… is not Jerry Sandusky. Pedophiles are everywhere and it’s no surprise that one should turn up at Penn State. It’s also no surprise that Sandusky is a successful, powerful, influential man. Pedophiles are everywhere.

The Tragedy of Penn State is the state of mind of those in authority who looked the other way because the Penn State Football Program was more important than the lives of the children who suffered at the hands of one sick man.

The Tragedy of Penn State is Penn State President Graham Spanier who managed the cover-up.

The Tragedy of Penn State is Athletic Director Timothy Curley, and Vice President Gary Schultz, who were complicit in the abuse and were indicted along with Sandusky.

The Tragedy of Penn State is assistant football coach Mike McQueary, who witnessed the abuse and deemed it a minor internal problem and not a horrific crime.

The Tragedy of Penn State is that Penn State fostered and encouraged that mindset.

The Tragedy of Penn State is Joe Paterno, the face of the Penn State Football Program and the embodiment of that mindset.

The Tragedy of Penn State is the sense of entitlement that these successful, powerful men felt because they were part of The Penn State Football Program.

It takes no courage to play football; and it takes no courage to become successful. But it takes tremendous courage to break rank, to step outside your comfort zone, to stand up and tell the truth … and to let the chips fall where they may.

The Tragedy of Penn State is Joe Paterno, who when the time came for him to show courage, showed that he had none; who when the time came for him to demonstrate his values, demonstrated that he had none; who when the time came for him to reveal his character, revealed that he had none.

The Tragedy of Penn State is Joe Paterno.

Well stated Steve. ALL VERY TRUE.

Since I, nor you, were there, I think a few more details might be necessary before lynching Paterno.

Personally, I think child molestors should be shot but, in this case, Paterno didn't molest anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Since I, nor you, were there, I think a few more details might be necessary before lynching Paterno.

Personally, I think child molestors should be shot but, in this case, Paterno didn't molest anyone.

What you say it very true, but it is alleged that Paterno was told of the crime and choose to cover it up by passing the information on within Penn State instead of going directly to the police.

Unless there was a lot of evidence that this was true, Penn State would have never fired Paterno.

And you're right, Paterno didn't molest anyone, but by covering it up he allowed more children to be molested.

So, if we are going to shoot child molesters(great idea BTW) shouldn't we also shoot those who allow the crimes to happen?

JBrown:

To quote you: "but it is alleged" ... " ... "but by covering it up" ...
I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself.

Personally, I find any child abuse appalling. Once, I was court-appointed to represent a two-time convicted child molester and found that to be about the most disgusting representation I've ever had.

This is a different story. You can't blame Paterno criminally by any stretch. And, frankly, I personally don't think he can be blamed civilly. Penn State is running from potential civil liability and I find that reprehensible given their long history.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Since I, nor you, were there, I think a few more details might be necessary before lynching Paterno.

Personally, I think child molestors should be shot but, in this case, Paterno didn't molest anyone.

Quite pathetic.

if Paterno knew of it or had even a suspitition, and did nothing, IMO, he is as guilty as the perp. This is really a reflection of ALL of the school's attitude of "win at any cost".

Let the jury decide who is guilty and of what they are guilty of. That is why jury duty is so important to a modern society. They decide...if your not on the jury you don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodrow S:
Let the jury decide who is guilty and of what they are guilty of. That is why jury duty is so important to a modern society. They decide...if your not on the jury you don't.

Innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law....

But if you are not part of the law(judge, jury) feel free to make up your own mind.

By your silly argument, I guess we all have to believe that OJ is innocent?!


BTW, I notice that you are in PA...

As far as I am concerned, Penn State took the easy way out and summarily fired anyone even remotely associated with the event before any of the facts were in. There is no evidence whatsoever that Paterno did anything out of line; he reported a rumor up the chain, which was his required action. Anything else would have been beyond, as it was rumor and nothing he could substantiate. I don't bleed Penn State colors, but I am sorry; they missed this one. Joe is no more guilty than the man in the moon: he followed the designated protocol, because he had no proof!

Almost all formal organizations have protocols controlling who employees may speak to (including the police and/or the press) as a member (representative) of the organization and about what.

In other words most have a formal structure for reporting anything affecting the organization...a "chain of information", so to speak. That is in place to assure that accurate information is reported and that falsities are not reported, to anyone and everyone.

I do not know what the protocols were at Penn State. It may be that Joe Paterno followed them to the letter.

IF he did, what would have happened had he gone off on his own and reported the incident to the police, had the press get hold of it from the police blotter, and then maybe two years later had it determined that the charges were FALSE?

