(09-04-2013 07:54 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 07:26 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Anyone who is a public employee knows that you report incidents to superiors.

This Penn St fantasy that Curley was Paterno' superior is a fiction. Curley was a former Penn St QB for Paterno. (So was McCready. Sandusky also played for JoePa).

Where did the meeting between McCready and Paterno take place? Paterno's house. A day later, where did the meeting between Curley and Paterno take place? Paterno's house.

Paterno was the Pope of Penn St football. Curley his Cardinal. Priest McCready witnessed Archbishop Sandusky molesting a boy. He went to the Pope. The Pope then called his Cardinal in for a meeting on how to handle it. Priest McCready was later promoted to Bishop for keeping his mouth shut.

Opinion. A popular one with those who have followed the headlines but haven't followed the facts of the case.

Paterno WAS PSU football. However, this was not a football related event.

This was a crime. Paterno is NOT the State College police department (who let Sandusky free in 1998)...or the Attorney General (who sat on his case from 2007 to 2011, allowing Sandusky to roam free until it was politically relevant to bring it to light.).

Football-blinded people will argue that Paterno is bigger than the government and law enforcement...but that's kind of silly. It simply supports an outlandish narrative that CSI/LawAndOrder minds just love.

(09-04-2013 09:33 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why you still have a football team is beyond me. I would have deep sixed that program for five years.

Agreed. What's worse is that they get to play on TV.

(09-05-2013 03:10 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 07:54 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 07:26 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Anyone who is a public employee knows that you report incidents to superiors.

This Penn St fantasy that Curley was Paterno' superior is a fiction. Curley was a former Penn St QB for Paterno. (So was McCready. Sandusky also played for JoePa).

Where did the meeting between McCready and Paterno take place? Paterno's house. A day later, where did the meeting between Curley and Paterno take place? Paterno's house.

Paterno was the Pope of Penn St football. Curley his Cardinal. Priest McCready witnessed Archbishop Sandusky molesting a boy. He went to the Pope. The Pope then called his Cardinal in for a meeting on how to handle it. Priest McCready was later promoted to Bishop for keeping his mouth shut.

Opinion. A popular one with those who have followed the headlines but haven't followed the facts of the case.

Paterno WAS PSU football. However, this was not a football related event.

This was a crime. Paterno is NOT the State College police department (who let Sandusky free in 1998)...or the Attorney General (who sat on his case from 2007 to 2011, allowing Sandusky to roam free until it was politically relevant to bring it to light.).

Football-blinded people will argue that Paterno is bigger than the government and law enforcement...but that's kind of silly. It simply supports an outlandish narrative that CSI/LawAndOrder minds just love.

Sandusky was grooming victims using the Second Mile.
The Second Mile played up their access to the Penn State program.
Joe Paterno could have brought the issue to a head by cutting off PSU ties to the Second Mile unless they cut ties to Sandusky.

The fact he didn't, for years after knowing Sandusky did things of a sexual nature with young boys, makes him a sc****g who will rot in hell and no amount of your deflection by parsing of the legal investigation will change that.

(09-05-2013 03:04 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 08:56 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 07:26 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Anyone who is a public employee knows that you report incidents to superiors.

And Paterno's quote was "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." And Paterno and Sandusky were not friends. FWIW.

I want the guilty to pay as much as anyone; I just don't think Paterno deserves the full brunt of the outrage.

If it's a child being raped in a shower, you let it slowly go up the line of command until it's forgotten about? No, violent crimes require an immediate call to law enforcement, not a buck being passed from person to person until somebody who's too busy to think about it puts it in a file cabinet to gather dust.

If a "public employee" sees somebody threatening somebody with a gun on public property, do they wait until the next day when their superior is back from vacation to do something, or do they call the police? Was the crime that was witnessed in the showers really less of a crime than somebody brandishing a weapon?

Paterno wasn't the witness. Your gripe is against Mike McQueary. Don't confuse the issue.

I'm not confusing the issue at all. McQueary should've called the cops. Instead he went to Paterno. So Paterno did the right thing by mentioning the incident later that week... to somebody who wasn't law enforcement?

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about above. OJ was set free not on the evidence, but on mere technicalities. The defense was so successful at burying the real issue of murder under a mountain of silliness that he was found not guilty. Encouraged by this turn of events, Penn State fans continually attempt to protect Paterno by bringing up technicalities and telling people not to "confuse the issue."

The fact still remains: Paterno knew what was going on and not only did nothing to prevent it, but used the system in such a way as to cover it up.

