Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

Scriblerus

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2009
1,132
Boston, MA
that's the point. You think you know what you would do, but if you had asked McQueary the day before what he would do if he saw a little boy getting raped in the showers, he might've said he'd go intervene or fight the guy or whatever, just like a lot of people are here.
I guess. I have been a grad assistant, trained grad assistants, worked at private and public universities, including large D1 programs, and in every one of those experiences, I was required to take a course in identifying sexual harassment and abuse, as were all of the grad assistants I worked with. Schools make all of their employees take these courses to try and protect themselves from situations just like this one. The one thing that is the mainstay of those workshops is the legal responsibility to report abuse.

So even if the guy doesn't go in fists first, he should have called the police. He could have done so anonymously if he was more concerned about his job than saving a kid from abuse.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,294
New York City
So are you suggesting that, God forbid, I ever see a child getting raped, I'm supposed to think, "Hey, let the perp finish inside the kid... if I stop it, the kid may kill himself?" This is beyond absurd. It could go the other way- the kid could just as easily kill himself because he doesn't want to be violently raped by a 60 year old anymore. Or the kid kills himself because he thinks he did something wrong.
Seriously.

It's a very simple issue. If you see a kid getting raped you (a) stop it right away, (b) help the kid, (c) call the cops. (The order of a, b, and c don't matter).

The fact that it's simple doesn't make it easy-maybe as an empirical question people might not do the right thing because so many people are self interested or fearful or don't react well in a crisis situation-but there's simply no question about what you should do.
 

Seven Costanza

Fred Astaire of SoSH
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2007
2,852
I can say with reasonable confidence and conviction that if I were in MM's shoes that I probably would have stepped away to a place that I could not be heard, quickly called 911 to report a rape of a minor in the lockerroom shower and the perpetrator is Jerry Sandusky. At that point I would hang up the phone and go stop it, knowing the cops are on the way and that it needed to stop and stop right that moment. If that means I put myself in physical harm then so be it. I only say probably about the phone call part of it. No matter what I know that I would have gone in there and done whatever I could to break up what was happening.

I feel that in the heat of the moment that my courage would have been strong enough to ignore the potential of harm to myself to help a young child that obviously was in distress.

Lets put it this way, if I see a child drowning in a pool or lake I'm jumping in regardless of the potential that I might drown myself in the attempt to save that child. To me its no different.
I agree with this 98%. In my situation however, I know without question that the courage of my convictions would force me to intervene. If you all think that makes me an internet tough guy, so be it. I could care less. (those in this thread that know me personally know I'm about as far from 'tough guy' as it gets) My only point is that I would have done something to stop the sexual assault of a defenseless child, no matter the consequences. I'd like to think that most able bodied adult males who came across the same situation would as well.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
That statement is one of the most pathetic and embarrassing things I have ever read. Shameful.
Totally agree. Classic example of a PR firm using generic PR-speak that doesn't sound authentic at all. That statement won't help Paterno at all.
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,405
Twin Bridges, Mt.
Totally agree. Classic example of a PR firm using generic PR-speak that doesn't sound authentic at all. That statement won't help Paterno at all.
Agreed. Not that it really matters but he should have come out on his front porch and made a statement. Releasing a statement just further solidifies my belief that he is involved in the cover up.
 

bosoxsue

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2001
1,563
You play the hand you're dealt. At this point, the best-case scenario for Paterno is that he's allowed to finish the season. This is his best chance to do that.
So, to be clear, when the board meets it's possible it does not choose to accept his retirement and can instead terminate him? This could be an attempt to get ahead of the game? I notice the NYT's headline is couched somewhat: "Paterno Wants To Retire At End Of Season."
 

Wills Eeks

internets quarterback style
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2002
3,408
Boston
I agree with this 98%. In my situation however, I know without question that the courage of my convictions would force me to intervene. If you all think that makes me an internet tough guy, so be it. I could care less. (those in this thread that know me personally know I'm about as far from 'tough guy' as it gets) My only point is that I would have done something to stop the sexual assault of a defenseless child, no matter the consequences. I'd like to think that most able bodied adult males who came across the same situation would as well.
Serious question, but when people catch predators in the act of sexually abusing a child, do they do this? Do they mostly do A, B, and C? I think 98% of the people in this thread would also have no question about the courage of their conviction to act to intervene in this situation. But do people? Is that historically consistent with what has happened?

Just to be clear, I *AM* confident that I would beat him within an inch of his life. But I don't know if this is backed by reality rather than just my perception of it.
 

Tartan

lurker
Aug 20, 2008
361
MA
They also represent a small fraction of the overall student population. It's a massive school (over 45K students in State College alone). We're not talking about seeing a few hundred students from Bates or Colby rallying at the coach's house.

