Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

[Spiderman]

Interview with Paterno: Link

Paterno didn't know which way to go with the news that his assistant coach was raping a child in the school shower? Seriously?I also don't believe that this was the first time since Sandusky founded the charity that there weren't other rumblings that he was aware of.

 

[Moe.]

Interview with Paterno: Link

Paterno didn't know which way to go with the news that his assistant coach was raping a child in the school shower? Seriously?I also don't believe that this was the first time since Sandusky founded the charity that there weren't other rumblings that he was aware of.

I haven't read/seen the interview but Clay Travis tweeted earlier that Paterno said that he didn't know a man could rape another man. Apart from the whole Sandusky affair that's just a really weird thing to say.

 

[Sea Duck]

Interview with Paterno: Link

Paterno didn't know which way to go with the news that his assistant coach was raping a child in the school shower? Seriously?I also don't believe that this was the first time since Sandusky founded the charity that there weren't other rumblings that he was aware of.

I haven't read/seen the interview but Clay Travis tweeted earlier that Paterno said that he didn't know a man could rape another man. Apart from the whole Sandusky affair that's just a really weird thing to say.

Especially since man-on-man rape has nothing to do with this case.

 

[Moe.]

Interview with Paterno: Link

Paterno didn't know which way to go with the news that his assistant coach was raping a child in the school shower? Seriously?I also don't believe that this was the first time since Sandusky founded the charity that there weren't other rumblings that he was aware of.

I haven't read/seen the interview but Clay Travis tweeted earlier that Paterno said that he didn't know a man could rape another man. Apart from the whole Sandusky affair that's just a really weird thing to say.

Especially since man-on-man rape has nothing to do with this case.

Yeah. Like I said I haven't read it so I don't know the context in which that was offered. If the Sandusky thing had never happened that would still be a really weird thing to believe. Does he not know what rape is?

 

[Daywalker]

Interview with Paterno: Link

Paterno didn't know which way to go with the news that his assistant coach was raping a child in the school shower? Seriously?I also don't believe that this was the first time since Sandusky founded the charity that there weren't other rumblings that he was aware of.

I haven't read/seen the interview but Clay Travis tweeted earlier that Paterno said that he didn't know a man could rape another man. Apart from the whole Sandusky affair that's just a really weird thing to say.

Especially since man-on-man rape has nothing to do with this case.

Yeah. Like I said I haven't read it so I don't know the context in which that was offered. If the Sandusky thing had never happened that would still be a really weird thing to believe. Does he not know what rape is?

A devout Catholic who doesn't understand the severity of child molestation/rape? Come on.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Somebody needs to tell Paterno to either shut up or go all in with this shtick.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Penn State has one of the best Pedophilia programs of any large state school

 

[AmosMoses]

That guy needs to see some charges.

 

[gethugefast1]

Interview with Paterno: Link

Paterno didn't know which way to go with the news that his assistant coach was raping a child in the school shower? Seriously?I also don't believe that this was the first time since Sandusky founded the charity that there weren't other rumblings that he was aware of.

I haven't read/seen the interview but Clay Travis tweeted earlier that Paterno said that he didn't know a man could rape another man. Apart from the whole Sandusky affair that's just a really weird thing to say.

I thought everyone has seen the movie Deliverance? :X

 

[Hedgehog]

I am not a JoePa hater...but I am not buying this at all.

#1 - I dont believe that the McQueery coming to him was the 1st time he heard of this behavior with Sandusky. Why did Sandusky abrubtly step down when there was the 1st go round years ago with a full investigation? No way Paterno doesnt have access to if not a full copy of the report or at least what is going on.

#2 - even assuming he had no info as to the earlier report we are supposed to believe that a guy of his power kicked it upstairs and plays dumb while allowing Sandusky to run around campus for years after those allegations?

Guess he is going all in on the clueless old man defense...I just dont see the public buying it.

 

[timschochet]

The other thread was just locked. I disagree with that decision. I do believe that some people were behaving classlessly, but there was also at the same time an important discussion taking place. I really disagreed with what Mister Martie and a few others were saying, but I would prefer to answer them and discuss matters with them rather than cut them off. After all, why are we all here?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

The other thread was just locked. I disagree with that decision. I do believe that some people were behaving classlessly, but there was also at the same time an important discussion taking place. I really disagreed with what Mister Martie and a few others were saying, but I would prefer to answer them and discuss matters with them rather than cut them off. After all, why are we all here?

