# It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 7, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167 "2011-11-07T14:23:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 95
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1881 "2011-12-30T03:24:28Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > **SA** , any response to my post #1816? Certainly, as it illustrates the point I was making perfectly. The police received a report of a possible sexual assault. No victim has come forward and they have no evidence. They have hit a dead end and can do nothing unless and until they have more to go on than the fact that somebody thought they saw a sexual assault take place. > [@Huerta88](#): > > Until you admit (and I know you are too much the coward or worse to do so) that the word “fondling” does not have a single non-sexual, non-reportable meaning in standard American English as used by human beings, today, to describe contact between a naked old man and a naked boy, in a shower (especially when followed by “or sexual contact”), you will remain subject to justified allegations of enabling pedophiles. See? Here’s there’s some more of your dishonest bullshit right there. You tried to lay a stupid little trap for me by asking me if “fondling” ever had a non-sexual connotation. I replied that it did, and posted not only an alternative dictionary definition but described some of the various ways that non-sexual fondling between adults and children take place. Now, having egg on your face and being embarrassed over your own lack of proficiency with the English language, you have decided to distort the nature of your question and my response to make it look like I said something I never said. Also, being a “pedophile enabler” requires the enabling of some specific pedophile. You may not legitimately characterize me as a pedophile enabler simply because I quote a dictionary definition that you are ignorant of. > [@Huerta88](#): > > He (SA)has rationalized, multiple times, that there are forms of “non sexual fondling” or other naked on naked man on boy contact in a shower that are perfectly innocent. I am being quite honest when I say that this is deeply weird and troubling. What you should find deeply weird and troubling is your apparently utter inability to comprehend what you read in black and white. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > With pleasure: Nonsense. Nowhere in any of those posts do I say that Sandusky’s behavior in the shower was “probably horseplay and therefore justified,” as you allege. You have concocted two separate lies into that one short sentence in a dishonest (or stupid - we can’t rule that out) attempt to make it appear that I was both defending Sandusky and approving of his behavior. Neither is true and that’s why you weren’t able to find anything to show that it is. What you hoped to prove by posting what you did is anyone’s guess. > [@martu](#): > > This is an awesome post, thank you. Hardly. It was full of lies and stupidity. > [@martu](#): > > The next time I hear of someone abusing kids for years and thinking ‘How did they get away with it for so long?’ I’ll be reminded of this thread and people like SA. You might want to remind yourself about courts at the same time, because they insist on facts too. > [@martu](#): > > Paterno dropped the ball, you hear of a man having a shower with a kid not his own, at night, with no one else around you damn well make sure that kid is safe no matter how many toes you tread on. That is both unrealistic and silly. Just how could Paterno have made damn sure the kid was safe? The incident happened the day before, and Paterno had no idea who the kid was or just what it was that had happened. Of all the people involved in this episode, Paterno is the least culpable of all. He reported McQueary’s claim exactly as he was supposed to, without sugar coating it or trying to minimize it. And I’m certain you have no evidence whatsoever to support your opinion that Paterno was afraid of stepping on someone’s toes. > [@Huerta88](#): > > SA would like to seize on this fairly meager cross-exam “admission” to imply that McQueary was/is anguishedly uncertain and conflicted about what he saw. Nope, I never said nor implied that McQueary was “anguishly” uncertain and conflicted by what he saw. You have made that up our of whole cloth. > [@Huerta88](#): > > In reality… Given the fact that virtually nothing you’ve said about me or what I’ve said in this thread is correct or honest I can hardly believe you have the gall to say such a thing. > [@Huerta88](#): > > McQueary keeps coming back to “I saw some form of intercourse,” and getting hung up on his conceding to a shyster’s cheap “but you can’t be one million percent sure, can you, as you did not actually see the penis enter the anus” is both falling for molester-enabling crap that SA has been peddling, and not understanding how cross-exam is played when a shyster otherwise has no hope on the merits. What I’ve been enabling - or at least trying to enable - is due process in the fact of hysteria and emotion. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously for often being inaccurate. If the facts don’t support anal rape, as they don’t in this case no matter what it “looked like,” then an attorney is hardly a “shyster” for trying to determine just what it was that McQueary saw, and whether or not what he saw is likely probative of anal rape. The attorney would be derelict in his duty otherwise. > [@Huerta88](#): > > Apart from the dishonest bullshit of claiming that McQueary’s testimony was “vague,” I’m pretty damn sure that also answers your indictment of me for saying that SA gave credence to the “showering lessons” bullshit. He did, thereinabove. Nope, once again you are unable to get your facts straight. I said what McQueary told Joe Paterno was vague. I haven’t said anything about McQueary’s testimony. And the fact of the matter is that hugging, wrestling, tickling and “shower lessons” remain as possible explanations for what McQueary saw. Hell, the kid could have slipped on the tile and Sandusky had just grabbed him to stop him from falling when McQueary showed up. Any number of things are possible. This isn’t to say they happened as a matter of fact, or even that they are likely, but they remain within the realm of possibility and therefore what I said was correct. This is why it’s important for the attorney to determine just what it was that McQueary saw. If he saw no penetration, and he saw no thrusting movements, and the kid’s expression was not one of distress (which it apparently wasn’t), then the alternative explanations become more plausible, no matter how much you want to ignore them and how badly you want to jump to the conclusion that anal rape was what McQueary saw. And just to head you off at the pass, the mere fact that I suggest these alternative possibilities does not mean that I am claiming them as fact, and it does not mean that I’m looking for excuses to defend a pedophile. What I am doing - and it needs to be done - is defending the use of due process to ferret out just what it was that did occur. We can’t know that a crime occurred, or how serious it is in terms of charges to be brought, as long as these ambiguities exist as to what McQueary saw. I’d bet money that if Sandusky were brought to trial today and tried for child sex abuse based on McQueary’s testimony only, he’d be found not guilty in less than an hour. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > The posts calling him a pedophile or defender of them are over the top and not really supported by his position. Needless to say you are correct, and I thank you for saying so. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > But here is the problem with SA’s position: instead of sticking to an opinion about how to handle the report (call cops vs report to administrators), he has chosen to try to justify in objective terms why not calling the cops is completely appropriate. There are two problems with that: > > 1. Both sides are just opinion, so it’s tough to objectively defend much of anything > 2. It has led him to some completely ridiculous positions, for example, his insistence that the police would do nothing unless a victim was already identified. I haven’t “insisted” any such thing (what is _wrong_ with you people?). What I did was suggest that calling the police would likely not have occurred to Paterno in the first place because the police would have nothing to go on even if he did. (Was that not obvious from the little faux-dialog I posted of the conversation between Paterno and the police had he called?) Any subsequent “insisting” I might have done would only have been in reply to other posters claiming I was full of shit. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > This is an example of a position that is so completely unsupportable that it forces the question: assuming SA’s brain is normal and functioning, what is his game? See, now you’re going all **Huerta** on me. First you’re making an erroneous assumption (claiming my position is “completely unsupportable” when your own post regarding the alleged rape in Colorado shows that it is supportable indeed), and then extrapolating from that I am either mentally deficient or playing some sort of game, with the latter seeming to imply that I am supportive in some way of child sex abuse. I’ve come to expect this sort of lunacy from **Huerta** and **Guinastasia** , et al., but I didn’t expect it from you. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > I disagree. Disagree all you want. You didn’t come close to proving your allegations, and that, not your disagreement, is what counts. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > And Starving Artist’s latest bullshit, that calling the police would in fact be a BAD idea is so fucked up that I cannot imagine how ANY human, with a conscience, could make it. Okay, let’s see if you can do any better with this little piece of bullshit. Did I say it would be a BAD idea, or did I merely say it would likely have been fruitless? There is a distinction you know. Are you and your cohorts in this thread simply incapable of relating anything accurately/honestly? Virtually nothing any of you has said about my posts has been correct. Why is this? And what explanation can there be for it besides stupidity or dishonesty? > [@Guinastasia](#): > > He’s more concerned with defending his hero – Paterno – than worrying about the victims. “Oh, they couldn’t have been identified, so why bother?” Yes, false accusations are devastating. That doesn’t mean you go the exact opposite route and ignore what’s going on right in front of your nose. Paterno did not ignore what McQueary told him. He reported just like he was supposed to. He did not try to dissuade McQueary or convince him that he was just seeing things, and he described what he was told by McQueary accurately to his superiors without trying to minimize it or sugar coat it. