What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

Second Mile was an organization supposedly founded to serve Foster children (if memory serves). According to this article, Sandusky (the boy-rapist) has six adopted children. That fact makes me want to throw up as the implications (without any allegations to date of course) are horrific. Ugh.http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-state
Dont know the source, but heard on Mad Dog this morning that Sandusky is not allowed by his family to see his grandkids.
 
Second Mile was an organization supposedly founded to serve Foster children (if memory serves). According to this article, Sandusky (the boy-rapist) has six adopted children. That fact makes me want to throw up as the implications (without any allegations to date of course) are horrific. Ugh.http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-state
Dont know the source, but heard on Mad Dog this morning that Sandusky is not allowed by his family to see his grandkids.
Great, so the family knew this guy was a perv too?
 
I think this is very close to the truth. A broader cover-up best explains the decision not to report what McQueary witnessed in 2002. However, I don't think Sandusky had anything on Joe or the program. I think PSU helped sweep the 1998 incident under the rug. Remember, Sandusky was still a PSU coach at that time. It would have been very embarrassing to the program had the allegations come to light. Additionally, the allegations while bizarre and inappropriate,are not as serious as the current charges. Sandusky, allegedly took a shower with a kid. So he tells everyone this the first time he has ever done anything like this and that it will never happen again. PSU intervenes on his behalf, partly out of self-preservation, partly out of loyalty to Sandusky. Maybe PSU tells the local authorities they will ensure that Sandusky gets counseling. Everyone involved convinces himself that it was an isolated incident and that it is everyone's best interest to make the problem go away. Sandusky quietly retires. Now fast forward to 2002. More serious allegations come to light. Everyone that was involved in the 1998 cover-up is still at PSU. They meet and decide that if they report Sandusky for the recent incident people will start digging around the 1998 incident and the lid will be blown of their cover-up. They decide to go all in on the cover-up and don't report what McQueary saw. Of course this is all speculation. It does present a way to make some sense of the 2002 decision not to report Sandusky. That decision is so bizarre and unfathomable, it begs for a bizarre explanation. Its so obvious that you contact the authorities that there must have been something going on behind the scene. There is simply no way these high level administrators made such a poor decision without having some sort of compelling motivation.
That's a good point. Let's hope it's that and nothing else.It is a tough line to walk, as there will be no shortage of moral police saying "how can you let someone get away with hugging a kid in the shower." Could be a case of death by a couple of paper cuts, and by the time they realized the right thing to do, they realized they would be fired.Suppose there was no 1998 incident, and the jail rape in '02 was the first incident Paterno, Spanier and Curley ever knew about. They report it to police immediately.Do you think people call for the heads of JoePa, Spanier or Curley?
 
'proninja said:
For those of you in a search and destroy mode please allow me to remind you of a litte case where a Univrsity and a legal system succumbed to public pressue and message board idiots too quickly in making a rush to judgement. Penn State officials and elected judges must take the time for due process to prevent another overreaction. FROM WIKI;In March 2006 Crystal Gail Mangum, an African American student at North Carolina Central University[1][2] who worked as a stripper,[3] dancer and escort,[4] falsely accused three white Duke University students, members of the Duke Blue Devils men's lacrosse team, of raping her at a party held at the house of two of the team's captains in Durham, North Carolina on March 13, 2006. Many people involved in, or commenting on, the case, including prosecutor Mike Nifong, called the alleged assault a hate crime or suggested it might be one.[5][6][7][8]In response to the allegations Duke University suspended the lacrosse team for two games on March 28, 2006. On April 5, 2006, Duke lacrosse coach Mike Pressler was forced to resign under threat by athletics director Joe Alleva and Duke President Richard Brodhead canceled the remainder of the 2006 season.On April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges and declared the three players innocent. Cooper stated that the charged players – Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans – were victims of a "tragic rush to accuse."[9] The initial prosecutor for the case, Durham County's District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was labeled a "rogue prosecutor" by Cooper, withdrew from the case in January 2007 after the North Carolina State Bar filed ethics charges against him. That June, Nifong was disbarred for "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation", making Nifong the first prosecutor in North Carolina history to lose his law license based on actions in a case. Nifong was found guilty of criminal contempt and served one day in jail.[10] Mangum never faced any charges for her false accusations as Cooper declined to prosecute her.[11]
Why don't you read the grand jury report and get back to us when you have a clearer idea of what's going on here, because you clearly don't get it right now
:goodposting:
 