Pennsylvania is a "mandatory reporter" state. People who work in public institutions and in educational institutions are required to report child abuse not to the next person in their chain of command, but to the state agency charged with child welfare. Because McQueary failed to do this, it was much more urgent that Paterno fulfill his responsibilities to the Commonwealth and its children.

It's amazing that when McQueary failed to call the cops, Penn State fans want to hold him responsible. And when Curley, Schultz & Spanier failed to call the cops, they're held responsible. Isn't it amazing that the one link in the chain of command that bore no responsibility for what happened is Joe Paterno? How is that possible?

I'm of the opinion Paterno would have lost his job had he "broke rank" and called the cops to figure it out anyway. Breaking "the chain of command" would not have gone over with his superiors (and he had superiors). He was losing his control over his kids, there was the previous history with Sandusky being accused of the stuff, and his program was on its "momentary" decline. Maybe they wouldn't have severed him immediately, but they wouldn't have extended his contract when they did some time later. He was still collecting as a tenured faculty member, as Spanier still is (and seriously, how is THAT not a story?).

But that isn't to defend him. It is to suggest how much more responsible guys like Curly, Schultz, and Spanier were. Especially Schultz.

(09-05-2013 07:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I'm of the opinion Paterno would have lost his job had he "broke rank" and called the cops to figure it out anyway. Breaking "the chain of command" would not have gone over with his superiors (and he had superiors). He was losing his control over his kids, there was the previous history with Sandusky being accused of the stuff, and his program was on its "momentary" decline. Maybe they wouldn't have severed him immediately, but they wouldn't have extended his contract when they did some time later. He was still collecting as a tenured faculty member, as Spanier still is (and seriously, how is THAT not a story?).

But that isn't to defend him. It is to suggest how much more responsible guys like Curly, Schultz, and Spanier were. Especially Schultz.

Lost his job? The authorities in the PSU athletic department were gonna fire a wildly popular and historically uber-successful coach for doing more to prevent child rape in the football showers, and he was worried about losing his job?

What? Was he gonna get fired, then stand before the student body & alumni of the university and the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and say, "They fired me because I reported child molestation to the authorities" and nobody's gonna come to his defense? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

And besides, Paterno was way past retirement age. Are you saying that he had no nest egg, and was going to live on the streets if he lost his job?

Though a bit more well-intentioned, your post is still an attempt to bury the real issue.

I don't think JoPa is a monster. He was an old man who stayed too long. He didn't know what he should do, and that in itself tells you he overstayed his abilities.

He Knew what Sandusky was doing, He did little to nothing to stop it. He may not have been part of the active cover up, but he was in the loop, and knew things were brushed under the table. Bottom line is his rep and historical place in CFB was more important than the kids that were abused. I don't think his name need drawn thru more mud than it already has, but also don't think he needs to be built back up. He did tons of good while at Penn St, and those things should not be forgotten, but neither should him standing on the sideline while his ole buddy was banging kids be forgotten.

One monster doesn't alone create a monstrous culture, those who are silent in the face of monstrosity are the ones who create a monstrous culture.

(09-03-2013 09:21 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  (1) Was he part of an active cover-up of Sandusky's crimes?

This is about the only part one might look at for "hope." I would find it harder to believe he was "active" involved in the coverup. However, turning a blind eye to what is going on can be just as bad.

Let's put it this way. You work at a bank. You discover that your co-worker is stealing money from the vault and items from safe deposit boxes. You say nothing. He is later caught. They then discover you had full knowledge of the actions. You may not be charged as an accessory, but you will still be fired, and you would never work in the banking industry again. And you could still be held liable in a lawsuit from those whose money or belongings were stolen.

(09-05-2013 08:03 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  Lost his job? The authorities in the PSU athletic department were gonna fire a wildly popular and historically uber-successful coach for doing more to prevent child rape in the football showers, and he was worried about losing his job?

I suggested the administration would have chosen not to renew his contract after 2002 or 2003, or whenever it was, on the basis of MANY issues. Chide it all you want, but had Paterno called 9-1-1 and not Curly or Schultz, as mandated by the very law you want to hang Paterno with, it would have been in breach of the spirit of that law. So, even him "doing right" by popular opinion, would still not necessarily validate his course of action. Technically, he would have been in violation. If the administration had wanted to, based on that time's current downturn in the program, the issues with some of his kids, his "control issues" with facilities and usage, other "burned bridges" he was having within the school, and something like this violation, yes, they could have cut the cord.