Full disclosure, my girlfriend and her parents attended PSU. They WERE huge supports of JoePa, but that has changed fast. Most people, PSU or otherwise, see this situation for what it is: a disgrace. In short, I wouldn't take the rally as an indicator of what most PSUers think.
Fair enough. I'll refrain from commenting in PSU's students until better indicators emerge. I am curious, however, to see if the rallies truly are just a loud minority.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
I thought I heard on Mike & Mike that there is a rally scheduled for noon today on campus that would call for Spanier's head at least.
Yeah that is where a lot of the student anger is directed at, at Spanier. And I agree he deserves his share of the disgust and anger, for utterly failing as a leader, for maybe being complicit in the coverup, and for releasing that statement supporting Curley and Schultz. Unbelivably shameful.

But we all know, Spanier is done. Some of the anger at Spanier seems to me a way to deflect some of it away from Paterno. If they call for Spanier's head, they should call for the coach's as well.
 

canderson

"Seer of Seers, Sage of Sages, Political Guru"
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
27,107
Harrisburg, Pa.
So, to be clear, when the board meets it's possible it does not choose to accept his retirement and can instead terminate him? This could be an attempt to get ahead of the game? I notice the NYT's headline is couched somewhat: "Paterno Wants To Retire At End Of Season."
Basically, yes. Paterno knows the BoT doesn't have the balls to fire him - he's called their bluff a few times already. This could be different, but I don't see them canning Paterno after he announced his own decisions.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,844
The Pine Street Inn
Personally, I don't see it as courage of conviction as much as flying into a blind rage. When I think about what McQueary saw, I literally see red and the next image in my mind is Jerry Sandusky's teeth flying out of his head. The only thing that brings me back around is the idea of him simpering and begging not to be killed.

I fully acknowledge that this reaction shouldn't be the basis for any criminal penalties for Sandusky.
 

Seven Costanza

Fred Astaire of SoSH
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2007
2,852
Serious question, but when people catch predators in the act of sexually abusing a child, do they do this? Do they mostly do A, B, and C? I think 98% of the people in this thread would also have no question about the courage of their conviction to act to intervene in this situation. But do people? Is that historically consistent with what has happened?

Just to be clear, I *AM* confident that I would beat him within an inch of his life. But I don't know if this is backed by reality rather than just my perception of it.
I don't have a clue. I would like to think they would.

Not entirely the same, but Kitty Genovese says hi.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
That's the whole point, you have no idea what he would do. I'm not saying you would even think about it then, but you are thinking about it now, and are just operating under the assumption that he gives up or that you would beat him sufficiently until he did.

There is a grey area -- what I read showed McQueary testifying he "heard slapping sounds" of a sexual nature, went to take a look, and saw Sandusky with the child. If he testified he saw them in an actual sex act, then I missed it. I've read that he says he reported to Paterno that he definitively saw a sex act, but I've never seen him say he actually walked in and saw them doing it, which is a pretty big difference. Hearing sounds and then seeing them naked together is an inference which allows a lot of room for doubt.
You obviously did not read the Grand Jury document, then. Please educate yourself and then rejoin the conversation because if you did read it, you'd know there is no "gray area" about what McQueary maintains he witnessed. What got downplayed and diluted into "slapping sounds" or "inappropriate" conduct was when the PSU administrators were told about what he saw. There is plenty of testimony from the custodian, the victims themselves and others that rapes/sex acts took place on and off campus. Sandusky also admitted he showered with multiple boys to one of their mothers while the cops eavesdropped. There is no gray area.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,989
Austin, TX
Not entirely the same, but Kitty Genovese says hi.
Didn't that turn out to mostly be not true?

While Genovese's neighbors were vilified by the articles, "thirty-eight onlookers who did nothing" is a misconception. The New York Times article begins:

"For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens."

The lede is dramatic but factually inaccurate. None of the witnesses observed the attacks in their entirety. Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that the attacks took place in different locations, no witness saw the entire sequence of events. Most only heard portions of the incident without realizing its seriousness, a few saw only small portions of the initial assault, and no witnesses directly saw the final attack and rape, in an exterior hallway, which resulted in Genovese's death.
Wikipedia
 

BigPapiLumber Co.

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
900
Washington, DC
Seriously.

It's a very simple issue. If you see a kid getting raped you (a) stop it right away, (b) help the kid, (c) call the cops. (The order of a, b, and c don't matter).

The fact that it's simple doesn't make it easy-maybe as an empirical question people might not do the right thing because so many people are self interested or fearful or don't react well in a crisis situation-but there's simply no black and white about what you should do.
James,

First you state that it's a simple issue (suggesting black and white), then you say there is "no black and white." I'm pretty sure you meant that there is no question there is a black and white about what one SHOULD do, but just mistyped.

Signed,

Mike, your former colleague at NY law firm (hope you're doing well, man)
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
This is what a PSU player tweeted:

"This season is for #JoePa #PSUNation"

Everyone has lost their minds.
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,247
Houston, TX
And the worldwide leader coming through as usual - let's talk about Joe Paterno's schedule and how they are preparing for Nebraska. Fuck the victims. Won't be any larger implications here. Awesome.
 
