Penn State scandal (merged)

#3,951
#3,951
DrunkJohnny said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am not going to speculate on that; right now it is speculation that no one did advise McQueary to go to the police (I do not think this latter is highly plausible, but it has not been ruled out).
 
#3,952
#3,952
LawVol13 said:
He's already seen that, man. I believe his position is now that Paterno didn't think ass raping a little boy was wrong because he wasn't "familiar with child abuse."
Click to expand...

just wanted to make sure that darwinism really meant that "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy" was not molestation. Helps to know where people stand (especially when it's clear they have read none of the reports)
 
#3,953
#3,953
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...

So defamation of an individual is your concern versus children being molested? I sincerely hope your children are never in harms way.

What would your response be to your child IF something terrible happened them? Sorry bout your luck, but I believe the guy who did this to you over you? It's your word versus his, and there's just not enough evidence for me to believe you? We can't destroy an innocent man just because there's not enough evidence.
 
#3,954
#3,954
therealUT said:
I am not going to speculate on that; right now it is speculation that no one did advise McQueary to go to the police (I do not think this latter is highly plausible, but it has not been ruled out).
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Do you want to speculate on whether or not you believe Paterno, Curly, and Shultz advised McQueary on how to handle the situation?
 
#3,955
#3,955
utvolpj said:
just wanted to make sure that darwinism really meant that "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy" was not molestation. Helps to know where people stand (especially when it's clear they have read none of the reports)
Click to expand...

Yes, he pretended last night that just an allegation of the boy being "fondled" wasn't sufficient for anyone to take action. McQreary would have had to explicitly say "the boy was being ass raped" before Joe Pa could have understood what he meant. Yep, you read that right, and it's quite possibly the most pathetic thing I had ever read.
 
#3,956
#3,956
LawVol13 said:
Yes, he pretended last night that just an allegation of the boy being "fondled" wasn't sufficient for anyone to take action. McQreary would have had to explicitly say "the boy was being ass raped" before Joe Pa could have understood what he meant. Yep, you read that right, and it's quite possibly the most pathetic thing I had ever read.
Click to expand...

Getting sad.

Someone yesterday said that JoePa might have been told that Sandusky was just "washing the boy."
 
#3,957
#3,957
therealUT said:
I am not going to speculate on that; right now it is speculation that no one did advise McQueary to go to the police (I do not think this latter is highly plausible, but it has not been ruled out).
Click to expand...

When you get a chance, I'd like you to respond to my post to you on the other page. I'll keep it civil with you from now on as well. :hi:
 
#3,960
#3,960
NWGVol said:
So defamation of an individual is your concern versus children being molested? I sincerely hope your children are never in harms way.

What would your response be to your child IF something terrible happened them? Sorry bout your luck, but I believe the guy who did this to you over you? It's your word versus his, and there's just not enough evidence for me to believe you? We can't destroy an innocent man just because there's not enough evidence.
Click to expand...

I would say that a victim's statement and testimony would count as a high enough threshold in which to keep the accused out of a setting in which he could commit the act again while the facts are investigated.

This could lead to the same infinite regression case demonstrated earlier; however, I think in cases where there is an alleged victim actually making accusations you could argue that civil action could be taken against the accuser if the accusations are false (thus, recovering the costs of lost productivity and paid leave).
 
#3,962
#3,962
DrunkJohnny said:
Fair enough.

Do you want to speculate on whether or not you believe Paterno, Curly, and Shultz advised McQueary on how to handle the situation?
Click to expand...

No. I have no idea what was said in those rooms; to speculate in any direction would be to tacitly condemn at least one of the involved.
 
#3,963
#3,963
therealUT said:
I would say that a victim's statement and testimony would count as a high enough threshold in which to keep the accused out of a setting in which he could commit the act again while the facts are investigated.

This could lead to the same infinite regression case demonstrated earlier; however, I think in cases where there is an alleged victim actually making accusations you could argue that civil action could be taken against the accuser if the accusations are false (thus, recovering the costs of lost productivity and paid leave).
Click to expand...

There could be civil actions to recover any lost money whether or not it was the victim making the statement or someone that claims to have knowledge. Just think about what you're proposing. You'd have to have a 10 year old who'd just been sodomized to come in and tell you what happened before you'd take action. An eyewitness account wouldn't suffice. Think about that for a few seconds.
 
#3,964
#3,964
LawVol13 said:
When you get a chance, I'd like you to respond to my post to you on the other page. I'll keep it civil with you from now on as well. :hi:
Click to expand...

I am about to head out the door with my fiance for my Veteran's Day free lunch. If you could repost it in reply to this post, it would be much appreciated.
 
#3,967
#3,967
therealUT said:
I am about to head out the door with my fiance for my Veteran's Day free lunch. If you could repost it in reply to this post, it would be much appreciated.
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.
Click to expand...

Also, I think I can speak on behalf of everyone on VN in thanking you for your service on behalf of our country. Have a great day.:hi:
 
#3,968
#3,968
therealUT said:
Correct.
Click to expand...

Dude, seriously? You would allow an accountant for your company, after someone said that they saw him/her embezzling from the company, to potentially keep emptying out the company bank account while waiting for the law to work through the process???

Good God, even ignoring all the other issues, you are just dumber than dirt. :crazy:
 
Last edited:
#3,971
#3,971
LawVol13 said:
Yes, he pretended last night that just an allegation of the boy being "fondled" wasn't sufficient for anyone to take action. McQreary would have had to explicitly say "the boy was being ass raped" before Joe Pa could have understood what he meant. Yep, you read that right, and it's quite possibly the most pathetic thing I had ever read.
Click to expand...

He also admitting to having kids. Feel bad for them.
 
#3,973
#3,973
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...

I think you would also take into account the witness and his relationship with the one he is accusing. MQ grew up around the Sandusky home and JS as a kid, as a collegiate player and as an adult. He was the least likely to bring false charges against JS. In my view, that should have driven faster action by Joe Pa and the AD. The fact they didn't makes we wonder if they weren't shocked and needed time to work out a plan.
 
#3,974
#3,974
YorkVol said:
I think you would also take into account the witness and his relationship with the one he is accusing. MQ grew up around the Sandusky home and JS as a kid, as a collegiate player and as an adult. He was the least likely to bring false charges against JS. In my view, that should have driven faster action by Joe Pa and the AD. The fact they didn't makes we wonder if they weren't shocked and needed time to work out a plan.
Click to expand...

Whoa... That raises a whole other set of questions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top