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > His idiotic misconception of just how a police investigation works is astonishing. The evidence and reports have been posted here time and time again, yet he keeps refusing to address it. > > Watch ANY documentary on A&E or Biography. Read ANY book on a criminal case. (Note, I’m not talking about a novel, I’m speaking about non-fiction). Talk to an actual cop or investigator, and see what they tell you. Hah! An incident has posted to this very thread where cops are at a standstill with regard to an alleged sighting of rape. Perhaps they missed A&E and the appropriate books. :rolleyes: And _Biography_? WTF? 😃 > [@Guinastasia](#): > > I get the impression that had he been in McQueary’s place, he might not have acted to stop what was going on. And that again disgusts me. I’m sure that settles it in your alleged mind. You’ve decided for yourself how I would have responded in McQueary’s place, and the scenario you’ve concocted in your fevered little mind is self-disgusting. I’m sure Huerta88 and Jack Batty and a few of the other batty posters in this thread will find that to be of great significance, but to those of us grounded in fact your imaginings of what I would do in any given scenario are meaningless. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”. Paterno did something. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Of course, that assumes that Starving Artist is a good man in the first place. And reading this thread, I have my doubts. Why do you have doubts? I never suggested that McQueary, Paterno, Curley and Schultz should have done nothing. And unless you can show that I did, don’t you think it’s rather stupid to doubt my “goodness” based on that premise? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1882 "2011-12-30T03:43:51Z")
And thanks to **Fotheringay-Phipps** for recognizing the actual content of my posts and and fighting the good fight in favor of truth and accuracy despite not agreeing with some of the things I’ve said. (Tip-of-the-hat smilie to **F-G**!) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1883 "2011-12-30T04:03:27Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And the fact of the matter is that hugging, wrestling, tickling and “shower lessons” remain as possible explanations for what McQueary saw. Hell, the kid could have slipped on the tile and Sandusky had just grabbed him to stop him from falling when McQueary showed up. Any number of things are possible. This isn’t to say they happened as a matter of fact, or even that they are likely, but they remain within the realm of possibility and therefore what I said was correct. This is why it’s important for the attorney to determine just what it was that McQueary saw. If he saw no penetration, and he saw no thrusting movements, and the kid’s expression was not one of distress (which it apparently wasn’t), then the alternative explanations become more plausible, no matter how much you want to ignore them and how badly you want to jump to the conclusion that anal rape was what McQueary saw. Right there again. You say, “it’s possible that Sandusky didn’t do anything.” > [@](#): > > And _Biography_? WTF? 😃 The Biography Channel often features documentaries on criminal cases. > [@](#): > > Paterno did something. Yeah, he told his supervisors who did what, exactly? QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR HIM. He failed, MORALLY. We’re not talking about whether or not he did his legal duties, dumbfuck. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1884 "2011-12-30T05:45:32Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Right there again. You say, “it’s possible that Sandusky didn’t do anything.” You’re doing it again, **Guinny**. I didn’t say it’s possible Sandusky didn’t do anything; I said it’s possible that what he was doing wasn’t anal rape. (I also said we’d have to find out just what it was that he was doing before we’d know what to charge him with, if anything, because number one, there may not be sufficient evidence to charge him; and number two (better sit down for this one) he may not have been doing anything criminal. Personally I think the latter is unlikely, but it is still possible. This is why we have to have evidence before we charge people with a crime, and it’s why we have trials after they’re charged. We don’t convict people simply because we suspect they were up to no good. Specific crimes have to be alleged, and there has to be sufficient evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Where alternative explanations are possible, as they are in this case whether you like it or