Nov 20, 2009
139
You obviously did not read the Grand Jury document, then. Please educate yourself and then rejoin the conversation because if you did read it, you'd know there is no "gray area" about what McQueary maintains he witnessed. What got downplayed and diluted into "slapping sounds" or "inappropriate" conduct was when the PSU administrators were told about what he saw. There is plenty of testimony from the custodian, the victims themselves and others that rapes/sex acts took place on and off campus. Sandusky also admitted he showered with multiple boys to one of their mothers while the cops eavesdropped. There is no gray area.
I did read the grand jury document, and the "slapping sounds" are not a dilution at all, they are from the section including McQueary's (the "graduate assistant")'s testimony. He said he investigated because he heard rhythmic, slapping sounds, and saw the boy with Sandusky in what he believed to be intercourse. The entire thing was coached in enough "believe"s and "appeared"s to be unclear, especially without hearing the actual testimony itself. It says McQueary also claimed that both the boy and Sandusky saw him. It's obviously enough for him to have inferred what was going on, but it's an inference, and it's a grey area. Nobody knows what the guy was thinking when he left the locker room, and for all we know he might not have been convinced it was anal rape until after he'd left.

There's no grey area about what Sandusky did to the victims, the guy is pretty clearly guilty and almost certainly will be found guilty in court. The grey area is with what McQueary explicitly saw and what he inferred and how it made him react to the entire situation. It has nothing to do with the dilutions you're referring to, which was called "horseplay", "wrestling" and "grabbing" after the administration's fucked up game of telephone.
 

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,010
Cambridge
Am I the only one that thinks this is a bit premature?

If Sandusky is guilty, everybody who enabled his conduct should burn in hell, and rightly so. But there's a good reason that we don't convict people and punish them on the basis of the prosecution's case alone. Sandusky is accused of these heinous acts, not convicted. Remember those Duke rape allegations?

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is never a popular one in cases that provoke this type of moral outrage, and I, too, will be outraged if the events the prosecution claims occurred actually did. But, it's also a real mistake for a university -- particularly a public university that's an arm of the government -- to be punishing people for covering up an illegal act before it's been proven that the illegal act (or coverup) actually happened.

In other words, if Paterno, the AD, etc. want to resign because they think it's in their best interest, the university's best interest, etc., that's their choice. If they would prefer to brazen it out, they'll look all that much worse when Sandusky is convicted. But until then, the board of a public university sends a horrible message if it forces them out, doesn't it?

It takes in many ways much greater courage to, upon sober reflection, presume innocence of a horrific crime than it does even to react properly to stop it. But, that's also part of what it means to be American, and I hope we don't forget that in our rush to attack everybody involved.
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,247
Houston, TX
Am I the only one that thinks this is a bit premature?

If Sandusky is guilty, everybody who enabled his conduct should burn in hell, and rightly so. But there's a good reason that we don't convict people and punish them on the basis of the prosecution's case alone. Sandusky is accused of these heinous acts, not convicted. Remember those Duke rape allegations?

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is never a popular one in cases that provoke this type of moral outrage, and I, too, will be outraged if the events the prosecution claims occurred actually did. But, it's also a real mistake for a university -- particularly a public university that's an arm of the government -- to be punishing people for covering up an illegal act before it's been proven that the illegal act (or coverup) actually happened.

In other words, if Paterno, the AD, etc. want to resign because they think it's in their best interest, the university's best interest, etc., that's their choice. If they would prefer to brazen it out, they'll look all that much worse when Sandusky is convicted. But until then, the board of a public university sends a horrible message if it forces them out, doesn't it?

It takes in many ways much greater courage to, upon sober reflection, presume innocence of a horrific crime than it does even to react properly to stop it. But, that's also part of what it means to be American, and I hope we don't forget that in our rush to attack everybody involved.
Should we assume you're joking? Did you read the GJ report?

The hackneyed trope of "letting justice run its course" DOES NOT APPLY to passing judgment on McQueary, Paterno, Curley, and the others who without question failed in their duty to a) report the crime of raping a child to the authorities, and b) take action to prevent further rapes from occurring. The facts from the GJ report are pretty clear on this, and no amount of obfuscating about Joe Paterno's knowledge of what was going on can cover that up. Whether or not Sandusky is found guilty is irrelevant to what Paterno et al failed to do: protect the lives of innocent children and enable a rapist to continue to abuse children. PSU is liable one way or another. Doing the right thing by dissociating the university from these people immdiately will not hurt their case. They're already screwed.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
I did read the grand jury document, and the "slapping sounds" are not a dilution at all, they are from the section including McQueary's (the "graduate assistant")'s testimony. He said he investigated because he heard rhythmic, slapping sounds, and saw the boy with Sandusky in what he believed to be intercourse. The entire thing was coached in enough "believe"s and "appeared"s to be unclear, especially without hearing the actual testimony itself. It says McQueary also claimed that both the boy and Sandusky saw him. It's obviously enough for him to have inferred what was going on, but it's an inference, and it's a grey area. Nobody knows what the guy was thinking when he left the locker room, and for all we know he might not have been convinced it was anal rape until after he'd left.