I don't doubt it would have been a PR disaster. But who are the bad guys in this? Find all of them, please. People like you want so desperately to be recognized that there should be special corners in hot places for guys like Paterno, ABOVE ALL. Cry all you want about his failure to live up to his perceived moral place in the school's schema, but the fact that they can't quite get him on breaking any laws, Freeh himself concluding that, tells me that while Paterno may have been a bad guy, the state of PA is the bigger villain. They let towns govern themselves like this.

(09-05-2013 09:30 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 08:03 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  Lost his job? The authorities in the PSU athletic department were gonna fire a wildly popular and historically uber-successful coach for doing more to prevent child rape in the football showers, and he was worried about losing his job?

I suggested the administration would have chosen not to renew his contract after 2002 or 2003, or whenever it was, on the basis of MANY issues. Chide it all you want, but had Paterno called 9-1-1 and not Curly or Schultz, as mandated by the very law you want to hang Paterno with, it would have been in breach of the spirit of that law. So, even him "doing right" by popular opinion, would still not necessarily validate his course of action. Technically, he would have been in violation. If the administration had wanted to, based on that time's current downturn in the program, the issues with some of his kids, his "control issues" with facilities and usage, other "burned bridges" he was having within the school, and something like this violation, yes, they could have cut the cord.

I don't doubt it would have been a PR disaster. But who are the bad guys in this? Find all of them, please. People like you want so desperately to be recognized that there should be special corners in hot places for guys like Paterno, ABOVE ALL. Cry all you want about his failure to live up to his perceived moral place in the school's schema, but the fact that they can't quite get him on breaking any laws, Freeh himself concluding that, tells me that while Paterno may have been a bad guy, the state of PA is the bigger villain. They let towns govern themselves like this.

This thread was started by someone who claimed that Paterno was exonerated, and so, quite rightly, the responses have concentrated on Paterno. Perhaps I haven't read all the responses closely enough, but I haven't seen a soul claim that Joe Paterno alone was responsible for what happened at Penn State - I know I certainly haven't.

But Joe Paterno does seem to be the only person that is somehow being unnaturally extricated from the chain of responsibility. He, in fact, was the one who had all the goodwill in the world, and had he at any point in all of this acted to stop it, it would have stopped.

Once again, he was in no danger of being fired, forced into retirement, or not having his contract renewed. The university would never have fired the most beloved whistle-blower in the history of whistle-blowing for blowing the whistle on a monstrous child abuse culture.

But so what if they didn't renew his contract? At least he'd have done the right thing and still died a wealthy man.

I wish some of you all would sit back and listen to yourselves. It's asinine.

This topic should not even be debated. But apparently a Penn State fan felt the need to tear the band-aid off this scab by starting this thread, so here we are again.

(09-05-2013 10:46 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  I wish some of you all would sit back and listen to yourselves. It's asinine.

Pot, meet kettle, I guess.

Won't change the fact that he died a broken man in disgrace.

(09-05-2013 09:30 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 08:03 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  Lost his job? The authorities in the PSU athletic department were gonna fire a wildly popular and historically uber-successful coach for doing more to prevent child rape in the football showers, and he was worried about losing his job?

I suggested the administration would have chosen not to renew his contract after 2002 or 2003, or whenever it was, on the basis of MANY issues. Chide it all you want, but had Paterno called 9-1-1 and not Curly or Schultz, as mandated by the very law you want to hang Paterno with, it would have been in breach of the spirit of that law. So, even him "doing right" by popular opinion, would still not necessarily validate his course of action. Technically, he would have been in violation. If the administration had wanted to, based on that time's current downturn in the program, the issues with some of his kids, his "control issues" with facilities and usage, other "burned bridges" he was having within the school, and something like this violation, yes, they could have cut the cord.

I don't doubt it would have been a PR disaster. But who are the bad guys in this? Find all of them, please. People like you want so desperately to be recognized that there should be special corners in hot places for guys like Paterno, ABOVE ALL. Cry all you want about his failure to live up to his perceived moral place in the school's schema, but the fact that they can't quite get him on breaking any laws, Freeh himself concluding that, tells me that while Paterno may have been a bad guy, the state of PA is the bigger villain. They let towns govern themselves like this.

Do you realize what you're saying?

The law mandates that child abuse be reported. It mandates that institutions like Penn State have procedures to be followed in reporting to serious.

