Originally posted by no1marauderSelf interest, as described by Rand, was rational. A cowardly, and shortsighted action isn't rationally in anyone's interest, save for the immediate very short term.
You have my legal advice. sh76's will not differ.
I don't see why McQueary's admittedly morally cowardly action is a "problem" legally. The Grand Jury found him highly credible.
Anyway, I don't see why a Randian would have any problem with McQueary's inaction; he acted in his own self-interest. What did he have to gain econom ...[text shortened]... at I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Losing a job, and acting according to his values would ultimately produce the best result for him.
Originally posted by sh76Is there no legal obligation to report a serious felony to police if it is in progress? You are witness to a beating, a murder, an armed robbery in progress. Can you legally walk away? I grant that in most cases, it would be difficult to enforce. Reckless indifference seems the appropriate terminology.
I agree with No1.
The proximate cause of a crime must include either some affirmative act or some omission of an act that is required by law. There is no legal requirement to report a crime even if there is a moral requirement. If the police ask you about a crime, lying about it can be a crime. But merely not reporting a crime is not considered a criminal omission.
If there is no criminal responsibility, is it possible that there will be civil torts involved?
Originally posted by quackquackHow does McQueary leave the room, go home, sleep the night, and then report the incident to Paterno? It just doesn't compute to me. Then the time line for Paterno reporting to his superiors is even more absurd.
It requires actual knowledge and it is not clear what Paterno was told.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignMaybe he went to Joe Pa and said, "Look, I know what Jerry is up to, I just witnessed it. I also would like a coaching job, if you know what I mean."
How does McQueary leave the room, go home, sleep the night, and then report the incident to Paterno? It just doesn't compute to me. Then the time line for Paterno reporting to his superiors is even more absurd.
After all, if you cared about the kid involved, would you not have walked up to Jerry and kick him as hard as you could in the nuts? Instead, he just walked away and let Jerry have his way with the lad.
Originally posted by JS357Forfeit the season? What about all the $$$ the NCAA would forfeit? Sorry, but I dare say that the NCAA does not care about those kids enough to do that for them. You even saw this with my Buckeyes. The NCAA knew what those boys did yet let them play in the Sugar Bowl. There was simply too much $$$ on the line to not let them play.
They should forfeit out the season; play no more games.
Joe Pa is (probably) an old school, denial Catholic, about such things, (I'm speaking as an ex-Catholic) which does not exonerate him. Certainly, he didn't sign up to be a monitor of sexual conduct.
Maybe you could comment on your view of his responsibilities as a 'mandated reporter.'
I think it ...[text shortened]... hould be a warning for all. That could be the positive outcome, still not making it a net +.
Mark my words, this incident is just as painful for the NCAA as it is for PSU, if not more so. But your right, PSU should forfeit the season. In fact, they play Nebraska, Ohio State, and then Wisconsin. They may as well, if you know what I mean.
What makes me sick is hearing Joe Pa say, "Now let's beat Nebraska!!" It makes me ill, the old fossil still has no clue what he stepped in. Perhaps he is incapable. It's almost like a cult in my estimation. Certain sacrifices need to be made to appease the "win gods".
Originally posted by normbenignYou can hold yer breath and turn blue if you please, but what sh76 and I have told you is legally accurate. You have no legal obligation to do anything unless you have some fiduciary relationship to the victim. And you are neither criminally or civilly liable if you fail to report such a crime unless a statute specifically requires you to.
Is there no legal obligation to report a serious felony to police if it is in progress? You are witness to a beating, a murder, an armed robbery in progress. Can you legally walk away? I grant that in most cases, it would be difficult to enforce. Reckless indifference seems the appropriate terminology.
If there is no criminal responsibility, is it possible that there will be civil torts involved?
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignPerhaps you could cite to some passage of Rand supporting such an argument. I refer you again to Galt's credo which was over the entrance to his sanctuary; Rand's characters invariably run away from the perceived evils of society rather than try to correct them. McQueary would seem to be an ideal candidate for Mulligan's Valley. And sacrificing his dream job merely to save another would violate basic Objectivist principles:
Self interest, as described by Rand, was rational. A cowardly, and shortsighted action isn't rationally in anyone's interest, save for the immediate very short term.
Losing a job, and acting according to his values would ultimately produce the best result for him.
"There's nothing of any importance except how well you do your work."
"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values."
"I will not sacrifice myself for another".
"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others -- and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose"
Originally posted by JS357I don't think the present Penn State players should be punished for the sins of others.
They should forfeit out the season; play no more games.
Joe Pa is (probably) an old school, denial Catholic, about such things, (I'm speaking as an ex-Catholic) which does not exonerate him. Certainly, he didn't sign up to be a monitor of sexual conduct.
Maybe you could comment on your view of his responsibilities as a 'mandated reporter.'
I think it ...[text shortened]... hould be a warning for all. That could be the positive outcome, still not making it a net +.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe reason this scandel was swept under the rug was so Penn State could continue winning football games. Like it or not, if you continue to allow them to win football games, really, its playing right into their hands. Unfortunatly, the only way to do that would be to punish the players. There is no way around it.
I don't think the present Penn State players should be punished for the sins of others.
Originally posted by whodey"There is a way around it" - punish the guilty, not the innocent.
The reason this scandel was swept under the rug was so Penn State could continue winning football games. Like it or not, if you continue to allow them to win football games, really, its playing right into their hands. Unfortunatly, the only way to do that would be to punish the players. There is no way around it.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values."
Perhaps you could cite to some passage of Rand supporting such an argument. I refer you again to Galt's credo which was over the entrance to his sanctuary; Rand's characters invariably run away from the perceived evils of society rather than try to correct them. McQueary would seem to be an ideal candidate for Mulligan's Valley. And sacrificing his dream ...[text shortened]... ke means that the achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose"
McQueary's productive work involved helping young men achieve their potential. Turning a blind eye was contrary to that productive work, even if it meant that work had to be done elsewhere.
""I will not sacrifice myself for another"
But McQueary did sacrifice himself and his values?
Rand's characters correct themselves, their own faults, instead of worrying about the perceived faults and problems of everyone else. Reardon never had any ambition to convert Orin Boyle. They went about doing good work, which when done helps all involved. They did it for their own sake, but other's lives were improved as a result. Jobs made billions, but my life is better because of him, without my ever knowing the man.
Originally posted by normbenignThat just gets a LMAO! It's spin and nothing more.
"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values."
McQueary's productive work involved helping young men achieve their potential. Turning a blind eye was contrary to that productive work, even if it meant that work had to be done elsewhere.
""I w ...[text shortened]... s made billions, but my life is better because of him, without my ever knowing the man.
Originally posted by normbenignSandusky is indicted for sodomy and other sexual crimes against children.
How do you propose that be done, if it is accurate that neither criminal nor civil law can get to the guilty parties, at least not all of them?
Schultz and Curley are indicted for perjury and for failure to report (I know you rarely bother to read other people's post or you have a severe reading comprehension problem, but it has already been mentioned that school administrators have a duty to report suspected sexual abuse to police or to an abuse hotline under Pennsylvania law).
All and Penn State may be civilly liable because of that law (Big Government in action).