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)

State Law

Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-115 - Duty to Report a Crime

Every individual or corporation who has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed has a duty to report the suspected crime to law enforcement authorities.
Colorado?
Oh brother, man, are you serious. It's a standard law, man. You're saying telling your buddy is reporting. It isn't.
PA Code Sec 42.42(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), © and (d).
Please post paragraph ( c) for us... I believe that one says that the GA could pass the buck upwards by reporting to Paterno, and Paterno could pass the buck upwards by reporting to the AD.
 
McQueary didn't report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. He needs to go, too.
McQueary did report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. If he loses his job now, I think he can make a creidble argument that he's being fired because he reported it but no one else did anything about it.
There's speculation that he was "rewarded" for keeping quiet after telling the president. I agree he is legally insulated.
Maybe not once the civil cases come out. Expect McQueary and Paterno to be named once those get rolling. Completely different test for negligence in civil cases than in criminal cases. And frankly, every kid this happened to afterwards has a legit claim that either man could have taken steps to prevent this from happening again and, even worse, created an environment where Sandusky's pedophilia was actually tolerated, especially Paterno. A lot of focus on criminal charges, which I would like both men to face, but a lot of ignoring the civil charges, which I guarantee will be rolling in.
Negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, (4) damages. Seems it would fail at the "breach" stage. Both McQueary and Paterno performed their legal duty when they reported the incident. Unless the plaintiffs could show Paterno and McQueary were aware of other incidents they were legally obligated to report they aren't going to get very far.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
State Law

Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-115 - Duty to Report a Crime

Every individual or corporation who has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed has a duty to report the suspected crime to law enforcement authorities.
Colorado?
Oh brother, man, are you serious. It's a standard law, man. You're saying telling your buddy is reporting. It isn't.
PA Code Sec 42.42(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), © and (d).
I stand corrected. Good stuff.
 
State Law

Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-115 - Duty to Report a Crime

Every individual or corporation who has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed has a duty to report the suspected crime to law enforcement authorities.
Colorado?
Oh brother, man, are you serious. It's a standard law, man. You're saying telling your buddy is reporting. It isn't.
PA Code Sec 42.42(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), © and (d).
Please post paragraph ( c) for us... I believe that one says that the GA could pass the buck upwards by reporting to Paterno, and Paterno could pass the buck upwards by reporting to the AD.
That's what (b) says, as apparently neither McQueary or Paterno were the person in charge of the institution or the designated agent of the person in charge.© merely describes the manner in which such reporting must be done

© Reporting procedure. Reports of suspected child abuse shall be made by telephone and by written report.

(1) Oral reports. Oral reports of suspected child abuse shall be made immediately by telephone to ChildLine, (800) 932-0313.

(2) Written reports. Written reports shall be made within 48 hours after the oral report is made by telephone. Written reports shall be made on forms available from a county children and youth social service agency.

(d) Written reports. Written reports shall be made in the manner and on forms prescribed by the Department of Public Welfare. The following information shall be included in the written reports, if available:

(1) The names and addresses of the child and the parents or other person responsible for the care of the child, if known.

(2) Where the suspected abuse occurred.

(3) The age and sex of the subjects of the report.

(4) The nature and extent of the suspected child abuse including any evidence of prior abuse to the child or siblings of the child.

(5) The name and relationship of the persons responsible for causing the suspected abuse, if known, and any evidence of prior abuse by those persons.

(6) Family composition.

(7) The source of the report.

(8) The person making the report and where that person can be reached.

(9) The actions taken by the reporting source, including the taking of photographs and X-rays, removal or keeping of the child or notifying the medical examiner or coroner.

(10) Other information which the Department of Public Welfare may require by regulation.

 
McQueary didn't report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. He needs to go, too.
McQueary did report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. If he loses his job now, I think he can make a creidble argument that he's being fired because he reported it but no one else did anything about it.
There's speculation that he was "rewarded" for keeping quiet after telling the president. I agree he is legally insulated.
Maybe not once the civil cases come out. Expect McQueary and Paterno to be named once those get rolling. Completely different test for negligence in civil cases than in criminal cases. And frankly, every kid this happened to afterwards has a legit claim that either man could have taken steps to prevent this from happening again and, even worse, created an environment where Sandusky's pedophilia was actually tolerated, especially Paterno. A lot of focus on criminal charges, which I would like both men to face, but a lot of ignoring the civil charges, which I guarantee will be rolling in.
Negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, (4) damages. Seems it would fail at the "breach" stage. Both McQueary and Paterno performed their legal duty when they reported the incident. Unless the plaintiffs could show Paterno and McQueary were aware of other incidents they were legally obligated to report thay aren't going to get very far.
Right. And I would assume a civil suit would target the University since they'd have the money. If I were them I'd try to use Paterno and McQueary in a positive sense where they had legitimate info, followed policy, and the University breached by not following up on their reports.
 