Second Mile was an organization supposedly founded to serve Foster children (if memory serves). According to this article, Sandusky (the boy-rapist) has six adopted children. That fact makes me want to throw up as the implications (without any allegations to date of course) are horrific. Ugh.http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-state
Dont know the source, but heard on Mad Dog this morning that Sandusky is not allowed by his family to see his grandkids.
Great, so the family knew this guy was a perv too?
after he was charged
 
i am sad that students are supporting him because one time my wife and i were in trafalger square and there was a protest going on against child abuse and i remember asking my wife who would actually have a rally in support of child abuse? but hey way to go penn state students i guess i now have my answer... wow im sad that people put a football program in front of absused and raped children it makes me sick and shows how totally screwed up our sosiety is wow very sad

 
I think this is very close to the truth. A broader cover-up best explains the decision not to report what McQueary witnessed in 2002. However, I don't think Sandusky had anything on Joe or the program. I think PSU helped sweep the 1998 incident under the rug. Remember, Sandusky was still a PSU coach at that time. It would have been very embarrassing to the program had the allegations come to light. Additionally, the allegations while bizarre and inappropriate,are not as serious as the current charges. Sandusky, allegedly took a shower with a kid. So he tells everyone this the first time he has ever done anything like this and that it will never happen again. PSU intervenes on his behalf, partly out of self-preservation, partly out of loyalty to Sandusky. Maybe PSU tells the local authorities they will ensure that Sandusky gets counseling. Everyone involved convinces himself that it was an isolated incident and that it is everyone's best interest to make the problem go away. Sandusky quietly retires. Now fast forward to 2002. More serious allegations come to light. Everyone that was involved in the 1998 cover-up is still at PSU. They meet and decide that if they report Sandusky for the recent incident people will start digging around the 1998 incident and the lid will be blown of their cover-up. They decide to go all in on the cover-up and don't report what McQueary saw. Of course this is all speculation. It does present a way to make some sense of the 2002 decision not to report Sandusky. That decision is so bizarre and unfathomable, it begs for a bizarre explanation. Its so obvious that you contact the authorities that there must have been something going on behind the scene. There is simply no way these high level administrators made such a poor decision without having some sort of compelling motivation.
That's a good point. Let's hope it's that and nothing else.It is a tough line to walk, as there will be no shortage of moral police saying "how can you let someone get away with hugging a kid in the shower." Could be a case of death by a couple of paper cuts, and by the time they realized the right thing to do, they realized they would be fired.Suppose there was no 1998 incident, and the jail rape in '02 was the first incident Paterno, Spanier and Curley ever knew about. They report it to police immediately.Do you think people call for the heads of JoePa, Spanier or Curley?
If they didn't cover the incident up and reported it when they found out about it? No, why would anyone want paterno to be fired in that scenario. If he didn't do anything wrong, there's no reason for him to be fired.
 
Remember The Children

By Rick Reilly

This is not about Joe Paterno.

If these boys really were molested, groped and raped by a middle-aged ex-Penn State football coach, then whatever misjudgment Paterno made will be a single lit match compared to the bonfire these boys will walk in for years to come.

Many of them won't be able to trust. Won't be able to love. Won't be able to feel -- nor trust or love themselves.

Don't feel sorry for Paterno. He's had his life. Feel sorry for these boys, because they may never get one.

Ask former NHL All-Star Theo Fleury, who has reached out on Twitter and radio to the alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky. Fleury was sexually molested once or twice a week for two years by his youth hockey coach, Graham James. It twisted Fleury so inside-out that he numbed himself for years with booze, cocaine and strippers. He blew much of the $50 million he made in the NHL trying to forget. The coach he'd entrusted his hockey dreams to flayed open his soul for his own sexual perversions and left Fleury hollow.

"I no longer had faith in myself or my own judgment," Fleury, 43, wrote in his book "Playing with Fire." "Once it's gone, how do you get it back? ... I became a f---ing raging, alcoholic lunatic."

Ask former Red Wing, Flame and Bruin Sheldon Kennedy. He was sexually molested by James every Tuesday and Thursday night at parent-approved sleepovers at James' house from age 14 to 19. This snake even took Fleury and Kennedy to Disneyland, where he groped them, by turn, in a motel room. It left Kennedy so shamed and confused that suicide looked better to him than living with the guilt of it another day.