Let's see...it is likely Joe would have been fired for violating university protocols (ironic, that), and likely that lots of people would still be crying "cover-up", and that Joe AND Penn State would be sued by the alleged perpetrator of the alleged crime for defamation of character and God knows what else.

I say that we do NOT have the facts in our hands and that judging Joe Paterno at this point is unduly hasty at best.

He did report the alleged incident, and it is highly unlikely he should have expected the university to keep him up on the details of any investigation or other action it would have undertaken as a result of the report.

Joe's role was football coach, nothing more. It was his obligation to report the alleged event, and then let the university's administration take the proper actions, including notifying the police if it was determined to be appropriate. It is said he did report it. Perhaps we should wait for the trial to see if he did fully what he was obligated to do.

Then all the folks who weren't there can shoot off their mouths about who should have done what to whom, yet again, as they always do.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Almost all formal organizations have protocols controlling who employees may speak to (including the police and/or the press) as a member (representative) of the organization and about what.

In other words most have a formal structure for reporting anything affecting the organization...a "chain of information", so to speak. That is in place to assure that accurate information is reported and that falsities are not reported, to anyone and everyone.

I do not know what the protocols were at Penn State. It may be that Joe Paterno followed them to the letter.

IF he did, what would have happened had he gone off on his own and reported the incident to the police, had the press get hold of it from the police blotter, and then maybe two years later had it determined that the charges were FALSE?

Let's see...it is likely Joe would have been fired for violating university protocols (ironic, that), and likely that lots of people would still be crying "cover-up", and that Joe AND Penn State would be sued by the alleged perpetrator of the alleged crime for defamation of character and God knows what else.

I say that we do NOT have the facts in our hands and that judging Joe Paterno at this point is unduly hasty at best.

He did report the alleged incident, and it is highly unlikely he should have expected the university to keep him up on the details of any investigation or other action it would have undertaken as a result of the report.

Joe's role was football coach, nothing more. It was his obligation to report the alleged event, and then let the university's administration take the proper actions, including notifying the police if it was determined to be appropriate. It is said he did report it. Perhaps we should wait for the trial to see if he did fully what he was obligated to do.

Then all the folks who weren't there can shoot off their mouths about who should have done what to whom, yet again, as they always do.

AC

I rarely disagree with you, but I guess this is an exception.

I am a public school teacher and in that capacity I am a "mandated reporter". Basically I am required to report all cases of suspected abuse of minors to the proper authorities(law enforcement, child protective services, etc.). These measures are in place to keep cover-ups like the one at Penn State from happening. They are in place to protect children.

Here in Ca and in many other states, including Illinois, anyone who works in close contact with minors(teachers, coaches, etc.) is classified as a mandated reporter. See Mandated reporter



Here is a CST article on the mandated reporter laws in Illinois and how they would have affected the Penn State scandal.

The idea that anyone would be in trouble for reporting a suspected crime is laughable. Unless he provided false information, there is no way that Paterno would have be in legal trouble even if the charges had been proven false.

Well, that is your opinion and you are entitled to hold it, but I still do not think it is either equity or justice to condemn a man until one knows all the facts of the case.

You must remember, Paterno did not have personal first hand knowledge of ANY crime that we know of at this point. It may well be that the person who reported it to Joe was legally obliged to report it to the police.

As to Joe suffering consequences if it turned out to be untrue being laughable, I would contend that much of our legal system is a very bad joke these days....a joke to everyone except those harmed by it daily in legal actions powered by malice or self righteousness and either way often without merit.

And, I would hardly hold Caliornia law up as an example of what the rest of the country should be doing, when it comes to much of anything, whether guns, giving benefits to illegals, official conflicts of interest, you name it.

I still believe that we owe even the worst of our felons the right to have all the discoverable facts out and seen BEFORE we condemn them. THEN, and ONLY THEN should we assume anything by way of guilt. And at this point, Joe Paterno is certainly no convicted felon and you and I know essentially NOTHING for sure of the facts of the case. We know only what reporters have told us in their rampant pursuit of the money to be made in TV and the printed press through generated sensationalism.

To do otherwise is to revert ourselves to the legal perversions and injustices which caused witches to be burned in Massachusetts in Cotton Mather's days. So, when the trial is over and done, I will obtain a copy of the transcript if it is not sealed, and read for myself what facts were presented therein. THEN I can make up MY mind as to who deserved condemnation and who did not.

P.S.: What the heck does Illinois law have to do with crimes reportedly committed in Pennsylvania?