Possibly Pimping the kids out?

"I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen," Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. "I hear there's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."

If this is true this is going to be even more massive than it already is.

 
Now if Joe Paterno had said yes I reported it to the AD and when I asked what came of it, the AD lied to me and said that the police or child protective services were investigating or had investigated it that puts him in a different light.

The fact that Paterno hasn't said anything like this suggests he chose to not follow-up or knew it wasn't going to be reported. I'm pretty sure that Paterno would have been aware if McQueary had been contacted and questioned by authorities.

I'm thinking its going to be very interesting if this goes to court and questioning occurs regarding what transpired between Paterno and those fired.

 
Possibly Pimping the kids out?

"I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen," Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. "I hear there's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."

If this is true this is going to be even more massive than it already is.
touched
 
McQueary didn't report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. He needs to go, too.
McQueary did report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. If he loses his job now, I think he can make a creidble argument that he's being fired because he reported it but no one else did anything about it.
There's speculation that he was "rewarded" for keeping quiet after telling the president. I agree he is legally insulated.
Maybe not once the civil cases come out. Expect McQueary and Paterno to be named once those get rolling. Completely different test for negligence in civil cases than in criminal cases. And frankly, every kid this happened to afterwards has a legit claim that either man could have taken steps to prevent this from happening again and, even worse, created an environment where Sandusky's pedophilia was actually tolerated, especially Paterno. A lot of focus on criminal charges, which I would like both men to face, but a lot of ignoring the civil charges, which I guarantee will be rolling in.
Negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, (4) damages. Seems it would fail at the "breach" stage. Both McQueary and Paterno performed their legal duty when they reported the incident. Unless the plaintiffs could show Paterno and McQueary were aware of other incidents they were legally obligated to report thay aren't going to get very far.
Right. And I would assume a civil suit would target the University since they'd have the money. If I were them I'd try to use Paterno and McQueary in a positive sense where they had legitimate info, followed policy, and the University breached by not following up on their reports.
And I was responding to the claim Paterno and McQueary would be named in lawsuits.
 
McQueary didn't report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. He needs to go, too.
McQueary did report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. If he loses his job now, I think he can make a creidble argument that he's being fired because he reported it but no one else did anything about it.
There's speculation that he was "rewarded" for keeping quiet after telling the president. I agree he is legally insulated.
Maybe not once the civil cases come out. Expect McQueary and Paterno to be named once those get rolling. Completely different test for negligence in civil cases than in criminal cases. And frankly, every kid this happened to afterwards has a legit claim that either man could have taken steps to prevent this from happening again and, even worse, created an environment where Sandusky's pedophilia was actually tolerated, especially Paterno. A lot of focus on criminal charges, which I would like both men to face, but a lot of ignoring the civil charges, which I guarantee will be rolling in.
Negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, (4) damages. Seems it would fail at the "breach" stage. Both McQueary and Paterno performed their legal duty when they reported the incident. Unless the plaintiffs could show Paterno and McQueary were aware of other incidents they were legally obligated to report thay aren't going to get very far.
Right. And I would assume a civil suit would target the University since they'd have the money. If I were them I'd try to use Paterno and McQueary in a positive sense where they had legitimate info, followed policy, and the University breached by not following up on their reports.
And I was responding to the claim Paterno and McQueary would be named in lawsuits.
Just because they may not be able to prove negligence absolutely does not mean they won't be named.
 
Possibly Pimping the kids out?

"I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen," Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. "I hear there's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."

If this is true this is going to be even more massive than it already is.
touched
Was just a matter of time. I don't want to know what the smiley icon for it will be.

 
State Law

Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-115 - Duty to Report a Crime

Every individual or corporation who has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed has a duty to report the suspected crime to law enforcement authorities.
Colorado?
Oh brother, man, are you serious. It's a standard law, man. You're saying telling your buddy is reporting. It isn't.
PA Code Sec 42.42(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), © and (d).
I stand corrected. Good stuff.
But when your superiors are clearly not addreessing the issue and even providibng Sanduxky additional accesss, Shouldn't he escalate?
 