"You can't trust anybody afterwards," Kennedy said yesterday from Toronto, where he runs RespectGroupInc.com, an organization that teaches adults how to recognize abuse. "So you tend to live a very lonely life. You mask the horrible way you're feeling with sex and gambling and drugs. You put all these walls up. You keep saying, 'Why didn't I say anything? I must've done something wrong. I lethim do it to me.'"

Imagine: One reported victim in the Penn State case, now 24, has been living with that kind of hole growing inside him since he made allegations against Sandusky in 1998 -- 13 years ago. Those allegations never led to charges. That's 13 years of not being believed, of knowing his alleged perpetrator was out there, volunteering at high schools and running his grisly camp "tours" of the shower room.

The horror of it makes you want to punch somebody. If Kennedy could talk to boys Sandusky might have abused who haven't come forward yet?

"Tell someone," says Kennedy, now 42. "Because people are going to believe you. People know it's not your fault."

No, this isn't about 84-year-old Joe Paterno not taking more steps that might have stopped it. It's about everybody not taking more steps that might have stopped it. Not parents, not teachers, not uncles, not friends, not counselors.

Imagine: Victim One, according to the Harrisburg (Pa.) Patriot-News, was often taken out of class by Sandusky to be further molested. Just taken out of school by somebody who wasn't his parent, with no questions asked until his mother finally called the principal and asked her to check into it. Later that day, the principal called back in tears. "You need to come down here right now."

According to a 1998 study on child sexual abuse by Boston University Medical School, one in six boys in America will be abused by age 16. For girls, it's one in four by the age of 14. Those "If you see something, say something" billboards shouldn't just be about terrorism. They may apply to sex abuse, too. Doesn't matter if it's your uncle, your longtime assistant coach or your buddy. You HAVE to say something. And yet, precious few people have the guts to say anything at all.

"The fear is too strong," Kennedy says. "People don't know what to do. They think, 'Oh my god, how bad is this going to look? What are we going to do now that we've let this guy operate right under our noses? We better keep quiet.' But it can't work like that anymore."

Does Kennedy blame Paterno?

"Does he have grandkids? (Yes, 17.) How would he feel if it were one of his grandkids in that shower with the coach? What would he have done? Somehow, the perpetrator felt welcome at that school. We need systems in place that make perpetrators feel unwelcome."

What must those boys feel like, right now, as all this darkness gets played out in front of the camera lights?

"Probably second-guessing themselves," Kennedy says. "Coming forward doesn't get these boys any further ahead in life. It isn't easy. But it has to happen."

The road these boys are on now is endless and buckled and uphill. Some will hate their parents for not protecting them and hate themselves for hating them. They will hate the pervert for tricking them and hate themselves for being tricked. And just when they think this cruel and long legal process is over, it can start all over again.

Imagine: Kennedy's abuser, James, got 3½ years but was pardoned by the Canadian National Parole Board in 2007. Currently, he is out on bail, awaiting sentencing on nine more counts of sexual abuse and who knows how many more sinister trips to motel rooms.

If all these charges turn out to be true, though, soon he and Sandusky will both be going to prison -- a place where, with any luck, they will feel most unwelcome.

 
'Leeroy Jenkins said:
'Sinn Fein said:
For the Paterno did what he was supposed to crowd, i still have not seen an explanation for the basic timeline that is laid out in the grand jury testimony, which is McQueary visits Paterno on Saturday morning, and tells Paterno whatever you choose to believe McQueary told him. Then Paterno does not go to the AD until Sunday.So, Paterno certainly thought it was important enough to involve the AD on a Sunday, but not important enough to notify him immediately on Saturday?What was so important that Paterno could sleep on it? This reeks of cover-up from day 1, imo.
:confused: That isn't a lot of time to wait for a face-to-face meeting.
What if the GA witnessed a murder? Is it a lot of time now?I really don't believe some of you are treating the crime seriously enough.
 
Former player is trying to get many other former players to show up Saturday "in support of Paterno".