I'm sure you'll get this one locked too

 

[timschochet]

The other thread was just locked. I disagree with that decision. I do believe that some people were behaving classlessly, but there was also at the same time an important discussion taking place. I really disagreed with what Mister Martie and a few others were saying, but I would prefer to answer them and discuss matters with them rather than cut them off. After all, why are we all here?

I'm sure you'll get this one locked too

I will? I haven't written anything classless that I know of.

 

[bentley]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

 

[Mister Martie]

The other thread was just locked. I disagree with that decision. I do believe that some people were behaving classlessly, but there was also at the same time an important discussion taking place. I really disagreed with what Mister Martie and a few others were saying, but I would prefer to answer them and discuss matters with them rather than cut them off. After all, why are we all here?

What did you really disagree with me about? I couldnt get a handle on your point. You shamed me for calling Jon "morally bankrupt" but I called him morally bankrupt because he said Joe Pa acted "reasonably." You later agreed that you expected that people with knowledge of child rape should be expected to call the police. You stated that you believed this to be true regardless of whether it was your kid or not. So it sounds like you agree with me that he didn't act reasonably.I never said Joe was responsible for the rape of those kids. I said he could have stopped it and he didn't. I believe that is reprehensible.

 

[Mister Martie]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Exactly.

 

[timschochet]

The other thread was just locked. I disagree with that decision. I do believe that some people were behaving classlessly, but there was also at the same time an important discussion taking place. I really disagreed with what Mister Martie and a few others were saying, but I would prefer to answer them and discuss matters with them rather than cut them off. After all, why are we all here?

What did you really disagree with me about? I couldnt get a handle on your point. You shamed me for calling Jon "morally bankrupt" but I called him morally bankrupt because he said Joe Pa acted "reasonably." You later agreed that you expected that people with knowledge of child rape should be expected to call the police. You stated that you believed this to be true regardless of whether it was your kid or not. So it sounds like you agree with me that he didn't act reasonably.I never said Joe was responsible for the rape of those kids. I said he could have stopped it and he didn't. I believe that is reprehensible.

I agree with you exactly in terms of what Paterno should have done. But I disagree with your interpretation of him. You seem to regard him as an evil man, while I do not. I also thought that your comments about Jon being morally bankrupt and implying that anyone who disagreed with you didn't care about children were over the top and classless comments. I also think it's inappropriate to be spitting on thisguys grave. He's not a mass murderer or rapist. But these issues aside, I think you made some good arguments.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

 

[bentley]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

1) I don't care.2) I'm not in his head, so I can't answer that. And since you aren't either, I find it hard to believe that those are the only two possible explanations.

 

[Mister Martie]

The other thread was just locked. I disagree with that decision. I do believe that some people were behaving classlessly, but there was also at the same time an important discussion taking place. I really disagreed with what Mister Martie and a few others were saying, but I would prefer to answer them and discuss matters with them rather than cut them off. After all, why are we all here?

What did you really disagree with me about? I couldnt get a handle on your point. You shamed me for calling Jon "morally bankrupt" but I called him morally bankrupt because he said Joe Pa acted "reasonably." You later agreed that you expected that people with knowledge of child rape should be expected to call the police. You stated that you believed this to be true regardless of whether it was your kid or not. So it sounds like you agree with me that he didn't act reasonably.I never said Joe was responsible for the rape of those kids. I said he could have stopped it and he didn't. I believe that is reprehensible.

I agree with you exactly in terms of what Paterno should have done. But I disagree with your interpretation of him. You seem to regard him as an evil man, while I do not. I also thought that your comments about Jon being morally bankrupt and implying that anyone who disagreed with you didn't care about children were over the top and classless comments. I also think it's inappropriate to be spitting on thisguys grave. He's not a mass murderer or rapist. But these issues aside, I think you made some good arguments.

