Online Now 1013

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 712
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 981
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

Please Read this blog posted by an Attorney ....

  • The lynch-mob calling for Paterno (inlcuding the) does NOT understand the law and maybe should talk before attacking. I'm not saying what JoePa did was right, but I do think this is getting way over the top.

    Tuesday, November 08, 2011
    A Strong Defense of Joe Paterno: Why Paterno Was Morally & Ethically Right Not To Go Further in The Sandusky Sex Abuse Case
    In the comments section of an article in an SI online blog post by Joe Posnanski, Columbia Univ. Adjunct Professor Scott Semer assails Joe Paterno for not taking greater actions in the Jerry Sandusky case (Link is to the actual Grand Jury Report. It is not for the squeamish.)

    Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.

    I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.

    After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."

    Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.

    Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
    2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony)
    3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.

    Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)

    Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback.

    PSU_USMC ●

  • Good bit. Wont change anyones mind but its a good bit. Really shows things aren't black and white. Thanks for posting.

    MTayl72 ●

  • Even if, actually can't prove yet that he didn't, but even if Paterno would have called the police about this they would not have actioned it unless MM came to them. Someone can add, but if I called the police and told them a friend, coworker, etc saw something happen would they record it?

    Also of note that in every single corporation or business the procedure is for the supervisor to report the incident internally to the management in place for them to action. It is in an effort to protect the employee, but also serve as the communication between the police and the business.

    If winning was easy even losers would do it.

    Lang06 ●

  • This is not a sexual harassment in the workplace incident. It involves the rape of a 10 year old boy. There is a HUGE difference in legal and ethical responsibilities in the two circumstances.

    An aspect I can't comprehend is: after the 1998 investigation, and after the 2002 witnessed incident, why in the world was Sandusky allowed within 1000 feet of any of the football facilities, especially accompanied by a child? Why was he allowed to bring a child with him as an official part of the Penn State party to bowl games? Something is very wrong with the way this was handled, and trying to justify it by saying it complied with reporting procedures for sexual harassment is simply weak.

    jbm7077

  • The problem with Paterno right now is that he is the focal point by the media. The media isn't trying to dig into all the issues that are surrounding this case they are playing on the layman's knowledge of both Joe, his successes, and the reputation of PSU.

    The other big thing to remember is that they also have the benefit of the whole Grand Jury description of this sordid affair. Everyone can click on a link and read all the accusations. This in it's totality produces a very clear emotional response... Disgust. Did Joe have that whole report to look at before he made the decisions he did? Did anyone prior to it being released? We don't know what he knew and what he didn't know. But it is very easy to through this awful collection of allegations and witnesses together and say how could you not do more. That's the response you are seeing. There isn't a whole lot of people that have been in situations where there were child abusers in their midst and they had no idea, only to find out later. Most people have the misguided approach that they would know if they were in the presence of such a monster or that they would do exactly the right thing (when judged later) if presented with an awkward or confusing situation.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by VinegarBased63624 on 11/9/2011 at 4:46 PM

    VinegarBased63624

  • You all are kidding me right?

    His GA comes to him and tells him he saw Sandusky raping a ten year old in the shower of the team house and all he did was "report up the chain" and that was enough?

    Great job Coach! Glad you didn't confront Sandusky about it and compromise the ongoing police "investigation".

    Better yet, glad you let him have continued access to the facilities so he could abuse more kids so the "investigators" could gather more evidence.

    Some of you just don't get it.

    This post was edited by TheRiddler on 11/9/2011 at 4:46 PM

    TheRiddler ●

  • PSU_USMC said...

    The lynch-mob calling for Paterno (inlcuding the) does NOT understand the law and maybe should talk before attacking. I'm not saying what JoePa did was right, but I do think this is getting way over the top.

    Tuesday, November 08, 2011 A Strong Defense of Joe Paterno: Why Paterno Was Morally & Ethically Right Not To Go Further in The Sandusky Sex Abuse Case In the comments section of an article in an SI online blog post by Joe Posnanski, Columbia Univ. Adjunct Professor Scott Semer assails Joe Paterno for not taking greater actions in the Jerry Sandusky case (Link is to the actual Grand Jury Report. It is not for the squeamish.)

    Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.

    I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.

    After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."

    Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.

    Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). 2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony) 3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.

    Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)

    Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback.

    Well, I'm no expert on criminal law.
    I'm not an attorney.
    And I rarely watch "Law and Order"
    But I have observed human behavior, for over 40 years, have kids of my own, and have an idea of what is right and what is wrong

    Consider the following:

    1) Our legal system is adversarial. Neither of the adversaries is responsible for uncovering truth. In fact, a good lawyer often wants to keep true statements that paint his/her client poorly out of the record ("motion to suppress, your honor").

    2) Pretend that you're CEO of a large enterprise. One of your current employees tells you that he's just witnessed a horific act, on your property, by a former employee. You have every reason to suspect that the former employee might be guilty, because the act establishes a pattern. You report the episode to your superior. And then what? You wait for the wheels of justice to turn. And I understand that they often turn slowly. If it took JS 6-12 months to be indicted for the crimes in 2002, thats one thing. But 7 years before a grand jury is convened? Thats another story completely. Joe admitted as much, in broad brush, today. He should have pushed the investigation. Any citizen can make a complaint to Child Protective Services, which they are then bound to investigate. And tipping JS off to an investigation is a bad thing? Because he might have then stopped molesting kids??? What???

    3) Finally, would you be taking the same stance, that Paterno did all he could/should have done, if your child had been molested by JS in 2005-2008?

    This post was edited by pennstatel0 on 11/9/2011 at 4:52 PM

    pennstatel0 ●

  • PSU_USMC said...

    The lynch-mob calling for Paterno (inlcuding the) does NOT understand the law and maybe should talk before attacking. I'm not saying what JoePa did was right, but I do think this is getting way over the top.

    Tuesday, November 08, 2011 A Strong Defense of Joe Paterno: Why Paterno Was Morally & Ethically Right Not To Go Further in The Sandusky Sex Abuse Case In the comments section of an article in an SI online blog post by Joe Posnanski, Columbia Univ. Adjunct Professor Scott Semer assails Joe Paterno for not taking greater actions in the Jerry Sandusky case (Link is to the actual Grand Jury Report. It is not for the squeamish.)

    Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.

    I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.

    After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."

    Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.

    Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). 2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony) 3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.

    Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)

    Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback.

    This is a classic example of the moral decay of our country because of fear of litigation. We no longer consider the welfare of another person let alone a 10 year old boy because we could put ourselves in legal harms way. Really? So what you are saying is that if you found a grown man in the shower slamming the backside of a 10 year old boy you would walk away and think first of yourself and potential litigation?

    What if it were your son? That is the ultimate question.

    The entire system failed in epic proportion and they will pay millions in dollars, pay in massive loss of recruits and now have a reputation that the university heads condone child molestation. Makes sense to me.

    signature image signature image

    The GOBZA revolution is underway. Are you connected? Watch http://vimeo.com/46502648 Connect at https://www.gobza.com/ConnectYourWorld

    TexasBucknut

  • jbm7077 said...

    This is not a sexual harassment in the workplace incident. It involves the rape of a 10 year old boy. There is a HUGE difference in legal and ethical responsibilities in the two circumstances.

    An aspect I can't comprehend is: after the 1998 investigation, and after the 2002 witnessed incident, why in the world was Sandusky allowed within 1000 feet of any of the football facilities, especially accompanied by a child? Why was he allowed to bring a child with him as an official part of the Penn State party to bowl games? Something is very wrong with the way this was handled, and trying to justify it by saying it complied with reporting procedures for sexual harassment is simply weak.

    What if that sexual harrassment in the work place led to a sexual assault. Had you called the police immediately and turned this individual in the sexual assault may never have happened and thus since you only told your superior it did. Are you morally responsible?

    Should you have followed up with your boss about this? In hindsight yes. You could have been a hero. Instead you lack moral judgement.

