:54 PM EST reply actions  

Hey

Did you see that Dick Vermeil wrote the Foreword for Sandusky’s book?

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 8:59 PM EST reply actions  

Why?

Many people were fooled by this man. He was the up-and-coming assistant coach for years.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 9:06 PM EST up reply actions  

No real reason

If you read it, you’ll become sick. I imagine Vermeil is having some regrets right now.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 9:24 PM EST up reply actions  

BTW

As posted above within the morass of comments somewhere… I have changed my mind. Paterno should resign immediately.

A true leader would take charge of this situation and make sure that it gets resolved properly and before anyone else can be abused.

You folks were correct and I was wrong.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 9:31 PM EST up reply actions  

glad you got to that

and big of you to admit you were wrong.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 9:42 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Well

Not the first time I have been wrong.

I just can’t get past the detachment. I might not report this to the police myself, but I would make damn sure that the witness did. This doesn’t get past Saturday without someone alerting the police. And if I was somehow persuaded by the AD to let him report it, I would follow up to ensure that it got done.

I am not sure if JoePa didn’t know or care about what happened thereafter. Either way, that renders him unfit to run the program. No need to wait until January for that result.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 9:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Also

having a hard time grasping what exactly would have been the description by the GA that would have placated Paterno. “Oh, so the showering only involved… Well, to be on the safe side, we should notify the AD.” Once you get to showering, you pretty much have all you need to know. There was no “whew, glad it was just that.”

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 10:50 PM EST up reply actions  

So true.

He’s claiming that the GA didn’t tell him the full story, but I’m not sure I believe that. Paterno admits the GA was hysterical, so how could he have not realized how serious it was?

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 10:53 PM EST up reply actions  

I know

But what is the “less than full story”?

I remain convinced that Joe Pa did not need to call the police. But he has to make sure that someone does—be it the GA, the AD, or otherwise.

This makes me believe that what is going to come out will ultimately be far worse. This is going to get uglier.

  

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 10:57 PM EST up reply actions  

No worries

For someone I vehemently disagreed with, you were pretty even keeled and fair (on a very emotional topic).

Good on ya.

by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 10:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Head Coach

A title. But that carries a lot of weight. You’re the leader of a highly respected, multi-million dollar organization. You’ve been around the program for 40 plus years. You ARE this program. One of your second-level subordinates comes to you with a vile and vulgar story. A little boy was being raped in one of your facilities, by one of your former subordinates.

Fuck the org chart. You call the cops. You drive over to watch them arrest Sandusky and you make sure that POS is off the streets. Joe failed that little boy and who knows how many after that. Whether or not he followed the law in PA as to how to properly report is rediculous. Joe Paterno is Penn State. Not the football program. He is Penn State. He failed. He needs to step down.

I hope anyone who argues otherwise is never in a leadership position of anything.

We’re not losing to Boise freaking State. The rest of the country will thank us on Sunday for eliminating this perennial pretender from the outset. - Jman781

by Boise State of Mind on Nov 7, 2011 9:55 PM EST reply actions  

There were multiple boys after that, yes.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 10:29 PM EST up reply actions  

If it wasn't Joe Pa

If this was anyonew else and not Joe Paterno people woul be screaming for his head. It’s Joe Pa so people hold him to a lesser standards obviously. He is a legend thus he gets a free pass.

"Next season will be better" circa 1990

by Yarin on Nov 7, 2011 9:56 PM EST reply actions  

You guys are reactive idiots

The only “evidence” you have are stories the cops are telling. Unless you are involved in the PSU program you don’t know a damn thing other than what you’ve been told (by people with an agenda). How many times do people have to be smeared by cops, and wrongly convicted, before you realize the cops are not on your side and will resort to any lengths to prejudice a jury and smear people?

The fact is, the worst case scenario you’ve heard about and are ranting about (despite your lack of intimate knowledge of the case) could have happened, or it could be a load of crap. Remember the “daycare molestation scandal” in California years ago? The entire nation was up in arms and it ruined a whole lot of lives. In the end it was proven to be hogwash.

Go ahead and be gullible and swallow every word without proof. It’s what you do best.

by Toby H on Nov 7, 2011 10:28 PM EST reply actions  

Someone ban him.

