Heck, even do it for the wrong reason: to protect the school and the football program. You can’t think that something like that is going to just go away, that it’s never going to come back to bite you. Was there no anger at Sandusky by Paterno, Curley, Schultz, McQueary, for putting them and Penn State in this position? Even if you don’t give a shit about protecting children from a predator, or if you are more concerned with Sandusky’s reputation and your friendship than you are about the possibility that children are being hurt in the worst way. These things have a way of coming out. Think of the school’s reputation and your own legacy. Even a totally selfish person could do the “right thing” here. What I cannot grasp is how anyone thought just ignoring this and hoping it would go away was the right thing to do in any sense.
That is quite evident, even for one so voluble as you. The rest of the world will, however, continue to believe in basic concepts of morality that, I’m sure, existed even in the idyllic Fifties you are so nostalgic about. And those of us so afflicted insist on believing we should go to the cops when we see a heinous crime being committed. Unfortunately, our children know not every person with an adult body is an adult, and not all of them can be counted on to help them if they’re in trouble.
The facts outweigh your opinion. So does just about anything, actually.
Yes. That is exactly what Paterno, or anyone else with even a strong suspicion should have done. Why is that hard to grasp?
[quoteIt’s already clear he would have denied it. So then what? Are the police going to go from classroom to classroom asking kids in every elementary school in town if somebody screwed 'em in the shower the day before? The whole situation would have been what amounted to one guy’s word against another, with nothing but supposition as to the crime, and with no known victim and no way to identify him. [/quote]
That is more or less what did happen, and Sandusky is now facing charges. Yes, the police process works, whenever the investigation is focused on the acts and not on covering them up. Why is *that *hard to grasp?
Then what do *you *think they’re charged with, and why, if not for their directing the coverup? Really, your awareness of the basic facts is remarkably scant.
Only where it has actually happened. That isn’t hysteria, it’s being connected to the world of fact - something you’ve regrettably left behind. Did that stuff just not happen in your beloved childhood years, or was it, as you now know, more effectively covered up by people, such as yourself, who just didn’t give a shit?
Did he call the cops, yes or no? Did he do anything at all to help the kid, yes or no? Think about that as long as you need to.
Perhaps you’ll be willing to testify to that at their perjury trial, then.
Dear, sweet Og. :eek:
That’s not at all how it would go. Here’s what would happen. The police would ask Paterno who the witness was. The police would then question McQueary to get more details. They would question Sandusky to find out what he said was going on. The police would review any on-campus cameras to find footage of Sandusky and this kid. They would find out who this kid was and question him. There’s a ton of evidence here for them to follow. I bet they would identify the kid within a few hours of being on the case.
Starving Artist seems to believe that a police investigation requires the same rigor of reasonable doubt that a criminal trial does. Which is not true in the slightest.
Worse than that. He’s going for “beyond all conceivable, even imaginary, doubt”. He’s even insisting now that no children were raped. That’s simply psychotic.
For the record, any man who would use the phrase “mmkay” in any context (other than a Mr. Mackey impersonation) is a flaming homosexual.
Oh, horseshit! It’s more than clear that what I said was that without a victim in this case, the allegation he was raped can’t be proved. Thus ‘no victim (found), no crime (to prove)’.
Just a wild guess but I’d bet that you believe Casey Anthony should have been covicted of murdering her child, despite the fact that the authorities couldn’t prove the girl had been murdered in the first place, much less that Casey did it. I don’t know of a single instance when a person has been convicted of raping an unidentified victim. Do you?
And with regard to the alleged immediate identification of the victim (who may or may not have been raped in point of fact), given the fact that the [former] child still hasn’t been identified despite all the attention and investigation devoted to this case by now, I’d say it’s not at all clear that he would have been identified in a matter of hours…or ever. YMMV.
As I said before, I do not believe Paterno acted immorally and most especially not that he behaved in any way consistent with evil intent. He did precisely what he was supposed to do according to local law and longstanding university practice, and he did it right away. In other words, he did precisely what he thought he was suppossed to do, and he did it without delay. If an exception to the rules of reporting campus crime is to be made in the case of allegations of child abuse then the law should be changed and an announcement isssued by the university to that effect so that everyone is on the same page.
Paterno is being scapegoated and that’s all there is to it.
And now I’ve got stuff to do today and am not going to be able to deal with all these deliberate mischaracterizations and false assertions about things I’ve said. I would encourage anyone truly interested in what I’ve had to say to simply read it for themselves, it’s right there in black and white. The reason posters such as ElvisL1ves and Huerta88, et al., rephrase what I’ve said is because they want you to believe I’ve said things I haven’t said, or believe things I don’t. This is dishonest and cowardly on their part, but what are you gonna do? It’s allowed.
[Quote=MOIDALIZE]
For the record, any man who would use the phrase “mmkay” in any context (other than a Mr. Mackey impersonation) is a flaming homosexual.
[/QUOTE]
You say that like it’s a bad thing. I look forward to the castigation you are undoubtedly in for. Or not, depending on your politics.
But apart from that, of course “mmkay” was a Mr. Mackey impersonation. I’ve never heard it used in any other way and I doubt you have either.
There was a victim. The mere fact that Sandusky was naked in the shower with the boy is illegal even if he never touched the kid. You do realize that, don’t you? Coaches do NOT shower with their under 18 students! Surely you know this! You do not expose your penis to a young boy you are supposed to be caring for… I can’t believe this needs to be stated.
You as the person calling the police do not have to do the investigation. Saying, “I saw Jerry Sandusky exposing himself to and fondling a young boy in the shower of the Penn State football team” is all you have to say. The police take it from there. They would not refuse to investigate because you don’t know the kid’s name.
