How did all this come to the attention of the government anyway? Who broke the scandal? (Yeah, I could read the entire thread and all the attachments, but what are the chances of that happening?)
You could read any of the attachments at all, really.
A boy that Sandusky abused told his mother in 2008. She went to the high school AD/Football coach and he reported the abuse to authorities.
*:Boom Boom, THUD!; Boom Boom, THUD!:
“Now my name is Sandusky, I likes them husky, and I don’t listen to NO!
I love Penn State, I really is great, and * somebody should have put a bullet in my head or kicked in the balls so hard I couldn’t feel anything for the rest of my horrible, wretched life, which I spend in misery and pain.”
My rap skills are not up to par.
Sorry if I’m missing something obvious, but if no one reported to the police what Mike McQueary witnessed, why did the grand jury summon him?
More than likely, somewhere in the course of the AG’s investigation someone spilled the beans about this incident.
Woman in the name of Lydell Mitchell Franco Harris and John Cappeletti watch your mouth..
Separate Joepa the coach from Joepa the enabler..
IANAL, but I don’t know if you can compare the Catholic Church situation to PSU from a legal liability standpoint.
Unlike in the Catholic situation, none of the Sandusky victims were directly connected with PSU, and much of the abuse did not take place at PSU either. Also, while this may change as other victims come forward, of the victims in the GJ report, only one post-dated the 2002 incident that was covered up (that being Victim 1, who triggered the GJ investigation).
Which is not to say that they have no liability at all or that they won’t be pressured to make some sort of settlement. But they do seem to be in a far stronger position than the Church, and I don’t think you can extrapolate from the one to the other.
[I would think the Second Mile charity would be in a weaker position, if in fact they were notified by PSU, but they don’t have nearly as deep pockets.]
Here’s the thing… most of victims after the 2002 incident are likely to still be children. Up until this news broke they have probably believed it was just them and were too afraid to tell on him. Now that it’s out I bet there are tons of mothers and fathers having talks with their boys about whether Sandusky did something to them. Even from an obvious stand point, victim 1’s abuse started in 2007. Who was he abusing from 2002 to 2007? I doubt he just decided to take a few years off. From what I understand 10 to 15 investigators have been added to the case and calls are coming in daily about other possible victims. Give it a month or two and his victim count will surely double, if not triple.
The person that started the investigation/prosecution (and is now Governor), commented early on that that this case was very similar to the church.
Have you read the Clery Act or Title IX with respect to this type of stuff? Go read them and you will see what their requirements were for reporting and for preventing future incidents.
The university looks to be in a pretty weak position.
Oh, only some of the abuse was on PSU. And only one abuse case we know about after 2002. You’re right, clearly PSU shouldn’t be worried at all. :rolleyes:
I would hardly be surprised if you’re right. But it’s also possible that getting caught in 2002 frightened him off for a few years.
Well, yeah, no doubt it is. But I was commenting on legal liability specifically, and I doubt if this was the focus of that guy’s comments.
No, actually I haven’t. I started reading it yesterday after your earlier reference, but it’s long and I couldn’t find what you were referring to. You need to be more specific when citing this Act.
I acknowledged upfront that they may have liability. I’m just suggesting that it’s less than the Catholic Church, for reasons given.
Learn to read. And think, while you’re at it.
…at which point Sandusky will probably kill himself.
Change the name to State Penn Pederasts .
Paterno might not live through a long trial, but he should face charges of some kind. He will deny any real information got to him.
Chef makes his comeback as football coach? It almost writes itself after how they killed him off.
Don’t have time right now, but there is a handbook type of description that is more readable, it’s on one of the dept of education’s web sites. Google “handbook for campus crime department of education”.
Did. It’s 304 pages.
You’ve got to be more specific.
The abuse by Catholic priests (and Boy Scout leaders) didn’t have to take place on their property and much of it didn’t.
The bishops were aware of bad behavior by people they employed, didn’t report it and did little to stop it. Therefore they were culpable no matter where the actions occurred. Therefore, they and their organization were liable. Time to pay up.
The concept you can’t seem to grasp is “enablers”. Enablers know of a situation, don’t report it and don’t stop it. From every angle it looks like the PSU administration enabled Sandusky. Paterno was one powerful piece of that ugly administration.
You are trying to parse this thing by looking a pieces of information and finding areas where not all of the information is on record. You are using those missing pieces to excuse these people. That’s not the way it works. It’s the overall picture that matters. You sound like the person that can’t make the distinction between “reasonable doubt” and “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” There is a huge difference.
You didn’t miss it, and I think everyone who’s criticizing Paterno falls into the camp of people revolted, horrified at the thought of what this was like for the victims. Hence the ire at Paterno, McQueary, etc.
It’s pretty much implicit in every anti-JP post. The reason it’s not explicit is (a) it hardly needs saying that it’s awful to think of what those kids went through; and (b) expressing empathy for them is almost . . . almost in the gratuitous/RO realm. I mean, what can we do but hope and pray that they made/will make it through okay, and (small consolation, but . . .) cross our fingers for them to get huge settlements as some small compensation.
Similarly, someone asked me the other day, “Why are you going on about Paterno, where’s the outrage against Sandusky?” I rolled my eyes a bit. Sandusky is also a sort of RO candidate. He’s going to jail for the rest of his life unless the prosecution badly messes up – there are no plea agreements here. I mentioned upthread that in a better world, I thought he’d be summarily executed, then I mused that it might not be too bad if he killed himself. But there’'s not much more we can do, and his guilt is not arguable.
Paterno’s different. We can’t save the kids now, we can’t lynch Sandusky. But Paterno was in play. Unlike with Sandusky, there was (until the other day) some real chance he’d skate for this. That’s where the meat of the debate was.
No one doesn’t think about those kids and cringe, take my word for it.
Yeah, but it was people who were connected through the Catholic Church. The point is that you’re more liable if there’s some connection. If Sandusky found some kid elsewhere and abused him elsewhere that has little connection to PSU. If he brought that kid onto PSU and abused him there, then at least there’s some connection which could be the basis of a suit.
Here’s the hypothetical. Guy A (a mandatory reporter) finds out that Guy B is an abuser. He does nothing, and Guy B is not exposed. Now Guy B goes on to abuse some other kid, who has zero connection to Guy A. Can that other kid sue Guy A based on the notion that had Guy A fulfilled his responsibility to report the earlier abuse he would not have been abused?
I doubt if this is true. AFAIK, a lawsuit would have to be based on some legal fiduciary responsibility from Guy A to the actual kid who was abused. I don’t remember any cases of this sort WRT the Church or elsewhere.
But again, IANAL. Perhaps a lawyer could comment on this.
None of this has any apparent connection to anything being discussed. What in the world are you talking about?