    This is an extreme example (probably not that good), but it is easy to go back and say more should have been done. I have a feeling that the underlying issue in this whole case is that Jerry Sandusky (if guilty) had thousands of people fooled. There are a lot of people who were in positions to catch glimpses of the monster that lurked beneath his seemingly benign and charitable exterior. Nobody did. People want heads to roll. But how did the mother of the first victim stay quiet when nothing happened to Sandusky... and so on and so on.

    This post was edited by VinegarBased63624 on 11/9/2011 at 5:04 PM

    VinegarBased63624

  • TheRiddler nailed it. It wouldn't surprise me if you saw some new laws in Pennsylvania in the wake of this tragedy. ANYONE who had knowledge of this SHOULD have taken this to the authorities. The fact that the current laws don't state that doesn't mean that this isn't the most obvious miscarriage of justice I have ever seen. I really want you to think for a second what these victims went through. If you think this is over, you are mistaken, your school is about to be tied up in so much civil litigation over this it's going to make your head spin and it could have all been prevented by several people in your athletic department. I am not happy about it and I have nothing against PSU, but to pretend like Joe did nothing wrong is insane even if it wasn't criminal.

    MichState04 ●

  • Lang06 said...

    Even if, actually can't prove yet that he didn't, but even if Paterno would have called the police about this they would not have actioned it unless MM came to them. Someone can add, but if I called the police and told them a friend, coworker, etc saw something happen would they record it?

    Also of note that in every single corporation or business the procedure is for the supervisor to report the incident internally to the management in place for them to action. It is in an effort to protect the employee, but also serve as the communication between the police and the business.

    Yup, the man who has ignored chain of command his entire career should now fall back on that same thing as a defense for not doing enough. He isn't legally wrong, he is morally.

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete ●

  • pennstatel0 said...

    Well, I'm no expert on criminal law. I'm not an attorney. And I rarely watch "Law and Order" But I have observed human behavior, for over 40 years, have kids of my own, and have an idea of what is right and what is wrong

    Consider the following:

    1) Our legal system is adversarial. Neither of the adversaries is responsible for uncovering truth. In fact, a good lawyer often wants to keep true statements that paint his/her client poorly out of the record ("motion to suppress, your honor").

    2) Pretend that you're CEO of a large enterprise. One of your current employees tells you that he's just witnessed a horific act, on your property, by a former employee. You have every reason to suspect that the former employee might be guilty, because the act establishes a pattern. You report the episode to your superior. And then what? You wait for the wheels of justice to turn. And I understand that they often turn slowly. If it took JS 6-12 months to be indicted for the crimes in 2002, thats one thing. But 7 years before a grand jury is convened? Thats another story completely. Joe admitted as much, in broad brush, today. He should have pushed the investigation. Any citizen can make a complaint to Child Protective Services, which they are then bound to investigate. And tipping JS off to an investigation is a bad thing? Because he might have then stopped molesting kids??? What???

    3) Finally, would you be taking the same stance, that Paterno did all he could/should have done, if your child had been molested by JS in 2005-2008?

    Yup.

    If it was paterno's grandchild that MM reported to him does anyone think all he would have done is tell his Boss (Curly) not a chance in hell. That right there blows his and there excuse.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by sneakypete on 11/9/2011 at 5:07 PM

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete ●

  • PSU_USMC said...

    The lynch-mob calling for Paterno (inlcuding the) does NOT understand the law and maybe should talk before attacking. I'm not saying what JoePa did was right, but I do think this is getting way over the top.

    Tuesday, November 08, 2011 A Strong Defense of Joe Paterno: Why Paterno Was Morally & Ethically Right Not To Go Further in The Sandusky Sex Abuse Case In the comments section of an article in an SI online blog post by Joe Posnanski, Columbia Univ. Adjunct Professor Scott Semer assails Joe Paterno for not taking greater actions in the Jerry Sandusky case (Link is to the actual Grand Jury Report. It is not for the squeamish.)

    Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.

    I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.

    After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."

    Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.

    Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). 2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony) 3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.

    Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)

    Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback.

    you should help get his story straight before he finally has that press conference.

    No way Schultz fails to eo his euty unless he has indication from McQueerey ane Paterno that they won't be talking or following up with the investigation.

    signature image

    More than just football

    thefonz

  • sneakypete said...