Are you contending that the police could not or would not have been able to find any victims of rape if they had be called when this happened and allowed to do their jobs?
This is an unanswerable question because the investigation was not launched immediately. If the police had been asking questions the next day, I find it very hard to believe they would not have come up with the child’s name. Or many children’s names, in fact.
If the molested boy were your grandson, would you have wanted Joe Paterno to call the police? If you heard that your coworker was fondling boys in your bathroom, would you call the police? Why or why not?
I can’t believe that you don’t think suspicion of molesting children is a good enough reason to call the police. Simply cannot believe it.
Again, what does Casey Anthony have to do with anything?! WTF! I’d have to check, but I’m pretty sure I’m on record here as saying the case wasn’t proven and she should have been found not guilty. Does that somehow make you feel better, you crazy old pedophile?
Look, just so you know, the fallout from this case means that people are going to be less inclined to cover up child molestation, or look the other way when they see a grown dude in the shower with a little boy. So, make sure you quit teaching little kids how to wash themselves, Starving Artist. You may not think it’s a crime, but the police do, and despite your profound ignorance of basic criminal investigation, they will come after you.
If anyone had called the cops and said, “Jerry Sandusky is showering with 10 year olds in the Penn State locker room,” is there any doubt that this whole thing would have been blown wide open in short order? Would that not have been the desired outcome? Ipso facto.
It would be much easier to identify the victim the next day. This victim was likely with Sandusky for a while around this incident. Police could interview witnesses to get identifying details. The employees at Second Mile could probably tell the police exactly who Sandusky had been hanging around with. If they didn’t exactly identify the victim, they could probably give a small number of names to be checked. Now years later it is much more difficult for people to remember those details.
I always thought it was strange that they made a law saying that child sexual abuse must be reported. Why wouldn’t people report it the same as other crimes? People report assaults, robberies, etc that they are witnesses to. It’s enlightening to read SA’s convoluted arguments as to why this incident should not have even been reported.
I wonder if his same logic applies to other crimes… “Hello, police? I’d like to report that I heard gunfire and screaming. No, I don’t know the caliber of the gun. No, I’m not an expert at distinguishing gun noises from fireworks. No, I don’t have HD video of the incident from 4 angles and copies of the shooter’s driver’s license. What’s that? You think it might have just been people having a party and you want me to wait until I find a dead body? Ok. I’ll let you know if I come across it.”
By that logic, the police should never question anyone, because of course, they’ll deny they did anything wrong! “No, officer, I didn’t murder anyone.” “Okay, you’re free to go!”
Jesus, you’re thick. They’d ask him for an alibi. His whereabouts the night in question.
Please, please tell me you don’t have kids.
Tell us, SA, so we can help guide you to the appropriate counseling: Were you the victim, the perpetrator, or a witness who didn’t come forward? What was the incident in your past that gave you this view of the current case?
Starving Artist has doubt, and plenty of it. Why, this is all hearsay and nonsense! There aren’t even any victims!
To be fair, I think he was saying that Paterno et al didn’t really know for sure that there were any victims. That is what C and S have contended, that McQueary told them that there was just horsing around going on. However, I don’t buy it, b/c like I said, Sandusky shouldn’t have been showering with kids, and that knowledge alone would have been enough to launch a massive investigation and criminal charges. I can’t imagine that they didn’t all know that damn well.
I understand SA. Pedophiles didn’t exist in the 1950s. Since they’ve developed since, it’s the liberals’ fault, and possibly the result of a conspiracy.
Therefor… um… er…
Eh, I got nuthin`.
RaftPeople: Captain, do your detectives ever question the alleged perpetrator?
Captain: RaftPeople, I’ve only had this question one other time and it was from some moron named Starving Artist, I jokingly said we never do that, he didn’t think I was serious did he?
Anyone want to bet that there was a nicely organized list of kids who were official “guests” of Sandusky and Second Mile on that particular day? I suppose SA believes that children from surrounding elementary schools just randomly wander into Penn State locker rooms.
One does not NEED evidence to go to the police. I almost can’t believe you are serious.:dubious:
[quote=]
I mean really, what do think even the police could have done it? Question Sandusky? It’s already clear he would have denied it.
[/quote]
You don’t think it might have occurred to the police investigators to question the WITNESS?
I’m guessing he was an alter boy and a naked 50 year old priest stripped him down and gave him “lessons in showering”. Either that or he routinely showers naked with young boys and this is all an attempt to justify such behavior as innocent. Either way, his posts are creepy and disturbing.
I can’t believe, after all this time and the endless decaying spew that flows in spurts and dribbles from what passes from SA’s mouth, the copious evidence that he isn’t the least bit interested in anything remotely resembling a reasonable discussion, that people still insist on trying to debate him as if he is. His statements in this thread should be evidence enough, for anyone who had any lingering doubts, that he is simply trying to troll everyone here (and I mean here=Pit, since he rarely leaves the protection of its environs anymore, at least to indulge in his schtick), and has been doing so for years. Yet he continues to get response after response, rebuttal after rebuttal, with absolutely no effect at all, year after year, in a never-ending parade of multi-page preposterousness.
So what, exactly, are you trying to accomplish, I wonder? If you are interested in influencing the minds of the great unwashed masses of lurkers out there, I doubt he has swayed anybody, or will sway anybody by this point (i.e. you give our lurkers too little credit). Is it just an idle game, a casual and carefree waste of time (and board bandwidth)-you have nothing better to do? What, precisely, is your aim here, for over 15 hundred fucking posts, in replying to him? I can see responding to that little basket case emo troll we had last night-at least she was fun. How the fuck is this remotely enjoyable or worthwhile?
Bah.