The state of Pennsylvania disagrees with you:
“In Pennsylvania, a teacher is required to report suspected child abuse to an administrator who in turn is required to notify the police and the district attorney.”
He’s overruled that statute. Put differently, do you think this moron has actually read any of the statutes? He’s still bleating on about “Paterno was not told of anal intercourse,” as though “extreme sexual contact that crossed the line” isn’t sufficient to trigger every kind of moral obligation to pursue the facts and get the cops involved. Of course, that is not the case – penetration may be required for a charge of "rape,"under Section 3121 of the Penn. penal code, but it is most certainly not required for the separate crime of indecent assault:
Nor did anyone need to prove “anal intercourse” for Paterno to know that it was absolutely and criminally inappropriate for there to be any naked man on boy interaction:
I don’t know why we bother, this cretin is probably incapable of finding, let alone understanding, an actual statute (but he sure does know about what “due process” requires in an inquiry into moral obloquy!).
SA, let’s pretend you aren’t wrong about this quote above, let’s pretend that the admins are supposed to investigate and they don’t need to tell the police.
Why do you think the admins will do a better job of investigating than the police? If the police, with all of their training, would be stopped cold when Sandusky denies it, how could the admins that aren’t even trained investigators do a better job?
I have no problem acknowledging I appear to have been wrong in that regard. I won’t even quibble over the fact that Paterno wasn’t a “teacher.” 
I don’t necessarily believe that the administrators would do a better job, only that with a fully accredited police force of its own, there is no reason to expect that Penn State couldn’t investigate the matter as well as the municipal police.
But I’ll go a step further and state flat out that I don’t it would have made the slightest difference if either Paterno or the administration had gone to the police. The not-going-to-the-police thing is just the handiest and most defensible excuse the nattering nabobs of hysteria have seized upon to blame Paterno. If the police had been called they’d be finding some other way to try to bring him down. We saw that in the early stages of the thread when people were accusing Paterno of knowing about it all along and probably being a pedophile himself. Such is the nature of hysterical lynch mob mentality, and that mentality would been in full flourish as soon as the news got out whether Paterno had called the cops or not.
Not if they already had suspicions, or even knowledge, of Sandusky’s pedophilia dating from his firing. Then they’d all simply have been continuing the coverup.
There wouldn’t have needed to have been explicit pressure. Look at McQ’s situation - he’s trying to establish a career as a coach, and can’t do that if he’s at all associated with something so foul. He’s already a product of the Penn State system, and has to stay inside it to advance - how would he explain a desire to leave to another school? What kind of references or explanations are Joe et al. going to give to another school? No, the only way McQ can have a career or even a significant income is to participate in the existing coverup. If he’s smart enough to realize that, which I think we can grant, that’s all the explanation needed for his failure to act - that he put his own career and family above the well-being of some kids he didn’t even know. Call it cowardice, but don’t call it irrationality.
There could well be a pile o’ denial behind their rationalizing their protection of the image of the school and The Football Program and Pope Joe, sure. We’ve seen from the Catholic Church scandal as well just how badly one’s moral values can be warped by excessive immersion in, and devotion to, an institution and the individuals who lead it. Is this case all that different?
Same sentiment here, but the other side of the bet for me. We’ll find out eventually, I’m confident.
Let’s not even call it a “cover up,” it was more passive than that (till Schultz and Curley fibbed (I am confident) about only hearing of “horseplay.”). Let’s call it the foot-dragging, slow-roll, minimal appearance-of-compliance that effectively guarantees inaction will be the result. McQ. did something . . . and then didn’t follow up. Paterno did something . . . and then let it rest. Schultz and Curley claim they did something . . . but by that point too much time had passed (they would rationalize), the nature of the “horseplay” that they had now decided to reframe it as was “too vague,” best just drop an aside to the Pres., let it molder in his inbox, after all, he’s a busy guy, and you know, just for good measure, we took Jerry’s keys away, so whatever happened won’t happen again, seems like we’ve pretty much closed the loop here, let’s move on.