not, there has to be sufficient evidence to persuade reasonable people on the jury to rule out those alternative explanations. Your problem is that you are convinced Sandusky is guilty of _some kind_ of pedophilia (even though you don’t know for a fact what it was and couldn’t begin to prove it even if you did) and you are so wedded to that conviction that you regard anyone who disagrees with you as a pedophile or pedophile enabler. And that is nonsense! There has to be _proof_, and that proof has to be strong enough to override alternative possible explanations. We don’t convict people on supposition in this country, but that’s what you’re insisting upon. And in addition to that you’re insisting that anyone who would dare call for due process is doing so only to enable or defend pedophila. You would be perfectly happy to see due process go straight down the drain in favor of vigilante justice, and that makes you a far greater threat to society than any child abuser. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > The Biography Channel often features documentaries on criminal cases. If you say so. I haven’t watched the Biography channel in a while. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Yeah, he told his supervisors who did what, exactly? Two things: 1. He told his superiors, which is what the law and decades of campus policy dictated he do. He did not seek to minimize it; he did not attempt to sugar coat it; and he did not attempt to hide it. So you are wrong when you say he did nothing. Period. 2. It doesn’t matter what his superiors did. It wasn’t his job to oversee campus investigations. He had neither the time, training nor authority to do so. It is unfair, unreasonable, and, frankly, ridiculous, to expect that he should have supervised his supervisors. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR HIM. He failed, MORALLY. We’re not talking about whether or not he did his legal duties… In that case we’re merely discussing opinion, and yours carries less weight than mine because it operates out of hysteria, knee-jerk emotionality and disdain for due process. Of all the actors involved in this incident, Joe Paterno is the only one who did what he should. Besides, who are you to talk about morality when you’re a greater threat to society and justice than a child molester? > [@Guinastasia](#): > > dumbfuck. Ahh…insults. The last refuge (or is it the first?) of the impotent argument. 🙂 When come back bring substance. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1885 "2011-12-30T08:57:14Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You might want to remind yourself about courts at the same time, because they insist on facts too. This has nothing to do with what I said, well done. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > That is both unrealistic and silly. Just how could Paterno have made damn sure the kid was safe? The incident happened the day before, and Paterno had no idea who the kid was or just what it was that had happened. Of all the people involved in this episode, Paterno is the least culpable of all. He reported McQueary’s claim exactly as he was supposed to, without sugar coating it or trying to minimize it. And I’m certain you have no evidence whatsoever to support your opinion that Paterno was afraid of stepping on someone’s toes. So the first thing Paterno should have done is to call Sardusky into his office to explain what he was doing with a kid in his showers late at night. He should then have asked to speak to the kid (Sardusky knows who he is right?) to make sure he was Ok. Failure to do both of these is not doing enough in my opinion and I am almost certain that if Paterno had done this no other kids would have been hurt. **SA** people make mistakes, doesn’t make them bad people you know. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1886 "2011-12-30T13:22:49Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And the fact of the matter is that hugging, wrestling, tickling and “shower lessons” remain as possible explanations for what McQueary saw. The fact that you cling to this ridiculous rationalization is what is getting you the attention as an enabler. It doesn’t matter if Sandusky was “merely” hugging, wrestling, tickling or giving shower lessons (the single most dopiest term come out of this fucked up story). When you have a 60 year old man (who’s already been in dutch regarding kids in the past) naked in a deserted shower room, at night, with a naked 10 year old boy, you don’t stop to ask “was he just hugging him?” The fact that he has brought a boy to a secluded spot and got him naked is all you need to be outraged. You should know this. And fucking Paterno should have known it too. The fact that you offer up “realms of possibility” to mitigate that is making you sound ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![psychobunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@psychobunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychobunny)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1887 "2011-12-30T19:18:14Z")