    Yup, the man who has ignored chain of command his entire career should now fall back on that same thing as a defense for not doing enough. He isn't legally wrong, he is morally.

    There is no moral law, stop pretending there is. Morals, especially in this situation are independent of each person. That is your stance. That doesn't make it fact or fiction don't pretend it does.

    Itzsessil ●

  • TheRiddler said...

    You all are kidding me right?

    His GA comes to him and tells him he saw Sandusky raping a ten year old in the shower of the team house and all he did was "report up the chain" and that was enough?

    Great job Coach! Glad you didn't confront Sandusky about it and compromise the ongoing police "investigation".

    Better yet, glad you let him have continued access to the facilities so he could abuse more kids so the "investigators" could gather more evidence.

    Some of you just don't get it.

    No you just don't get that McQueary did not tell Joe the same story he told the Grand Jury, if you read that report you'd know that. You'd also know that the Grand Jury didn't think Joe was lying or he'd have been indicted. The prosecution isn't going to indict MM because he's their star, and one and only, witness.

    Itzsessil ●

  • Itzsessil said...

    No you just don't get that McQueary did not tell Joe the same story he told the Grand Jury, if you read that report you'd know that. You'd also know that the Grand Jury didn't think Joe was lying or he'd have been indicted. The prosecution isn't going to indict MM because he's their star, and one and only, witness.

    Wait a minute, what was shared was Sandusky, 10 year old boy and shower. Now whether or not he told Joe what he was doing is irrelevant once you hear those things. That is all you need period.

    You cannot defend in any shape or manner a group of individuals who completely turned their back on a 10 year old boy and other subsequent victims by their pathetic inaction.

    Would you care what story was told if it were your son?

    signature image signature image

    The GOBZA revolution is underway. Are you connected? Watch http://vimeo.com/46502648 Connect at https://www.gobza.com/ConnectYourWorld

    TexasBucknut

  • Itzsessil said...

    There is no moral law, stop pretending there is. Morals, especially in this situation are independent of each person. That is your stance. That doesn't make it fact or fiction don't pretend it does.

    You are correct. There is no moral. You and I agree 100% on that.

    I think we can also agree that the things Joe has said he stood for would contradict what he did in this situation for whatever reason.

    I'm also saying that a man who thumbed his nose at the chain of command for his entire career shouldn't then be allowed to fall back on that very same thing in this case. If Joe would have always respected and followed the chain of command system "I" would feel differently.

    Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured .but not prove they're a citizen

    sneakypete ●

  • TexasBucknut said...

    Wait a minute, what was shared was Sandusky, 10 year old boy and shower. Now whether or not he told Joe what he was doing is irrelevant once you hear those things. That is all you need period.

    You cannot defend in any shape or manner a group of individuals who completely turned their back on a 10 year old boy and other subsequent victims by their pathetic inaction.

    Would you care what story was told if it were your son?

    I'm sorry I didn't know you knew all the facts about the entire scandal, including protocol, what is in his contract etc..

    No I can't defend the group of individuals, as matter of fact I didn't defend anyones actions, I just corrected all the inaccuracies in your post.

    Itzsessil ●

  • TexasBucknut said...

    This is a classic example of the moral decay of our country because of fear of litigation. We no longer consider the welfare of another person let alone a 10 year old boy because we could put ourselves in legal harms way. Really? So what you are saying is that if you found a grown man in the shower slamming the backside of a 10 year old boy you would walk away and think first of yourself and potential litigation?

    What if it were your son? That is the ultimate question.

    The entire system failed in epic proportion and they will pay millions in dollars, pay in massive loss of recruits and now have a reputation that the university heads condone child molestation. Makes sense to me.

    Was Joe Paterno the one who saw this going on in the shower? No. You're missing the point of this. I agree that if someone witnesses this that must act but to completely condem Paterno isn't right either.

    basebrad8 ●

  • PSU_USMC said...

    The lynch-mob calling for Paterno (inlcuding the) does NOT understand the law and maybe should talk before attacking. I'm not saying what JoePa did was right, but I do think this is getting way over the top.