If you don’t even care enough about the story to actually get a few of the facts before posting, then don’t post.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 10:30 PM EST up reply actions  

must be an alien

trolling humanity. Well done Gleep Glop, well done.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 10:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

eat it up

I’m sure you believe every word that the “authorities” tell you without question. Unlike you I am quite well informed and know of lots of instances of public “outrage” at horrendous accusations which ended up being a load of crap.

But by all means, sorry for stepping on your naivete.

by Toby H on Nov 7, 2011 10:35 PM EST up reply actions  

DIAF

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 10:37 PM EST up reply actions  

well done

I salute you for being well informed.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 10:40 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

I'd say

the grand jury testimony is stronger than “stories the cops are telling.”

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 10:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Just read it

Pretty damning stuff. From what I could see Paterno reported it to his superior, who dropped the ball. Sandusky was forced to relinquish keys to the facilities. I didn’t see testimony from the kid who was allegedly raped in the grand jury info though. As for the rest of the information, Sandusky is clearly a creep.

by Toby H on Nov 7, 2011 10:56 PM EST up reply actions  

A proper response by Paterno to the GA

Encouraging him to report it. Telling AD that it is going to be reported. This doesn’t happen in my locker room while I am alive. If you don’t like it, fire me.

The problem is 1998. The end result of this would likely be that PSU had no business allowing him on campus from 1998 to 2002. So, instead, everyone kept it quiet.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 7, 2011 11:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah

A strange thing was the DA dropping the case in 1998. I’m not sure how many of the incidents were brought to Paterno’s attention, but the kid in the shower story was reported to him.

Agreed, that if the AD didn’t make the call that Paterno should have reported it.

by Toby H on Nov 7, 2011 11:11 PM EST up reply actions  

It gets creepier.

That DA disappeared in 2005.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Not only that

He apparently studied up on how to destroy evidence on hard drives and hosed up his own laptop before disappearring.

by Toby H on Nov 7, 2011 11:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Alright, i was wrong on this

There was no link to the Grand Jury in the article, and I had just finished reading a statement made by cops on Yahoo, so I was already pretty annoyed. But although I was wrong in this case, I stand by my assertion that the authorities need to be questioned, especially when they make statements on cases before they proceed to trial. Also, people do tend to make judgements without evidence (as my entire argument here displays against me, for example).

After reading the Grand Jury statement, I feel that there was a serious lapse in judgement on the part of Paterno and several others in the chain, especially the AD. Is that enough to warrant criminal charges and/or firing? At this point I think one has to wonder what Paterno really knew about the situation. Was he told the kid was raped, or they were “horsing around” in the shower? One allegation is very serious, the other is troubling. I don’t think it’s clear in the GJ report that the assistant told Paterno the kid was raped.

The question is, do you give Paterno the benefit of the doubt in this? Obviously the original poster thinks not. I think Paterno’s character has been solid enough in the past that he rates some degree of trust here and that his intent was never bad. Perhaps he felt he discharged his duty when he reported it to his AD. That being said, there are reasons for the doubters to call for his firing.

by Toby H on Nov 7, 2011 11:27 PM EST reply actions  

I think the two main culprits (the AD and the VP) have already been fired--or at least suspended.

They have charges pending for the coverup (perjury and one other that is escaping me right now). Paterno won’t face charges, but I think this is the effective end of his coaching career.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." *Victor Hugo*

by K.S.B. on Nov 7, 2011 11:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

220 updates with 736 comments

Like to see major updates on this story in Facebook.

145460051_extra_large_small

Pucker Up: Kings, Devils Begin Battle To Kiss The Cup

May 28, 2012; Miami, FL, USA; Miami Heat small forward LeBron James (6) is pressured by Boston Celtics small forward Paul Pierce (34) during the second half in game one of the Eastern Conference finals of the 2012 NBA playoffs at American Airlines Arena.  Mandatory Credit: Steve Mitchell-US PRESSWIRE

Celtics Vs. Heat, Game 2: Boston Tries To Pull Even

20120304_jel_sv7_075_extra_large_small

Hornets Win NBA Draft Lottery, Will Pick No. 1