McQueary didn't report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. He needs to go, too.
McQueary did report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. If he loses his job now, I think he can make a creidble argument that he's being fired because he reported it but no one else did anything about it.
There's speculation that he was "rewarded" for keeping quiet after telling the president. I agree he is legally insulated.
Maybe not once the civil cases come out. Expect McQueary and Paterno to be named once those get rolling. Completely different test for negligence in civil cases than in criminal cases. And frankly, every kid this happened to afterwards has a legit claim that either man could have taken steps to prevent this from happening again and, even worse, created an environment where Sandusky's pedophilia was actually tolerated, especially Paterno. A lot of focus on criminal charges, which I would like both men to face, but a lot of ignoring the civil charges, which I guarantee will be rolling in.
Negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, (4) damages. Seems it would fail at the "breach" stage. Both McQueary and Paterno performed their legal duty when they reported the incident. Unless the plaintiffs could show Paterno and McQueary were aware of other incidents they were legally obligated to report thay aren't going to get very far.
Right. And I would assume a civil suit would target the University since they'd have the money. If I were them I'd try to use Paterno and McQueary in a positive sense where they had legitimate info, followed policy, and the University breached by not following up on their reports.
And I was responding to the claim Paterno and McQueary would be named in lawsuits.
Just because they may not be able to prove negligence absolutely does not mean they won't be named.
Thanks. 13 years of practicing law and I never knew that.
 
State Law

Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-115 - Duty to Report a Crime

Every individual or corporation who has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed has a duty to report the suspected crime to law enforcement authorities.
Colorado?
Oh brother, man, are you serious. It's a standard law, man. You're saying telling your buddy is reporting. It isn't.
PA Code Sec 42.42(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), © and (d).
I stand corrected. Good stuff.
But when your superiors are clearly not addreessing the issue and even providibng Sanduxky additional accesss, Shouldn't he escalate?
Legally? There is no indication his duty went further.Ethically? Morally? Probably.

 
State Law

Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-115 - Duty to Report a Crime

Every individual or corporation who has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed has a duty to report the suspected crime to law enforcement authorities.
Colorado?
Oh brother, man, are you serious. It's a standard law, man. You're saying telling your buddy is reporting. It isn't.
PA Code Sec 42.42(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), © and (d).
I stand corrected. Good stuff.
But not the full picture really. In fact school administrators are required by PA law to report child abuse directly to police, reporting up isn't an excuse. So since it happened in the football facilities where Paterno was the undisputed boss I think you could make the case he was an administrator and he had a duty to report to the authorities.
 
Possibly Pimping the kids out?

"I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen," Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. "I hear there's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."

If this is true this is going to be even more massive than it already is.
hey GB, this has been posted maybe a dozen times over the last few pages. just letting you know.
 
McQueary didn't report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. He needs to go, too.
McQueary did report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. If he loses his job now, I think he can make a creidble argument that he's being fired because he reported it but no one else did anything about it.
There's speculation that he was "rewarded" for keeping quiet after telling the president. I agree he is legally insulated.
Maybe not once the civil cases come out. Expect McQueary and Paterno to be named once those get rolling. Completely different test for negligence in civil cases than in criminal cases. And frankly, every kid this happened to afterwards has a legit claim that either man could have taken steps to prevent this from happening again and, even worse, created an environment where Sandusky's pedophilia was actually tolerated, especially Paterno. A lot of focus on criminal charges, which I would like both men to face, but a lot of ignoring the civil charges, which I guarantee will be rolling in.
Negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, (4) damages. Seems it would fail at the "breach" stage. Both McQueary and Paterno performed their legal duty when they reported the incident. Unless the plaintiffs could show Paterno and McQueary were aware of other incidents they were legally obligated to report thay aren't going to get very far.
Right. And I would assume a civil suit would target the University since they'd have the money. If I were them I'd try to use Paterno and McQueary in a positive sense where they had legitimate info, followed policy, and the University breached by not following up on their reports.
And I was responding to the claim Paterno and McQueary would be named in lawsuits.
Just because they may not be able to prove negligence absolutely does not mean they won't be named.
Thanks. 13 years of practicing law and I never knew that.
I get your sarcasm, and yet your reply implied that very thing.
 
