# Penn State and Joe Paterno



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2011)

The students who rioted should be ashamed of themselves. By not contacting the cops, Paterno allowed a systemic child rapist to continue doing his dirty deeds for NINE MORE YEARS. Who knows how many young lives were ruined??

This is a molder of young men?? I don't care how good a football coach he was, or how revered-Joe had to go. Some values Penn State instilled-loyalty to the football coach! Great stuff. On to Wall Street.

At least the Board got it right.


----------



## mverta (Nov 11, 2011)

The students don't have anything vested in the issue beyond McLoyalty to the group they're standing near. But give general malaise an excuse to vent, and stuff gets pushed over. And these days, there's a lot of general malaise about.

_Mike


----------



## rgames (Nov 11, 2011)

I think the situation is more complicated than it has been portrayed in the media - I think that's what brought out the protests/supporters. The crime was witnessed by a university employee on campus, so, legally, it is a Penn State issue, not only an individual person issue. For non-emergency situations like this one it is common practice to handle campus criminal issues first with university police and university lawyers. And it appears that's what was done. Whether or not the university fulfilled its obligations is not clear.

What boggles my mind is why the focus is on Paterno - he wasn't the one who saw the crime - he was just another in the reporting chain. If you think the blame lies with the chain of command, then punish the entire chain of command. If you think the blame lies with the person who witnessed the event, then punish the person who witnessed the event. Cherry-picking a couple folks involved doesn't make much sense. Like I said, there's probably a lot more to this story.

Let's not forget, also, that nobody appears to have tried to hide anything - everything was reported quickly up the chain. The question is whether that was the appropriate process.

rgames


----------



## RiffWraith (Nov 11, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Nov 11 said:


> What boggles my mind is why the focus is on Paterno - he wasn't the one who saw the crime - he was just another in the reporting chain. If you think the blame lies with the chain of command, then punish the entire chain of command.



But Paterno IS part of the chain of command - that's why he is facing so much scrutiny. He may not have seen it, and he may not have been invloved, but if someone from the campus reports to the coach - not just a coach, but one of the most revered coaches in college history; a living legend and icon, who has_ alot _of power both on and off campus - that this happened, and all that coach does is tell the athletic dir. without calling the police, then that coach is culpable. As is everyone else who knew who didn't say anyting. Sorry. We are not talking about pot here. "Listen, don't smoke pot on the campus, smoke it somwhere else." That's not all that bad. But when you tell someone, "Listen, don't have sex with 10 year old boys on the campus, go do it somewhere else".... They turned a blind eye to this in an attempt to protect their own reputations and the Penn State legacy and brand, and didn't care about the child who got abused - nor any other potential victims. They put themselves and the school first, and let the abuse continue. That to me, is almost as deplorable as the abuse itself.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 11, 2011)

+1


----------



## Udo (Nov 11, 2011)

Has the same "smell" as the Catholic Church's behaviour in situations like that!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2011)

+1 RiffWraith. Not as deplorable, but deplorable.

Rape completely ruins these children's lives. Football is less important.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Nov 11 said:


> I think the situation is more complicated than it has been portrayed in the media - I think that's what brought out the protests/supporters. The crime was witnessed by a university employee on campus, so, legally, it is a Penn State issue, not only an individual person issue. For non-emergency situations like this one it is common practice to handle campus criminal issues first with university police and university lawyers. And it appears that's what was done. Whether or not the university fulfilled its obligations is not clear.
> 
> What boggles my mind is why the focus is on Paterno - he wasn't the one who saw the crime - he was just another in the reporting chain. If you think the blame lies with the chain of command, then punish the entire chain of command. If you think the blame lies with the person who witnessed the event, then punish the person who witnessed the event. Cherry-picking a couple folks involved doesn't make much sense. Like I said, there's probably a lot more to this story.
> 
> ...



They ARE punishing the whole chain, as far as I can see. Mc Queary will have his time as well. The focus is on Paterno because he's the nationally known coach, there forever.
With great power comes great responsibility. I think the reason he didn't elevate the issue to the cops is that he was protecting the University, his legacy, and his ass-rather than protecting more kids from being abused and raped. THAT should have been where his interests were focused. Do you think Paterno is such a naif at his advanced age that he doesn't know child molesters tend to be SERIAL abusers??

As to this being a McControversy for student malaise, it should absolutely be an issue of outrage. The students should be outraged anytime a culture of horrible injustice is perpetrated against those who cannot defend themselves.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 11, 2011)

JohnG @ Fri Nov 11 said:


> +1



+2. He knew what was going on. He hardly did anything. Winning was more important to him than doing the right thing. He dug his own grave. Unfortunately not soon enough.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Nov 11 said:


> For non-emergency situations like this one
> rgames



Pretty cavalier about child abuse, aren't we? It looks like a screaming emergency to me.


----------



## RiffWraith (Nov 11, 2011)

AHA!

CNN is reporting that in 1998, the stadium was undergoing upgrades, including the addition of 60 skyboxes and 12,000 seats. All paid for by donations, which would most likely have dried up if there were a scandal.

There you have it folks.


----------



## MichaelJM (Nov 12, 2011)

I probably shouldn't weigh in here, but just to give a different perspective. Are there any Penn Staters here? My entire family went to Penn State (except me). I grew up with Penn State. Went to all the football games.