That’s exactly the go-slow, make it seem more fuzzy than it is, pattern that emerged in many or most of the priest cases. Also not new is the shading at each successive stage of the chain from “some form of intercourse” to “fondling or sexual contact” to “horseplay.” Certainly as long as the dirty laundry stays in house, each of those players was thinking he had plausible deniability (“Well, I said horseplay, I don’t remember exactly what Mike told me, you really ought to ask him.”). And thus are pedophiles enabled.
And upon such presumptions are good men’s careers ended without a shred of actual evidence.
It all started somewhere, sometime. There was a first incident which first made PSU, and Joe, aware of the problem, although not shocked enough to act, of course. Sandusky’s departure was, I’m confident, the result of an active decision to fire him for it, and that would have to have been simultaneous with an active decision to come up with a cockamamie cover story instead of publicly stating the reason. Once the coverup decision was made, then yes, the institutional attitudes and behaviors you describe would follow as part of maintaining it. But it’s those active decisions that I’m confident existed that outrage me.
Were you *always *the class clown?
But was this the only incident Paterno was aware of?
While the victims of bad men are left to wallow in their pain, shame and suffering as the men who hurt them go on to enjoy successful careers.
I’d rather have a quiet, discreet investigation and risk tarnishing someone’s career than know that some poor boy - or several - has to live his life knowing that monsters don’t go to jail if they are famous enough.
I suspect that we’ll have to infer it from the terms of the plea bargain, which might leave some uncertainty.
[I should note again that my position here is based on the notion that the prosecution case rests on the credibility of McQueary’s testimony. That’s all they’ve shown so far, but they could possibly have more in the bank, and if they do then my assessment could change.]
That’s a kind of very weird notion. They’ve got (if I read your earlier note correctly) at least six boys who were, uh, the ultimate type of eyewitness. McQueary, as an adult, has arguably more credibility, but his testimony is going to be kind of a side story once those victims get through testifying about the ass-raper ass-raping them, no? Defense will have to prove that the prosecutors or the alleged victims all colluded to lie, then prove that McQueary (for no good reason, as he looks like the worst sort of schmuck for tattling but not tattling effectively) somehow isn’t credible.
Plea bargain? I don’t know, I think a prosecutor’s risking a lot with that, given the multiple eyewitness sources and Sandusky’s very obvious creepiness (will he schmooze a jury? Seems unlikey).
Eyewitness evidence is “not a shred of actual evidence.” Keep it up, dumbass.
While we’re playing – name a well-known instance, outside the child custody arena, where a good man had his career ended by a third-party eyewitness allegation that he had assaulted a child.
I’m waiting.
Oh, and Paterno is not a good man, not really even a man. A man would have confronted Sandusky, called the cops, resigned when this all came up. Paterno didn’t, because he’s no man.
You’re talking about Sandusky. I was talking about Curley & Schultz.
[I agree with you about Sandusky.]
Ray Buckey, of the McMartin Preschool clusterfuck.
C’mon guys, this horse is dead and starting to stink.
There’s eyewitness testimony that Paterno deliberately engaged in a passive cover up of the alleged shower rape incident? Since that’s the claim I was answering- a claim made by you, no less - I’m assuming that you believe such evidence exists.
On the other hand perhaps this is yet another example of the hysterical scattershot mentality you’ve displayed all through this thread.
(I’ll take number two for the win, Alex.)
Paterno had no standing, neither by training nor by law, to confront Sandusky. He reported what he was told as required by law to his superiors, and at no time did he try to squelch McQueary’s allegations or attempt to whitewash them or try to make them go away.
And yes, Joe Paterno is a good man. Too good, in fact, to have done what he should have done, which would have been to assert, forcefully, that he had done absolutely nothing wrong, that was not about to resign, and that he would sue the university for his job back if it fired him. But his love for Penn State and the strength of his desire to not cause it harm instead caused him to acquiesce to the demands of the nattering nabobs of hysteria and allow the university he so loved to fire him in an outrageously craven display of scapegoating and ass-covering.
Must be terrible for him, having to stand there and take it in the ass with nobody willing to lift a finger to help him out.
Too bad he cared more about not causing harm to Penn State than not causing harm to victims of child molestors.
Lies, suppositions, and imaginings. There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion and you couldn’t prove any such thing if your life depended on it.