The Lions' Pride

No...he didn't call the Police. He took the matter directly and personally to the VP who oversaw the Campus PD. That same individual orchestrated all the largest initiatives of the campus PD. From all the current testimony, that individual (Schultz) notified NO ONE of the accusations brought forth from both Paterno and McQueary. If Paterno did nothing, then why did Curley and Schultz ever contact McQueary? McQueary went straight to Joe, then talked to no one, then was summoned by Curley and Schultz after their discussion with Joe. It was Curley's responsibility to notify CYS. It was Schultz's responsibility to notify his own PD. No one denies the horrific lapse in judgment, responsibility, ethics, moral empathy, and compassion exhibited by certain members of PSU's administration. However, until further proof surfaces, Joe's name doesn't deserve to be included in that mix. The real dirt occurred after Curley and Schultz were notified by Joe.

What did Joe tell Curley and Schultz? Did Joe downplay anything or encourage Curley/Schultz to downplay anything? If not, Joe is clean. That should be determined when Joe's testimony is read this afternoon.
Who did Curley and Schultz talk to about it (there is only one option for answer)?
What was the nature of that conversation?
What transpired in the 9-10 days between McQ's account to Joe and his meeting with Curley/Schultz?
What is their rationale for never contacting CYS or campus PD?

+1 diddy, and I agree with you that Joe is clean and is NOT on trial here. Enough is enough... However, I disagree that what he did was enough from a moral standpoint... The law is changing as a result of this- thank God. But I just disagree and will leave it at that...

Let's leave the moral angle out of this for today. This is a legal trial. The level of perceived moral obligation varies upon each individual on this earth. It's a non-quantifiable variable. My opinion on Joe's moral obligation and his legal responsibility are two completely different things. Lapses in perceived moral obligation are impossible to prove, which is why they cannot be used as grounds for termination. We all love to mount a moral high horse when someone else acts less than ideally. In reality, if encountered with a similar situation, most of us would do our basic duty...then stay out of the way. It appears as though that is what Joe and McQ did. The guys with the most direct authority to address the situation legally, based on the facts provided thus far, did nothing.

Well said. Exactly what I have been trying to say on the BB, but admittedly, I got too pissed to come up with it in a coherent manner.

You lost me. I'm not reading back through the thread, but I thought you commented that Dranov's testimony would be hearsay, which it clearly would not be. I don't think anybody ever said anything about what McQueary would say about what Dranov said mcQueary said...?

Paterno says McQ told him that he saw a mature person fondling...'whatever you might call it'...a young boy.

Joe: I don't know what you would call it. Obviously he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I didn't push because Mike was distressed.

delete

I called him (Curley) and said we got a problem and told him what happened.

Curley: Coach Paterno called myself and Schultz and said he needed to meet with us and wanted to report an incident

Stop making things up and deal with the facts. Nobody is justifying a thing for the child molestor. You're just confused and you think Joe Paterno is on trial or committed a crime. We all hope if there was a cover up, it comes out and the criminals get punished just like Jerry S. You are trying to tell us what you think may have happened which is a load of crap. The GA stated Joe was credible. The GA never thought to pursue Joe with any charges.

Those are facts you don't want to see or admit because you think Joe Paterno is on trial here. You bringing up Van Pelt pretty much seals the deal....you know exactly what ESPN wants you to. Please try and dispute one thing I've said...just one. You can't...run along now.

Well since you responded, I have 2 things to say, then we can drop the moral aspects...

1. His morals are not on trial here and you are right. Hey are outside of legal responsibility. FOR NOW. The LAW can and will change as a result of his actions- there have been bills proposed in several states because of what Joe did not do. The "basic duty" argument just doesn't fly with me, and apparently those in Congress either. And the courts have been known to interpret fairly simple language in ways that they so desire based on intent. Things are never cut and dry in the law. And again, the law is changing BECAUSE of what happened here. So it would appear that morals are quite important in situations like these. The law in this country is always changing. I wouldn't have been able to vote years ago, or marry outside of my race... The law changes in reaction to situations that are deemed concerning. Morals should be present in the way the law is structured, and your Congressmen are doing just that- and courts have in the past went well beyond the scope of what was written in black and white, just read cases in any law school text book for a clear example. Secondly, do not forget civil liability... Not going there, but just to let you know that it is possible.

2. Moral grounds CAN be used for termination, and are all the time. Joe had no legal right to his job. He was not a government employee. There is no implied right in Joe's employment with PSU... If the BOT did not believe that he could do his job because of this perceived lapse in judgement, they could fire him for it. They could fire him for hitting a player (a la Mike Leach), and countless other moral lapses. He can go after the university for wrongful termination, but they can fire him if they so please. It's a job. His boss can fire him for just about anything... Unless he has a contract that says otherwise, which it would appear that he does not.