My sister is currently attending. It was fascinating to hear her perspective, being on campus, in the thick of it. Here's a vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvzF-CBBaoI) of her, and her group of friends entering the fray during the riots. (warning: language) As you can see, many of the students were just wondering what was going on. And unfortunately some behaved violently. It's clear there's a lot of emotions on campus, and it came to a boiling point that night.

Even though I'm out in CA, and have been detached from PSU for a while, I was struck by how much the reports of this hit _me_ emotionally. I don't even like watching sports anymore. But to hear about these horrible crimes happening on its grounds came as quite a shock. I drive around a lot, so I listened to a lot of talk radio (probably wasn't smart to do that this week). Apparently, Penn State, Joe Paterno... it all still meant a lot to me, and I was closer to it than I realized. This week has been a roller coaster ride for me.

If that sounds strange, it's because Joe Paterno was literally a living legend to Penn State. He has done so much for the campus, the football program.. has donated millions of dollars, and helped and inspired countless students. There is a reason he was being considered for the Presidential Medal of Honor. None of that changed because of what was revealed last Sunday.

So what you had was the entire media, and country, tearing down this man, who meant so much to so many, and embodied far more than just a winning football coach.

Paterno should have been fired though. Or encouraged to resign immediately. There really was no other course of action. However, I don't think the University handled it well at all. There seemed to be little communication between him and the board of trustees. Sending a messenger to his door with a phone number to call, and firing someone who has dedicated 62 years to the University over the phone.. not very classy.

As I was listening to the radio, I was appalled. At times, it wasn't clear if Paterno was the child molester himself. Reports were misleading, factually inaccurate, and painted a false picture. Commentators would rant for minutes at a time, and then would have to back track to clarify Paterno wasn't actually involved in the criminal activity directly. Just today I was listening to three people, who had been commenting on the story all week, but apparently weren't sure of basic facts (like the _names_ of the two administrators who covered it up and were charged with perjury). I wondered, should Paterno be the focus? I was asking myself, am I a bad person for not being as angry as those on the radio appeared to be towards Paterno?

It is somehow ironic that the only person to do the right thing is getting the most blame in the media. Paterno contacted his superiors, which included the chief of campus police. The media has made a leap though, in assuming that Paterno intentionally covered this up. That Paterno 'enabled' Sandusky intentionally. Or that he turned a blind eye to save face. It is entirely possible that he did this, in which case he deserves all the criticism, but it's still an assumption nonetheless.

What is tough to understand is how someone that is known for doing the right thing, would make such a horrendous choice. Is it possible he just grossly misunderstood the severity of the situation? That it was an honest but tragic mistake that had devastating consequences? Obviously, and even he admits, he should have done more. No one disputes that. There are still a lot of unanswered questions though. It is not completely clear how much he was told.

So it was shocking to me, how easy it was for so many to tear down this man who has done so much good. You're seeing a gut defensive reaction from some people, because many want to allow Paterno the benefit of the doubt. These people believe he deserves that much. I have that gut reaction, but maybe I'm too close to it.

It was a shameful week for Penn State, but it was a shameful week for the media as well. When you're talking about crimes such as these, a little discretion is a good idea. I hope that the full story comes out eventually, and that the victims get the justice they deserve.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

MichaelJM @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> I probably shouldn't weigh in here, but just to give a different perspective.



Michael-I think you're exactly the right person to weigh in here.

I'm sure for present Penn Staters and alumni, this has been completely wrenching. Though one bad deed a person does doesn't obviate a life of good-nothing is so black and white, obviously-it's pretty horrifying that Paterno, easily the most powerful person in this situation, never elevated this issue to conclusion, thereby allowing more children to be raped and in his inaction, becoming complicit in that.

I suspect that the reason they didn't fire him in person was to avoid part of the immediate media storm. I agree that it was a harsh and unseemly way for Paterno to have to go out after so many years. I don't know the reasoning with any certainty, but say he got called into the office-can you imagine the media feeding frenzy that would have ensued?

It's a miserable situation for everyone connected with Penn State, I can absolutely understand that-but letting him retire a the end of the season? I dunno.

"I wish I had done more". Not a great epitaph for such a storied career. He SHOULD have done more. With all of his support and his power, don't you think if he had raised a hue and cry, the alleged perpetrator would have been stopped, and though Penn State would have had a bad time with it, wouldn't it have ultimately been so much better for everyone involved, especially the victims?


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

Anyone who has ever been involved in a legal activity as a member of a large organization (corporation, government, university, etc.) knows that it is a complicated process fraught with pitfalls.

Unfortunately, it is entirely possible to screw up the process so that the criminal walks free and you're the one who ends up in legal trouble. Sad, but true.

Therefore, when you get into one of those situations, you have to be very careful. Your legal status and responsibilities while working in your official capacity are very different from your legal status and responsibilities off the clock.

It's easy to say "Do the right thing" and it appears obvious to us what the "right thing" was. However, having been on both sides, I can tell you that what is obvious from the outside is not always so on the inside. When organizations deal with criminal activities for which they have culpability, it is a very complicated situation.