I've been in this thread from the beginning and one person who doesn't seem to be catching any heat is McQueary's dad.

"Dad? I just walked in on Mr. Sandusky raping a little boy in the shower but don't really know what to do."

"Where are you now? Did they see you?"

"Hiding under my desk. I think so. I'm pretty scared."

"Get out of the building right away!"

"Ok. What about the little boy?"

"He'll be fine. Just tell JoePa about it in the morning and he'll take care of everything"

wtf?

 
I've been in this thread from the beginning and one person who doesn't seem to be catching any heat is McQueary's dad."Dad? I just walked in on Mr. Sandusky raping a little boy in the shower but don't really know what to do.""Where are you now? Did they see you?""Hiding under my desk. I think so. I'm pretty scared.""Get out of the building right away!""Ok. What about the little boy?""He'll be fine. Just tell JoePa about it in the morning and he'll take care of everything"wtf?
He deserves plenty of heat. But he's not a Penn State employee and there's little to be 'done' with regard to him. Still can't believe young Mike has a job.
 
Maybe not once the civil cases come out. Expect McQueary and Paterno to be named once those get rolling. Completely different test for negligence in civil cases than in criminal cases. And frankly, every kid this happened to afterwards has a legit claim that either man could have taken steps to prevent this from happening again and, even worse, created an environment where Sandusky's pedophilia was actually tolerated, especially Paterno. A lot of focus on criminal charges, which I would like both men to face, but a lot of ignoring the civil charges, which I guarantee will be rolling in.
Negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, (4) damages. Seems it would fail at the "breach" stage. Both McQueary and Paterno performed their legal duty when they reported the incident. Unless the plaintiffs could show Paterno and McQueary were aware of other incidents they were legally obligated to report thay aren't going to get very far.
Right. And I would assume a civil suit would target the University since they'd have the money. If I were them I'd try to use Paterno and McQueary in a positive sense where they had legitimate info, followed policy, and the University breached by not following up on their reports.
And I was responding to the claim Paterno and McQueary would be named in lawsuits.
Just because they may not be able to prove negligence absolutely does not mean they won't be named.
Thanks. 13 years of practicing law and I never knew that.
I get your sarcasm, and yet your reply implied that very thing.
Actually, it didn't:
Negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, (4) damages. Seems it would fail at the "breach" stage. Both McQueary and Paterno performed their legal duty when they reported the incident. Unless the plaintiffs could show Paterno and McQueary were aware of other incidents they were legally obligated to report they aren't going to get very far.
I never said they couldn't be named. I said they probably wouldn't get very far.
 
State Law

Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-115 - Duty to Report a Crime

Every individual or corporation who has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed has a duty to report the suspected crime to law enforcement authorities.
Colorado?
Oh brother, man, are you serious. It's a standard law, man. You're saying telling your buddy is reporting. It isn't.
PA Code Sec 42.42(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), © and (d).
Please post paragraph ( c) for us... I believe that one says that the GA could pass the buck upwards by reporting to Paterno, and Paterno could pass the buck upwards by reporting to the AD.
That's what (b) says, as apparently neither McQueary or Paterno were the person in charge of the institution or the designated agent of the person in charge.© merely describes the manner in which such reporting must be done

© Reporting procedure. Reports of suspected child abuse shall be made by telephone and by written report.

(1) Oral reports. Oral reports of suspected child abuse shall be made immediately by telephone to ChildLine, (800) 932-0313.

(2) Written reports. Written reports shall be made within 48 hours after the oral report is made by telephone. Written reports shall be made on forms available from a county children and youth social service agency.

(d) Written reports. Written reports shall be made in the manner and on forms prescribed by the Department of Public Welfare. The following information shall be included in the written reports, if available:

(1) The names and addresses of the child and the parents or other person responsible for the care of the child, if known.

(2) Where the suspected abuse occurred.

(3) The age and sex of the subjects of the report.

(4) The nature and extent of the suspected child abuse including any evidence of prior abuse to the child or siblings of the child.

(5) The name and relationship of the persons responsible for causing the suspected abuse, if known, and any evidence of prior abuse by those persons.

(6) Family composition.

(7) The source of the report.

(8) The person making the report and where that person can be reached.

(9) The actions taken by the reporting source, including the taking of photographs and X-rays, removal or keeping of the child or notifying the medical examiner or coroner.

