Originally posted by quackquackYou aren't entitled to a trial before you're fired or criticized by the media.
Why don't we eliminate trials and just believe indictments and make decisions based on them?
Nobody said anything about criminal charges against Paterno. Therefore, all talk of presumption of innocence and trials is irrelevant.
Originally posted by dryhumpNo, I do not think it's possible. Paterno knew about the 1998 shower incident. That is beyond dispute. He heard reports about later incidents. That is beyond dispute. He continued to allow Sandusky access to PS facilities and reported nothing to the authorities. Therefore, in my judgment, he is morally culpable for what happened later on. Not legally culpable perhaps, but morally culpable.
I read it yesterday. As I told no1 in another thread what Paterno was told is in dispute. The other incidents involved in the grand jury testimony have nothing to do with Joe Pa. Ted Bundy killed women for years and everybody who knew him thought he was a great guy. Do you think it's barely possible that Sandusky was able to conceal this part of his life?
Originally posted by sh76Paterno is already fired, his legacy is disgraced and he is set up for endless civil suits. I simply think an investigation should have occured first and I am surprised you disagree.
Nobody has disputed the indictment in this case, as it relates to the roles of the rest of the PS staff.
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackWhat? You want to let him coach out the season while they leisurely confirm a bunch of facts that we already know are true and let him retire after the season on his terms? Please.
Paterno is already fired, his legacy is disgraced and he is set up for endless civil suits. I simply think an investigation should have occured first and I am surprised you disagree.
The evidence in this case is overwhelming. PS is not a court of law and Paterno is not being sent to prison. The University did what it must to preserve its own reputation.
At this point, I don't advocate further steps against Paterno (some victims might sue him later, but that's for the courts to handle), but he got exactly what was coming to him.
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooWhoa whoa whoa. Let's relax a moment here. I'm as angry as anyone about the management's bungling of this issue, but if one kid on the team does something stupid, they should cancel the whole season next year?
If anybody on the team was involved in the riot which followed the press conference, the program should just be nixed for the year.
Let's not get overly emotional here, one way or the other.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214791
Originally posted by sh76It's one thing piled on another. Any high school would have shut it down for a year on the revelations alone. I realize the money is too big of an issue so that it won't happen, but really, I like football, but how important is it to play every season in light of the seriousness of the situation?
Whoa whoa whoa. Let's relax a moment here. I'm as angry as anyone about the management's bungling of this issue, but if one kid on the team does something stupid, they should cancel the whole season next year?
Let's not get overly emotional here, one way or the other.
The riot tells me that the kids are getting the wrong message. I think the life lessons for them are infinitely more important than a season of football - money included.
Originally posted by no1marauderFor once I'm on your side, only I think you are soft peddling. The TA, now assistant coach who witnessed the rape, and reported it the next day, will be on the sidelines for Saturday's game. He is a healthy, large guy. Why did he not stop the rape? How does he escape? Furthermore, Sandusky although dismissed, continued to run a program for young boys on the Penn State campus for years after the reported event.
This is ridiculous. A member of Paterno's staff came to him and told him his longtime defensive coordinator had anally raped a child in the Penn State athletic facility. And Joe only has to call the administrators? Get serious.
I mean if a kid working at McDonald's told his manager that one of the ex-employees had anally raped a child in th ...[text shortened]... and rightly so. Since when is the coach of a big time football team held to a lower standard?
In my opinion, if any evidence is found of further abuse in the interim, Joe Paterno, the AD, and the school President ought to be charged as accessories.
How does anyone call himself a man after walking away and going home after witnessing a coach doing a ten year old?
Originally posted by sh76I'm not so generous or forgiving of Paterno. Sins of omission may be as devastating as sins committed.
What? You want to let him coach out the season while they leisurely confirm a bunch of facts that we already know are true and let him retire after the season on his terms? Please.
The evidence in this case is overwhelming. PS is not a court of law and Paterno is not being sent to prison. The University did what it must to preserve its own reputation.