Don't they realize by now that this guy didn't walk his talk?

 
i am sad that students are supporting him because one time my wife and i were in trafalger square and there was a protest going on against child abuse and i remember asking my wife who would actually have a rally in support of child abuse? but hey way to go penn state students i guess i now have my answer... wow im sad that people put a football program in front of absused and raped children it makes me sick and shows how totally screwed up our sosiety is wow very sad
So you REALLY think that all the PSU students were there in support of child abuse?
 
i am sad that students are supporting him because one time my wife and i were in trafalger square and there was a protest going on against child abuse and i remember asking my wife who would actually have a rally in support of child abuse? but hey way to go penn state students i guess i now have my answer... wow im sad that people put a football program in front of absused and raped children it makes me sick and shows how totally screwed up our sosiety is wow very sad
So you REALLY think that all the PSU students were there in support of child abuse?
Unimpressed by all college "protests" Easy to get kids fired up as long it doesn't require studying or sobriety
 
I think this is very close to the truth. A broader cover-up best explains the decision not to report what McQueary witnessed in 2002. However, I don't think Sandusky had anything on Joe or the program. I think PSU helped sweep the 1998 incident under the rug. Remember, Sandusky was still a PSU coach at that time. It would have been very embarrassing to the program had the allegations come to light. Additionally, the allegations while bizarre and inappropriate,are not as serious as the current charges. Sandusky, allegedly took a shower with a kid. So he tells everyone this the first time he has ever done anything like this and that it will never happen again. PSU intervenes on his behalf, partly out of self-preservation, partly out of loyalty to Sandusky. Maybe PSU tells the local authorities they will ensure that Sandusky gets counseling. Everyone involved convinces himself that it was an isolated incident and that it is everyone's best interest to make the problem go away. Sandusky quietly retires. Now fast forward to 2002. More serious allegations come to light. Everyone that was involved in the 1998 cover-up is still at PSU. They meet and decide that if they report Sandusky for the recent incident people will start digging around the 1998 incident and the lid will be blown of their cover-up. They decide to go all in on the cover-up and don't report what McQueary saw. Of course this is all speculation. It does present a way to make some sense of the 2002 decision not to report Sandusky. That decision is so bizarre and unfathomable, it begs for a bizarre explanation. Its so obvious that you contact the authorities that there must have been something going on behind the scene. There is simply no way these high level administrators made such a poor decision without having some sort of compelling motivation.
That's a good point. Let's hope it's that and nothing else.It is a tough line to walk, as there will be no shortage of moral police saying "how can you let someone get away with hugging a kid in the shower." Could be a case of death by a couple of paper cuts, and by the time they realized the right thing to do, they realized they would be fired.Suppose there was no 1998 incident, and the jail rape in '02 was the first incident Paterno, Spanier and Curley ever knew about. They report it to police immediately.Do you think people call for the heads of JoePa, Spanier or Curley?
Obviously not. If 2002 was the first incident PSU was aware of and they immediately reported it to the proper authorities, Sandusky would be the only person implicated in wrong doing. Its not PSU's fault that they unknowingly hired a pedophile. It wouldn't have even been that big of a pr hit. But once they learned about what he was doing they had an obvious moral obligation to act. Morality aside, by not acting they created the potential for a huge PR hit. The correct course of action is so obvious, for so many reasons, that the people making the decision not to act must have had a compelling reason not to. There is simply no way they thought it didn't need to be reported. They knew it should be reported but had some compelling reason not to. Being involved in a previous cover-up involving the same guy is a pretty good explanation for their decision.
 
Obviously not. If 2002 was the first incident PSU was aware of and they immediately reported it to the proper authorities, Sandusky would be the only person implicated in wrong doing. Its not PSU's fault that they unknowingly hired a pedophile. It wouldn't have even been that big of a pr hit. But once they learned about what he was doing they had an obvious moral obligation to act. Morality aside, by not acting they created the potential for a huge PR hit. The correct course of action is so obvious, for so many reasons, that the people making the decision not to act must have had a compelling reason not to. There is simply no way they thought it didn't need to be reported. They knew it should be reported but had some compelling reason not to. Being involved in a previous cover-up involving the same guy is a pretty good explanation for their decision.
Yes, I think you're right. Let's hope the compelling reason is that they were merely covering themselves for failing to do more beforehand, rather than something else.
 
suppose the kid was choking in the shower, maybe Sandusky was trying to perform the Heimlich!

he saved that boys life!

repeatedly

 
The former player being interviewed on the radio states, "you can't erase all of the kids that Joe has touched in that program throughout the years."

Ooof.