I don't regard him as evil but I do believe that his inaction resulted in great evil being done. I do find it somewhat ironic that people defend Joe Pa considering he didn't do anything to defend the defenseless. In fact, I think it's rather classless to defend him without consideration of the victims. I don't feel bad for Joe Pa. I feel bad for the children. Framing him as a sympathetic figure, is more than a little absurd to me. You called Paterno a tragic figure. For 85 years the guy lived a life that was the envy of probably 99% of men in America. For two months he was subject to a shame of his own creation. If you want to talk about tragic, talk about the kid in the shower who was raped (and to my knowledge, still hasn't come forward). Think of his shame before you think of Paterno's.

Furthermore, I don't understand how anyone who has a functioning moral compass could describe Paterno's actions as "reasonable."

 

[shake zula]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

LMAO, is that the best you've got???!?

 

[shake zula]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

LMAO, is that the best you've got???!?

I have absolutely no idea what you are asking in that sentence. It seems to be a rhetorical question but I can't be sure.

 

[There it is]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

 

[shake zula]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

Well played. If you can't read it, you don't have to answer it. I just want intelligent answers to my question.

 

[shake zula]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

Well played. If you can't read it, you don't have to answer it. I just want intelligent answers to my question.

It's naive to believe or think that Paterno, a man with at the time 60 years on this planet, didn't understand rape.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

Well played. If you can't read it, you don't have to answer it. I just want intelligent answers to my question.

It's naive to believe or think that Paterno, a man with at the time 60 years on this planet, didn't understand rape.

LOL, again, intelligent responses requested. He was 75 at the time and it isn't how long you've been alive, it's what you learn about societal norms in your formative years. Lots of older people who weren't really racist were confused why their children made a big deal about blacks in the back of the bus in the early 60s.

 

[shake zula]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

Well played. If you can't read it, you don't have to answer it. I just want intelligent answers to my question.

It's naive to believe or think that Paterno, a man with at the time 60 years on this planet, didn't understand rape.

LOL, again, intelligent responses requested. He was 75 at the time and it isn't how long you've been alive, it's what you learn about societal norms in your formative years. Lots of older people who weren't really racist were confused why their children made a big deal about blacks in the back of the bus in the early 60s.

Really? You really think he didn't understand rape or molestation? That is more insulting to the man than to think he was just willfully complicit in the entire affair. There is no societal norm that would allow him to file this away in "not that big of a deal". In fact his conduct subsequent to the attacks evidences that he understood it was a serious issue. Now if you want to raise the defense that maybe he thought he'd done all that was required and didn't want to be further involved, that might have legs.

 

[TexanFan02]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

Well played. If you can't read it, you don't have to answer it. I just want intelligent answers to my question.

It's naive to believe or think that Paterno, a man with at the time 60 years on this planet, didn't understand rape.

LOL, again, intelligent responses requested. He was 75 at the time and it isn't how long you've been alive, it's what you learn about societal norms in your formative years. Lots of older people who weren't really racist were confused why their children made a big deal about blacks in the back of the bus in the early 60s.

Really? You really think he didn't understand rape or molestation? That is more insulting to the man than to think he was just willfully complicit in the entire affair. There is no societal norm that would allow him to file this away in "not that big of a deal". In fact his conduct subsequent to the attacks evidences that he understood it was a serious issue. Now if you want to raise the defense that maybe he thought he'd done all that was required and didn't want to be further involved, that might have legs.

He reported an unsubstantiated hearsay allegation to the proper authorities. Don't know what more you guys want, other than a 75 year old Joe Pa hunting down Sandusky and torturing and murdering him. Which still wouldn't be enough for the haters. And I'm definitely not a Penn State fan.

 

[shake zula]

I've generally stayed out of this over here. However, I'll say that regardless of whether he was legally complicit, he was morally complicit and others suffered partially through his inaction.

Two questions:1) Are there PSU fans here who disagree with this statement?

2) Do you think his inaction was because he liked that 10 year old boys were being anally raped by his former DC or that he was confused about how his former DC could do something like that, something that he didn't really even understand that well and didn't know it had happened before and would, allegedly, keep happening?

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

Well played. If you can't read it, you don't have to answer it. I just want intelligent answers to my question.

It's naive to believe or think that Paterno, a man with at the time 60 years on this planet, didn't understand rape.

LOL, again, intelligent responses requested. He was 75 at the time and it isn't how long you've been alive, it's what you learn about societal norms in your formative years. Lots of older people who weren't really racist were confused why their children made a big deal about blacks in the back of the bus in the early 60s.