(10) Other information which the Department of Public Welfare may require by regulation.
Yeah, it was THIS paragraph ( c) I was thinking about... says the same thing as your paragraph (b). ETA: Except for this sentence at the end: "This chapter does not require more than one report from any such institution, school, facility or agency."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a hard time believing the "pimping kids out to donors" thing. That sounds like the kind of sensational report that tends float around in fast-breaking stories and ends up coming to naught after a day or two. But on the other hand, it's pretty obvious that Sandusky's involvement in Second Mile wasn't motivated by altruism -- you have to figure there are going to be more victims associated with that organization.
I agree with you, but the writer has been accurate in the past
Right. I think Madden is arrogant and pompous, but he was on top of this story FAR before anyone else.
Dont think so. Im pretty sure Sara Ganim from the Harrisburg Patriot News really did the dirt digging and was the first one to report this is March or April and then Madden wrote his article that was posted in here a few days later.
 
State Law

Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-115 - Duty to Report a Crime

Every individual or corporation who has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed has a duty to report the suspected crime to law enforcement authorities.
Colorado?
Oh brother, man, are you serious. It's a standard law, man. You're saying telling your buddy is reporting. It isn't.
PA Code Sec 42.42(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), © and (d).
I stand corrected. Good stuff.
But when your superiors are clearly not addreessing the issue and even providibng Sanduxky additional accesss, Shouldn't he escalate?
Of course he should have. The above is just a lawyer circle jerk.
 
I've been in this thread from the beginning and one person who doesn't seem to be catching any heat is McQueary's dad."Dad? I just walked in on Mr. Sandusky raping a little boy in the shower but don't really know what to do.""Where are you now? Did they see you?""Hiding under my desk. I think so. I'm pretty scared.""Get out of the building right away!""Ok. What about the little boy?""He'll be fine. Just tell JoePa about it in the morning and he'll take care of everything"wtf?
I think by the time this story is done playing out we'll have several other State College residents in the same position as Mr. McQueary. The janitorial staff that's been mentioned previously, for starters.
 
Anyone care to guess how much money this is going to cost PSU? It has to be astronomical.
Not nearly enough.
The damage to their public image is far worse than any amount of money they'll pay in lawsuits.
The legal fees alone are going to be in the 10s of millions of dollars. My understanding is prisoners don't react well to child molesters. Sandusky is a dead man if he goes to a maximum security prison. I suspect he either kills himself before trial or if he has dirt on the college as some suspect, he tries to get a deal to serve his time in a white collar prison.
 
Anyone who knew specifics and covered it up should be fired...period. But the vitriol for the "program" is badly misplaced. This incident has NOTHING to do with the football program, other than the fact that one or two of the people involved were coaches. Sandusky wasn't a part of the program at the time.
I disagree that this has nothing to do with the program.At the very least, there are two direct incidents that link with the program:1. The alleged 1998 incident happened while Sandusky was an active coach.2. The 2002 incident was allegedly seen by a graduate assistant at the time and occurred in the football showers. Sandusky had emeritus status, access to the facility, and even an office in the complex. He was not just a random citizen who ended up there.Another less tangible connection to the program is the disproportionate power, or at least huge presence, of the football program in the overall Penn State institutional infrastructure. It is clearly possible that if even a partial cover-up occurred, i.e. looking the other way, a deal with Sandusky to retire at a fairly early age, etc., it likely occurred to protect the image of the football program. It is possible to conclude that the welfare of the football program was valued higher than the welfare of the institution and/or the pursuit of justice. It also can be argued that the institution, the football program, and the money the football program provides are so tightly intertwined as to not be able to distinguish them from each other. It is possible to almost follow the potential twisted logic that may have been used by President Spanier, et al, to hope that this situation would quietly go away rather than harming all three: the football program, the institution, and the money. Other powerful institutions have already shown that it is possible for people in places of power to protect the institution rather than to pursue justice.
These actions were commited by a predator who happened to be a coach. The 1998 incident (as far as I know) was not known by anyone else in the coaching staff, and the 2002 incident was AFTER he had already left the program. These are deep moral issues that had ZERO to do with the players, or the football team as a whole. They're about the specific individuals, NOT FOOTBALL!
 
