Sandusky Claims His Innoncence in an Exclusive Interview with Bob Costas

#131
#131
therealUT said:
Is it still credible if the following turn out to be true:
1. He told the Grand Jury that he saw the child rape and went home; that he did not step in to stop it.

2. That he told Paterno that he saw fondling and inappropriate behavior.

3. That he told Curley that he "believed" he saw child rape.

4. That he emailed his friend and said that he stepped in and stopped the act.

If it is true that at different times he gave contradictory testimony (whether to the Jury, to his superiors, or to his friends, do you still think he is a credible eyewitness?
Click to expand...

I can only go on what I have read now. Could his credibility go down in the future? Sure. Thats why you have trial.
 
#135
#135
All he needs is the one victim who said he forced him to perform oral sex. . .the victim MQ saw hasn't been identified yet, if he comes forward then it is over.
 
#136
#136
therealUT said:
You did not answer the question. In said hypothetical situation, could one charge A with negligence?
Click to expand...

That's just it, your hypothetical situation assumes that a shower is imperative. What is the harm in waiting until you get home to take a shower? If the options were, take a shower with a 10 year old boy, or have the kid get kidnapped by rampaging psycho janitors, maybe a shower just isn't that important. JMO.
 
#137
#137
SamRebel35 said:
That's just it, your hypothetical situation assumes that a shower is imperative. What is the harm in waiting until you get home to take a shower? If the options were, take a shower with a 10 year old boy, or have the kid get kidnapped by rampaging psycho janitors, maybe a shower just isn't that important. JMO.
Click to expand...

You seem to assume that the simple act of showering with the kid is in and of itself wrong.

It may be ill-advised and it may invite questions and speculation, but it is not inherently wrong.
 
Last edited:
#139
#139
therealUT said:
You seem to assume that the simple act of showering with the kid is in and of itself wrong.

It may be ill-advised and it may invite questions and speculation, but it is not inherently wrong.
Click to expand...

Not ill-advised. It is grossly inappropriate. He had other choices besides taking a shower with a kid and letting him get kidnapped by janitors. This is the most assinine argument I've ever had on Volnation, which is a true compliment to your trolling abilities.
 
#140
#140
SamRebel35 said:
Not ill-advised. It is grossly inappropriate. He had other choices besides taking a shower with a kid and letting him get kidnapped by janitors. This is the most assinine argument I've ever had on Volnation, which is a true compliment to your trolling abilities.
Click to expand...

"Appropriate" relates to societal norms, not morals/ethics.
 
#141
#141
therealUT said:
You seem to assume that the simple act of showering with the kid is in and of itself wrong.

It may be ill-advised and it may invite questions and speculation, but it is not inherently wrong.
Click to expand...

He's already admitted to horseplaying with a pre-teen in the shower. Anything wrong with that?
 
#142
#142
DrunkJohnny said:
He's already admitted to horseplaying with a pre-teen in the shower. Anything wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Is there something wrong with non-sexual horseplay with a fully clothed child?

Like I said, it is ill-advised; however, if the child in 2002 said that Sandusky did not touch him sexually, did not abuse him, did not molest him, then what gives me the privilege to say that it was sexual and, therefore, that it was wrong?
 
#143
#143
therealUT said:
Is there something wrong with non-sexual horseplay with a fully clothed child?

Like I said, it is ill-advised; however, if the child in 2002 said that Sandusky did not touch him sexually, did not abuse him, did not molest him, then what gives me the privilege to say that it was sexual and, therefore, that it was wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes or no would do.

Fully clothed in the shower? Do you read what you write?
 
#144
#144
therealUT said:
You seem to assume that the simple act of showering with the kid is in and of itself wrong.

It may be ill-advised and it may invite questions and speculation, but it is not inherently wrong.
Click to expand...

Because it is wrong! And very inappropriate. Why u see different is beyond me..
 
#147
#147
Sandusky: Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?

Costas: Yes.

Sandusky: Sexually attracted? You know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. I ... but, no, I am not sexually attracted to young boys.
Click to expand...

Gonna go with the tried and true MJ defense.
 
#148
#148
therealUT said:
Is there something wrong with non-sexual horseplay with a fully clothed child?

Like I said, it is ill-advised; however, if the child in 2002 said that Sandusky did not touch him sexually, did not abuse him, did not molest him, then what gives me the privilege to say that it was sexual and, therefore, that it was wrong?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly not see a huge difference?

There's nothing wrong with a married man talking to another woman, but if they're both naked, then we have a problem.
 
#150
#150
VolsSportsFan said:
Do you honestly not see a huge difference?

There's nothing wrong with a married man talking to another woman, but if they're both naked, then we have a problem.
Click to expand...

Morally we don't. According to your norms, constructs, and conventions, you might have a problem.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top