Think about this: Paterno didn't actually see anything, so he's relying on the word of a graduate assistant. If Paterno goes straight to the police and it turns out the grad assistant lied and there was no criminal activity, Paterno (and Penn State) is in HUGE legal trouble - he (and the University) can be sued for all sorts of things because he's a public figure and the accusations he levies carry huge implications for the accused person's reputation and public standing. Worse yet, even if the criminal activity did occur but it can't be proved, Paterno (and Penn State) is on the hot seat and can be the one who winds up in legal trouble while the criminal walks free. Like I said, sad but true. It happens.

Corporations, governments, universities, etc. deal with those types of issues all the time, so they have protocols on how to deal with them. It appears Paterno followed the protocol.

We like to think that what is the morally obvious "right thing to do" is always what the legal system allows to happen. That is not the case.

I'm not saying Paterno's off the hook, all I'm saying is that nobody knows all the details right now, so let's not try him in the court of public opinion just yet.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

By the way - my perspective on this is influenced by the fact that I have, in fact, been involved in a similar situation.

A crime was reported to a supervisor at a company, the supervisor reported it to the police, the report made it into the media, there was not enough evidence to convict, and the accused sued the company and won huge damages. I believe there was also a civil suit brought against the supervisor who contacted the police.

The witness stood by his testimony but it couldn't be proved. And the supervisor and the company both wound up in big trouble. So, in that case, the accused person actually wound up the big winner. Happens more often than we like to think...

rgames


----------



## Ed (Nov 12, 2011)

MichaelJM @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> Paterno should have been fired though. Or encouraged to resign immediately. There really was no other course of action. However, I don't think the University handled it well at all. There seemed to be little communication between him and the board of trustees. Sending a messenger to his door with a phone number to call, and firing someone who has dedicated 62 years to the University over the phone.. not very classy..



Apparently he was going to resign anyway. The reason the protest is absurd is because they are protesting him being fired, not because of all the boys that were raped/molested...


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

Timely: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... n-the-job/

If Penn State were to fire McQueary he would likely sue for huge damages. Not clear to me why Paterno would not be covered by the same law.

Like I said, these situations can be very complicated...

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> Corporations, governments, universities, etc. deal with those types of issues all the time, so they have protocols on how to deal with them. It appears Paterno followed the protocol.
> 
> 
> 
> rgames



"I was only following orders"*



*(heard often at Nuremberg)


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

I think we can all agree-Joe Paterno wasn't just a football coach-he was THE power on Penn State Campus. Here are two possible statements he might have made:

1. "I'm disturbed by this, but I have to make sure the university is protected on my watch. I will pass the information on to some others, and I hope they take care of it."

2. "What?? We're going to get to the bottom of this. No child is EVER going to be abused in my locker rooms again, or anywhere on Penn State Campus or by Penn state coaches.
EVER.Get that fucking Sandusky in here NOW."

I know which statement would have made me respect the man. I suspect you'll tell me some yadda yadda about how it's just not that simple. I think it is. I think most people run into a moral issue they have to face down at some point in their lifetimes. Joe handed this one off.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2011)

> We're going to get to the bottom of this



Care to rephrase that, Larry?

(Sorry, it's a variation of an Oscar Wilde joke...)


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> "I was only following orders"*



The fact that you're comparing Penn State to a Nazi organization indicates that you have no intent of having a real discussion or you're completely out of touch with reality. Until you expound upon that comment and explain why Penn State's protocols are equivalent to those of Nazi Germany, I'll have to say that your comment is among the most asinine that I've seen posted on this board.

Regardless, it's not about following orders, it's about doing what's right. In these types of situations, if you aren't careful it's possible to react in a way that lets the criminal get away with his crime. And that's not right.

Your comment seems to imply that following protocol is always the wrong thing to do. In fact, in many circumstances the criminal gets away with his crime because protocol was NOT followed (OJ Simpson, anyone?).

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > "I was only following orders"*
> ...



You characterizing my response as being about Penn State is pretty funny. Instead, it was about you and the example you drew. If you look more closely, you'll see that.
I'll skip words like 'asinine' and let you do the name calling as it usually the last ditch effort of the unsupported argumentative style.

What's right was clear. What HAPPENED was following protocol, and even that was highly questionable. The two, obviously, are sometimes diametrically opposed, but regardless, the one that should take precedence is the one that exposes a child molester and makes sure he NEVER has legal access to kids again.

OJ's example is ridiculous. That was a matter of a botched criminal case. This matter never got the attention it deserved at the collegiate level, much less in criminal proceedings.

As usual, I find your concern for the core issue, in this case the rights of the future VICTIMS to be protected, to be underwhelming. Your mantra seems to be CYA. You would have fit right in.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2011)

The site froze while I was posting the following on the heels of my lighter one above. In the meantime, Richard, I assume you don't have children.



On a more serious note, the euphemisms bother me.

This was ANAL RAPE OF A 10-YEAR-OLD. Not inappropriate bla bla bla, molestation, etc. - RAPE.

It's a horrible, violent, terribly damaging crime. And as usual Richard is taking a totally ridiculous position. This guy heard a slapping sound in the shower and SAW the guy buggering the child. Instead of rescuing the poor child he slunk away and told his supervisor (who then did nothing, allowing this freak to do the same to several other boys and ruin their lives too).

What a bunch of cowards.

