In post #1499, you said:
I interpreted that as meaning that you were saying that I saw nothing wrong with Sandusky’s behavior, which is not true and not what I’ve ever said.
That is not what I meant; I have never felt you were defending Sandusky. I only think you are misguided in defending Paterno.
I would call the campus police if I thought a house on university property was being broken into if I knew the law and commonly accepted practice dictated I should. There is no analogy. The two situations are completly different. You’re just pissed that your little gotcha laid a big ol’ egg.
Okay, fair enough. But just for the record I’ve never defended Paterno by saying he felt it was fine for Sandusky to be running around naked with 10 - 12 year old boys. So far as I know, his only response to being told of the shower incident that McQueary reported to him was to immediately report it to his superiors, as he was supposed to do by long accepted campus policy and also by law.
And now I really do have to go. Goodnight.
List a single lie I told about you. No, really, the burden’s on you, you fucking pervert retard.
Oh, you can’t? Oh, you really did post about "Joe P may have heard about “fondling or sexual conduct,” but “not necessarily anything criminal?”
Yeah, 'cause you did.
Being at the top of your enemies list, I have to tell you, is pretty to very honorarious in this holiday season.
Pervert.
No one has testified that this was “long accepted campus policy,” nor that doing more than the bare minimum would have somehow violated “campus policy” or law. You are again making facts up out of whole cloth.
Dude, that describes his whole world-view.
Starving Artist, here is a question for you:
Given that we are now aware of the allegations and number of victims against Sandusky, if Paterno (or some other coach) was put in the exact same position in the future - because we now know it could indicate something pretty bad, do you think that from now on the same situation rises to the level of either calling the police or at least following up later?
I bowed out of this thread many pages ago because I would gladly have an honest debate about it, but I’ll be goddamned if I’ll sit here and listen to posters who don’t even know me call me a fucking pedophile or an enabler.
I just had to chime back in and give modest support to Starving Artist for fighting the good fight and withering these brutal personal attacks.
I’m not seeing what the posters who say that “Paterno should have called the police” believe that he didn’t do. First, why would the State College, PA municipal police somehow do a better job that the University Police? Should he have called the Sheriff’s Department? The PA State Police? The FBI? As others have said, the common practice was to let University police handle crimes committed on campus. The complaint made it’s way to the head of the campus police. McQueary testified that he believed this to be the case.
The incident was over, so there was no need for 911 and no pressing emergency required immediate action. Paterno passed the information up the chain of command, as he was supposed to, so the police get ONE version of the complaint instead of five. From the information so far, it doesn’t seem like the University police did enough.
However, the hysteria surrounding an accusation of pedophilia is evident by most of the posts in this thread. I completely understand Paterno not rushing to judgment. He is an old man who comes from an era where it wasn’t uncommon at all for coaches and players to be in a communal shower together after practice/game/day camp workout. Hell, I’m old enough to remember that, and I would assume it still goes on. Everyone needs a shower. Do they do it in shifts now?
So, Paterno, like most old school coaches would like to think that there is an innocent explanation for it. He hasn’t been taught, like most enlightened posters here, that being closer that 5 feet away from a child automatically means that you are sodomizing them. BUT HE STILL REPORTED IT!
I can’t get past that fact. I could understand the reaction from posters here if Paterno said, “Aw Jerry would never do that, Mike. Get out of here” and just let it go. But he did what he was supposed to. But because he didn’t run out of his house screaming like a little girl, giving a hue and cry to everyone who would listen, he is somehow complicit in pedophilia. And not only is he complicit, but anyone who says, “Hey, let’s take a step back and give Joe a little due process” is also a pedophile.
The level of discourse in this thread is absurd. I know that “Fuck you” and racial insults are prohibited in this thread, but accusations of pedophilia seem to be a okay. So, I’m out. Anyone wants to debate, I’ll be in that thread.
Bolding mine.
I’m not a lawyer, but I kind of get the feeling that a - tenuous, perhaps - case can be made that Paterno didn’t even follow the law, simply because of the way the General rule paragraphis worded in the Mandatory Reporting law for the State of Pennsylvania.
Again, bolding mine.
It’s weak, but I could argue that by not ensuring that a report ever made it to the Department of Public Welfare, Paterno failed in his legal responsibility to cause a report to be made to that Department. He didn’t follow up, thereby not ensuring that the report was made.
And, in any case, laws aren’t necessarily a reflection of morality (which is, in some cases, a good thing, but not in this one) and I still feel that Paterno was morally wrong regardless of what loophole/passing of the buck existed in the law.
Here are 2 posts from over 2 weeks ago in a similar vein directed at SA that he never answered.
Those were posts #1344 and 1345. He never responded.
How about “call the police”?