There's no grey area about what Sandusky did to the victims, the guy is pretty clearly guilty and almost certainly will be found guilty in court. The grey area is with what McQueary explicitly saw and what he inferred and how it made him react to the entire situation. It has nothing to do with the dilutions you're referring to, which was called "horseplay", "wrestling" and "grabbing" after the administration's fucked up game of telephone.
What? So you're saying that there is some lawful activity in which a naked grown man and what McQueary testified was a naked 10 year old boy would be doing together in a public shower where loud, rhythmic slapping noises occur and where the boy is pushed against a wall by the adult man? I'd like to know what it is.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Should we assume you're joking? Did you read the GJ report?

The hackneyed trope of "letting justice run its course" DOES NOT APPLY to passing judgment on McQueary, Paterno, Curley, and the others who without question failed in their duty to a) report the crime of raping a child to the authorities, and b) take action to prevent further rapes from occurring. The facts from the GJ report are pretty clear on this, and no amount of obfuscating about Joe Paterno's knowledge of what was going on can cover that up. Whether or not Sandusky is found guilty is irrelevant to what Paterno et al failed to do: protect the lives of innocent children and enable a rapist to continue to abuse children. PSU is liable one way or another. Doing the right thing by dissociating the university from these people immdiately will not hurt their case. They're already screwed.

Correct, though it seems pretty much everyone is assuming Sanduskys guilt the issue with Paterno is his lack of action when information was brought to him. Whether Sandusky was guilty or not he needed to do something.
I actually believe Paterno did do the minimum the law required him to do so I don't think he is legally responsible. I do believe he was morrally responsible to do something more than he did.
 

Monbo Jumbo

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
24,644
the other Athens
... But until then, the board of a public university sends a horrible message if it forces them out, doesn't it? ...

Uhmm - no.

Innocent until proven guilty is in the eyes of the law. People lose their jobs all the time for using poor judgment regardless of whether or not they broke the law. Paterno and the president o PSU should lose their jobs today, regardless of whether or not Sandusky is ultimately convicted.
 

TheGazelle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2009
542
Am I the only one that thinks this is a bit premature?

If Sandusky is guilty, everybody who enabled his conduct should burn in hell, and rightly so. But there's a good reason that we don't convict people and punish them on the basis of the prosecution's case alone. Sandusky is accused of these heinous acts, not convicted. Remember those Duke rape allegations?

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is never a popular one in cases that provoke this type of moral outrage, and I, too, will be outraged if the events the prosecution claims occurred actually did. But, it's also a real mistake for a university -- particularly a public university that's an arm of the government -- to be punishing people for covering up an illegal act before it's been proven that the illegal act (or coverup) actually happened.

In other words, if Paterno, the AD, etc. want to resign because they think it's in their best interest, the university's best interest, etc., that's their choice. If they would prefer to brazen it out, they'll look all that much worse when Sandusky is convicted. But until then, the board of a public university sends a horrible message if it forces them out, doesn't it?

It takes in many ways much greater courage to, upon sober reflection, presume innocence of a horrific crime than it does even to react properly to stop it. But, that's also part of what it means to be American, and I hope we don't forget that in our rush to attack everybody involved.

It's different than Duke, though. You could easily fire a bunch of these Penn State scumbags based solely on their own grand jury statements. Duke acted without that sort of evidence (or any evidence, really).
 

canderson

"Seer of Seers, Sage of Sages, Political Guru"
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
27,107
Harrisburg, Pa.
Pretty positive Spanier announces his resignation late this afternoon or tonight. Working out those details now from what I've been told.
 

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,010
Cambridge
Should we assume you're joking? Did you read the GJ report?

The hackneyed trope of "letting justice run its course" DOES NOT APPLY to passing judgment on McQueary, Paterno, Curley, and the others who without question failed in their duty to a) report the crime of raping a child to the authorities, and b) take action to prevent further rapes from occurring. The facts from the GJ report are pretty clear on this, and no amount of obfuscating about Joe Paterno's knowledge of what was going on can cover that up. Whether or not Sandusky is found guilty is irrelevant to what Paterno et al failed to do: protect the lives of innocent children and enable a rapist to continue to abuse children. PSU is liable one way or another. Doing the right thing by dissociating the university from these people immdiately will not hurt their case. They're already screwed.
I didn't read the GJ report, so to some extent I'm proceeding out of ignorance.

As I understand it, failing to report the crime is one of the things Curley has been charged with, and he should have the opportunity to present his defense before you nail him to the wall. Again, the GJ report is one side of a story. If, after both sides of the story have been heard, it turns out that indeed they failed in their duty to report a crime and further crimes occurred, they deserve everything that's coming to them.

But...what if there were no rapes? What if Paterno looked into it, decided there was nothing that occurred, but reported it to his superior anyway? Who then did his duty to investigate, correctly concluded nothing happened, and moved on? What makes their conduct reprehensible is, as you said, that they allowed a rapist to continue to abuse children. If there was no rapist abusing children, their conduct would be reasonable.