Again, that's not as bad as the rape itself by any means, but it's totally reprehensible and there's absolutely no excuse.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

As of 2002, apparently Joe Paterno was told that Sandusky had been seen in the shower anally raping a ten year old. Screw organizations-if YOU had been told that, would you have done everything in your power to make sure that guy never had access to children again?? He was involved in a virtual GAME FARM for 6 more years (his charitable organization)-you would have allowed that to occur on your watch? I would have gone to the media screaming, screw protocol.Not on MY watch.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 12, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> Unfortunately, it is entirely possible to screw up the process so that the criminal walks free and you're the one who ends up in legal trouble. Sad, but true.


So you're saying that when someone has good reason to believe that children are being sexually molested, they should first consider the legal risks to themselves if they do anything beyond what the law requires? You know, because sure, I guess it's not fun for kids to get raped, but something might happen to _me_ if I make too big a deal out of it.

Bravery, thy name is Richard Ames.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 12, 2011)

So was the boy that was sodomized "willing" or "unwilling"? Not saying that matters, I am just curious if the boy was "coaxed" into the act or was violently forced too. IMO, if I witnessed such an act I would freaking call 911 immediately. Penn State deserves everything they are getting.


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> 2. "What?? We're going to get to the bottom of this. No child is EVER going to be abused in my locker rooms again, or anywhere on Penn State Campus or by Penn state coaches.
> EVER.Get that [email protected]#king Sandusky in here NOW."


Absolutely would not happen.

Any type of criminal allegation has to be dealt with by the appropriate authority or else you run in to the case I described above. The immediate supervisor is almost never the appropriate authority. That's why organizations have legal and HR departments - they're the authorities.

If an employee is having issues related to his work product, then absolutely the supervisor calls him in. For criminal activities, though, he would be way out of line to attempt to deal with the employee directly. In doing so, he could very well set up a situation where the employee is able to walk away from his crime. Most often, criminal accusations are dealt with completely apart from the supervisor.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> rgames @ Sat Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, it is entirely possible to screw up the process so that the criminal walks free and you're the one who ends up in legal trouble. Sad, but true.
> ...


If you read my post you'll see that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that you need to make sure you don't screw it up so the guy walks free. It happens.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> The site froze while I was posting the following on the heels of my lighter one above. In the meantime, Richard, I assume you don't have children.


I certainly do, and if someone did that to one of my children I'd want to be darn certain that the criminal is not allowed to walk free because of some legal loophole.

That requires the reporting chain to do everything the right way rather than the approach that would give a moral victory to one or two folks so they can cover their asses in the court of public opinion while the rapist continues to walk the streets.

What you're saying seems to imply that you'd be OK if Sandusky were still walking the streets so long as Paterno covered his own ass.

rgames


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 12, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> I'm saying that you need to make sure you don't screw it up so the guy walks free. It happens.


No it doesn't. You're confused about how the law works.

Joe Paterno is not a police officer. Cases don't get thrown out of court for civilians acting improperly or even violating due process. So other than doing something ridiculous, like helping Sandusky scrub the showers of any evidence, there's no harm Paterno could have done. Heck, he could even have beaten the crap out of him and then cut off his nuts. That still wouldn't harm the state's case against Sandusky.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 12, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > The site froze while I was posting the following on the heels of my lighter one above. In the meantime, Richard, I assume you don't have children.
> ...



Why report through a chain? Go directly to the cops. If you saw someone being murdered on campus would you go find your boss or would you call the cops?


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> You characterizing my response as being about Penn State is pretty funny.


Have you read the title you gave to the thread?


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > You characterizing my response as being about Penn State is pretty funny.
> ...



Yep, and it was exactly correct-I wanted to talk about Penn State and Joe Paterno's responsibility regarding children raped between 2002 and 2008, but that would have made for a long thread title.

Have you read where you implied that protocol and process were more important than raped childen? That following protocol was more important than whistle blowing and follow through?(which is, sorry, the Nuremberg defense whether you like the analogy or not). All your bloviating about following process is specious-I repeat, you're confusing legal matters with matters of University protocol, and further, you're ignoring the rights of children not to be victimized because process trumps all. I repeat- if Paterno had shrieked to the media, other children would have been spared, and Sandusky would have been under immediate suspicion, probably and properly treated as a pariah. THEN, the legal wheels could begin grinding.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2011)

> What you're saying seems to imply that you'd be OK if Sandusky were still walking the streets so long as Paterno covered his own ass.



I'm implying nothing. What I'm saying straight out is that there's only one choice if you see a football coach ass-fucking a child: RESCUE THE CHILD!

And then either call the police or make sure that someone does. Then you testify at the top of your lungs against this pervert to make sure it never happens again.

It's that simple. Anything else you're bringing up is nonsense.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2011)

Larry put the same thing better than I did.


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> That still wouldn't harm the state's case against Sandusky.


Correct, but there needs to be a case. Paterno had no evidence when he reported it up the chain - only an accusation from an assistant. The legal implications of that fact are huge, so it makes sense that you want to be careful in that situation. See the example I gave above.

Let me say it again: I'm not defending Paterno. If he knew it was going on and turned a blind eye to it, then yes, the man is a scumbag. However, I'm not sure he did that.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

Diffusor @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> So was the boy that was sodomized "willing" or "unwilling"? Not saying that matters, I am just curious if the boy was "coaxed" into the act or was violently forced too. IMO, if I witnessed such an act I would freaking call 911 immediately. Penn State deserves everything they are getting.



