Big Trouble at Penn State!

[pdt1081]

Also, he was investigated at one point, 1998? or so and everything was dropped. Are we 100% sure he was not investigated this time and found not to be at fault? There is certainly context here. You work in this area more then I do for sure so you will know more of the nuances.

If he was investigated this time, there would be record of it. The severity of these accusations means a formal investigation with a paper trail.

[Globetrotter]

Also, he was investigated at one point, 1998? or so and everything was dropped. Are we 100% sure he was not investigated this time and found not to be at fault? There is certainly context here. You work in this area more then I do for sure so you will know more of the nuances.

If he was investigated this time, there would be record of it. The severity of these accusations means a formal investigation with a paper trail.

You are probably right. It just seems like in this case the extremeness of the alegations have overshadowed reality in some cases.

[Redwingtom]

And it is now being stated the McQ DID in fact intervene in the shower incident and stop Sandusky from doing whatever it is he was doing.

And this is EXACTLY why you don't jump to conclusions when you have no idea as to the facts.

The FACTS are that Penn State tried to hide this for years. That's all I need to know.

What if it turns out it did not happen?

Asked and answered, counselor.

He said that the facts were Penn State tried to hide this, thats besides the mandated reporter part. When the reality is that is not quite a fact yet. He has been assumed to be guilty and what comes with that is a cover up. Now certainly he looks very guilty, but if they believed he was not guilty then there was nothing to hide.

Also the mandated reporter rule is straight forward for us and its not for them. its also more straight forward in Ohio it seems. I don't think they will be found to be mandated reporters. Also, he was investigated at one point, 1998? or so and everything was dropped. Are we 100% sure he was not investigated this time and found not to be at fault? There is certainly context here. You work in this area more then I do for sure so you will know more of the nuances.

I don't care if nothing happened. Penn State was under the MORAL and ETHICAL obligation to bring this matter to the police and see that it was followed through. Sandusky should have been put on leave pending the investigation immediately. He was working out at Penn State a week before this was made public.

[Globetrotter]

And it is now being stated the McQ DID in fact intervene in the shower incident and stop Sandusky from doing whatever it is he was doing.

And this is EXACTLY why you don't jump to conclusions when you have no idea as to the facts.

The FACTS are that Penn State tried to hide this for years. That's all I need to know.

What if it turns out it did not happen?

Asked and answered, counselor.

He said that the facts were Penn State tried to hide this, thats besides the mandated reporter part. When the reality is that is not quite a fact yet. He has been assumed to be guilty and what comes with that is a cover up. Now certainly he looks very guilty, but if they believed he was not guilty then there was nothing to hide.

Also the mandated reporter rule is straight forward for us and its not for them. its also more straight forward in Ohio it seems. I don't think they will be found to be mandated reporters. Also, he was investigated at one point, 1998? or so and everything was dropped. Are we 100% sure he was not investigated this time and found not to be at fault? There is certainly context here. You work in this area more then I do for sure so you will know more of the nuances.

I don't care if nothing happened. Penn State was under the MORAL and ETHICAL obligation to bring this matter to the police and see that it was followed through. Sandusky should have been put on leave pending the investigation immediately. He was working out at Penn State a week before this was made public.

I am not going to try to defend penn state or an alleged child predator. But there is certainly more gray area than it seemed. Clearly if you believe something may have occurred you should do something to make sure it does not occur again.

Also the quotes within the quotes on the page above seem really cool.

[h2oville rocket]

And it is now being stated the McQ DID in fact intervene in the shower incident and stop Sandusky from doing whatever it is he was doing.

And this is EXACTLY why you don't jump to conclusions when you have no idea as to the facts.

The FACTS are that Penn State tried to hide this for years. That's all I need to know.

What if it turns out it did not happen?

Asked and answered, counselor.

He said that the facts were Penn State tried to hide this, thats besides the mandated reporter part. When the reality is that is not quite a fact yet. He has been assumed to be guilty and what comes with that is a cover up. Now certainly he looks very guilty, but if they believed he was not guilty then there was nothing to hide.

Also the mandated reporter rule is straight forward for us and its not for them. its also more straight forward in Ohio it seems. I don't think they will be found to be mandated reporters. Also, he was investigated at one point, 1998? or so and everything was dropped. Are we 100% sure he was not investigated this time and found not to be at fault? There is certainly context here. You work in this area more then I do for sure so you will know more of the nuances.

Sorry,I thought you were repeating your question about Sandusky's innocence. I suspect we are a long way from knowing if there was any sort of intentional coverup. And I am totally with you on the quotes thing.

[Globetrotter]

And it is now being stated the McQ DID in fact intervene in the shower incident and stop Sandusky from doing whatever it is he was doing.

And this is EXACTLY why you don't jump to conclusions when you have no idea as to the facts.

The FACTS are that Penn State tried to hide this for years. That's all I need to know.

What if it turns out it did not happen?

Asked and answered, counselor.

He said that the facts were Penn State tried to hide this, thats besides the mandated reporter part. When the reality is that is not quite a fact yet. He has been assumed to be guilty and what comes with that is a cover up. Now certainly he looks very guilty, but if they believed he was not guilty then there was nothing to hide.

Also the mandated reporter rule is straight forward for us and its not for them. its also more straight forward in Ohio it seems. I don't think they will be found to be mandated reporters. Also, he was investigated at one point, 1998? or so and everything was dropped. Are we 100% sure he was not investigated this time and found not to be at fault? There is certainly context here. You work in this area more then I do for sure so you will know more of the nuances.

Sorry,I thought you were repeating your question about Sandusky's innocence. I suspect we are a long way from knowing if there was any sort of intentional coverup. And I am totally with you on the quotes thing.

I also had no idea that apparently if we don't report as mandated reporters that its a 3rd degree felony (atleast in Penn)? Not that I would never report on the contrary I may over report if that is a possibility, but that's scary as hell. I thought it was more of an ethical take away your license kind of issue.

[h2oville rocket]

And it is now being stated the McQ DID in fact intervene in the shower incident and stop Sandusky from doing whatever it is he was doing.

And this is EXACTLY why you don't jump to conclusions when you have no idea as to the facts.

The FACTS are that Penn State tried to hide this for years. That's all I need to know.

What if it turns out it did not happen?

Asked and answered, counselor.

He said that the facts were Penn State tried to hide this, thats besides the mandated reporter part. When the reality is that is not quite a fact yet. He has been assumed to be guilty and what comes with that is a cover up. Now certainly he looks very guilty, but if they believed he was not guilty then there was nothing to hide.

Also the mandated reporter rule is straight forward for us and its not for them. its also more straight forward in Ohio it seems. I don't think they will be found to be mandated reporters. Also, he was investigated at one point, 1998? or so and everything was dropped. Are we 100% sure he was not investigated this time and found not to be at fault? There is certainly context here. You work in this area more then I do for sure so you will know more of the nuances.

Sorry,I thought you were repeating your question about Sandusky's innocence. I suspect we are a long way from knowing if there was any sort of intentional coverup. And I am totally with you on the quotes thing.

I also had no idea that apparently if we don't report as mandated reporters that its a 3rd degree felony (atleast in Penn)? Not that I would never report on the contrary I may over report if that is a possibility, but that's scary as hell. I thought it was more of an ethical take away your license kind of issue.

I read 3rd degree misdemeanor.

[Globetrotter]

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=6270

This explains it. The Perjury is a 3rd degree felony.

[Lord_Byron]

Just when Penn State thought it couldn't get any worse, This Happens.

[Falcon Fanatic]

Joe Paterno has treatable lung cancer:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/us/pennsy ... index.html