    Tuesday, November 08, 2011 A Strong Defense of Joe Paterno: Why Paterno Was Morally & Ethically Right Not To Go Further in The Sandusky Sex Abuse Case In the comments section of an article in an SI online blog post by Joe Posnanski, Columbia Univ. Adjunct Professor Scott Semer assails Joe Paterno for not taking greater actions in the Jerry Sandusky case (Link is to the actual Grand Jury Report. It is not for the squeamish.)

    Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.

    I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.

    After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."

    Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.

    Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). 2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony) 3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.

    Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)

    Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback.

    This is a horrible attempt at a defense. All of these 3 defenses are entirely laughable... I suggest everyone read the case cited in paragraph 1... Laughable... Any lawyer or law student will tell you that this is just laughable... You probably wouldnt pass a law class typing this out as an answer to an exam question. Read the grand jury report. Those are legal facts in this case, based upon 3 years of investigation, which can be used to impeach witnesses at trial. If you read what Joe said under oath and honestly think that he should not have done more (including, oh I don't know, taking Sandusky's keys maybe so that he didn't have unfettered access to the facilities up until last week), than more power to you. These 3 defenses are legally laughable. That is my piece. I am exhausted talking about this... Sad day

    signature image signature image signature image

    WE ARE! And we will always be...

    rmj147 ●

  • sneakypete said...

    You are correct. There is no moral. You and I agree 100% on that.

    I think we can also agree that the things Joe has said he stood for would contradict what he did in this situation for whatever reason.

    I'm also saying that a man who thumbed his nose at the chain of command for his entire career shouldn't then be allowed to fall back on that very same thing in this case. If Joe would have always respected and followed the chain of command system "I" would feel differently.

    I myself don't KNOW of instances in which he refused to use chain of command. I assume your talking about when they tried to get him to quit in 04ish. If you have more of an example let me know, otherwise it's just lore, and part of what the media created.

    Itzsessil ●

  • Lang06 said...

    Even if, actually can't prove yet that he didn't, but even if Paterno would have called the police about this they would not have actioned it unless MM came to them. Someone can add, but if I called the police and told them a friend, coworker, etc saw something happen would they record it?

    Also of note that in every single corporation or business the procedure is for the supervisor to report the incident internally to the management in place for them to action. It is in an effort to protect the employee, but also serve as the communication between the police and the business.

    Kids are involved. Last I checked kids don't work in corporations... Perspective is surely lost in all of this... Sad that everyone is defending the program still. The program was put over children. I cannot continue to comment... This is just sad. I love all of you guys. We are Penn State. But we need more perspective on this. I am exhausted and disgusted talking about this...

    signature image signature image signature image

    WE ARE! And we will always be...

    rmj147 ●

  • sneakypete said...

    Yup, the man who has ignored chain of command his entire career should now fall back on that same thing as a defense for not doing enough. He isn't legally wrong, he is morally.

    Hey man I just saw a rape ... Call the cops and tell them that. See how far it goes.

    You throw out lots of items as facts, but they aren't. You, like many, are filling in the cracks with whatever suits you.

    If winning was easy even losers would do it.

    Lang06 ●

  • rmj147 said...

    Kids are involved. Last I checked kids don't work in corporations... Perspective is surely lost in all of this... Sad that everyone is defending the program still. The program was put over children. I cannot continue to comment... This is just sad. I love all of you guys. We are Penn State. But we need more perspective on this. I am exhausted and disgusted talking about this...

    Kids being involved although you think it matters it doesn't.

    I'm not defending the program ... The post is about Joe not the program. Keep up.

    If winning was easy even losers would do it.

    Lang06 ●

  • Itzsessil said...

    No you just don't get that McQueary did not tell Joe the same story he told the Grand Jury, if you read that report you'd know that. You'd also know that the Grand Jury didn't think Joe was lying or he'd have been indicted. The prosecution isn't going to indict MM because he's their star, and one and only, witness.

    Then McQueary is probably going to be prosecuted. I thought I heard Joe and Mikes story matched.

    MichState04 ●

Penn State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports