Penn State scandal (merged)

#101
#101
DrunkJohnny said:
Have any victims alleged assault during the time Sandusky was on staff?
Click to expand...

A mom first reported that Sandysky showered with her son in 1998 (allegation included "inappropriate touching"). Campus police investigated and asked Sandusky to promise not to shower with little boys anymore.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#102
#102
Look, I cant stand sexual predators any more than the rest of you. I hope they clip the guys nuts off if its all true. That being said, I was addressing the idea in the OP that this will tarnish Joe's legacy. I find that hard to believe. Thats all.
 
#103
#103
TXVOL07 said:
It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report," Paterno said in the statement. "Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators."
Read more: Joe Paterno: Shocked, saddened by charges brought against Jeff Sandusky - NCAA Football - SI.com

Which again, leads me to believe Joe followed the chain of command and appropriate action. Its not his position to chase down every former employee and prosecute their transgressions.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Sandysky holding youth football camps at PSU up through 2007? That's long after JoePa was made aware of the sodomy incident.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#104
#104
TXVOL07 said:
It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report," Paterno said in the statement. "Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators."
Read more: Joe Paterno: Shocked, saddened by charges brought against Jeff Sandusky - NCAA Football - SI.com

Which again, leads me to believe Joe followed the chain of command and appropriate action. Its not his position to chase down every former employee and prosecute their transgressions.
Click to expand...

Whoever knew about this, and didn't call the cops is at fault. The end. From the GA on up. They should all be charged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#105
#105
JoePa reported to the AD, and I believe that this is all he is legally obligated to do.

Morally obligated is a different story. I would have had the police in on this thing so fast that it would have made heads spin. It probably would have cost JoePa his job, and if I were in that spot, I would rather lose my job and make sure that this was properly investigated.

If I were the GA, I would have lost my job because I would have beat the living daylights out of that sick effer, right on the spot.
 
#106
#106
DrunkJohnny said:
Whoever knew about this, and didn't call the cops is at fault. The end. From the GA on up. They should all be charged.
Click to expand...

That is what is so tragic. He was allowed to be around children for several years after the fact. Who knows how many other kids were harmed bc it went unreported.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#107
#107
DrunkJohnny said:
Whoever knew about this, and didn't call the cops is at fault. The end. From the GA on up. They should all be charged.
Click to expand...

Aside from Sandusky, the GA certainly should take the brunt of the blame in this incident. Not only did he not report this incident, of which he was an eyewitness, to the police, from what I have thus far read he in no way attempted to intervene when he saw this.

If people are going to throw JoePa to the wolves for this, then this GA should go to the wolves first.
 
#108
#108
The United States Judicial system does not prosecute based on morality.

The court of public opinion can and often does. Do with him what you will.
 
#109
#109
therealUT said:
Aside from Sandusky, the GA certainly should take the brunt of the blame in this incident. Not only did he not report this incident, of which he was an eyewitness, to the police, from what I have thus far read he in no way attempted to intervene when he saw this.

If people are going to throw JoePa to the wolves for this, then this GA should go to the wolves first.
Click to expand...

Why the hell didn't the GA just call the cops first? It makes no sense.
 
#110
#110
Let me ask you this, why bother telling Joe about it anyhow. Sandusky was not on staff. Why not go straight to the authorities first rather than include Joe in the loop?
 
#111
#111
TXVOL07 said:
and by "PSU" am I to understand you all mean Joe Pa specifically? Thats what I am having trouble with.
Click to expand...

As soon as the AD failed to take action, JoePa and the GA became responsible for alerting authorities. At some point, somebody has to do the right thing, or else everybody is in the wrong. Nobody did the right thing, so everybody (including JoePa) was wrong. You don't just sit idle because of a perceived complication with "red tape" and let this guy continue to molest young boys.
 
#112
#112
JoePa's legacy was built on running a program of integrity. He may have done all that he was "legally obligated" to do, but you can't tell me that he did everything he should have done. Fair or not, every time people think of PSU football they're going to think of Sandusky and what he did and that based on the timeline JoePa didn't do enough to stop it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#113
#113
SamRebel35 said:
As soon as the AD failed to take action, JoePa and the GA became responsible for alerting authorities. At some point, somebody has to do the right thing, or else everybody is in the wrong. Nobody did the right thing, so everybody (including JoePa) was wrong. You don't just sit idle because of a perceived complication with "red tape" and let this guy continue to molest young boys.
Click to expand...

You would get your ass whipped in court. I understand the passion behind this line of thinking. Really, I do, but you'd be butchered in the court room.
 
#114
#114
TXVOL07 said:
You would get your ass whipped in court. I understand the passion behind this line of thinking. Really, I do, but you'd be butchered in the court room.
Click to expand...

JoePa continued letting this guy use his football facilities for damn near a decade after he knew he was a kididie diddler. It's inexcusable Everyday from here forward, that JoePa is employed at Penn St, it looks worse.
 
#116
#116
A and B both work for C; C works for D.

A observes B doing something illegal. A alerts C. On the information that C has, C has the following choices:

1. Go to the police. Say A told me he saw B in an illegal act. The consequence of this choice is that B has effectively ended B's career without any substantial evidence (hearsay).

2. Go to D. The consequences end up being about the same.

3. Ask B if he engaged in said act; this could be done with A in the room or not. Either way, if B denies then there is a dilemma of who to believe.

The only way these situations change is if the victim could be present to C or D at any point in this process.

After reflecting on this situation, I would say that the onus to report to the police is squarely on the shoulders of A.

(None of this excuses the perjury committed by the AD)
 
#117
#117
TXVOL07 said:
You would get your ass whipped in court. I understand the passion behind this line of thinking. Really, I do, but you'd be butchered in the court room.
Click to expand...

This is not about court. You said you don't know why JoePa's legacy would be tarnished. It's because he only did what was legally required. He could have ended it when others didn't step up to the plate, but decided his best interests were more important than going above and beyond the "legal requirements."
 
#118
#118
DrunkJohnny said:
JoePa continued letting this guy use his football facilities for damn near a decade after he knew he was a kididie diddler. It's inexcusable Everyday from here forward, that JoePa is employed at Penn St, it looks worse.
Click to expand...

I think "knew" is a strong word that does not apply in this situation. Paterno had secondhand, hearsay knowledge of the event which hardly constitutes any certainty and, therefore, cannot have technically "known" Sandusky was a pedophile.
 
#119
#119
therealUT said:
I think "knew" is a strong word that does not apply in this situation. Paterno had secondhand, hearsay knowledge of the event which hardly constitutes any certainty and, therefore, cannot have technically "known" Sandusky was a pedophile.
Click to expand...

Did anyone ever confront Sandusky?
 
#120
#120
therealUT said:
I think "knew" is a strong word that does not apply in this situation. Paterno had secondhand, hearsay knowledge of the event which hardly constitutes any certainty and, therefore, cannot have technically "known" Sandusky was a pedophile.
Click to expand...

Is there any indication that he confronted Sandusky? In a situation like this, I think willful ignorance is just as bad.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#121
#121
Fellas, its not about how you "feel" about something like this. Its what you can prove. Paterno heard a rumor and told his boss.

The man was not convicted of any crime as of yet.
 
#122
#122
TXVOL07 said:
Fellas, its not about how you "feel" about something like this. Its what you can prove. Paterno heard a rumor and told his boss.

The man was not convicted of any crime as of yet.
Click to expand...

Your original point was that this situation would not tarnish JoePa's legacy. Whether he was convicted of anything is irrelevant in the court of public opinion. Not to mention, after hearing the "rumor" he allowed Sandusky to be around kids in PSU's facilities.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#123
#123
Pretty simple. Paterno should have banned Sandusky from campus, while the AD and PD investigated accordingly, then should have followed the investigation closely.
I imagine he didn't because he knew that reports of pedophilia in the PSU shower wouldn't look good.
 
#124
#124
Joe is an employee of the university, not the second coming of Christ. He has a boss.

Believe it or not, he really does have to answer to someone. Several someones in fact.
 
#125
#125
TXVOL07 said:
Fellas, its not about how you "feel" about something like this. Its what you can prove. Paterno heard a rumor and told his boss.

The man was not convicted of any crime as of yet.
Click to expand...

Guy is facing 40 counts and counting. Maybe if they had bothered to investigate when the "rumor" occurred this would already been closed. It's highly likely more kids were assaulted due to their lack of follow up.

Everyone from the GA up should be charged.

Believe it or not, he really does have to answer to someone.
Click to expand...

JoePa is State U. He is the boss.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top