Anyone care to guess how much money this is going to cost PSU? It has to be astronomical.
Not nearly enough.
Why would you say that? Especially without knowing how much it's gonna cost?The victims deserve compensation. Money can't replace what they've lost, but certainly they deserve a significant recovery.But PSU's not a person, or a corporation. That money would otherwise be used on the education of perfectly innocent students or from Pennsylvania taxpayers. At some point you're doing more harm than good if you milk it dry.
 
Possibly Pimping the kids out?

"I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen," Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. "I hear there's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."

If this is true this is going to be even more massive than it already is.
hey GB, this has been posted maybe a dozen times over the last few pages. just letting you know.
I just heard Sandusky wrote a book. You'll never guess what it is titled.
 
I don't think Sandusky has any dirt on PSU. He can't have anything that PSU would be scared of.

However, I think it is safe to say that Sandusky has dirt on one or all of the following:

1) Who shot JFK?

2) Where is Jimmy Hoffa?

3) The Third Secret of Fatima?

4) The Philadelphia Experiment?

Watch out folks, the 21st Century is just beginning. We have just over a year before we all go bye-bye so hopefully Sandusky does not reveal anything about the above. Pretty scary if he does.

:unsure:

 
:lmao: thought about responding but think I'll just sit back and enjoy this one.
Well, just thought I'd point out to some people that telling your boss does not equal reporting a crime by legal standards. Sorry if it was above you guys. Wasn't commenting on Pennsylvania laws, just correcting someone who said McQueary reported the incident.
By saying it was "a standard law, man", you equated an irrelevant CO law to PA law. Then you were corrected and shown up by Woz. Woz. Oof.
Aaaaand no sig for you :boxing:
:( :football:
 
These actions were commited by a predator who happened to be a coach. The 1998 incident (as far as I know) was not known by anyone else in the coaching staff, and the 2002 incident was AFTER he had already left the program. These are deep moral issues that had ZERO to do with the players, or the football team as a whole. They're about the specific individuals, NOT FOOTBALL!
but he used his position of power within the football program and access to the facilities, games, etc. to recruit and prey on his victims. not only that, but people within the football program appear to have protected him and looked the other way despite witnessed incidents and likely plenty of other suspicious activity over that length of time. not sure how you can separate Sandusky's actions and the subsequent cover up from the football program.
 
Anyone who knew specifics and covered it up should be fired...period. But the vitriol for the "program" is badly misplaced. This incident has NOTHING to do with the football program, other than the fact that one or two of the people involved were coaches. Sandusky wasn't a part of the program at the time.
I disagree that this has nothing to do with the program.At the very least, there are two direct incidents that link with the program:1. The alleged 1998 incident happened while Sandusky was an active coach.2. The 2002 incident was allegedly seen by a graduate assistant at the time and occurred in the football showers. Sandusky had emeritus status, access to the facility, and even an office in the complex. He was not just a random citizen who ended up there.Another less tangible connection to the program is the disproportionate power, or at least huge presence, of the football program in the overall Penn State institutional infrastructure. It is clearly possible that if even a partial cover-up occurred, i.e. looking the other way, a deal with Sandusky to retire at a fairly early age, etc., it likely occurred to protect the image of the football program. It is possible to conclude that the welfare of the football program was valued higher than the welfare of the institution and/or the pursuit of justice. It also can be argued that the institution, the football program, and the money the football program provides are so tightly intertwined as to not be able to distinguish them from each other. It is possible to almost follow the potential twisted logic that may have been used by President Spanier, et al, to hope that this situation would quietly go away rather than harming all three: the football program, the institution, and the money. Other powerful institutions have already shown that it is possible for people in places of power to protect the institution rather than to pursue justice.
These actions were commited by a predator who happened to be a coach. The 1998 incident (as far as I know) was not known by anyone else in the coaching staff, and the 2002 incident was AFTER he had already left the program. These are deep moral issues that had ZERO to do with the players, or the football team as a whole. They're about the specific individuals, NOT FOOTBALL!
You completely ignored his very valid and well-articulated point.
 