There is no such thing as consensual sex with a ten year old.


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> I'm implying nothing. What I'm saying straight out is that there's only one choice if you see a football coach [email protected]#king a child: RESCUE THE CHILD!


Paterno saw no such thing.

You guys keep missing that fact. You're acting like Paterno knew for a fact that there was abuse taking place. He did not.

Paterno received an accusation. His position as a Penn State employee of significant stature muddies the waters in terms of how he should respond to that accusation. I've already given several examples of why that's the case, so look back for a refresher.

None of you appears to have any of the details. So it's impossible to make the call on whether he did the right thing or not. One thing is clear, though, he did not try to hide anything, so he deserves at least a little benefit of the doubt.

Just let the facts come to the surface. Then make the call. Don't let the media circus dictate the discussion.

I'll say it again since it doesn't seem to be getting through: I'm not saying Paterno did the right thing. I'm saying we don't have enough info to make the call.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

Maybe this will explain my position a bit better:

Imagine that you're Joe Paterno. You get a phone call accusing one of your coaches of a crime, an especially detestable crime like the rape of a child.

What do you do?

Well, you think about your options - there are basically three: notify the police, notify campus authorities, or do both.

But there are also two other possibilities: the crime happened, or it didn't happen.

If you report it to the police, it's going to show up on the national media because you're Joe Pa and this is Penn State and it's a particularly detestable crime. If the crime didn't happen, then you just destroyed the career of a friend based on a false accusation. Plus, you've likely created a huge legal and public relations mess for the University to which you have been so dedicated for 50 years.

If the crime did happen, and it can be proved, then reporting it to the police is a no-brainer because the only one who suffers in that case is the criminal, and rightfully so.

So you can see that if there is no proof, only an accusation, the path forward is not so clear. It makes sense that a person in such a dilemma would first consult those who are in a position to assist with such a dilemma. It appears that's what Paterno did. What happened after that is not clear.

Again, Paterno didn't have anything other than an accusation. This situation is much more complicated than you guys are making it.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

Joe to McQueary- "Are you certain of what you saw?"
Mc Queary-"Yes, I saw Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a boy."
Paterno-"We need to tell the police what you saw. I'll go with you. I'll inform campus authorities. Get your coat."

I find it inconceivable that Paterno did not know about the 1998 allegations and subsequent investigations. I find it inconceivable that Joe didn't know why Sandusky was out of football after receiving the NCAA assistant coach of the year award.

It all smells of a cover-up from '98-and at the very least, Paterno had all the information he needed after 2002 to make an informed decision about what he was going to do. What he did was let 'process' take its course and turn a blind eye to the rest.

You can talk about process 'til the cows come home. His decision to let others deal with the issue was morally bankrupt, and if it was your kid, you wouldn't be talking about process at all.

His legacy as a respected coach will be back in the long run-with an asterisk. "I should have done more". Yes, Joe-you should have.


----------



## rgames (Nov 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> I find it inconceivable that Paterno did not know about the 1998 allegations and subsequent investigations.


That's not surprising at all. I spent three years as a manager over a group of about 25 people in a decent-size organization. During that time, there was legal action brought up against one employee in my group. I was excluded from information on the case because it was not legally allowed to have bearing on the employee's job performance appraisal. In fact, nobody in the management chain was allowed access to the information on the case. It was handled completely by legal and HR.

That's common practice and it makes sense: accusations often turn out to be false or baseless, so you don't want biases formed on the basis of accusations - the whole innocent until proven guilty idea. Therefore, those not involved in the case are not given any information about it. Furthermore, those who report the criminal or unethical activity are usually removed from the case, as well. It goes off to Legal/HR and odds are you never hear about it again.

Like I've been saying, not so simple as you guys are portraying it...

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

Your argument is based on little information . You may have been a manager, but you weren't God or the Pope-both of which Paterno was at Penn State.

Since you mention your credentials to speak on this matter again and again, I'll speak of mine-I'm the son of a criminal defense atty and a legal secretary, a friend of 3 DAs and a former state Atty General. I've spoken to two of the DAs, both of whom wearily asserted that Paterno should have come forward and believe it was protectionism and CYA that kept him from doing so, and both of whom think there may yet be civil and/or criminal charges leveled against Paterno.

You, of course, are a subject matter expert beyond those people because you've been involved in _a_ lawsuit. Mmm.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> Your argument is based on little information . You may have been a manager, but you weren't God or the Pope-both of which Paterno was at Penn State.
> 
> Since you mention your credentials to speak on this matter again and again, I'll speak of mine-I'm the son of a criminal defense atty and a legal secretary, a friend of 3 DAs and a former state Atty General. I've spoken to two of the DAs, both of whom wearily asserted that Paterno should have come forward and believe it was protectionism and CYA that kept him from doing so, and both of whom think there may yet be civil and/or criminal charges leveled against Paterno.



Yep. What's clear is that a) JoePa did know something. b) he did too little with the information he did have. Criminal charges are coming for sure.

I have a whole long story about see the inside of the UofA athletic scene, but I not get into it. All I can say is that so many things get swept under the table in these programs that the Penn State thingy didn't surprise me at all. A little sever for sure. Mostly its just tramps and university employees having sex with students.