Really? You really think he didn't understand rape or molestation? That is more insulting to the man than to think he was just willfully complicit in the entire affair. There is no societal norm that would allow him to file this away in "not that big of a deal". In fact his conduct subsequent to the attacks evidences that he understood it was a serious issue. Now if you want to raise the defense that maybe he thought he'd done all that was required and didn't want to be further involved, that might have legs.

He reported an unsubstantiated hearsay allegation to the proper authorities. Don't know what more you guys want, other than a 75 year old Joe Pa hunting down Sandusky and torturing and murdering him. Which still wouldn't be enough for the haters. And I'm definitely not a Penn State fan.

He did the bare minimum and that is fine as it was his choice to make. But there is certainly something between "torture and murder" and passing word along that one of your staff members is accused of committing a heinous crime. He could have done more and in doing more it would have never turned into the disaster it is today. His reputation would be clean. There were maybe 2-3 people who could have done something about what was happening at that time. JoPa was one of them. He could have insisted. He choose not to. He made the wrong decision. I don't assign malice to his decision but I do assign self interest and in making that self interested decision he gambled his long term reputation. Seemingly he lost.

 

[PeterSam]

He reported an unsubstantiated hearsay allegation to the proper authorities.

And he even had the decency to wait until after the weekend was over to report it. You can't argue with JoPa's sense of style!

 

[TexanFan02]

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

Well played. If you can't read it, you don't have to answer it. I just want intelligent answers to my question.

It's naive to believe or think that Paterno, a man with at the time 60 years on this planet, didn't understand rape.

LOL, again, intelligent responses requested. He was 75 at the time and it isn't how long you've been alive, it's what you learn about societal norms in your formative years. Lots of older people who weren't really racist were confused why their children made a big deal about blacks in the back of the bus in the early 60s.

Really? You really think he didn't understand rape or molestation? That is more insulting to the man than to think he was just willfully complicit in the entire affair. There is no societal norm that would allow him to file this away in "not that big of a deal". In fact his conduct subsequent to the attacks evidences that he understood it was a serious issue. Now if you want to raise the defense that maybe he thought he'd done all that was required and didn't want to be further involved, that might have legs.

He reported an unsubstantiated hearsay allegation to the proper authorities. Don't know what more you guys want, other than a 75 year old Joe Pa hunting down Sandusky and torturing and murdering him. Which still wouldn't be enough for the haters. And I'm definitely not a Penn State fan.

He did the bare minimum and that is fine as it was his choice to make. But there is certainly something between "torture and murder" and passing word along that one of your staff members is accused of committing a heinous crime. He could have done more and in doing more it would have never turned into the disaster it is today. His reputation would be clean. There were maybe 2-3 people who could have done something about what was happening at that time. JoPa was one of them. He could have insisted. He choose not to. He made the wrong decision. I don't assign malice to his decision but I do assign self interest and in making that self interested decision he gambled his long term reputation. Seemingly he lost.

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

 

[Sea Duck]

He reported an unsubstantiated hearsay allegation to the proper authorities.

No, he didn't.Pennsylvania law requires "mandatory reporters" to immediately notify the person in charge of the institution. Instead, Paterno waited a day and then notified his superior (not the person in charge of PSU).

And if Paterno wasn't a mandatory reporter (the law is somewhat vague about whether he fits the description), then the only authority he should have contacted was the police. Let them sort out what's hearsay and what's not.

 

[Sea Duck]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

 

[shake zula]

This sentence is a grammatical abomination.

It is?

It is because it should have been that but I'm too prideful to strike it and then use the right word, but I should've known, without having to edit the sentence that that was the right word and not this.

Well played. If you can't read it, you don't have to answer it. I just want intelligent answers to my question.

It's naive to believe or think that Paterno, a man with at the time 60 years on this planet, didn't understand rape.

LOL, again, intelligent responses requested. He was 75 at the time and it isn't how long you've been alive, it's what you learn about societal norms in your formative years. Lots of older people who weren't really racist were confused why their children made a big deal about blacks in the back of the bus in the early 60s.