At ...[text shortened]... ue him later, but that's for the courts to handle), but he got exactly what was coming to him.
I've heard that a local Ice Cream shop had a desert called a "Sandusky" featuring two scoops and an inverted cone resembling a phallic emblem, and advertised as "the only desert you don't have to order nuts on". It's been removed from the menu, but it says to me that a lot of people were winking and nodding as long as Sandusky kept rolling out All American linebackers, making Penn State a contender.
If other children are found to have been harmed after the original incident, I think the soft-peddling and conspiracy of silence make Jo Pah, and everyone in the chain of command chargeable as co-conspirators or accessories.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Why are you convinced you know what Paterno knew? Weren't people convinced in Duke lacrosse and there was not even a crime committed?
What? You want to let him coach out the season while they leisurely confirm a bunch of facts that we already know are true and let him retire after the season on his terms? Please.
The evidence in this case is overwhelming. PS is not a court of law and Paterno is not being sent to prison. The University did what it must to preserve its own reputation.
At ue him later, but that's for the courts to handle), but he got exactly what was coming to him.
Reporting an allegation of a crime that you have second nad information about to the athletic director and university president but, not the police, simply has never been a fireable offense previously. It is amazing to me that a well respect employee can be fired and smeared without breaking a law or employment policy (when there probably is an employment handbook that is hundreds of pages)based on the criminal conduct of someone else.
We agree on one thing: the university wanted to preserve its reputation. It did not care about treating Paterno fairly and it did not care about giving Paterno an opportunity to disclose what he did or did not know because PSU's reputation and possible civil and criminal liability are more important to the University then finding out the truth or making the victims whole. To me the failure is on the University level not the coaching level and we are letting the university take the easy way out by presuming Paterno was all knowing and there all culpible when Penn State's complete failure to create policy and to supervise is the cause of this continuing disgrace.
Originally posted by quackquackThere was allegedly an eyewitness to one count.
Why are you convinced you know what Paterno knew? Weren't people convinced in Duke lacrosse and there was not even a crime committed?
Reporting an allegation of a crime that you have second nad information about to the athletic director and university president but, not the police, simply has never been a fireable offense previously. It is amazing ...[text shortened]... complete failure to create policy and to supervise is the cause of this continuing disgrace.
My question is why the subordinate coach did nothing until the following day? And why Paterno did not confront Sandusky immediately to confirm or deny? Passing the buck up the chain of command seems to have assured that nobody would do anything about it.
Originally posted by normbenignWhen there is a chain of command it is not passing the buck; instead, it is allowing someone with the right skills to make a decision. For instance, here you have a legal/ compliance situation and thus an athletic director & university president should handle the situation not a football coach.
There was allegedly an eyewitness to one count.
My question is why the subordinate coach did nothing until the following day? And why Paterno did not confront Sandusky immediately to confirm or deny? Passing the buck up the chain of command seems to have assured that nobody would do anything about it.
Originally posted by sh76The Grand Jury found McQueary's testimony "highly credible". It found Schultz's and Curley's claims that he did not specifically tell them that the incident involved sodomy so incredible that it indicted both of them for perjury for so testifying. Yet Paterno testified in the same manner. IMO the GJ gave Joe Pa an undeserved pass though his advanced age might have been a contributing factor in that decision.
No, I do not think it's possible. Paterno knew about the 1998 shower incident. That is beyond dispute. He heard reports about later incidents. That is beyond dispute. He continued to allow Sandusky access to PS facilities and reported nothing to the authorities. Therefore, in my judgment, he is morally culpable for what happened later on. Not legally culpable perhaps, but morally culpable.
Originally posted by quackquackIt requires no special set of skills to report to the police an anal rape of a child.
When there is a chain of command it is not passing the buck; instead, it is allowing someone with the right skills to make a decision. For instance, here you have a legal/ compliance situation and thus an athletic director & university president should handle the situation not a football coach.