The Lions' Pride

Saw this on CNN. No joke, first thing that went through my head was "DOE sanctions, right"?? I mean, they had every indication he was dangerous and did nothing, and 12 people died. How is that not the equivalent??

People get confronted with information every day and often times don't see the larger picture, and it leads to disastrous consequences. If we are going to start demonizing them and prosecuting them every time there are going to be a lot of people on that list.

I was in the living room snacking yesterday afternoon and my dad came and said, "So when does Colorado's football team get the death penalty?" I said, "huh?" He explained this very story of course (he heard the report on CNN).

These are very different situations entirely though. I think he was kidding but it was still interesting so wanted to share. But Fonz makes a great point above too.

Some people don't get satire.

Let's look at the comparison substantively though.

The facts in the freeh report show psu admin being confronted with an allegation of something that could potentially portend danger to children in the local area and reveal that they should have done more to protect those kids from that danger.

Please explain how this "isn't even close to compareable" to the cited incident.

Did they previously see this kid act out, have an investigation with a psychologist and then decide to not prosecute and then ignore it when it happened a second time?

It's totally different. PSU was a horrible situation with systematic failure all the way down the line.

PSU isn't going to heal until people can accept this and actually move on, instead of crying "where is the NCAA" any time anything happens on any campus

Weren't there "warning signs" for the Va Tech shooter too?

Life isn't as black and white as some would indicate it is.

He went to CU Denver so it is not the main campus but downtown campus. Sorry, they have no football team.

You're way off. This is much worse. There is still zero evidence if a cover up at penn state. Read the Freeh report which actually shows no coverup took place. Ignore the bogus summary.

I think that's a very good term to describe the 98 incident, considering it was thoroughly investigated by law enforcement officials and by subject matter experts.

Or worry about ruining sometimes weekend.

Petey, I don't agree with most of what you post but I've got to give you props for consistency. Your (edit, message board) world is completely black and white and any attempt by a poster to have a dark shade of gray gets an immediate dose of petey correctness. The world would be a better place if in reality it was so black and white and all conclusions are crystal clear but it isn't.

Straw man argument. I haven't heard anybody involved in the debate about who did what and when at PSU regarding Sandusky who is arguing that protecting innocent children is less than supremely important. The debate most of us are having is about what the known facts reveal was known by the PSU administrators and what they should have done when confronted with those facts.

Do you know how many false accusations of child abuse are made against people that work with children? Happens constantly. It's one of the reasons why people are so hesitant to report - you want to make absolutely certain there's something legit before you put that out there, because it NEVER goes away, even if it's investigated and there's nothing found. It's a terrible, terrible accusation. So if Jerry was investigated in '98, and as far as anyone at PSU knew it was unfounded, they likely would have been MORE hesitant to report him again. Particularly if McQueary was as vague as we was with Dr. Dranov. Yes, what he told them was troubling, but he CLEARLY didn't tell them all the details, and according to Curley and Schulz he didn't even use the word sexual.

Further, Jerry was someone they trusted completely - to the extent they were fully aware of '98 (under dispute) it was never reported to be sexual at all, and nothing came of it. Jerry worked with troubled boys from difficult backgrounds, even more reason to take any allegations under consideration. These were SIGNS, not clear evidence, and their error was in their lack of follow-through on those signs - if they felt that there wasn't enough to report, and that going to Jerry was the right thing to do, they should have been incredibly vigilant after that and watched him carefully, and they DIDN'T - that was their great mistake.