Anyone who knew specifics and covered it up should be fired...period. But the vitriol for the "program" is badly misplaced. This incident has NOTHING to do with the football program, other than the fact that one or two of the people involved were coaches. Sandusky wasn't a part of the program at the time.
I disagree that this has nothing to do with the program.At the very least, there are two direct incidents that link with the program:1. The alleged 1998 incident happened while Sandusky was an active coach.2. The 2002 incident was allegedly seen by a graduate assistant at the time and occurred in the football showers. Sandusky had emeritus status, access to the facility, and even an office in the complex. He was not just a random citizen who ended up there.Another less tangible connection to the program is the disproportionate power, or at least huge presence, of the football program in the overall Penn State institutional infrastructure. It is clearly possible that if even a partial cover-up occurred, i.e. looking the other way, a deal with Sandusky to retire at a fairly early age, etc., it likely occurred to protect the image of the football program. It is possible to conclude that the welfare of the football program was valued higher than the welfare of the institution and/or the pursuit of justice. It also can be argued that the institution, the football program, and the money the football program provides are so tightly intertwined as to not be able to distinguish them from each other. It is possible to almost follow the potential twisted logic that may have been used by President Spanier, et al, to hope that this situation would quietly go away rather than harming all three: the football program, the institution, and the money. Other powerful institutions have already shown that it is possible for people in places of power to protect the institution rather than to pursue justice.
These actions were commited by a predator who happened to be a coach. The 1998 incident (as far as I know) was not known by anyone else in the coaching staff, and the 2002 incident was AFTER he had already left the program. These are deep moral issues that had ZERO to do with the players, or the football team as a whole. They're about the specific individuals, NOT FOOTBALL!
Actually, I'm pretty sure he was still the coach in 2002. He retired AFTER the 2002 incident. That is, retired into a cushy university position which he held till last week, and which allowed him continued use of the facilities.
 
Actually, I'm pretty sure he was still the coach in 2002. He retired AFTER the 2002 incident. That is, retired into a cushy university position which he held till last week, and which allowed him continued use of the facilities.
nope. retired in 1999 after they told him he'd never become the head coach.
 
These actions were commited by a predator who happened to be a coach. The 1998 incident (as far as I know) was not known by anyone else in the coaching staff, and the 2002 incident was AFTER he had already left the program. These are deep moral issues that had ZERO to do with the players, or the football team as a whole. They're about the specific individuals, NOT FOOTBALL!
Oh come on. There's no way no one else on the coaching staff knew about the 1998 incident. It happened in the football facility. There was an investigation. Paterno then told Sanhucksy that he would never be head coach, and Sanhucksy unexpectedly retires.The 2002 incident also occured in the football facility, where Sanhucksy still had full access despite having "left the program." He was seen by a GA (who later became a coach) who reported it to Paterno, and both of whom seem complicit in the subsequent coverup. I agree that the current Penn State football players had nothing to do with this and it's a shame for them that this is all happening, but to say this scandal has nothing to do with the football program is hogwash. It has everything to do with the football program.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Leeroy Jenkins with some impressive denial here
What am I denying?Jerry Sandusky is a monster. He should not have been released on $100k bail. He should not be allowed to kill himself. He should be forced to face his victims and face the wall in prison repeatedly. The students should be outside of HIS house because HE is who has tarnished PSU and Paterno.Mike McQueary is a coward. He witnessed a child in the most vulnerable position possible. He did nothing. He could have stopped that act. That boy SAW him and he did NOTHING. That boy lost all hope that day that he could ever be saved. He sneaked to his office and picked up the phone, but instead of 911 he calls his DAD!?! Mike McQueary is beyond reprehensible. Tim Curly failed in his job as Athletic Director. He failed that little boy. He failed Penn State. He failed Mike McQueary. He failed Joe Paterno. If anybody was given the full details of 1998 AND the full story of what McQueary saw it was this man. Joe reported SOMEthing to Curly. Regardless of what Joe said to him, McQueary certainly gave the full detailed rendition at their meeting. Curly was legally responsible to report this to the authorities. Curly was morally responsible to report it to the authorities. Curly was responsible for the University to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident to identify that boy and whether there was an overarching issue with the football program and policies. Curly could have saved more children, but HE told the Second Mile that while there was a complaint that the university's non-existent investigation yielded NO WRONG DOING. Sandusky still had a flow of kids because CURLY blatantly lied to Second Mile. This man should be in jail. This man should have been fired, NOT on voluntary leave. His failure to act on several levels and his blatant lies are inexcusable.Joe Paterno failed that boy. He failed Penn State. And he failed himself. When the coward Mike McQueary came to his house, regardless of the details of what McQueary told him, Joe should have sat down and TOGETHER they should have called the police. That's what should have been done the previous night at a minimum and Joe Paterno should have recognized what the RIGHT thing to do was. I do not know what Mike McQueary told Joe. I just know that the grand jury and the DA believe whatever McQueary and Joe testified as to what their conversation contained. I do not know what Joe said he was going to do about the situation. I just know that Joe met with the AD who later interviewed McQueary and did nothing. What Joe knew about 2002, 1998, before, in between, and after is not clear. My defense of Joe Paterno is one regarding a rush to judgment and making assumptions based on little information regarding the program, what he knew and allowed regarding Sandusky, and what he actually (not theoretically) was responsible for. We do not know his relationships with people, what his role administratively has been since 1998, nor what the AD and others share with him. Joe deserves to be highly criticized. Joe should not represent Penn State and Penn State football saturday. But the criticism is so disproportionate to the actions of Sandusky, McQueary, and Curly, in my opinion, that I cannot help but go into lawyer and defense mode. If it comes out that Joe was aware of 1998 and that was why Sandusky was "retired" if it comes out that he knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant etc., then Joe deserves to be vilified.The manner and amount of vitriol being spewed towards Paterno and Penn State itself seems rather misplaced and smells of ulterior motives to me based on certain people in this thread. Not everybody.
All good except one little lie you slipped in there: Paterno testified under oath that McQueary told him that he witnessed Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy".And you wrote that what Joe knew in 2002 was unclear or "if it comes out" that Paterno "knew Sandusky had these tendencies, that Joe knowingly allowed Sandusky to run rampant" then Paterno deserves to be vilified. The above is willful denial of the actual facts by you--you either dont care what Paterno testified to under oath, or you think Paterno is a liar. Paterno testified under oath he was told by an eyewitness--who he must trust because he later promoted him repeatedly--of sexual abuse of a young boy at a PSU facility, he reported it, nothing happened and then Paterno repeatedly saw Sandusky over the years with young boys at PSU events, practices and games.PATERNO TESTIFIED HE KNEW AND THEN HE DID NOTHING ONCE IT BECAME CLEAR NOONE ELSE WAS DOING ANYTHING.
CAPSLOCK IS HOW I FEEL INSIDE, RICK!
 