No, the complaint made its way to the administrative office in charge of the police. This is like seeing a robbery and the report eventually making its way to the Mayor’s office.
Unless you were the next ten-year-old being shown around the shower room by Sandusky. Or the next. Or the next. Then some urgency of action might have been appreciated.
Well, technically being pressed naked skin-to-skin in the showers with your crotch against the boy’s ass and whilst fondling the boy’s genitals and making slapping noises does count as being “less than five feet away” but I’m sure you have an innocent explanation for it. Are the defense still going with the whole “showering lessons” thing?
But - and this is kind of the important point - NOT TO THE POLICE.
You can’t even get TO that fact. because it ain’t there.
What - call the police? No he didn’t.
Phoning the police is mandatory (morally, at least). Crying, screaming and running are optional extras.
Really? I’m sure you can provide a cite for people saying that.
Of course, most of us HAVE given Joe the benefit of due process. And given that both McQueary and Paterno have testified under oath about what McQueary told Paterno, I’m not sure we’re the ones jumping to unsupported conclusions here.
Your post is your cite.
I don’t think it was relevant to the point being made.
Ditto for this.
Get elected and rewrite the laws.
Not sure if you’re familiar with the media, but quoting anonymous sources is a very common and respectable practice. The national media reported this story and clearly take it seriously. It may well turn out to be bogus, like any other report, but it can’t be waved away just because it was reported by an anonymous source.
No need to sweat it, at least as far as I’m concerned. This type of thing is par for the course, for some people, especially when they’re frustrated. You have to expect a certain amount of vilification when you go against popular opinion on hot button issues and if you can’t take the heat, then you stay out of the Pit.
I was just responding to some shrill bimbo who was denying that it had taken place & claiming this was an example of the lies from the pro-Paterno side. So I pointed out that it had, and it was an example of the opposite.
There absolutely was testimony to this effect. See Post #1456. Note the final words of the quoted text. Read the words “but he cannot be sure”. Then read them again, as many times as necessary, until you get them through your head.
Really, if you’re going to accuse other people of dishonesty, it would behoove you to get your facts straight, at least as to the subject of your accusation.
I can live with that.
I would say it might and it might not, depending on the details and circumstances. I’ve said this much earlier in the thread, but there’s been nothing said since then to change this.
If you see a suspicious person walking down your block and don’t do anything and it later turns out that he subsequently invaded someone’s house and murdered someone, you would obviously wish you had done something about it earlier. But that doesn’t mean that you intend to start making a case out of every suspicious person who walks down the block. Just that in this case it would obviously have been better had you done so. (And note to Cheesecake: this is the meaning of JP’s statement about “hindsight”, a word with which you are apparently unfamiliar.)
[Again, the obligatory disclaimer: I am not saying that what McQueary reported was analogous to seeing a suspicious person walking down the block. It’s an illustration of a general logical point about whether “given what we are now aware” in one incident changes what should be done in other similar situations. It is directed at the intelligent people, unfortunately a small minority of posters to this thread. For the rest, I would suggest skipping it and continuing to screech about RAPE!!!.]
A 60 year old man naked in a school shower with a 10 year old boy, alone (with what I’m sure Sandusky hoped was no one else around), at night … and that only rises to the level of potentially suspicious?
What The Fuck? I’m with RubyStreak on this one. The fact that McQueary found a naked Sandusky with a naked boy should be the end of the evidentary process here. THAT requires a call to the police. Not ‘well, we should really find out *why *they were naked together first.’
That’s the point that both you and **StarvingArtist **are missing. There should be a full stop after “naked with boy.” All the rest of this is nothing wanking over the fact that you just can’t believe someone as gosh-darn peachy-keen as Joe Paterno helped cover it up – whether trough maliceaforethought or just being a stupid old man, it doesn’t matter which. There was a full stop that was run right over.
What I suggested was that you “skip [my post] and continu[e] to screech about RAPE!!!”
I understand that it’s a free message board and all, and you can do what you want. That’s just my suggestion.
Yeah. I screeched rape. I presented facts, you fuckwit.
But, hell, I can’t stop you either. If you want to come off as agreeing with the statement that there is nothing wrong with adults showering alone with children, thats between you and your parole officer.
Well I don’t specifically *want *to come off like that. But I accept that as an inevitable downside of posting to a board that includes people at your level of intellect. So be it.
You mean people who would hear: “There’s a naked 60 year old man alone in a shower with a naked 10 year old boy,” and would think that that’s something the cops should be made aware of? Golly, I guess I’ll have to wear the shame of being that stupid. Me and the other 99% of normal people on this planet who would agree with me.
OK, so you’re happy and I’m happy and everything is cool. EOD.
Happily.