P.P.S.: I may know more than you think I do about "mandated reporting". My wife is a child psychologist who worked over 40 years in that field until her retirement at 65 years of age in 2011. Much of her work was at the request of Child Protective Services in Oregon, and she spent a lot of time in court giving clinical observations, treatment histories, and as an expert witness for both prosecutors and defenders of those charged as malefactors.

AC, first I am sorry for taking your quotes out of context(and order), but I think that it will make my position more clear.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
And, I would hardly hold Caliornia law up as an example of what the rest of the country should be doing, when it comes to much of anything, whether guns, giving benefits to illegals, official conflicts of interest, you name it.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
P.S.: What the heck does Illinois law have to do with crimes reportedly committed in Pennsylvania?

This is a bit of a red herring(California is so "screwed-up" how can you hold your laws the ideal that we should follow...), and that is why I mentioned that many other states have the same laws in effect. That is why I posted the link to the CST article. It was the only one that I found that compared the Pennsylvania law to laws of states other that CA.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
You must remember, Paterno did not have personal first hand knowledge of ANY crime that we know of at this point. It may well be that the person who reported it to Joe was legally obliged to report it to the police.

Correct, no first hand knowledge. But he had heard some serious allegations from an eyewitness and he had a duty as a coach/mentor/teacher/role model/Christian/adult to see to it that the indecent was reported to the proper authorities. You are correct that the person who reported it to Paterno was under the same obligation(maybe more so) to report the abuse, but that does nothing to absolve Paterno of his obligation.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I still believe that we owe even the worst of our felons the right to have all the discoverable facts out and seen BEFORE we condemn them. THEN, and ONLY THEN should we assume anything by way of guilt. And at this point, Joe Paterno is certainly no convicted felon and you and I know essentially NOTHING for sure of the facts of the case . We know only what reporters have told us in their rampant pursuit of the money to be made in TV and the printed press through generated sensationalism.

No one is throwing Paterno in jail. AFAIK he is not accused of any crime. He was fired because he has admitted to taking the report of abuse from the assistant and reporting it to another employee, then letting it die.

Paterno has admitted this to a grand jury .

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
P.P.S.: I may know more than you think I do about "mandated reporting". My wife is a child psychologist who worked over 40 years in that field until her retirement at 65 years of age in 2011. Much of her work was at the request of Child Protective Services in Oregon, and she spent a lot of time in court giving clinical observations, treatment histories, and as an expert witness for both prosecutors and defenders of those charged as malefactors.

You do know more than I would have thought. I would be interested to hear what your wife believes was Paterno's obligation.

And do keep in mind that Paterno was the most powerful person at Penn State. Sure, he had people above him in the chain of command, but he was "Penn State".


As they say, hind sight is always 20/20, but it is clear that Paterno could have saved later victims from being abused if he had gone to the police. That's the bottom line.

SteveGI, oh so true. Sadly it is true.

Clearly you guys believe yourselves part of the righteous posse, and you are glad to see Joe hanged without knowing any more than the press tells you. Seems to me I recall a bunch of pre-school teaching staff who got some serious time in prison as a result of just such a kangaroo court. It eventually turned out that no crime was even committed (sp?) and they were set free...but not until their reputations were unjustly tarnished forever.

I hope you get fairer shakes and more due process if and when you are ever accused of anything serious. Trial by "Press" is a serious flaw in our legal ways.

As to my wife's beliefs, she thinks that eventually we will know enough to form responsible personal opinions.

You in turn should understand, I am not defending Joe, I am criticizing the haste with which everyone has jumped on his hearse for a joy ride, and the vitriol which they apparently feel entitled to deliver to his grave. Your conclusions may be right, they may be wrong, but in my opinion they are unseemly in their haste.

So, with that I leave you guys to your joysome thread.

(As to the presumption that Paterno did not report to anyone as he was "the head of Penn State", that is simply hyperbole, not fact. And we do not know why Paterno was fired. We know why the University "says" he was fired. Is it possible they have a face or butt saving motive instead? After all, please recall they were talking about firing him just a few years ago, and almost did. Could this be an opportunity to follow up on that? Or could that previous threat of dismissal even have had something to do with his pushing to get this incident reported to authorities at the expense of Penn State's reputation? We don't know, do we?) There seems a lot more here which we don't know than what we do know for sure.

AC, you seem to be reaching a lot further than those you are scolding. Joe's own testimony is enough for me to make my conclusions.

Ding Dong the Witch is DEAD!

He has a special place in Hell! He is the Coach of Satans "Pedo Pirates"!

Glad he is taking his well deserved Dirt Nap!