Skeeving Artist, does the following pertain to McQueary (the younger):
“Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.”
I wouldn’t think so. McQueary doesn’t come into contact with children as a matter of course in his employment, occupation or practice of his profession; and no child came before him on the basis of his training or experience in his professional or official capacity as a victim of child abuse.
Old news. They were being discussed at least as far back as page 112.
I should also add with regard to McQueary that while I don’t know what the qualifications are for a person to serve as a “licensee” of the institution, to my knowledge no one up to now has tried to claim that he was a mandated reporter.
The conversation in regard to having been a mandated reporter has always been in regard to Paterno, and clearly Paterno has not had a child come before him who, in his professional opinion and based on his professional experience, was a victim of child abuse.
The point being, it’s obvious that the framers of the law wanted to make sure that people who were going to be required by law to make judgements about children suspected of being victims of child abuse and to report it accordingly were qualified to do so. Thus I don’t believe the reportage of hearsay or vague second-hand accounts is what they had in mind when those laws were drafted.
Reason I mention it, is that it says Paterno was actively interfering, trying to persuade others. So whether he fitted into a legal class of people obliged to report makes no difference.
Whether it makes a difference depends on the subject being discussed. When the subject is whether Paterno broke the law or failed to act in his role as a mandated reporter, then it is important.
As to whether Paterno “interfered,” that’s an opinion of the Freeh report. It appears from the emails referenced earlier in the thread that Paterno met with Curley and ultimately joined in a plan with Curley, Schultz and Spanier to attempt to force Sandusky into treatment by threatening to expose reports of his behavior to the head of the Second Mile charity and to the Pennsylvania Dept. of Human Welfare.
These emails reveal that their motives were to seek a humane and reasonable solution to what had obviously become questionable behavior that Sandusky had developed a pattern of engaging in with children, and they felt the time had come to put a stop to it. But at the same time they wanted to handle it in a way that caused as little disruption to Sandusky’s life and family and to the Second Mile charity which they all felt was doing much good. There was absolutely no talk in any of the emails I read expressing concern over the school’s reputation, donor contributions, the football program or anything else. The focus was all on finding a suitable way to handle the situation in a wise, reasonable and effective way. And of course it needs to be kept in mind that none of these men had any idea of the true nature of what Sandusky was doing or eventually would be doing to those kids, so in that light their actions seem reasonable.
As I said to Rick, much of the Freeh report is a hatchet job carried out by people of the same frame of mind as many in this thread, where supposition accounts for motives and every element is viewed at in the most negative and damaging way possible. It should not be considered proof of anything.
Reasonable?? Fucking reasonable?? They did nothing and allowed a man to abuse many more children you fucking sick fuck. Reasonable?? Fuck me. Worried about causing “disruption to Sandusky’s life”??? Just fuck off you immoral weak coward, you are more worried about propriety than the well being of children
In the UK at the moment we have a case of a TV personality (Jimmy Savile) who was abusing kids for years and most of us reading about it can’t get our heads round how he got away with it for so long. Reading your posts I can see why.
What does any of this have to do with whether JP was a mandated reporter WRT the specific kid he was informed about?
Per my reading of the law, it’s not like once you are a “mandated reporter” you have that status WRT any kid you hear about. The law, as quoted here, says: “Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.”
Now, you want to argue that because the kid was on PSU grounds and JP was an employee of PSU, then that counts as “coming before them in their professional or official capacity”, I’d be a bit skeptical but at least you’d be saying something. But what bearing does JP’s recruiting or HS summer camps have to do with the kid in the shower?
[FTR, I’m not claiming that JP was not a mandated reporter under the law, and this is something I’ve not followed all that closely, since I don’t think it’s particularly relevant. This is more of a comment on the exchange taking place now.]
I don’t come into contact with children at my job either. But if one of my employees came to me and said he’d seen a grown man doing something of a sexual nature with a child in our company bathroom, I’d be on the phone with the cops so fast it’d make your addled head spin. But then, my instinct to do the right thing and not be a complete self-serving piece of shit of a human being tends to overwhelm my need to sit down and calculate my minimum legal responsibilities for reporting such incidents. Guess I come from a different world than you and Saint Joe. Couldn’t be more relieved, either.
So, if he had said “Kids are being inappropriately touched in the shower and you’re splitting hairs on the definition of mandated reporter?” That would have been kosher with you?
Both are still damaging to the child. Both are wrong. Both should be immediately and forcefully reported to people in a position to act on the information. Nobody should actively work to bypass or interfere with investigations of either.
Just pointing out that, if a “child” is anyone under 18, then SA’s statement wasn’t accurate.
I’m not arguing about whether either person was a mandated reporter or not, just clarifying that one point.
Oh, and there will be a substantial “rebuttal” issued out in late January/early February that effectively dismantles the conclusions derived from the Freeh report. Would be a shame to see so many self-proclaimed “independent thinkers” exposed with underdeveloped minds relying on their SpaghettiOs to spell out the truth before questioning the media narrative.