 
Second Mile was an organization supposedly founded to serve Foster children (if memory serves). According to this article, Sandusky (the boy-rapist) has six adopted children. That fact makes me want to throw up as the implications (without any allegations to date of course) are horrific. Ugh.http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-state
Dont know the source, but heard on Mad Dog this morning that Sandusky is not allowed by his family to see his grandkids.
Great, so the family knew this guy was a perv too?
It's a court order that came down today or yesterday that he cannot be around his grandchildren unsupervised. I assume this is standard procedure when charged with such crimes.
 
Obviously not. If 2002 was the first incident PSU was aware of and they immediately reported it to the proper authorities, Sandusky would be the only person implicated in wrong doing. Its not PSU's fault that they unknowingly hired a pedophile. It wouldn't have even been that big of a pr hit. But once they learned about what he was doing they had an obvious moral obligation to act. Morality aside, by not acting they created the potential for a huge PR hit. The correct course of action is so obvious, for so many reasons, that the people making the decision not to act must have had a compelling reason not to. There is simply no way they thought it didn't need to be reported. They knew it should be reported but had some compelling reason not to. Being involved in a previous cover-up involving the same guy is a pretty good explanation for their decision.
Yes, I think you're right. Let's hope the compelling reason is that they were merely covering themselves for failing to do more beforehand, rather than something else.
On second thought....This still doesn't explain why they let him stay on campus. Or have access to the program and everything that comes with it. If the only reason they didn't go to the police was because they thought they would look guilty for not going to them in '98 (although they did go to University police), why not eject him from campus?What would stop them from saying: man, we really messed up earlier, but we have to get this monster out of here now. Why *not* do that? Tell him to go to Arizona, go to Canada, go wherever. Why would they allow him to stay on campus in a relatively prominent role?
 
Hey Goggins -

So, you've been one of the most outspoken critics here against Penn State and how they are morally bankrupt and how the actions of their administration are disgusting, Joe should go...so on and so forth...talking about how their actions are a discgrace to the victims.

Then, you go and post a bunch of tasteless jokes in reference to Sandusky, then attempt to delete it before anyone sees it.

Whatever credibility you might have had before this just went right out the window. You're weak.

 
Hey Goggins -So, you've been one of the most outspoken critics here against Penn State and how they are morally bankrupt and how the actions of their administration are disgusting, Joe should go...so on and so forth...talking about how their actions are a discgrace to the victims.Then, you go and post a bunch of tasteless jokes in reference to Sandusky, then attempt to delete it before anyone sees it.Whatever credibility you might have had before this just went right out the window. You're weak.
:lmao:
 
Obviously not. If 2002 was the first incident PSU was aware of and they immediately reported it to the proper authorities, Sandusky would be the only person implicated in wrong doing. Its not PSU's fault that they unknowingly hired a pedophile. It wouldn't have even been that big of a pr hit. But once they learned about what he was doing they had an obvious moral obligation to act. Morality aside, by not acting they created the potential for a huge PR hit. The correct course of action is so obvious, for so many reasons, that the people making the decision not to act must have had a compelling reason not to. There is simply no way they thought it didn't need to be reported. They knew it should be reported but had some compelling reason not to. Being involved in a previous cover-up involving the same guy is a pretty good explanation for their decision.
Yes, I think you're right. Let's hope the compelling reason is that they were merely covering themselves for failing to do more beforehand, rather than something else.
On second thought....This still doesn't explain why they let him stay on campus. Or have access to the program and everything that comes with it. If the only reason they didn't go to the police was because they thought they would look guilty for not going to them in '98 (although they did go to University police), why not eject him from campus?

What would stop them from saying: man, we really messed up earlier, but we have to get this monster out of here now. Why *not* do that? Tell him to go to Arizona, go to Canada, go wherever. Why would they allow him to stay on campus in a relatively prominent role?
It's going to very interesting when Sandusky talks and reveals what went down between the school and himself.
 
Hey Goggins -So, you've been one of the most outspoken critics here against Penn State and how they are morally bankrupt and how the actions of their administration are disgusting, Joe should go...so on and so forth...talking about how their actions are a discgrace to the victims.Then, you go and post a bunch of tasteless jokes in reference to Sandusky, then attempt to delete it before anyone sees it.Whatever credibility you might have had before this just went right out the window. You're weak.
Methinks Goggins isn't going to be around for awhile.
 