Really? You really think he didn't understand rape or molestation? That is more insulting to the man than to think he was just willfully complicit in the entire affair. There is no societal norm that would allow him to file this away in "not that big of a deal". In fact his conduct subsequent to the attacks evidences that he understood it was a serious issue. Now if you want to raise the defense that maybe he thought he'd done all that was required and didn't want to be further involved, that might have legs.

He reported an unsubstantiated hearsay allegation to the proper authorities. Don't know what more you guys want, other than a 75 year old Joe Pa hunting down Sandusky and torturing and murdering him. Which still wouldn't be enough for the haters. And I'm definitely not a Penn State fan.

He did the bare minimum and that is fine as it was his choice to make. But there is certainly something between "torture and murder" and passing word along that one of your staff members is accused of committing a heinous crime. He could have done more and in doing more it would have never turned into the disaster it is today. His reputation would be clean. There were maybe 2-3 people who could have done something about what was happening at that time. JoPa was one of them. He could have insisted. He choose not to. He made the wrong decision. I don't assign malice to his decision but I do assign self interest and in making that self interested decision he gambled his long term reputation. Seemingly he lost.

Easy to say in retrospect.

But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

You can't make this argument when something is so egregious. He didn't need to be perfect to weather this storm. He just needed to be average. The average person who is informed that one of his employees is allegedly anally raping a child doesn't stop at passing word along.

 

[HughHoney]

Where can I talk about JoePa's health?

 

[joffer]

i never believed in the mental effect on someone's physical health until now

 

[HughHoney]

i never believed in the mental effect on someone's physical health until now

I agree. It's something I've thought about recently when I joked about JoePa passing before 2012 arrived. Well now it looks like a reality and makes me realize how powerful the mind really is. Also this place continues to be a joke. Shut down 2 topics on a huge sports story because people can't behave themselves? How about handing out suspensions unless people can follow the rules. Instead you guys lock the topic?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002? He was fired over the phone, has tarnished his previously outstanding legacy and as he lays dying, every iTough guy on here wants him dead. That's not enough?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002? He was fired over the phone, has tarnished his previously outstanding legacy and as he lays dying, every iTough guy on here wants him dead. That's not enough?

While I am never happy to see some someone pass away, I think and said repeatedly at the time that I thought Paterno should have been arrested (others, too).

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Where can I talk about JoePa's health?

Penn State forums?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002? He was fired over the phone, has tarnished his previously outstanding legacy and as he lays dying, every iTough guy on here wants him dead. That's not enough?

While I am never happy to see some someone pass away, I think and said repeatedly at the time that I thought Paterno should have been arrested (others, too).

I disagree, but that's certainly fair. I don't think that our legal standard for something like this should be that if you hear second hand that it has happened and if you don't immediately call 9-1-1, you go to jail. As horrible of a crime as it is, I think that's over the top. Now McQueary having by law to report to police within X amount of time when he saw with his own two eyes something that appeared to be child abuse, fine. I can get behind that law.

I also may get behind a law for someone who purposely covers up something like this. I'm not sure if Curley or Spanier did that. I have a gut feeling that we'll end up finding out that it was Schultz that really did that. But I feel pretty sure, based on his and others testimony as well as his public statements and long history, that Paterno did not purposely cover it up for Sandusky. He just did not strongly enough get involved and follow through when it was needed. That alone is enough to condemn him, but in my opinion, not completely ruin all the other good that he did or send him to jail or have people here hoping he's dead.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002? He was fired over the phone, has tarnished his previously outstanding legacy and as he lays dying, every iTough guy on here wants him dead. That's not enough?

While I am never happy to see some someone pass away, I think and said repeatedly at the time that I thought Paterno should have been arrested (others, too).

I disagree, but that's certainly fair. I don't think that our legal standard for something like this should be that if you hear second hand that it has happened and if you don't immediately call 9-1-1, you go to jail. As horrible of a crime as it is, I think that's over the top. Now McQueary having by law to report to police within X amount of time when he saw with his own two eyes something that appeared to be child abuse, fine. I can get behind that law.

I also may get behind someone who purposely covers up something like this. I'm not sure if Curley or Spanier did that. I have a gut feeling that we'll end up finding out that it was Schultz that really did that. But I feel pretty sure, based on his and others testimony as well as his public statements and long history, that Paterno did not purposely cover it up for Sandusky. He just did not strongly enough get involved and follow through when it was needed. That alone is enough to condemn him, but in my opinion, not completely ruin all the other good that he did or send him to jail or have people here hoping he's dead.

