Now that defending Paterno is clearly a bullshit proposition, I wanna see whether F-P can get this thread through another 20 pages of nonsense by the sheer force of his asshattery.
I’m pulling for you, buddy.
Before we get to what’s fair to say etc. we need to settle what the law is. Various outraged morons are claiming that mandated reporters are allowed no judgment whatsoever once they hear a report. The language you’ve quoted indicates otherwise - if these people are correct then the terms “reasonable suspicion” and “based on training and experience” etc. Have no meaning. Do you agree to this?
I think there’s big difference of degree.
How about you tell us what constitutes ‘reasonable suspicion’, given the following facts:
- All the seniors staff knew Sandusky had previously been accused of molestation in 1998.
- A current junior staff member comes forward and reports witnessing the same activity (an assault against a boy in a Penn State shower) in 2001.
- The seniors staff agreed to tell Sandusky that unless he seeks professional help, they will report him to child welfare authorities.
How can these facts be evident and documented, and there not be a reasonable suspicion on the part of senior staff?
The possibilities for alternate explanations are endless:
-
There are multiple Jerry Sanduskys living in that town and they just don’t know which one is even being accused
-
Due to a construction accident, the water was off at both Jerry’s house and the kid’s house and the little snot nosed brat didn’t bring his own soap to the showers and thus Jerry was having to take back the soap the kid took from him.
-
Mike Mcqueary didn’t understand that a new “provocative” play was being put on by the drama department and both of those were actors in body suits.
-
It’s just the normal man/boy horsing around that SA grew up with.
I mentioned very early on in this thread that I was a Mandated Reporter in NY State while I was an E.M.T. and proceeded to link relevant PA M.R. laws.
This only gets worse and worse. Now victims from the 70’s and 80’s have come forth.
Paterno may have had a myopic view of life- football above all else, no matter what that all else was- but that’s simply no excuse. He knew what he did back then, he knew what he did last November and he died knowing he destroyed kids’ lives by dint of the power of his position.
There is no wiggle room here. Hope that fucker burns in hell.
Again, the context here is whether it was theoretically possible for C&S to clarify that McQueary misunderstood what he saw by interviewing the kid and his parents. What some posters are claiming is that this would not be allowed under the law, and that even in the case I suggested in which it turned out to be a play they would be required to report it. I myself am skeptical.
As previous I’m willing to hear otherwise, but from someone who actually knows. Sometimes the law is an ass, but I wouldn’t take the word of an ass that this is so in a given case.
n.m.
At this point I am personally convinced that you are either an active sexual-predator or have strong desires in that direction but haven’t yet acted on them. I’m REALLY hoping for the latter.
No. It is clear they understood McQueary from their plan to offer an ultimatum to Sandusky, that he seek professional help or they would contact authorities.
You previously expressed doubt as to, if they didn’t have a reasonable suspicion, they are required to report.
Are you saying the the 3 facts I posted above, especially the demand to seek professional help, can be construed as something other than reasonable suspicion?
Or are you now saying that even if they have a reasonable suspicion, they can continue to investigate until such time as they no longer have a reasonable suspicion?
I’ve been wondering where I’ve seen F-P’s shtick before.
He’s the mayor from Jaws and won’t close the beaches.
Or SA with a new rationalization of innocence.
I mean, theoretically it is possible that the Mayor truly believed that it was physically impossible for sharks to exist in the first place, and therefore really posed no risk to the swimmers. Show me it’s not possible that he thought that.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
I am imagining the infamous Jaws theme music. Except its not a shark fin piercing the water’s surface. Its a Brawny paper towel tube.
My advice to you in that case is that you report it immediately. Don’t wait. A CHILD’S LIFE COULD BE AT STAKE!!!
Sandusky was clearly engaging in inapropriate behaviour which he had been warned againt, but which had been determined to not be a crime.
I don’t agree that something as basic and preliminary as asking the putative victim whether there was actually a crime amounts to “continue to investigate until …”
But you just skipped over the key point and didn’t answer his question.
The problem is if you answer the question with a “yes” then you are required to report within 24 hours, end of story.
And it’s pretty tough for any normal person to not answer “yes” given all of the information they had.
“Determined to not be a crime” by WHO?
It’s not up to any PSU official or even you or me to determine whether or not a crime has been committed.
You repeatedly ignore this point. Their minimal legal obligation was to report the incident. End of story. Period.
The duty of the officials at PSU was not to determine whether or not a crime had occurred at all. Their minimal legal duty was to report the incident. No amount of sophistry will conjure up any legal (or moral) wiggle room to argue otherwise.
Please answer my question. How do you imagine those three facts do not rise to the level of ‘reasonable suspicion’?
Watch, it he’s tricky. He’s referring to the 1998 investigation which went no where.
Though he’s still wrong. Dropping an investigation does not necessarily mean that what was done was not a crime. It may mean several things, the most likely of which is a decision that there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute.