No, in my case, it really, really isn’t. I’m outraged that you continue to make excuses for behavior that is inexcusable. CALL THE POLICE is the only moral response to the suspicion of child abuse. I don’t know why you can’t concede this very basic and obvious point. I think you have over-invested in being the opposition to all the people who have said very mean things to you, so if you admit that you were wrong, they will crow and put it in your face. I can understand that, believe me. That is why I left this place. However, in this case, you are actually in the wrong, and it’s no shame in admitting it.
Remember in grade school, being given assignments about rewriting a paragraph in your own words, or preparing a book report or whatever?
I’m beginning to get an idea of who may have failed those assignments…:smack:
No, you’re the one who’s been trying to hang his hat on the fact that Paterno heard the words like “sexual nature” and didn’t instantly accept it as incontrovertible fact.
No you don’t. Allegations of child sex abuse ruin people’s lives and ruin their families’ lives…including those of *their *children…even if innocent.
So no, you damn well don’t go running off willy-nilly ruining people’s lives just because they MIGHT have done something of a sexual nature to a child.
You remind me of the sort of person who insists that because rape is so onerous to women that no woman would ever lie about it, so therefore any allegation of rape by a woman is proof that the rape occurred.
There are lots of reasons why dishonest or mistaken accusations can be made of child sex abuse, and if we have any sense of fair play (which frankly, I have little hope of considering most of the posters to this thread) and justice, we don’t reflexively take action that we know will ruin people lives just because they “might” be guilty.
So no, YOU’RE WRONG!!!
And now I think I’ve put in my fair share of effort this morning and have to leave for for a while. I look forward to the new round of insults and ad hominems that will undoubted serve as a substitute for reason in my absence.
Give it up, guys. Starving Artist has his pit bull jaws around Paterno’s sterling character and impeccable moral sense and isn’t going to let go. It’s not surprising…SA has always been a fairly authoritarian person socially. Paterno was known for a very long time for his sterling character and impeccable moral sense and also held a position of great authority at Penn State and in the hearts of millions of Penn State fans, so of course any action he took (that wasn’t some sort of economic action, anyway…there’s your one venue where SA is a raging anarchist) was correct.
Authoritarian and stupid is no way to go through life, son…
Allegations by a reliable witness - someone you trust enough to work with and coach a football team with - are, however, sufficient damn reason to call the cops.
Disgusting. If it were YOUR child, SA, who was seen being fondled in a sexual way in a shower stall by an old man, would you be asserting that you simply must not willy-nilly do anything that might possibly ruin that old man’s life and therefore no child of yours is going to testify to police that it happened? Can you really NOT see the problem with your argument?
ETA: I’m sorry, SA…I just realized that thinking that way requires empathy, and we all know that’s a dirty hippie word to right-wingers. Can you ever forgive me for bringing it up?
As I said just above, Ruby, I think you’re wrong in advocating a burnt ground approach to the merest hint of child sex abuse. People have lost their minds on this issue and are far too prone to see sex abuse where none exists. So I think a more reasoned approach is not only called for but necessary. Yes, we need to protect women and children from sex abuse because they are weaker than their abusers, but that does not mean that we should therefore throw caution to the wind and cavalierly ruin people’s lives simply because the alleged victim is vulnerability. What is fair and just is what should win out, and reflexively ruining people’s lives on the merest of suspicion is neither fair nor just.
Now, having said that, and despite your acknowledged distaste for the nature of things around here, I’m glad to see that this thread has lured you back, for a short time at least. I’ve thought about you from time to time and wondered how you’re doing.
But he reported it to his supervisor who reported it to the head of campus police.
And, no, as others have said, this is not similar to reporting it to the mayor of a town who is nominally the head of the police (even though, I would have to say, if the mayor knew about it, he could damned well direct the full resources of the police, so even that analogy fails). Even McQueary testified that when it went to this individual, he felt that he was the head of the University police.
In my opinion that is a better report that calling a desk sergeant who is nursing a hangover and might get some details wrong, or someone that Sandusky can lean on to make it all go away.
And I’m not convinced that the University Police didn’t do their jobs. Here you would have the testimony of McQueary who saw “something of a sexual nature,” you would have Sandusky spinning it with a story, and have no complaining witness. Everyone knows how difficult it is to prosecute a rape or DV case when the victim won’t cooperate. And in this case the victim was and still is unknown. The most that they could have legitimately done was warn Sandusky not to be alone with boys, and I believe that is what they did. I would hope that if I am ever accused of something, especially something this serious, that I would be afforded some due process. Would anyone want to be fired simply on the word of a co-worker? Would you think that was fair?
I’m with Starving Artist here. The system that was in place failed this boy. And instead of admitting that the system was wrong and trying to put a different one in place, we have to find someone who’s head we can put on a platter. Paterno fits that bill. We can justify our own collective failure by tarnishing this man’s reputation. A large crime takes down a large man. The universe is in balance.
A large crime goes unnoticed for years because of improper procedure, we can’t live with that, so we have to form the lynch mob.
You’re doing it again. That is, making shit completely up.
She never advocated a “burnt ground” approach. She advocated calling the police, full stop. The police get thousands of calls every day. If the allegations are not credible or the suspect refutes them convincingly, no one’s mind or life is ruined, it ends there.
There was not the “merest hint of child sex abuse.” There was a clear (no, not vague, not suspect) firsthand report of “extreme” sexual contact with a child by an intelligent, well-educated eyewitness.
I’d like to think we can all agree that a 50-year old man in the showers at night with a 10-year old boy, both naked, with the older man’s arms around the waist of the boy, who has his hands against the wall, goes far, far beyond “the merest hint of child sex abuse.”