Hey Goggins -So, you've been one of the most outspoken critics here against Penn State and how they are morally bankrupt and how the actions of their administration are disgusting, Joe should go...so on and so forth...talking about how their actions are a discgrace to the victims.Then, you go and post a bunch of tasteless jokes in reference to Sandusky, then attempt to delete it before anyone sees it.Whatever credibility you might have had before this just went right out the window. You're weak.
Methinks Goggins isn't going to be around for awhile.
I would imagine not.
 
Obviously not. If 2002 was the first incident PSU was aware of and they immediately reported it to the proper authorities, Sandusky would be the only person implicated in wrong doing. Its not PSU's fault that they unknowingly hired a pedophile. It wouldn't have even been that big of a pr hit. But once they learned about what he was doing they had an obvious moral obligation to act. Morality aside, by not acting they created the potential for a huge PR hit. The correct course of action is so obvious, for so many reasons, that the people making the decision not to act must have had a compelling reason not to. There is simply no way they thought it didn't need to be reported. They knew it should be reported but had some compelling reason not to. Being involved in a previous cover-up involving the same guy is a pretty good explanation for their decision.
Yes, I think you're right. Let's hope the compelling reason is that they were merely covering themselves for failing to do more beforehand, rather than something else.
On second thought....This still doesn't explain why they let him stay on campus. Or have access to the program and everything that comes with it. If the only reason they didn't go to the police was because they thought they would look guilty for not going to them in '98 (although they did go to University police), why not eject him from campus?

What would stop them from saying: man, we really messed up earlier, but we have to get this monster out of here now. Why *not* do that? Tell him to go to Arizona, go to Canada, go wherever. Why would they allow him to stay on campus in a relatively prominent role?
It's going to very interesting when Sandusky talks and reveals what went down between the school and himself.
I doubt we hear from him unless he leaves a note.
 
Hey Goggins -So, you've been one of the most outspoken critics here against Penn State and how they are morally bankrupt and how the actions of their administration are disgusting, Joe should go...so on and so forth...talking about how their actions are a discgrace to the victims.Then, you go and post a bunch of tasteless jokes in reference to Sandusky, then attempt to delete it before anyone sees it.Whatever credibility you might have had before this just went right out the window. You're weak.
Methinks Goggins isn't going to be around for awhile.
I would imagine not.
There will be an investigation. The board will meet Friday.
 
Obviously not. If 2002 was the first incident PSU was aware of and they immediately reported it to the proper authorities, Sandusky would be the only person implicated in wrong doing. Its not PSU's fault that they unknowingly hired a pedophile. It wouldn't have even been that big of a pr hit. But once they learned about what he was doing they had an obvious moral obligation to act. Morality aside, by not acting they created the potential for a huge PR hit. The correct course of action is so obvious, for so many reasons, that the people making the decision not to act must have had a compelling reason not to. There is simply no way they thought it didn't need to be reported. They knew it should be reported but had some compelling reason not to. Being involved in a previous cover-up involving the same guy is a pretty good explanation for their decision.
Yes, I think you're right. Let's hope the compelling reason is that they were merely covering themselves for failing to do more beforehand, rather than something else.
On second thought....This still doesn't explain why they let him stay on campus. Or have access to the program and everything that comes with it. If the only reason they didn't go to the police was because they thought they would look guilty for not going to them in '98 (although they did go to University police), why not eject him from campus?

What would stop them from saying: man, we really messed up earlier, but we have to get this monster out of here now. Why *not* do that? Tell him to go to Arizona, go to Canada, go wherever. Why would they allow him to stay on campus in a relatively prominent role?
It's going to very interesting when Sandusky talks and reveals what went down between the school and himself.
I doubt we hear from him unless he leaves a note.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that possibility.
 
Sandusky can only see his grandkids under supervision per the courts. Just to clarify something a few posts ago.
makes sense
Why is this law even necessary? It's hard to imagine this happening with my own parents, but if I were Sandusky's kids, there is no way in heck my kids would ever even see him again until they were grown and it was their decision.
the parents may just not want to believe the grandparent could do this
 
Hey Goggins -So, you've been one of the most outspoken critics here against Penn State and how they are morally bankrupt and how the actions of their administration are disgusting, Joe should go...so on and so forth...talking about how their actions are a discgrace to the victims.Then, you go and post a bunch of tasteless jokes in reference to Sandusky, then attempt to delete it before anyone sees it.Whatever credibility you might have had before this just went right out the window. You're weak.
I don't think Goggins deleted it, but either way it ridiculous to try and equate the actions and non-actions of the people at PSU that could have prevented some of the victims from being abused to posting a few bad jokes on a message board.
 