But, I find Richard is being too "reasonable" about the situation. Heads should be hanging from sticks at Penn state. I know when I was faced with a situation concerning professors at UofA engaging in unethical situations, I didn't care about the consequences. I brought them down. They ended up teaching at community college the next year. I think by now they're retired from minor teaching positions with meager pensions. :mrgreen:


----------



## RiffWraith (Nov 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> There is no such thing as consensual sex with a ten year old.



Ain't that a fact.



NYC Composer @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> Joe to McQueary- "Are you certain of what you saw?"
> Mc Queary-"Yes, I saw Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a boy."
> Paterno-"We need to tell the police what you saw. I'll go with you. I'll inform campus authorities. Get your coat."



*THAT* is exactly what _should_ have happened. Sad it didn't. This is why I say Paterno is culpable. He went to the AD instead. WTF?



rgames @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> .... not so simple as you guys are portraying it...



I am not sure anyone is saying it's simple...Larry? Each case is different. Some are in fact simple, but others are more complex. I am not sure where this one sits in the grand scheme of things, but what I do know is that _someone_ could have put a stop to this soon after it started. But several people failed miserably at doing so, and therefore have failed miserably at life. 



rgames @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> If you report it to the police, it's going to show up on the national media because you're Joe Pa and this is Penn State and it's a particularly detestable crime.



No - that's not true. If it were, we would have found out about the 1998 investigation. But we didn't, did we?



> In 1998, the Penn State campus police _and local law enforcement authorities _investigated an allegation that Jerry Sandusky, then a prominent coach with the university’s football team, had engaged in inappropriate and perhaps sexual conduct with a boy in the football facility’s showers.



From:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sport ... tions.html

So it's NOT a matter of _if you report it to the police, it's going to show up on the national media_.

Cheers.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

Paterno did know, irrefutably, by 2002. I think Richard wouldn't be arguing process and 'let's not rush to judgment' if it was his kid and it had happened between 2002 and now. He doesn't seem quite that forgiving to me. I think he too would have wanted heads on pikes.

If it hadn't been swept under the rug in the first place, it never would have come to this.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

Jeffrey, what I find simple is the moral culpability, not the legal matters.


----------



## MichaelJM (Nov 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> "I wish I had done more". Not a great epitaph for such a storied career. He SHOULD have done more. With all of his support and his power, don't you think if he had raised a hue and cry, the alleged perpetrator would have been stopped, and though Penn State would have had a bad time with it, wouldn't it have ultimately been so much better for everyone involved, especially the victims?


Yes. Of course he should have done more.



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> This guy heard a slapping sound in the shower and SAW the guy buggering the child. Instead of rescuing the poor child he slunk away and told his supervisor (who then did nothing, allowing this freak to do the same to several other boys and ruin their lives too).


'This guy' is McQueary. He told Joe Paterno of the incident (what exactly he told Paterno is disputed) on poor advice from his father. Paterno didn't do nothing. He told his two supervisors, one of which was the overseer of campus police. However, Paterno did not call the police. That was of course the wrong decision in hindsight.



Ed @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> MichaelJM @ Sat Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Paterno should have been fired though. Or encouraged to resign immediately. There really was no other course of action. However, I don't think the University handled it well at all. There seemed to be little communication between him and the board of trustees. Sending a messenger to his door with a phone number to call, and firing someone who has dedicated 62 years to the University over the phone.. not very classy..
> ...


He was going to resign at the end of the season. That wasn't soon enough, and I agree. Properly handled though, the Board of Trustees would have met with Joe earlier in the week and asked him to resign immediately. I never said the protests weren't absurd.

My post was merely to try to describe the thoughts of someone close to PSU, and why I am inclined to give Paterno the benefit of the doubt. Why I am hesitant to blame Paterno to the extent many have. Again, to assume that Paterno purposefully turned a blind eye, knowing full well the terrible nature of the crimes, is a leap that I don't think I can take. There is a difference between not doing enough, and intentionally covering up a horrific crime. Shultz and Curley are the ones guilty of that.

I will also say, I find the calls (not here but elsewhere) to shut the football program down, or cancel the football games unnecessary, and indicative of those who just want to see PSU suffer. This crime was perpetrated by individuals. There is no reason to attack the innocent.

Regardless, for the true side of Penn State see: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2011/11/12/thousands_unite_for_candlelight_vigil.aspx (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/20 ... vigil.aspx)


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> Diffusor @ Sat Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > So was the boy that was sodomized "willing" or "unwilling"? Not saying that matters, I am just curious if the boy was "coaxed" into the act or was violently forced too. IMO, if I witnessed such an act I would freaking call 911 immediately. Penn State deserves everything they are getting.
> ...



lol Thanks for clearing that up. That's not what I was saying.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2011)

Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Diffusor @ Sat Nov 12 said:
> ...



Okay, what were you saying?


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:
> ...



I was asking if the kid was forcibly and violently raped or did the kid "go along with it" kind of thing. Neither of course is okay but I am trying to get an idea what that guy who witnessed the event actually saw transpire. Was the kid kicking and screaming? What I can't get my head around is that if I saw someone being forcibly raped I can't think of any scenario where I wouldn't go directly to the police if not directly intervening.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 13, 2011)

Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sun Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:
> ...




