“I just saw Sandusky raping a kid in the shower!”
“That’s impossible-- he was investigated for that already, years ago!”
“Oh… whew! Moving on…”
Yes, they were mandated reporters under 23 Pa. C.S. § 6311, which specifically identifies “school administrators” as persons required to report suspected child abuse (and, in case there’s any further confusion, the statute cited by PacifistPorcupine specifically references § 6311).
Yes, what you saw was Jerry Sandusky exhibiting behavior that falls in a gray area. Trust me, it’s well documented.
I thought Sandusky was exhibiting behavior in more of a… brown area.
But does the term “school” apply to a University, especially one where there usually aren’t many children, but rather people approaching and over 18.
If you could please cite the relevant source that indicates a University has the same requirements, that would be great.
Also, if you could clarify how that applies to a child who is not “a child under the care, supervision, guidance or training of that person or of an agency, institution, organization or other entity with which that person is affiliated” (language of that statute) it would also be helpful.
[I’m not questioning that these guys were mandated reporters, because they were indicted for it, but I’m wondering how this specific statute applies. Thanks.]
“I just saw Sandusky raping a kid in the shower!”
“That’s terrible! Was it a student at PSU in our care?”
“No. I think it was a 10 year old.”
“Oh… whew! Moving on…”
Would you care to argue that a child, brought to Penn State by Sandusky, who was working with them through his affiliations both with Second Mile and Penn State would not apply? You’re just being willfully retarded here. That’s the statute that says you’re required by law to report suspicions of child abuse. Why don’t YOU argue that this situation was NOT covered by it, you disingenuous fucking douchebag.
Actually on looking around a bit I have to retract this. Apparently it’s not clear whether these guys were mandated reporters, because they had no direct connection to the kids, which was required under the law at that time.
Sources on the web all lead to this article from the Legal Intelligencer, but it’s only available in Lexis Nexis at this time.
OK… given that the PDF has the page numbers on it, I’m guessing that those should be the same as on any printer or other versions of the report. What version of the report are you looking at, that has different page numbers than the official report released by Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP on July 12, 2012?
Can you please provide the full quote where, “Sandusky was cleared by the investigator in 1998, who concluded there was no crime and that he was not a pedophile.” Ideally provide the chapter, section and subsection as well. That way we can confirm your claims that “the investigator” (presumably Lauro?) concluded that there was “no crime,” that Sandusky “was not a pedophile,” and “cleared” him. Because I’m not seeing anything that is nearly that favorable to Sandusky.
Instead I’m seeing comments saying things like “no criminal behavior established.” Which sounds a lot more like they simply couldn’t prove the accusations than that anyone was actively “clearing” Sandusky.
F-P, just paste a link if it is to somewhere other than this report, which does not say what you claimed it said on page 44 (as labeled at the bottom of the page).
Page 44 begins with the heading: “B. May 7-9, 1998: A Second Evaluation of the Victim”
Complete coincidence. Damn. Now I’m all bummed. I loved those books when I was a kid…
As did I.
Middle school to paint over Paterno mural.
You gotta see this-- Joepa’s got a halo, so they’d at least have to paint that out…
And on Tuesday, a plane circled over the Penn State campus, dragging a banner that read: “Take the statue down or we will!”
Ohhh, I want to do one:
“I just saw Sandusky raping a kid in the shower!”
“That’s terrible! Are you a mandated reporter, which under the law requires a direct connection to the kids?”
“No. It was just some random 10 year old.”
“Oh… whew! Moving on…”
Howzabout…
“I just saw Sandusky raping a kid in the shower!”
“Now, don’t be hasty. They may be rehearsing a play. I think one of the junior highs is doing “Deliverance.” Sandusky is probably generously helping the lad get the nuances of the ‘squeal like a pig’ scene.”
People are STILL trying to justify and defend these walking pieces of shit? Sickening. Disgusting.
From what I can tell it’s not “people,” it’s “person.”
Yeah, it’s a giant pile of fail.
The sequence of defense is also really screwy, when you think about it. It’s like a 7 stages of denial.
Stage 1: There’s no real evidence Sandusky did anything. In fact, it’s physically impossible. And JoePa and crew aren’t even involved.
Stage 2: Well, Sandusky did something that might have been squicky, but it’s not entirely clear it extended to a textbook legal definition of child molestation or rape. There’s no reason that reporting is necessary.
Stage 3: Ok, Sandusky did some bad stuff to kids, but JoePa and the fellas at PSU did what they were legally required to do when they found out.
Stage 4: So, JoePa and the others found out kids were getting molested in the showers back in '98. But that got investigated in the end, so does it matter that they didn’t report it themselves?
Stage 5: Hm. They didn’t report in '01, but Sandusky was “cleared” in '98, so they needed to make sure this wasn’t another false alarm. No need to report!
Stage 6: Kids were getting raped but they were correct that it wasn’t their place to report it or make sure the right person reported it. And since they didn’t have a legal obligation and didn’t directly talk to the kids, they were “technically” lying about it.
Stage 7: You guys are meanies, and I’m right! So, neener-neener-neener.
At BEST, it’s sophistry taken to a ridiculous extreme and a willful blindness to people failing to live up to their own self-professed moral codes. At worst, it’s a defense of child rape.
Some of the stuff in this thread has been as bad or worse than Italian legislators claiming women in tight blue jeans are physically impossible to rape or Arkansas gubernatorial candidates stating rape victims are relatively safe from getting pregnant due to the hormonal changes accompanying the stress. I’ve rarely been so disgusted at the depths of depravity to which humankind can sink.
Bartman & Boyo Jim, see post #3999