Penn State scandal (merged)

#3,926
#3,926
knucklehead_vol said:
This should say all we need to know about this guy.

But the other point, lets say MM didn't say much to the old bastard, Curley and Shultz had to go to the old bastard and let him know of their concerns after MM had stated to them. Wouldn't he know at that point exactly what MM said?
Click to expand...

exactly. at best joe pa was willingly ignorant. unless you live in a dream world where a 80 year old man cannot put a simple two-and-two together.
 
#3,931
#3,931
Originally Posted by therealUT View Post
I do not believe in taking punitive measures without someone being proved guilty. You do.

LawVol13 said:
Then, shockingly, once again, you have absolutely no idea how it works in any administrative setting anywhere in the United States. That's standard procedure everywhere. Hell, they could have put him on paid leave. That is how it's done everywhere, and it wouldn't even be punitive.

You continue to make very clear why no one should take you seriously on this. You have no concept of reality.
Click to expand...

Question for therealUT:

I've had you on ignore for a month now, so I can't quote you, but on this "I do not believe in taking punitive measures without someone being proved guilty. You do" bit, do you mean that if an employee came to you and said that they had discovered a company accountant embezzling money, you would allow the accountant to keep working until the legal system found him/her guilty?

You're confusing the legal process with what businesses, schools, hospitals, law enforcement, etc. do when there are allegations of misbehavior: put the individual on paid or unpaid leave, so that their actions cannot affect the institution while things are being investigated.

I mean, duh. :no:
 
#3,933
#3,933
Whether or not JoePa is in trouble legally, he was told that his long time friend witnessed child rape, passed the information on, and forgot about it.

That likely shows:

a) he didn't care enough to make sure the police heard about it.
b) he didn't want it getting out at the risk of hurting his friend or his reputation.
c) he was simply too damn old to realize what was going on.

Only one of those options would have keep me from changing my opinion of Paterno.
 
#3,934
#3,934
LawVol13 said:
You're not concerned with protecting children either. That's what I find the most disturbing.
Click to expand...

I am not for protecting children at all costs. If this makes me a monster, so be it. I think an individual has the right to due process and that a simple allegation should not, in itself, defame said individual.

McQueary could have stepped in, removed the child from the situation, taken the child to the hospital, and then called the police. At that point, the police would have access to McQueary's statement, the child, plus the hospital evaluation.

Paterno only had a report, that may have been highly uncertain. Paterno had the trust that the AD would investigate the issue. As the evidence gets stronger from the investigation, then there may be a threshold in which you remove Sandusky from campus; however, that threshold is not a simple uncorroborated allegation, in my opinion. IF that was the standard, then an organization could in theory receive uncorroborated allegations regarding all of their employees and then have to put them all on paid leave while they investigate. Certainly, that is not the way to do anything.
 
#3,935
#3,935
therealUT said:
I am not for protecting children at all costs. If this makes me a monster, so be it. I think an individual has the right to due process and that a simple allegation should not, in itself, defame said individual.

McQueary could have stepped in, removed the child from the situation, taken the child to the hospital, and then called the police. At that point, the police would have access to McQueary's statement, the child, plus the hospital evaluation.

Paterno only had a report, that may have been highly uncertain. Paterno had the trust that the AD would investigate the issue. As the evidence gets stronger from the investigation, then there may be a threshold in which you remove Sandusky from campus; however, that threshold is not a simple uncorroborated allegation, in my opinion. IF that was the standard, then an organization could in theory receive uncorroborated allegations regarding all of their employees and then have to put them all on paid leave while they investigate. Certainly, that is not the way to do anything.
Click to expand...
You keep saying McQueary should have called police but you don't think Paterno should have instructed him to do so, what gives?
 
#3,937
#3,937
tvolsfan said:
Whether or not JoePa is in trouble legally, he was told that his long time friend witnessed child rape, passed the information on, and forgot about it.

That likely shows:

a) he didn't care enough to make sure the police heard about it.
b) he didn't want it getting out at the risk of hurting his friend or his reputation.
c) he was simply too damn old to realize what was going on.

Only one of those options would have keep me from changing my opinion of Paterno.
Click to expand...

d) he had (blind) faith in the AD and in the system

I am not willing to say that having (blind) faith is morally reprehensible.
 
#3,938
#3,938
VolNExile said:
Originally Posted by therealUT View Post
I do not believe in taking punitive measures without someone being proved guilty. You do.



Question for therealUT:

I've had you on ignore for a month now, so I can't quote you, but on this "I do not believe in taking punitive measures without someone being proved guilty. You do" bit, do you mean that if an employee came to you and said that they had discovered a company accountant embezzling money, you would allow the accountant to keep working until the legal system found him/her guilty?

You're confusing the legal process with what businesses, schools, hospitals, law enforcement, etc. do when there are allegations of misbehavior: put the individual on paid or unpaid leave, so that their actions cannot affect the institution while things are being investigated.

I mean, duh. :no:
Click to expand...
He's not concerned with protecting the organization, so the answer is yes, he would allow the accountant to keep working.
 
#3,940
#3,940
JokermanVol said:
yeah, because serious, uncorroborated allegations of crimes towards employees are so common.
Click to expand...

Yep. You don't know how many times a week an employee of mine comes to me in distress claiming a co-worker was sodomizing a child in the employee restroom. It's a daily occurrence, and a common practical joke in the workplace.
 
#3,941
#3,941
DrunkJohnny said:
You keep saying McQueary should have called police but you don't think Paterno should have instructed him to do so, what gives?
Click to expand...

McQueary is a grown man who can make his own decisions.

Paterno took the first step to initiate an investigation to found more facts.
 
#3,944
#3,944
DrunkJohnny said:
Yep. You don't know how many times a week an employee of mine comes to me in distress claiming a co-worker was sodomizing a child in the employee restroom. It's a daily occurrence, and a common practical joke in the workplace.
Click to expand...

It matters not whether it does happen; it matters whether it could happen. I am not much for empiricism.
 
#3,945
#3,945
therealUT said:
I am not for protecting children at all costs. If this makes me a monster, so be it. I think an individual has the right to due process and that a simple allegation should not, in itself, defame said individual.

.
Click to expand...

Putting someone on paid administrative leave doesn't deny them due process. Saying, "Jerry, you're going to have to not come back on the premises until this thing is fully investigated" isn't a denial of due process. Taking that action is the proper way to handle these things. That's protocol everywhere. I find it funny that in some instances you like to bring up following protocol as a defense to some of these ass holes, but when it's clear that they didn't even come close to following virtually every organization's protocol on the investigative side of this, you act as if protocol is meaningless and doesn't factor into your opinion. That seems incredibly hypocritical to me.

If an employee was summarily fired because of a baseless accusation, then maybe you'd have a point. Placing them on paid administrative leave or banning Sandusky from the facilities is simply not a denial of due process. If he's cleared, let him back on the property. If the employee is cleared, let them come back to work. But look at the repercussions for just sitting on your ass and passing the buck: a monster raped and victimized at least 20 young kids. There's no defending the way this was handled, theRealUT.
 
#3,946
#3,946
therealUT said:
McQueary is a grown man who can make his own decisions.

Paterno took the first step to initiate an investigation to found more facts.
Click to expand...

I know I'm going to ask you to speculate, but why do you think no one (Paterno, Curly, Schultz) instructed McQueary to contact authorities?
 
#3,947
#3,947
ItsDarwinism said:
You're paraphrasing, I dont believe Paterno ever used that terminology, at least it hasnt been reported.
Click to expand...

from the reports

"Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home. Paterno called Curley to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant has seen Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top