I absolutely disagree and think that Paterno both protected a child rapist and enabled future child rape.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002? He was fired over the phone, has tarnished his previously outstanding legacy and as he lays dying, every iTough guy on here wants him dead. That's not enough?

While I am never happy to see some someone pass away, I think and said repeatedly at the time that I thought Paterno should have been arrested (others, too).

I disagree, but that's certainly fair. I don't think that our legal standard for something like this should be that if you hear second hand that it has happened and if you don't immediately call 9-1-1, you go to jail. As horrible of a crime as it is, I think that's over the top. Now McQueary having by law to report to police within X amount of time when he saw with his own two eyes something that appeared to be child abuse, fine. I can get behind that law.

I also may get behind someone who purposely covers up something like this. I'm not sure if Curley or Spanier did that. I have a gut feeling that we'll end up finding out that it was Schultz that really did that. But I feel pretty sure, based on his and others testimony as well as his public statements and long history, that Paterno did not purposely cover it up for Sandusky. He just did not strongly enough get involved and follow through when it was needed. That alone is enough to condemn him, but in my opinion, not completely ruin all the other good that he did or send him to jail or have people here hoping he's dead.

I absolutely disagree and think that Paterno both protected a child rapist and enabled future child rape.

We'll just have to disagree then.

 

[AmosMoses]

Damn guys. I said some cruel #### about Paterno (and meant all of it) but we could at least lay off for a few days, right? If you don't respect Joe Paterno, you could at least respect the innocent people involved with emotional attachment like his family and people here. Their thoughts and feelings are legitimate too you know. Can't we just chill with the negative stuff for a few days?

For everyone that is torn up about Paterno's death, sending empathy waves to you.

 

[Sea Duck]

Easy to say in retrospect. But this is what I've learned from the internet: Everyone is perfect and would have done exactly the right thing at all times, and anybody who didn't do that in real life is condemned to Hell.

How about "anybody who didn't do that in real life should face consequences"? Isn't that a reasonable statement?Do you think that everyone who criticized Paterno (and demanded he be fired/charged/whatever) was "condemning" him?

Are you seriously saying you don't think he's faced any consequences from not doing enough back in 2002?

No.I was making a comment on TexanFan's bizarre excuse for Paterno's behavior. He seems to think that the average guy would have done the same thing Paterno did. And I said that if the average guy did what Paterno did, then he deserves exactly what Paterno got.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Damn guys. I said some cruel #### about Paterno (and meant all of it) but we could at least lay off for a few days, right? If you don't respect Joe Paterno, you could at least respect the innocent people involved with emotional attachment like his family and people here. Their thoughts and feelings are legitimate too you know. Can't we just chill with the negative stuff for a few days?For everyone that is torn up about Paterno's death, sending empathy waves to you.

Sorry but Paterno lived for 85 years. I'll save my empathy for the kids that would have never been raped had he acted over the last 2 decades.

 

[AmosMoses]

Damn guys. I said some cruel #### about Paterno (and meant all of it) but we could at least lay off for a few days, right? If you don't respect Joe Paterno, you could at least respect the innocent people involved with emotional attachment like his family and people here. Their thoughts and feelings are legitimate too you know. Can't we just chill with the negative stuff for a few days?For everyone that is torn up about Paterno's death, sending empathy waves to you.

Sorry but Paterno lived for 85 years. I'll save my empathy for the kids that would have never been raped had he acted over the last 2 decades.

It's not a binary function.

 

[Sea Duck]

I disagree, but that's certainly fair. I don't think that our legal standard for something like this should be that if you hear second hand that it has happened and if you don't immediately call 9-1-1, you go to jail. As horrible of a crime as it is, I think that's over the top. Now McQueary having by law to report to police within X amount of time when he saw with his own two eyes something that appeared to be child abuse, fine. I can get behind that law.

Depending on how you interpret the existing law, McQueary may not have been required to report to anyone. Pennsylvania law only requires staff members to report suspected abuse if a child comes before them in an official capacity. Since McQueary witnessed the abuse in an unofficial, after hours capacity (and since he wasn't even a staff member at the school -- he was an intern), he can make a legit case that the current law doesn't apply to him.