In other words, suspension pending investigation would be a reasonable action. But it's important to remember that you're hearing only one side of a story right now, not just from Sandusky but also from Penn State employees. I think we should hear both sides of the story before we start punishing people; there is plenty of time punish them properly for what we conclude they did. Again - if the story we're being told is correct, I would in no way defend Paterno or his superiors. I just want to make sure the story we're being told is indeed correct.

Thinking about this further, one of the other duties of these employees is to represent the university well, so if the university thinks that it's better PR to fire them, I'd be disappointed, but I'd understand it on that basis. On the other hand, the university then also opens itself up to major liability if their employees are not convicted, let alone if Sandusky isn't.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
27,311
Alexandria, VA
What is lost in all of this is Paterno's and the university's legal responsibility to report this to the police. I teach at a university, and I am required to report any suspected or witnessed abuse of any student, regardless of age. I know that this policy goes beyond the state/federal regulations, but I don't see how failure to report sexual abuse of a minor cannot go unnoticed from a legal standpoint.
It hasn't been lost, it's been discussed extensively in the thread. Pennsylvania law requires you to inform the authorities or your superior (with some exceptions--mental health professionals have to inform the cops). Once Paterno informed the AD of the allegations (and once the grad assistant informed Paterno), his legal obligation was apparently met. The AD is being charged with failure to inform the cops, among other things.

This is different from the law in most states (informing the cops is usually more stringently required); several quotes by professors and others in neighboring states are quoted throughout the thread.
 
Nov 20, 2009
139
What? So you're saying that there is some lawful activity in which a naked grown man and what McQueary testified was a naked 10 year old boy would be doing together in a public shower where loud, rhythmic slapping noises occur and where the boy is pushed against a wall by the adult man? I'd like to know what it is.
You should go back and read my other posts if you want to know what I'm saying. Or you can just make up things I'm saying, like you want to make up knowing exactly what McQueary saw and what he was thinking the day it happened. You don't know what he saw, you weren't on the grand jury, and all we have is the grand jury's report, and because we have that report, we also know a lot of things that McQueary would have had no idea about. For all we know McQueary felt like something was wrong but wasn't sure what to do, and all he saw was them standing naked together. He might have left thinking he misheard sounds and only came to a definite conclusion about what was going on after he had left and after Sandusky had probably left the locker room. Maybe he's dumb as rocks and a severe religious homophobe who didn't know what anal sex would look like. Who knows? You can fantasize about saving a boy from rape by beating the shit out of Sandusky all you want knowing everything he did thanks to the grand jury report, but it's completely irrelevant, because you weren't there, and you're not about to hop into a time machine to go there. Who cares?

Nobody wants to think of themselves as a coward, so nobody's going to think they'd do what McQueary did that night. If you think that you can go on thinking that police and military require no training to deal with the violent, graphic, and traumatic situations they will inevitably be exposed to, but it's a huge disservice to people who face problems you don't have to think about day-to-day and all of the training, practice, and preparation they must go through. The fact is the heat of the moment will overcome lots of people, even those with great preparation, and while it should be frowned upon to discourage behavior such as it, it is not some kind of mortal sin. As such, what McQueary did that night, in calling his father, and then talking to Paterno, is cowardice, but it's a reasonable cowardice that many men may have displayed. It doesn't even compare to the cowardice displayed by he, and everyone else involved, over the next decade in allowing and covering up or potentially covering up Sandusky's actions, and it's a huge difference.

Let me know how it goes when you perform your locker room child molestor patrols though, grand jury testimonies from the future in hand.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
I didn't read the GJ report, so to some extent I'm proceeding out of ignorance.

But...what if there were no rapes?

First off read the report, it is pretty damning. I understand it is one side of the story but its a pretty damned scary story. There are lots of stories from different individuals and different places. In addition in 98 Sandusky admitted to showering with and "maybe" touching a child's private parts.

As an aside if there were no rapes I would wonder why McQueary not only was still retained but got promoted. If an employee came to me and said he saw a trusted former colleague raping a boy and I determined it not to be true that employee would no longer work at my company.
 

soPhisHticated

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 10, 2005
585
[quote name='pedroia'sboys' timestamp='1320852272' post='3842991']
So I couldn't control myself yest, and had a little fun with some Penn State students over Facebook. Posted some comments on that facebook group linked in this thread. After half hour received threats that someone is going to kill me, and that they were going to call my employer today for posting a picture of Sandusky. Stay classy Penn State! Actually wouldn't mind getting fired, unemployment baby!:c070:
[/quote]

I'm appalled at the nerve of those kids, especially since what you did was so fucking classy.
 
Nov 20, 2009
139
The rest of what you wrote is completely meaningless.

Read the report and then come back to the thread.
pretty much!

