Big Trouble at Penn State!

[footballguy51]

After reading that, I don't think Paterno or McQ did anything wrong. They followed the law and told the person in charge. For all they knew, Sandusky was cleared of any wrong-doing, or the case was still pending, or he was currently living out whatever sanction(s) he was handed. To inquire any further could have gotten them into trouble. So, why did Paterno get fired? Oh yes, moral obligations.

Haven't you ever reported a potential theft at work, and then a week later the employee is still working there and you ask yourself if anything came of your report? I know I've reported misdeeds at places I've worked, and often wondered why the person seemed unpunished. When I questioned it, I found out the person was punished or being watched, and I was told to not be so nosey because it was "being handled". Other times, it just wasn't what I thought it was, so I reported something that didn't happen.

I know many people have disagreed with what I've posted on here, but I'm just trying to offer another perspective, especially one that would be from the coachs' point of view.

[Lord_Byron]

In the affidavit, it clearly indicated what McQueary said he saw.

Based on that, if Sandusky was not in jail, there is no way he could have thought the case was resolved.

Any criminal "sanctions" Sandusky may have been living out would have been a matter of public record. There are no secret criminal trials in the United States.

Also, the more people say that this case is "not about football", the more I think it really is. I think that in football offices across the country, because of their relationship with the NCAA, that the first reaction to any sort of trouble is to hunker down and figure out how to do the least damage to the program. We've seen this repeatedly with NCAA violations (see: Tressel, Jim) or various schools that look the other way when superior athletes have legal troubles.

That's why it's about football, and every college in the country should now be reassessing its policies and procedures to be sure that this kind of thing can't happen again.

As far as PSU, everyone related to the program needs to go after the season and a whole new regime needs to rebuild from the ground up.

[gmartin]

There obviously is something else going on and people are being quiet. If Paterno is so innocent then explain this one........


The Big Ten has taken Joe Paterno's name off the Big Ten's football championship trophy. League commissioner Jim Delany said Monday that it is "inappropriate" to keep Paterno's name on the trophy that will be awarded Dec. 3 after the first Big Ten title game. Penn State fired Paterno, its longtime head coach, last week and investigations are under way into allegations of child sex-abuse involving a former assistant for the Nittany Lions. The trophy had been named the Stagg-Paterno Championship Trophy. Amos Alonzo Stagg won 319 games in 57 years, most at the University of Chicago. Paterno's 409 wins are the most by a major college coach. The trophy will now be called the Stagg Championship Trophy. Copyright 2011 The Associated Press

[PGY Tiercel]

If one cannot see the difference between the Legal Requirements to Pass the information along to the Department Superior, and a Moral/ethical obligation to make sure that abuse and criminal actions (witnessed first hand) are in fact reported to police, then this debate isn't going to go anywhere.

FWIW, Bowden (A friend of Paterno's) has also publicly stated that Paterno was negligent in his MORAL obligations to the abused children, that the firing was appropriate, and that by Paterno's own admission, these crimes were more or less covered up.

[Warthog]

If one cannot see the difference between the Legal Requirements to Pass the information along to the Department Superior, and a Moral/ethical obligation to make sure that abuse and criminal actions (witnessed first hand) are in fact reported to police, then this debate isn't going to go anywhere.

I definitely understand the difference.

And Sandusky was interviewed today and proclaimed his innocence.

[Globetrotter]

What if he is innocent?

[h2oville rocket]

What if he is innocent?

Legally that changes nothing for the administrators. Morally, that changes nothing for Paterno and the assistant. Mandatory reporters are required to report if they have reason to believe a child is abused or neglected. The second hand report of the rape of a ten year old boy to a mandated reporter BY a mandated reporter (Paterno telling the AD) would certainly qualify as having reason to believe. Morally, IMO, if you believe you see the rape of a ten year old boy in the shower you pursue it until your last avenue has failed. That would include a report to the police.

About 8-10% of abuse/neglect reports locally are severe enough to require ongoing services to protect a child. Yet teachers, therapists and others report many things that they receive second hand or believe may meet the standard of abuse/neglect but don't. If Sandusky is innocent (he's already said he showered nd "horsed around with the boys and shouldn't have) then it speaks well for him. Not the others.

[Flipper]

Sandusky's atty is said to have knocked up a 16 year-old girl when he was in his 30's...if I were accused of being a pedophile, I don't think I'd hire a lawyer with that on his resume...

[Warthog]

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

[Flipper]

If that is the case...if he stopped the rape and removed the kid...ok, apologies to McQ. If Sandusky was starteled enough to stop...but the kid was just left here with him...I still think he was wrong

[transfer2BGSU]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.