Possibly Pimping the kids out?

"I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen," Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. "I hear there's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."

If this is true this is going to be even more massive than it already is.
hey GB, this has been posted maybe a dozen times over the last few pages. just letting you know.
I just heard Sandusky wrote a book. You'll never guess what it is titled.
"A Few Good Men"?
 
Anyone who knew specifics and covered it up should be fired...period. But the vitriol for the "program" is badly misplaced. This incident has NOTHING to do with the football program, other than the fact that one or two of the people involved were coaches. Sandusky wasn't a part of the program at the time.
I disagree that this has nothing to do with the program.At the very least, there are two direct incidents that link with the program:1. The alleged 1998 incident happened while Sandusky was an active coach.2. The 2002 incident was allegedly seen by a graduate assistant at the time and occurred in the football showers. Sandusky had emeritus status, access to the facility, and even an office in the complex. He was not just a random citizen who ended up there.Another less tangible connection to the program is the disproportionate power, or at least huge presence, of the football program in the overall Penn State institutional infrastructure. It is clearly possible that if even a partial cover-up occurred, i.e. looking the other way, a deal with Sandusky to retire at a fairly early age, etc., it likely occurred to protect the image of the football program. It is possible to conclude that the welfare of the football program was valued higher than the welfare of the institution and/or the pursuit of justice. It also can be argued that the institution, the football program, and the money the football program provides are so tightly intertwined as to not be able to distinguish them from each other. It is possible to almost follow the potential twisted logic that may have been used by President Spanier, et al, to hope that this situation would quietly go away rather than harming all three: the football program, the institution, and the money. Other powerful institutions have already shown that it is possible for people in places of power to protect the institution rather than to pursue justice.
These actions were commited by a predator who happened to be a coach. The 1998 incident (as far as I know) was not known by anyone else in the coaching staff, and the 2002 incident was AFTER he had already left the program. These are deep moral issues that had ZERO to do with the players, or the football team as a whole. They're about the specific individuals, NOT FOOTBALL!
Actually, I'm pretty sure he was still the coach in 2002. He retired AFTER the 2002 incident. That is, retired into a cushy university position which he held till last week, and which allowed him continued use of the facilities.
Jeebus, you need to read up a lot more on this case before posting anymore.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top