I don't think most people are even rushing to judgment. Most of the outrage is based on the fact that the entire adminstration has kicked around responsibility and basically avoided any judgment whatsoever, despite it being pretty clear for so long that something was wrong. Most of the statements and behavior so far from the school has just been more of the same, and it makes it sound like they aren't even considering doing anything.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
On the other hand, the university then also opens itself up to major liability if their employees are not convicted, let alone if Sandusky isn't.
They'll already be paying millions upon millions to the victims, a few more wont hurt.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
5,685
Philly
As an aside if there were no rapes I would wonder why McQueary not only was still retained but got promoted. If an employee came to me and said he saw a trusted former colleague raping a boy and I determined it not to be true that employee would no longer work at my company.
Isn't it possible that Paterno didn't feel he could reliably ascertain what had or hadn't happened based on what McQueary said, and so duly told his boss - the one who is equipped to, and presumably would create an investigation if there was cause?

Joe Paterno is definitely guilty of not jumping up and down about looking into things further, based on what he heard. That's what I can figure out right now. But that's as far as I can, yet, get without some kind of due process.


 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
John Cavalier[/url]? Not sure what you're so proud of. Frankly, you were a douchebag for engaging them the way you did and detracting from an effort to turn a heinous negative into something positive. Yes, some of the naive posters over there voiced misguided support for Paterno, but IMO they should have just been left alone -- or at least had opposing viewpoints offered to them with a little more discretion. The schadenfreude you exude in your victory lap above makes it clear you went in there with malicious intent. It had nothing to do with standing up for abused kids or spreading the word on the cause. You just wanted to fuck with them. Awesome job, asshole.

For those curious, here's an example of his bravery. The response from Dee S makes my point.

You also state that you're a U-Penn grad or student. I would think an Ivy League-educated adult would be able to conduct himself with a little more maturity. While I don't condone anyone threatening to get you fired, you reap what you sow. By the way, brilliant move keeping your personal information in public view while baiting an entire university student body and alumni base.

And "Stay Classy!"? Really? The fact that you'd be perfectly content to get fired and collect government assistance tells me all I need to know about where you rank on the class scale.

Seems to me that McQueary just choked in the moment. It is easy for us to all sit here behind our computers and talk big about how we would have done the right thing, but in that brief moment seeing something you can't and don't want to believe you're seeing, I am not so sure that big talk would have been action. My guess is that McQueary replays the events of that day over and over again in his mind, full of regret. Yes, he had many chances to do right things beyond the moment, and that is a different discussion - but I can see how human frailty could render him useless on the day this happened.
While I agree the above is possible, I also firmly believe he ultimately traded his continued silence for promotion to a full-time coaching gig, and he did so knowing Sandusky had gotten off with a handslap. How McQueary could remain employed at the school, and continue interacting in any way, shape or form with Sandusky in his role as coach emeritus (and I find it impossible to believe he never did so between 1998 and last week) is beyond me. McQueary deciding to build his career at PSU just doesn't jibe with a scenario where he engages in reflective hindsight and feels overhelming guilt.
 

Kremlin Watcher

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
4,247
Houston, TX
I didn't read the GJ report, so to some extent I'm proceeding out of ignorance.

As I understand it, failing to report the crime is one of the things Curley has been charged with, and he should have the opportunity to present his defense before you nail him to the wall. Again, the GJ report is one side of a story. If, after both sides of the story have been heard, it turns out that indeed they failed in their duty to report a crime and further crimes occurred, they deserve everything that's coming to them.

But...what if there were no rapes? What if Paterno looked into it, decided there was nothing that occurred, but reported it to his superior anyway? Who then did his duty to investigate, correctly concluded nothing happened, and moved on? What makes their conduct reprehensible is, as you said, that they allowed a rapist to continue to abuse children. If there was no rapist abusing children, their conduct would be reasonable.

In other words, suspension pending investigation would be a reasonable action. But it's important to remember that you're hearing only one side of a story right now, not just from Sandusky but also from Penn State employees. I think we should hear both sides of the story before we start punishing people; there is plenty of time punish them properly for what we conclude they did. Again - if the story we're being told is correct, I would in no way defend Paterno or his superiors. I just want to make sure the story we're being told is indeed correct.

Thinking about this further, one of the other duties of these employees is to represent the university well, so if the university thinks that it's better PR to fire them, I'd be disappointed, but I'd understand it on that basis. On the other hand, the university then also opens itself up to major liability if their employees are not convicted, let alone if Sandusky isn't.
What the hell are you talking about? Read the damn grand jury report. McQueary specifically stated in the report that he witnessed Sandusky anally penetrating a young boy. Not hearsay, not heard it, not thought he saw it. Saw with his eyes Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a young boy. Reported that to Paterno. Paterno said to Curley something to the effect of Sandusky being discovered in the shower with a young boy. That's how it went up the chain. No further mention of rape. Then they all sat on that information for TEN YEARS! There is no gray area here. All the sides of the story are there. There is no way to defend anyone's conduct in this disgusting affair and they should all be fired immedately. Any further association with this lot is telling the world that PSU places the safety of children pretty far down its list of priorities. Shameful to even suggest that we should sit back and "wait for all the facts to come out".
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Isn't it possible that Paterno didn't feel he could reliably ascertain what had or hadn't happened based on what McQueary said, and so duly told his boss - the one who is equipped to, and presumably would create an investigation if there was cause?