You have to admit, though; Mrs. Starving Artist Paterno does have a nice ring to it.
Nope, she addressed police reporting in a general sense and I answered her in a general sense. Neither her comment about the mandatory reporting of merest hints nor my answer were in regard to the Penn State incident.
Which of course is yet more evidence of your problems with reading comprehension and continuing inability to keep your wits about you in this thread.
Psst, INDB, kindly see above.
Damn, is there no one here besides jtgain and me who can keep things straight from one post to another?
ETA: Oops! Did I say I was leaving? Oh, well, I am now. Carry on misunderstanding everything I say. I’m used to it.
Will stop fucking saying “the merest hint.” Sandusky was busted naked in a shower with a 10 year old boy. That isn’t a mere hint of anything.
You don’t know that the victim wouldn’t have cooperated. No one tried to find out who he was at the time. If a friendly, trustworthy police officer and child welfare advocate had found the 10 year old boy and explained to him that he did nothing wrong, but something wrong was/maybe have been done to him, you don’t think he may have answered some questions and told them any details?
TODAY, several years later, we don’t know who the victim is, but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t have known had an investigation been done immediately. Eye-witnesses may have been found: hypothetical random campus jogger: “yeah, I saw a little boy with Sandusky last night…I think he called him Steve… or Shawn…something like that…” or perhaps the athletic facility towel boy “yeah, a kid named Stephen Jones was signed in as a visitor…” or whatever the hell else. Security cameras, even fingerprints and DNA if it came down to it. Over the years, the odds of finding anything has dwindled, but 2 hours later? 10? 48 hours later?
The victim could have been identified.
The trauma, the shame, the fact that maybe the kid now no longer lives in the area, doesn’t watch the news, committed suicide years ago…any number of reasons why he hasn’t come forward today. That doesn’t mean he isn’t a cooperative witness. No one helped him years ago, perhaps he feels no one will help him today. Ever think of that?
No, the most they could have done was find the victim, find more witnesses, find more evidence, charge Sandusky and convict him. The least they could have done was what they did.
Due process has been done: the information that is PUBLIC today is the result of an investigation, collection of evidence and testimony and a grand jury indictment. No one knew about this until the investigation was complete. It was kept quiet and confidential on the chance that no basis for a criminal charge would be found. No one’s career was terminated on the basis of a rumour… all of this is due to the findings of a thorough investigation.
Your argument isn’t based on the actual sequence of events and is forgetting the fact that these things happened years ago and that people’s memories are generally fresher 10 minutes after an event than they are 10 years later.
The system failed the boy, yes.
But Paterno also failed the boy, from a moral perspective. I don’t give a damn about Paterno’s status, about his career, about his religion, his politics, his alleged integrity. He made a serious mistake, an avoidable mistake, one that is morally reprehensible to most people, and that is why people are mad at him.
Still waiting for you to show me where she advocated a 'burnt ground" approach to “the merest hint of sexual abuse.”
She didn’t and you’re a lying retard. Stop making references to reading comprehension or intelligence, as it only highlights your transparent lack of either.
I would just like to point out that Starving Artist is currently arguing that, not only was it ok that Paterno did not call the police to report a grown man showering with a ten year old boy, alone, at night, and doing sexual things, but that in fact calling the cops would have been WRONG.
Yeah.
(but, remember folks-- I’m the one who’s scum)
There is nothing inherently wrong with the system. Like any system, it requires people to faithfully execute their responsibilities. The system which required reporting the incident “up the chain” doesn’t exist to allow superiors to bury scandals and handle serious crimes “in house”. It exists to manage the interaction with police and ensure an orderly investigation.
The system did not fail, the people failed. People in charge decided to bury the scandal rather than pursue justice. The two people who knew this, knew about the report, knew that there was no followup investigation, decided to keep their mouths shut. The epitome of evil succeeding because good men do nothing.
Absolutely. Blaming “the system” is a lame excuse. Each of the adults in trouble here is in trouble because they failed to live up to their *personal *responsibilities. “The system” did not fail, Paterno and the administrators failed as individuals.
Right, like most high-risk systems, the concept of redundancies is highly relevant. Pilot’s an experienced expert? Great. As the co-pilot, that doesn’t mean that I just check out and take a snooze, or turn the autopilot off, or ignore air traffic control. Everyone who can have useful input that might more surely bring about the desired goal (plane not crashing, children not continuing to be raped) needs to be vigilant and speak up when speaking up could do some incremental good.
elizabeth, he paints himself into these corners by taking (implicit) positions that are untenable and inconsistent with the relevant facts (“what if it was just tickling?”) then after repeating them multiple times, is reduced to admitting and embracing the absurdities this leads to. It took me 20 pages to get him to come out and say he thought that there were some forms of “fondling” children that were not criminal in nature. He’s still (if I recall correctly) refusing to answer (or maybe has answered) the very simple “is there any type of sexual contact with a child” that need not (morally speaking) be reported to the police and pursued vigorously, even though his stated positions and his boyfriend Paterno’s own testimony lead ineluctably to the fact that this is the position he’s defending.
He’s also a pathological liar and introducer of red herrings (tickling, unreliable and vague reports by a third party, horseplay, mere suspicion of child abuse, Hollywood sex scandals) that are at best hijacks, at worst disingenuous trickery, which doesn’t help.
Oh, yeah, I see it. I just think it’s hilarious that I’m the scum here. I mean, god forbid I call out this bullshit with strong language on a message board!!! :eek::eek::eek:
But outright stating that calling the police is WRONG when you see a grown man buttfucking a kid in a shower alone at night? Eh. Not that bad.
Gotta love the dope!