I don’t see why everybody is so hung up on anal rape. Any naked full body physical contact with an unrelated child is a crime. I also agree that Sandusky should not be convicted without due process. However, we are talking about an investigation, not a conviction. Due process does not apply. > [@](#): > > I’d bet money that if Sandusky were brought to trial today and tried for child sex abuse based on McQueary’s testimony only, he’d be found not guilty in less than an hour. I would say that this depends on Sandusky’s defense. If he put on no defense I suspect he would be convicted in less than an hour. That is why it is important to call the police and have them actually investigate crimes-you know, the thing we pay them to do. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1888 "2011-12-30T19:31:21Z")
> [@psychobunny](#): > > I don’t see why everybody is so hung up on anal rape. Any naked full body physical contact with an unrelated child is a crime. Well, I don’t think everybody is. It is just that the actual entry of Sandusky’s penis is the only thing that McQueary testified he didn’t see directly and thus couldn’t have reported to Paterno. That is why **SA** has to focus on it so obsessively as though absent that fact, Paterno just couldn’t know whether (his latest) Sandusky was helping the child up after he slipped, or raping him. That, and his tired penchant for three card monte (invent a scenario in which it might have been helping a kid up or wrestling, then when he thinks no one’s looking, pretend that proof of anal penetration is the only acceptable trigger for reporting criminal sexual contact with a child, then declare victory). All the while ignoring the fact that McQueary’s direct testimony, in which he mentioned “extreme sexual contact” that he believed “was some form of intercourse” is “extremely vague” because he conceded to the defense on red-herring-seeking cross examination that he wasn’t in a position to see the actual penile penetration. Hell, I proved upthread, using the actual text of the, ya know, statutes that (as you suggest) any naked man on boy contact or proximity stood a high chance of being unlawful (and certainly cause for alarm) not only under the sex assault laws but under the indecent exposure laws, etc. Needless to say the people hung up on “Paterno had no proof of actual anal rape so he was bound by campus policy not to report it to the police” have not read the statute. (Not to mention that the reporting statute is a bare minimum for legal compliance, not an upward limit of what a moral person would be permitted to do). > [@](#): > > I also agree that Sandusky should not be convicted without due process. However, we are talking about an investigation, not a conviction. Due process does not apply. And, we are talking about a moral question (Paterno’s moral obligation to do more). The moron doesn’t understand what “due process” means or when it does (and emphatically does not) apply, but he heard it on Law & Order once and liked the sound of it so trotted it out when it came time to play Boy Lawyer in defense of his buddy Joe. (Joe may have a decent malpractice claim, BTW). ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1889 "2011-12-30T21:39:59Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > You know what investigators do in a case like that? Nothing! Because that’s all they can do unless and until they have more to go on. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > …for example, his insistence that the police would do nothing unless a victim was already identified. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > I haven’t “insisted” any such thing (what is wrong with you people?). What I did was suggest that calling the police would likely not have occurred to Paterno… **SA** , it’s hard to know what your position is at this point, maybe you could clarify. In the quote above you quite clearly state that investigators would do nothing. You use an exclamation, which to me means you are “insisting”. Then you say you didn’t really say that. What are you saying? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1890 "2011-12-31T00:51:19Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > In the quote above you quite clearly state that investigators would do nothing. You use an exclamation, which to me means you are “insisting”. > > Then you say you didn’t really say that. > > What are you saying? Oh, but that’s at the heart of his game. Float a factually-unsupported scenario or assertion as fact, then rely on the “fact” that police would be completely stymied to investigate to justify Paterno, then if challenged eventually say “but I was responding to a different hypothetical situation” (why introduce jerkoff “hypotheticals” to hijack the OP’s threads about **this** actual situation, you’d have to ask a clinician skilled in attention whoring). That’s why I call it three card monte; confuse the issue enough then he’ll declare game set match because the allegations were “extremely vague” (based on his confabulated multiple contrived alternative scenarios). Here’s why this crap needs to be investigated early and often by professionals – because there’s no historic plague of false accusations of pedophilia (other than maybe in toxic custody cases), but there’s a huge and shameful history of making excuses and finding “alternate realms of reality” for what any sane or rational person could have determined was massive exploitation of kids and inaction by adult authorities unwilling to question a charismatic or popular figure. > **[Unholy Communion, by Maureen Orth, Vanity Fair, August 2002](https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2002_08_Orth_UnholyCommunion.htm)** Note that _pace_ **SA** tender solicitude to the possibility that a suspect’s life would be “ruined permanently” by a mere police report, the Shanley case shows just the extent to which many, many, repeated reports and allegations over decades had very little effect on his standing in the community and ability to continue victimizing new kids. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1891 "2011-12-31T00:54:50Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You’re doing it again, **Guinny**. I didn’t say it’s possible Sandusky didn’t do anything; I said it’s possible that what he was doing wasn’t anal rape. (I also said we’d have to find out just what it was that he was doing before we’d know what to charge him with, if anything, because number one, there may not be sufficient evidence to charge him; and number two (better sit down for this one) he may not have been doing anything criminal. Personally I think the latter is unlikely, but it is still possible. This is why we have to have evidence before we charge people with a crime, and it’s why we have trials after they’re charged. We don’t convict people simply because we suspect they were up to no good. Specific crimes have to be alleged, and there has to be sufficient evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Where alternative explanations are possible, as they are in this case whether you like it or not, there has to be sufficient evidence to persuade reasonable people on the jury to rule out those alternative explanations. Your problem is that you are convinced Sandusky is guilty of _some kind_ of pedophilia (even though you don’t know for a fact what it was and couldn’t begin to prove it even if you did) and you are so wedded to that conviction that you regard anyone who disagrees with you as a pedophile or pedophile enabler. And that is nonsense! There has to be _proof_, and that proof has to be strong enough to override alternative possible explanations. We don’t convict people on supposition in this country, but that’s what you’re insisting upon. And in addition to that you’re insisting that anyone who would dare call for due process is doing so only to enable or defend pedophila. You would be perfectly happy to see due process go straight down the drain in favor of vigilante justice, and that makes you a far greater threat to society than any child abuser. This isn’t a court of law. This is a message board where people are offering their opinions. And I’m offering mine that Sandusky is guilty as sin. The incident in the shower isn’t the only accusation – pay attention to the goddamned news. There have been numerous testimonies from multiple victims – not just news reports, btw. Actual descriptions. Have you bothered reading them? > [@](#): > > Two things: > > 1. He told his superiors, which is what the law and decades of campus policy dictated he do. He did not seek to minimize it; he did not attempt to sugar coat it; and he did not attempt to hide it. So you are wrong when you say he did nothing. Period. > > 2. It doesn’t matter what his superiors did. It wasn’t his job to oversee campus investigations. He had neither the time, training nor authority to do so. It is unfair, unreasonable, and, frankly, ridiculous, to expect that he should have supervised his supervisors. WE. ARE. NOT. TALKING. ABOUT. HIS. **LEGAL**. OBLIGATION. Once again, it is about **MORAL** OBLIGATIONS. Two different things. You’re as thick as a plank. It doesn’t taking “training” to call the fucking cops. > [@](#): > > In that case we’re merely discussing opinion, and yours carries less weight than mine because it operates out of hysteria, knee-jerk emotionality and disdain for due process. Of all the actors involved in this incident, Joe Paterno is the only one who did what he should. Besides, who are you to talk about morality when you’re a greater threat to society and justice than a child molester? I’m “hysterical”? Kindly stop patronizing me. Maybe people are “hysterical” because they’re frustrated with stupidity. > [@](#): > > Ahh…insults. The last refuge (or is it the first?) of the impotent argument. 🙂 When come back bring substance. We’ve offered substance in the form of cites, articles, links, examples of legal procedure. You’ve offered nothing but your opinion and your view that Paterno is a great man. When pressed for anything more than that, you suddenly “have something to do”, or “I have to run, talk to you later.” And yet when “later” comes, you still don’t have anything. Put up or shut up. What is your experience with police procedure? Where do you get your knowledge, other than TV? (Fuck _Law & Order_, I’m guessing he got it from the _Police Academy_ movies) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1892 "2011-12-31T01:02:42Z")