Joe Paterno is definitely guilty of not jumping up and down about looking into things further, based on what he heard. That's what I can figure out right now. But that's as far as I can, yet, get without some kind of due process.

Sure but I was responding to the assertion that CS made regarding Joe and PSU looked into it and decided there was nothing there worth passing on to authorities.
If you take McQueary at his word there most certainly is, it seems to me you can't have that as a possibility and still have McQueary working for Paterno.

Edit:I suppose I should have quoted all that but the original post was pretty long so I cut most of it out.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
You should go back and read my other posts if you want to know what I'm saying. Or you can just make up things I'm saying, like you want to make up knowing exactly what McQueary saw and what he was thinking the day it happened. You don't know what he saw, you weren't on the grand jury, and all we have is the grand jury's report, and because we have that report, we also know a lot of things that McQueary would have had no idea about. For all we know McQueary felt like something was wrong but wasn't sure what to do, and all he saw was them standing naked together. He might have left thinking he misheard sounds and only came to a definite conclusion about what was going on after he had left and after Sandusky had probably left the locker room. Maybe he's dumb as rocks and a severe religious homophobe who didn't know what anal sex would look like. Who knows? You can fantasize about saving a boy from rape by beating the shit out of Sandusky all you want knowing everything he did thanks to the grand jury report, but it's completely irrelevant, because you weren't there, and you're not about to hop into a time machine to go there. Who cares?

Nobody wants to think of themselves as a coward, so nobody's going to think they'd do what McQueary did that night. If you think that you can go on thinking that police and military require no training to deal with the violent, graphic, and traumatic situations they will inevitably be exposed to, but it's a huge disservice to people who face problems you don't have to think about day-to-day and all of the training, practice, and preparation they must go through. The fact is the heat of the moment will overcome lots of people, even those with great preparation, and while it should be frowned upon to discourage behavior such as it, it is not some kind of mortal sin. As such, what McQueary did that night, in calling his father, and then talking to Paterno, is cowardice, but it's a reasonable cowardice that many men may have displayed. It doesn't even compare to the cowardice displayed by he, and everyone else involved, over the next decade in allowing and covering up or potentially covering up Sandusky's actions, and it's a huge difference.

Let me know how it goes when you perform your locker room child molestor patrols though, grand jury testimonies from the future in hand.
You've been in here for two days now justifying the failure of McQueary, Paterno, and others in the school administration from taking more substantive action than they did in stopping Sandusky from harming kids over more than a decade as the result of them being "unsure" of what occurred because what they learned from witnesses fell into a "gray area." Maybe it was rape, maybe it was the normal activities of a 60 year old man and a 10 year old boy showering together in public! Excusing their failure to act because of so-called confusion is exactly the problem with what went on -- people wanted to walk away from an uncomfortable problem because it was easier and more convenient and financially expedient to do so.
 

Seven Costanza

Fred Astaire of SoSH
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2007
2,852
You should go back and read my other posts if you want to know what I'm saying. Or you can just make up things I'm saying, like you want to make up knowing exactly what McQueary saw and what he was thinking the day it happened. You don't know what he saw, you weren't on the grand jury, and all we have is the grand jury's report, and because we have that report, we also know a lot of things that McQueary would have had no idea about. For all we know McQueary felt like something was wrong but wasn't sure what to do, and all he saw was them standing naked together. He might have left thinking he misheard sounds and only came to a definite conclusion about what was going on after he had left and after Sandusky had probably left the locker room. Maybe he's dumb as rocks and a severe religious homophobe who didn't know what anal sex would look like. Who knows? You can fantasize about saving a boy from rape by beating the shit out of Sandusky all you want knowing everything he did thanks to the grand jury report, but it's completely irrelevant, because you weren't there, and you're not about to hop into a time machine to go there. Who cares?

Nobody wants to think of themselves as a coward, so nobody's going to think they'd do what McQueary did that night. If you think that you can go on thinking that police and military require no training to deal with the violent, graphic, and traumatic situations they will inevitably be exposed to, but it's a huge disservice to people who face problems you don't have to think about day-to-day and all of the training, practice, and preparation they must go through. The fact is the heat of the moment will overcome lots of people, even those with great preparation, and while it should be frowned upon to discourage behavior such as it, it is not some kind of mortal sin. As such, what McQueary did that night, in calling his father, and then talking to Paterno, is cowardice, but it's a reasonable cowardice that many men may have displayed. It doesn't even compare to the cowardice displayed by he, and everyone else involved, over the next decade in allowing and covering up or potentially covering up Sandusky's actions, and it's a huge difference.

Let me know how it goes when you perform your locker room child molestor patrols though, grand jury testimonies from the future in hand.
First, you keep saying that people want to beat the shit out of Sandusky. Personally, I've made it very clear that I wouldn't beat the old man. I would have made him stop raping the boy- even if physical force was required. Punishement is for the courts- I would just make sure the guy stopped raping the kid.