However, the law does NOT forbid any mandated reporter from calling the police directly. In fact, the law directs mandated reporters to do precisely that. To claim that Paterno would somehow be in violation for calling the police instead of moving it up the chain of command is nonsense. And of course there was nothing to prevent Paterno from doing both. It was not an either/or decision.

In the interests of protecting the child, Paterno as a mandated reporter should have called the police immediately upon being notified. He should not have waited 48 hours and then bumped it up the chain of command.

Paterno should also have directed McQueery as an eyewitness and also a mandated reporter to call the police directly to provide them with a first hand eyewitness account.

(09-03-2013 08:43 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  To state that Joe did not know something was amiss with Sandusky is complete BS. He, essentially, willingly turned a blind eye to the atrocities; others would later blame it on the police for not doing enough to stop the evil bastard. Some in the Penn State crowd need to get their priorities in order!

"getting their priorities in order." That, right there, is the reason I was hoping for a suspension of Penn State football. Two years without their program would have provided that segment of the crowd a much needed reality check.

(09-05-2013 11:36 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 08:43 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  To state that Joe did not know something was amiss with Sandusky is complete BS. He, essentially, willingly turned a blind eye to the atrocities; others would later blame it on the police for not doing enough to stop the evil bastard. Some in the Penn State crowd need to get their priorities in order!

"getting their priorities in order." That, right there, is the reason I was hoping for a suspension of Penn State football. Two years without their program would have provided that segment of the crowd a much needed reality check.

This was not a football issue. This was an administrative failure (above Joe Paterno). According to your logic, banning all PSU sports would also be a valid way to teach PSU to "get its priorities in order."

Now, some of you will circle back to NOTHING WAS ABOVE JOE PATERNO. We will then reply CITY AND STATE GOVERNMENTS WERE ABOVE JOE PATERNO. If they did nothing and/or failed, why is Joe held to a higher standard? The prosecution of Sandusky's case saw ZERO blame to point towards Paterno...but many of you--with nothing to gain except a lingering angst--want to keep the righteous indignation way up high.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/opinio....html?_r=0

PSU fans have no idea what most Americans think about the PSU culture and values right now! Your image and reputation is extremely tarnished, dude! If all this was false, PSU would not be shelling out a $120 million dollars to try and make this all go away! All PSU is sad about that got caught covering this all up.

(09-05-2013 11:32 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  It was not an either/or decision.

I think the matter becomes nebulous because of the SC/UP distinction, and where and how things got to Joe. Joe was in SC when he was told, but the events transpired in UP. If you call 911, first, I'm not sure SC doesn't respond to Joe, and that's where school officials could have gotten petty with him.

(09-03-2013 08:04 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Sorry,, Paterno was told of the Bathroom incident, and kept his mouth shut. Take your Penn State BS somewhere where you are surrounded by other blind mice.

Actually Paterno took the info to the school administration and his boss, who told him they would handle it. That's pretty much what any company policy is in regards to reporting things involving other employees, etc. Maybe he should have called the police later on, but he did turn him in.

(09-05-2013 12:05 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 11:36 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 08:43 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  To state that Joe did not know something was amiss with Sandusky is complete BS. He, essentially, willingly turned a blind eye to the atrocities; others would later blame it on the police for not doing enough to stop the evil bastard. Some in the Penn State crowd need to get their priorities in order!

"getting their priorities in order." That, right there, is the reason I was hoping for a suspension of Penn State football. Two years without their program would have provided that segment of the crowd a much needed reality check.

This was not a football issue. This was an administrative failure (above Joe Paterno). According to your logic, banning all PSU sports would also be a valid way to teach PSU to "get its priorities in order."

Now, some of you will circle back to NOTHING WAS ABOVE JOE PATERNO. We will then reply CITY AND STATE GOVERNMENTS WERE ABOVE JOE PATERNO. If they did nothing and/or failed, why is Joe held to a higher standard? The prosecution of Sandusky's case saw ZERO blame to point towards Paterno...but many of you--with nothing to gain except a lingering angst--want to keep the righteous indignation way up high.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/opinio....html?_r=0

You continue to ignore my points.
I would think even you wouldn't try to argue that Paterno didn't have power over the day to day workings of the football program. Why did he let players and coaches continue to work with the Second Mile, knowing Sandusky was involved with that charity and molesting children?

I don't even care what his legal responsibilities were. He is like one of those bishops in the Catholic church who said nothing while a pedophile priest was transferred to a new parish, to prey on a new group of unsuspecting children.