I’ll add that > [@](#): > > which is what the law and decades of campus policy dictated he do. contains not just one of his completely fabricated “facts” (“decades of campus policy . . .” has not been testified to by anyone) but also one of his would-be-sneaky alterna-realities (“dictated” implying that the law or alleged “decades of policy” affirmatively forbade any additional or further investigation or reporting beyond up-the-chain internal reporting, which is simply untrue and utterly moronic). People should read that entire, disgraceful, Shanley story. Exactly the same kind of kick it down the road, buck-passing, we’ll-handle-this-ourselves, no need to create a big stir, besides, he’s denied it so it’s all very murky, behavior that amounted to enabling the predator in his lies, arguably becoming voluntarily complicit with his predation at some point from a moral perspective. Pattern recognition, folks. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1893 "2011-12-31T05:59:56Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > **SA** , it’s hard to know what your position is at this point, maybe you could clarify. > > In the quote above you quite clearly state that investigators would do nothing. You use an exclamation, which to me means you are “insisting”. > > Then you say you didn’t really say that. > > What are you saying? **SA** , you will come back and explain yourself, right? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1894 "2011-12-31T08:19:28Z")
Pretty sure this horse is dead… ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1895 "2011-12-31T17:21:06Z")
Not quite. There’s RaftPeople’s question to answer plus more bullshit from **Guin** and **Huerta** to disabuse. But time is short at the moment so I’ll have to do that later. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1896 "2011-12-31T18:05:32Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > Pretty sure this horse is dead… [Yep.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ5DjJFCEXI) ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1897 "2011-12-31T18:24:21Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Not quite. There’s RaftPeople’s question to answer plus more bullshit from **Guin** and **Huerta** to disabuse. But time is short at the moment so I’ll have to do that later. And hopefully, when you clarify your position, you will also address these statements: “You know what investigators do in a case like that? Nothing! Because that’s all they can do unless and until they have more to go on.” “I haven’t “insisted” any such thing (what is wrong with you people?). What I did was suggest that calling the police would likely not have occurred to Paterno…” There are two issues: 1. Do you really think the police wouldn’t investigate something if the victim is currently unknown? 2. Why did you tell me you never said that when you did? Final entertaining note about this particular point: If the police can do “nothing!” in a case like this, then the logical implication is that Paterno shouldn’t report it to anyone, because the people he reported to are ultimately supposed to report it to the police, but they can do “nothing!”. Basically, your statement that the police could do “nothing!” (you will note I am quoting you so you can’t call me names or claim I’m putting words in your mouth) leads us to the inescapable conclusion that in cases like that, the only person that could do anything is the eye witness and anyone after the fact should just let it go because it’s hopeless. Final Final Note: Look **SA** , taking the position that the police would do “nothing!” is hurting your cause because 90% of rational adults know that the police will investigate claims like this (I asked my friend who is a detective and he said absolutely they would) and it’s possible they will figure something out (and it’s possible they won’t). You are better off arguing other angles than this particular one. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1898 "2011-12-31T20:06:16Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Not quite. There’s RaftPeople’s question to answer plus more bullshit from **Guin** and **Huerta** to disabuse. But time is short at the moment so I’ll have to do that later. Isn’t this his usual practice? ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1899 "2011-12-31T23:45:22Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > Pretty sure this horse is dead… Oh, no, not as long as _some_one has to correct everyone else on the internet… (there has got to be a name for that syndrome… my autistic students do this, but eventually they figure out that they’ll drive everyone crazy if they persist) ---
**Author:** ![Catamount](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/catamount/32/2840_2.png) [@Catamount](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catamount)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1900 "2012-01-01T00:19:22Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > Pretty sure this horse is dead… [Let’s whack it a few more times to make sure…](http://discoveringalcoholic.com/wp-content/uploads/images/deadhorsebeating.gif) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167.md?page=94) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167.md?page=96)