Hey Goggins -So, you've been one of the most outspoken critics here against Penn State and how they are morally bankrupt and how the actions of their administration are disgusting, Joe should go...so on and so forth...talking about how their actions are a discgrace to the victims.Then, you go and post a bunch of tasteless jokes in reference to Sandusky, then attempt to delete it before anyone sees it.Whatever credibility you might have had before this just went right out the window. You're weak.
Methinks Goggins isn't going to be around for awhile.
I would imagine not.
There will be an investigation. The board will meet Friday.
Quick and decisive action.
 
Obviously not. If 2002 was the first incident PSU was aware of and they immediately reported it to the proper authorities, Sandusky would be the only person implicated in wrong doing. Its not PSU's fault that they unknowingly hired a pedophile. It wouldn't have even been that big of a pr hit. But once they learned about what he was doing they had an obvious moral obligation to act. Morality aside, by not acting they created the potential for a huge PR hit. The correct course of action is so obvious, for so many reasons, that the people making the decision not to act must have had a compelling reason not to. There is simply no way they thought it didn't need to be reported. They knew it should be reported but had some compelling reason not to. Being involved in a previous cover-up involving the same guy is a pretty good explanation for their decision.
Yes, I think you're right. Let's hope the compelling reason is that they were merely covering themselves for failing to do more beforehand, rather than something else.
On second thought....This still doesn't explain why they let him stay on campus. Or have access to the program and everything that comes with it. If the only reason they didn't go to the police was because they thought they would look guilty for not going to them in '98 (although they did go to University police), why not eject him from campus?

What would stop them from saying: man, we really messed up earlier, but we have to get this monster out of here now. Why *not* do that? Tell him to go to Arizona, go to Canada, go wherever. Why would they allow him to stay on campus in a relatively prominent role?
It's going to very interesting when Sandusky talks and reveals what went down between the school and himself.
I doubt we hear from him unless he leaves a note.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that possibility.
Based on the dearth of allegations and what it is doing to an institution and people he revered at some point, I think the scenario is becoming more likely. Especially when he made that comment in 1998 that he wished he was dead after he was caught and given a slap on the wrists. His bail really should have been higher so that he could be in jail and under supervision so that he actually has to face people in court and later face the wall in prison.
 
Not sure how this exactly works, but in light of other victims appearing; can he be arrested again w/ additional charges or will they just tack on more charges without arresting him again?

 
Hey Goggins -So, you've been one of the most outspoken critics here against Penn State and how they are morally bankrupt and how the actions of their administration are disgusting, Joe should go...so on and so forth...talking about how their actions are a discgrace to the victims.Then, you go and post a bunch of tasteless jokes in reference to Sandusky, then attempt to delete it before anyone sees it.Whatever credibility you might have had before this just went right out the window. You're weak.
I don't think Goggins deleted it, but either way it ridiculous to try and equate the actions and non-actions of the people at PSU that could have prevented some of the victims from being abused to posting a few bad jokes on a message board.
After I posted, I realized that deleting the post was not his doing.And I'm not comparing his actions to those of the Penn State administration. I'm saying that if you're going to take the stance of being completely and utterly appalled by their actions, you lose all credibility to your arguement when you turn around and post tasteless jokes about the same subject matter. He kept taking up the side of "think about the victims, think about the victims"...Do you think they would find those jokes funny?
 
Hey Goggins -So, you've been one of the most outspoken critics here against Penn State and how they are morally bankrupt and how the actions of their administration are disgusting, Joe should go...so on and so forth...talking about how their actions are a discgrace to the victims.Then, you go and post a bunch of tasteless jokes in reference to Sandusky, then attempt to delete it before anyone sees it.Whatever credibility you might have had before this just went right out the window. You're weak.
Methinks Goggins isn't going to be around for awhile.
I would imagine not.
There will be an investigation. The board will meet Friday.
Quick and decisive action.
CE: who is the former player rallying around JoePa?
 
Do people here honestly not realize that Goggins is just a troll? I'd be shocked if he wasn't somebody's alias.
I "know" the guy from the FFA, and I agree, but I got the impression that he dropped that facade in this thread, and was genuinely stating his opinions. But, maybe I was wrong. There's a lot of emotions in this thread and on this subject, myself included. Maybe I've gotten too wrapped up.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top