Second, you keep beating the 'you don't know what you would do in that situation' horse. For all your exhortations about 'heat of the moment overcoming people'... you know what? I bet there's a ton of people, in the heat of the moment, who would have SAID STOP. Or made the guy stop. You don't know how any human being would react in that situation- that's presumably your point. Isn't it then fair to say that it's extremely plausible that someone with a even a shred of moral fiber would have put a stop to the events in question?

Third, you seem to be the only person here who can't seem to grasp that a grown man and a young boy- in a shower together- all alone- isn't weird, or at the VERY least, worthy of someone figuring out what the hell is going on. There's no plausible explination for these events occuring that is benign and harmless in nature.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I didn't read the GJ report, so to some extent I'm proceeding out of ignorance.

As I understand it, failing to report the crime is one of the things Curley has been charged with, and he should have the opportunity to present his defense before you nail him to the wall. Again, the GJ report is one side of a story. If, after both sides of the story have been heard, it turns out that indeed they failed in their duty to report a crime and further crimes occurred, they deserve everything that's coming to them.

But...what if there were no rapes? What if Paterno looked into it, decided there was nothing that occurred, but reported it to his superior anyway? Who then did his duty to investigate, correctly concluded nothing happened, and moved on? What makes their conduct reprehensible is, as you said, that they allowed a rapist to continue to abuse children. If there was no rapist abusing children, their conduct would be reasonable.

In other words, suspension pending investigation would be a reasonable action. But it's important to remember that you're hearing only one side of a story right now, not just from Sandusky but also from Penn State employees. I think we should hear both sides of the story before we start punishing people; there is plenty of time punish them properly for what we conclude they did. Again - if the story we're being told is correct, I would in no way defend Paterno or his superiors. I just want to make sure the story we're being told is indeed correct.
Sandusky is entitled to due process, but no one besides the courts is required to reserve judgment. As others have said, you should read the grand jury report. I'll be surprised if, after reading the report, you still think there's any reason not to assume Sandusky's guilt (again, not talking about the courts here). Moreover, I will also be surprised if you conclude that the undisputed facts (i.e., resolving all discrepancies in favor of the accused) don't justify firing Joe Paterno and every PSU administrator involved in this sordid affair.

Thinking about this further, one of the other duties of these employees is to represent the university well, so if the university thinks that it's better PR to fire them, I'd be disappointed, but I'd understand it on that basis. On the other hand, the university then also opens itself up to major liability if their employees are not convicted, let alone if Sandusky isn't.
The university's interest in avoiding liability is an interesting issue.

Even leaving aside ethics, it's not practical to imagine that PSU will be able to stage any cover up at this late date. What remains hidden for now will, in short order, be revealed. Therefore, the University's best interests are served by a prompt and thorough investigation. To the Trustees' credit, this appears to be exactly the course they are taking.

Now, if the University can avoid liability by allowing that investigation to play out (e.g., by terminating implicated employees for cause six months from now, rather than summarily firing them now), that presents a tougher question for the Trustees. They have fiduciary duties, and are not free to disregard the best interests of PSU to satisfy the bloodlust of armchair commentators like us. It seems they've already done this with the Athletic Director -- suspending him from his job while he fights the charges, while not formally firing him, but certainly not holding out any real possibility that he'll be allowed to return to PSU in any capacity.
 

Scriblerus

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2009
1,132
Boston, MA
It hasn't been lost, it's been discussed extensively in the thread. Pennsylvania law requires you to inform the authorities or your superior (with some exceptions--mental health professionals have to inform the cops). Once Paterno informed the AD of the allegations (and once the grad assistant informed Paterno), his legal obligation was apparently met. The AD is being charged with failure to inform the cops, among other things.

This is different from the law in most states (informing the cops is usually more stringently required); several quotes by professors and others in neighboring states are quoted throughout the thread.
Fair enough. Although the law does mandate that teachers report. I suppose Paterno is not considered a teacher. The law also states that mandated reporting is only required by people who are responsible for student welfare. So since Sandusky brought these boys to PSU as a representative of Second Mile, Penn State is arguing that they were not mandated to report since the university did not sponsor the visit. It's all disgusting.

Just for clarification, people keep referring to potential ambiguity over whether or not rape occurred. Keep in mind that child molestation and sexual assault do not have to include rape. The fact that Sandusky was naked in the shower with a child is enough to warrant action.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Fair enough. Although the law does mandate that teachers report. I suppose Paterno is not considered a teacher. The law also states that mandated reporting is only required by people who are responsible for student welfare. So since Sandusky brought these boys to PSU as a representative of Second Mile, Penn State is arguing that they were not mandated to report since the university did not sponsor the visit. It's all disgusting.

Just for clarification, people keep referring to potential ambiguity over whether or not rape occurred. Keep in mind that child molestation and sexual assault do not have to include rape. The fact that Sandusky was naked in the shower with a child is enough to warrant action.
I posted a link to the law several pages upthread. Assuming Paterno was a "school teacher" for purposes of the reporting law, he discharged his duty by reporting the allegations to his superiors. I understand that's not the way the law works in most states, but in PA, it is.

Of course, that leaves plenty of room to conclude, as I do, that Paterno committed an egregious moral error.