But if he was compliant, and ten years old by your estimation, you might say to yourself "hey, maybe the kid's just gay and precocious"? Jeez.


----------



## rgames (Nov 13, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> Your argument is based on little information .


Correct - it's an explanation of a possibility. I've said all along that we need more information before we can make an informed judgement. The argument that Paterno was rightly fired and morally culpable is also based on little information.



> Since you mention your credentials to speak on this matter again and again, I'll speak of mine-I'm the son of a criminal defense atty and a legal secretary, a friend of 3 DAs and a former state Atty General. I've spoken to two of the DAs, both of whom wearily asserted that Paterno should have come forward and believe it was protectionism and CYA that kept him from doing so, and both of whom think there may yet be civil and/or criminal charges leveled against Paterno.



The Pennsylvania State Attorney General, who is prosecuting the case, has said that Paterno is in no way legally culpable for anything. Furthermore, the Penn. Attorney General said Penn State might be in legal trouble for firing Paterno.

I'm guessing the Penn. Attorney General is the best subject matter expert and the one with the best credentials to comment on this case, so we should probably put a lot of weight on the information that comes out of that office.

Now, it's also true that those points address only the legal piece. Whether he was morally wrong is still unclear.

rgames


----------



## mverta (Nov 13, 2011)

I broke up an attempted rape at USC in the summer of 1990. The assailants were three star-recruit football players, whom the Alumni paid to be defended by three of the highest-profile defense attorneys in the state. Despite my being the State's star witness, having had two ribs broken in the scuffle, and my car destroyed in an attempt to intimidate me out of testifying (and despite the event being fact, I might add), the football players were acquitted, given new cars, and eventually all three were drafted into the NFL. 

The victim moved back to the East Coast, traumatized and broken, and I learned that you can't fuck with University Football Money. 

Paterno knew exactly what was going on, and tried to keep the whole thing in house to protect the university and his reputation ("This went on on his watch?"). The justice system being only tangentially related to justice as it is, who knows how this will pan out, but I bet it doesn't end with a pedophile rapist's head on a pike at the university gates, and that's a shame. 


_Mike


P.S. Incidentally, Diffusor, the rape I broke up was happening behind a closed doom-room door, with a whole crowd of athletes three times my size standing around it in the hallway. Laughing. It was the transcendently evil juxtaposition of their delight and her suffering that sent me busting through the door to a certain ass-kicking. No shortage of God's Special Creatures would stand around and do nothing. Or laugh.


----------



## Ed (Nov 13, 2011)

The only thing the students of PENN state care about apparently is that Paterno was fired. WUT


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 13, 2011)

Diffusor @ Sat Nov 12 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sun Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:
> ...



There is no legal or moral difference. None. Nada. A 10 year old cannot give consent. And if someone sees it and does not stop it and go immediately to the police and do everything they can to keep it from ever happening again, in my mind, that person has a lot to answer for.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 13, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Sun Nov 13 said:
> ...



Where did I say it would be justified? Read what I said again, slowly. I wasn't saying anything about like that. Just trying to understand how that guy reasoned to just report it to the school and not the police.


----------



## Ed (Nov 13, 2011)

Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> Where did I say it would be justified? Read what I said again, slowly. I wasn't saying anything about like that. Just trying to understand how that guy reasoned to just report it to the school and not the police.



if you see someone raping a child, would you not go to the police? :|


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 13, 2011)

Ed @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Where did I say it would be justified? Read what I said again, slowly. I wasn't saying anything about like that. Just trying to understand how that guy reasoned to just report it to the school and not the police.
> ...




Yup. I even said I would. I was trying to understand why the witness didn't and what was going through his head.


----------



## Ed (Nov 13, 2011)

Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> Yup. I even said I would. I was trying to understand why the witness didn't.



Okay, but if he had seen him screwing a young girl you know damn sure he'd go to the police and this whole thing would be an outrage. Because its boys I think its just not considered as bad.


----------



## RiffWraith (Nov 13, 2011)

Ed @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. I even said I would. I was trying to understand why the witness didn't.
> ...



No, actually, I think it's considered worse. At least here it is.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 13, 2011)

The whole thing is screwed up. Especially the part the school allowing this pedophile access to the locker rooms for 8 more years after the alleged incident.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2011)

> Paterno saw no such thing



An assistant coach saw the kid being raped! He was drawn to the slapping sound in the shower!

It's absolutely disgusting. Where's your outrage?!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2011)

I just read Mike V's post.

Wow.


----------



## rgames (Nov 13, 2011)

Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> The whole thing is screwed up. Especially the part the school allowing this pedophile access to the locker rooms for 8 more years after the alleged incident.


You left out one key word before pedophile: alleged.

That one little word completely changes the situation and what the University or Paterno or anyone else could do.

Even if it were brought to the police, there's a good chance that the University couldn't do anything about it until there was enough evidence to at least bring a case. Even if someone brought a case against him, they might not even be able to do anything until/unless he was found guilty.

Many times you cannot, legally, do anything to an employee simply because an accusation exists. The nature of this case sure seems like it would allow the University to do so (it is allowed in other circumstance), but possibly not.

If you were falsely accused of rape would you be OK with being removed from your job simply on the basis of that accusation? Of course not. It's not like you'd be out for a day - it can take years to resolve legal issues like that.

