Penn State scandal (merged)

#3,201
#3,201
therealUT said:
Thanks.

If Paterno had the power to keep Sandusky off campus for the past 18 months, it is despicable that he did not.

In light of that information, I have to lean to the side that says Paterno has not been acting morally upright for at least the past 18 months.
Click to expand...

What difference does that make? He knew the information that he told the grand jury 10 years before that. So, he's not been acting morally upright for the last 10 years.
 
#3,202
#3,202
LawVol13 said:
What difference does that make? He knew the information that he told the grand jury 10 years before that. So, he's not been acting morally upright for the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
Was Sandusky ever convicted? If not then you know why that's stupid from a legal standpoint.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3,203
#3,203
utvols88 said:
You people are hanging him in a public court yard when he:
A) never committed a crime
B) never witnessed a crime
C) reported it to his superior


What gives?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I would agree with you 100% if, and only if, reporting what he'd been told to his superiors had been his first step. Unfortunately, it was his last step. Illegal or not, that's a massive moral failing.
 
#3,204
#3,204
LawVol13 said:
What difference does that make? He knew the information that he told the grand jury 10 years before that. So, he's not been acting morally upright for the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

I am confused. I am operating off the assumption that with his testimony, Paterno was also made aware of all the allegations and testimony against Sandusky. I am not a lawyer; if this is not true, then I do not see that Paterno then did anything worse over the past 18 months.
 
#3,206
#3,206
utvols88 said:
Was Sandusky ever convicted? If not then you know why that's stupid from a legal standpoint.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That's beyond ridiculous. He had a firsthand account that the guy was raping a kid. They then used that information 10 years later to indict the bastard. So, you're saying that he had no reason to keep him off the property for those 10 years after he was told of it? IF so, you're an idiot.
 
#3,207
#3,207
utvols88 said:
Was Sandusky ever convicted? If not then you know why that's stupid from a legal standpoint.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Sandusky wasn't even charged, let alone convicted. And yet, there was more than one witness to him abusing a child. Rather than questioning whether or not he was charged, which is obvious, why don't you question why he wasn't charged?
 
#3,209
#3,209
therealUT said:
I am confused. I am operating off the assumption that with his testimony, Paterno was also made aware of all the allegations and testimony against Sandusky. I am not a lawyer; if this is not true, then I do not see that Paterno then did anything worse over the past 18 months.
Click to expand...

He was made aware of what McQueary saw back in 2002.
 
#3,210
#3,210
therealUT said:
I am confused. I am operating off the assumption that with his testimony, Paterno was also made aware of all the allegations and testimony against Sandusky. I am not a lawyer; if this is not true, then I do not see that Paterno then did anything worse over the past 18 months.
Click to expand...

He would not have been necessarily been exposed to any other information. The grand jury is probing for what information he himself knows. They aren't saying, "hey, look at everything we found." That's just not the way it works.
 
#3,211
#3,211
All this crap about showering with coaches: that's not what the GA said he saw. He came back in the building, heard noises from the showers, went to investigate, heard "slapping noises", and saw a boy with his hands on the shower wall with a man behind him. The most naive person in the world would not interpret that as "showering."
 
#3,213
#3,213
bamawriter said:
I would agree with you 100% if, and only if, reporting what he'd been told to his superiors had been his first step. Unfortunately, it was his last step. Illegal or not, that's a massive moral failing.
Click to expand...

Following up is not a moral duty.

He did not pass the buck, he reported it as he was supposed to to individuals whom he should have been able to trust to conduct investigations. Paterno could simply not be a nosy gossip, who trusts that when, and I am presuming here, he was told an investigation would be carried out and that an investigation was being carried out (Schultz's testimony to the Grand Jury of which he is being charged with perjury), that an investigation was being carried out and that the appropriate measures would be taken with or without his involvement.
 
#3,214
#3,214
therealUT said:
I am confused. I am operating off the assumption that with his testimony, Paterno was also made aware of all the allegations and testimony against Sandusky. I am not a lawyer; if this is not true, then I do not see that Paterno then did anything worse over the past 18 months.
Click to expand...

In that case Paterno said he was unaware of what the Grand Jury report stated.

Just to clear that up.
 
#3,215
#3,215
bamawriter said:
I would agree with you 100% if, and only if, reporting what he'd been told to his superiors had been his first step. Unfortunately, it was his last step. Illegal or not, that's a massive moral failing.
Click to expand...

A failing many Americans commit and they don't he fired for it. I bring you the bystander effect. People will watch and listen to a rape, murder, or robbery and not call the police or think about stopping the crime. With the bystander effect these people are witnesses while joe pa literally has no credible information to the incident since he didn't see it himself. I understand the outrage but firing him is a pathetic attempt at creating a scapegoat that deters from the true issue that is Sandusky.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3,217
#3,217
therealUT said:
Following up is not a moral duty.

He did not pass the buck, he reported it as he was supposed to to individuals whom he should have been able to trust to conduct investigations. Paterno could simply not be a nosy gossip, who trusts that when, and I am presuming here, he was told an investigation would be carried out and that an investigation was being carried out (Schultz's testimony to the Grand Jury of which he is being charged with perjury), that an investigation was being carried out and that the appropriate measures would be taken with or without his involvement.
Click to expand...

I could totally buy that argument if Paterno had done nothing else for a few months, maybe even a year or two. But he did absolutely nothing for close to a decade. It should be obvious to even a senile old man that Sandusky wasn't being investigated by any kind of law enforcement. And it doesn't appear that Joe even followed back up with the upper brass as to whether or not they were doing anything with the info he passed on.
 
#3,218
#3,218
LawVol13 said:
According to a very twisted, ridiculous, academic definition. In real life, a decent person absolutely has a moral duty to follow up on it.
Click to expand...

Only if that "decent person" is such a cynic that they cannot trust anyone else to do their jobs or make good on their word. This "moral duty" of yours inherently implies that it is moral to distrust everyone.
 
#3,219
#3,219
 
Last edited:
#3,220
#3,220
therealUT said:
Only if that "decent person" is such a cynic that they cannot trust anyone else to do their jobs or make good on their word. This "moral duty" of yours inherently implies that it is moral to distrust everyone.
Click to expand...

Do you have children?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3,221
#3,221
utvols88 said:
A failing many Americans commit and they don't he fired for it. I bring you the bystander effect. People will watch and listen to a rape, murder, or robbery and not call the police or think about stopping the crime. With the bystander effect these people are witnesses while joe pa literally has no credible information to the incident since he didn't see it himself. I understand the outrage but firing him is a pathetic attempt at creating a scapegoat that deters from the true issue that is Sandusky.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Most innocent bystanders wouldn't allow the criminal hang around the place of business they are in charge of.
 
#3,222
#3,222
therealUT said:
Only if that "decent person" is such a cynic that they cannot trust anyone else to do their jobs or make good on their word. This "moral duty" of yours inherently implies that it is moral to distrust everyone.
Click to expand...

No, it says that when after a significant period of time has passed and you still see the rapist running around on the football grounds that nothing is being done. It doesn't require distrust; it requires you to open your eyes and face reality that nothing is being done.
 
#3,224
#3,224
therealUT said:
Only if that "decent person" is such a cynic that they cannot trust anyone else to do their jobs or make good on their word. This "moral duty" of yours inherently implies that it is moral to distrust everyone.
Click to expand...

BS. It's not immoral to distrust someone when you can clearly see they aren't doing what they should be doing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top