It's entirely possible that Penn State, Paterno, and everyone else desperately wanted to get rid of this guy but never had enough legal standing to do so. That happens all the time: criminals continue to walk the streets because there's not enough legal standing to do anything to them.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 13, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> Diffusor @ Sun Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > The whole thing is screwed up. Especially the part the school allowing this pedophile access to the locker rooms for 8 more years after the alleged incident.
> ...



Yep-alleged. With an eyewitness. In 2002. Warning flags raised in 1998.
With more boys and young men coming forward as time goes by.

You should take the case, Richard. You seem to have a deep feeling about process and very little interest in moral culpability. Certainly there is a presumption of innocence in the American legal justice system.

Right now, however, we're dealing in the court of public opinion- and in that arena, I think disgust for the cover-up is growing.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 13, 2011)

mverta @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> P.S. Incidentally, Diffusor, the rape I broke up was happening behind a closed doom-room door, with a whole crowd of athletes three times my size standing around it in the hallway. Laughing. It was the transcendently evil juxtaposition of their delight and her suffering that sent me busting through the door to a certain ass-kicking. No shortage of God's Special Creatures would stand around and do nothing. Or laugh.



Way to stand up Mike!


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 13, 2011)

Oh, and legally, there's this from Sports Illustrated, which is obviously not the final arbiter, but still :

"While Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says that her office won't file charges against Joe Paterno for not reporting the alleged child sexual abuse by former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the 84-year-old coach could eventually face criminal charges for perjury, obstruction of justice and violating the state's Child Protective Services Law. Paterno could also become a defendant in civil lawsuits filed by Sandusky's alleged victims. Those lawsuits could allege that Paterno negligently failed to prevent a third party with whom he had a supervisory relationship (Sandusky) from committing abuse.

Perjury and Obstruction of Justice

Under Pennsylvania law, as in other jurisdictions, perjury refers to knowingly lying while under oath. Obstruction of justice describes interference with the administration of justice, such as by concealing evidence or delaying or frustrating a criminal investigation. While Paterno has thus far escaped these criminal charges, his statements and behavior suggest that he remains vulnerable to them. That is particularly evident when considering troubling inconsistencies between Paterno's testimony to the grand jury that investigated Sandusky and the testimony of Penn State assistant Mike McQueary.

These inconsistencies related to Paterno's and McQueary's statements about "Victim 2" in the grand jury's statement of facts. According to the grand jury's findings of fact, McQueary detailed how in 2002 he saw a naked Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy in the showers in the Penn State football locker room. McQueary also testified that he told Paterno what he saw the following day, though it isn't clear from McQueary's testimony how explicit he was in his description to Paterno.

After hearing from McQueary, Paterno alerted athletic director Tim Curley. Yet instead of relaying what McQueary claims to have told him, Paterno conveyed a milder and vaguer description. Specifically, Paterno testified under oath that McQueary had said that Sandusky was engaged in fondling or "doing something of a sexual nature" to a boy."


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 13, 2011)

Not an admission of guilt by any means, but probably a very prudent idea:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/penn-states-jo ... sBxgPGU5FM


----------



## MichaelJM (Nov 13, 2011)

I'm sorry, but everything in that Sports Illustrated excerpt is a stretch.

First of all, he has not yet been guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice. I suppose he's vulnerable in the way everyone is vulnerable for not having yet committed crimes.

Second, Paterno was not Sandusky's supervisor in 2002, and had no "supervisory relationship" with Sandusky in 2002.

As far as inconsistencies, there is no evidence that points to an inconsistency. As this excerpt even states "it isn't clear" from the report how explicit McQueary was in his description to Paterno.

So how can the author say "instead of relaying what McQueary claims to have told him, Paterno conveyed a milder and vaguer description."? Did the author of this excerpt read a more detailed Grand Jury Report than I did? According to his own words, "it isn't clear from McQueary's testimony how explicit he was". And it isn't. Read the report. Just incredible.

Of course these are questions that are as of yet unanswered. However, it is important to realize Paterno was not charged with perjury. I'm no expert when it comes to the legal system, but I'm assuming the grand jury, as of yet, decided that McQueary and Paterno's testimonies did not conflict in a way that indicates perjury occurred.

--
Edit: The truth is, whether or not Paterno was given a detailed description of the events from McQueary is probably pointless from a legal perspective. Tim Curley & Gary Shultz were told by Paterno that McQueary witnessed "disturbing" and "inappropriate" events, and the two administrators then followed up with a meeting with McQueary (without Paterno), where McQueary gave them a full and detailed description of what he saw. According to PA law, Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 13, 2011)

Jo hasn't been charged with anything. The initial findings by the state AG say she has no plans to pursue criminal charges. Those are the facts, you're right. That doesn't mean it won't happen. This now becomes a full-fledged criminal investigation with a lot of public scrutiny. Political pressures may be brought to bear, most of which would have formerly supported JoePa, maybe not so much now. My point in posting the excerpts from the article is that nothing is written in stone here. I haven't read the grand jury report-I will.

As I read Pennsylvania law(as a layman),it seems to me he fulfilled the minimum legal obligation by reporting what he was told to his theoretical superiors. I hope this brings about a change of law to make any person observing child abuse responsible for reporting the incident directly to police or child protective services, in this case McQueary.


----------

