Say it ain't so, Joe

[BBTV]

Well technically, isn't reporting up the chain of command what you're supposed to do? It gets back to what I posted - he did the "by the book" correct thing, so he's (at least legally) off the hook. However, while he technically went up the chain, ultimately he has more power and influence than those above him, so he should've gone to the authorities himself - or at least followed up with the AD.

I'm just wondering how you couldn't report that to the police department, which is what Paterno should have done.

I do think that's what he should have done. You cut out what I was replying to. My point was the difference between legal liability and moral obligation. He (so far, it seems) didn't do anyting legally wrong. He certainly should've pursued with McQuery and the authorities. I can sort of see a 22-year-old kid being scared and unsure of what to do, and hell - it's Joe Freaking Paterno he's reporting it to - that guy can make everything OK. But for Paterno to not question why this guy is still running a program for children and working on campus is inexcusable.

[tvko]

Not only does this ruin Paterno, but it will cast a shadow on their entire program and all of its successes. Penn State has long prided itself on being clean, out of trouble, etc. I think this will end up being much more significant than people are thinking right now.

As for JoePa, his legal obligation being fulfilled doesn't mean anything to me. I think his dishonest response "If true, we were all fooled" and his inability to report this to authorities is much more telling.

[bosrs1]

28 is old enough to call 911 and report a rape.

Thank you. The person who really should have been calling the cops in 2002 was the GA. Now the question is, why didn't he? Was their a conspiracy to keep him quiet? Did he just not want to rock the boat? Or is he just a bad person?

[infrared41]

Am I the only one who thinks there had to be rumors of Sandusky's behavior? Especially after 2002? The fact that the guy still had access to the program after the 2002 incident leads me to think that a lot of people turned their heads and pretended that everything was A-OK. Sorry, but I'm just not buying the idea that everyone "was fooled."

[bosrs1]

Am I the only one who thinks there had to be rumors of Sandusky's behavior? Especially after 2002? The fact that the guy still had access to the program after the 2002 incident leads me to think that a lot of people turned their heads and pretended that everything was A-OK. Sorry, but I'm just not buying the idea that everyone "was fooled."

You've never had a friend who turned out to be a sexual deviant have you? It's not something most people are willing to admit is possible. Hell they'll delude themselves that it can't be true until the evidence is staring them right in the face, trust me I've seen it happen. Statements by a witness aren't usually enough to convince most people that someone they call friend is fouled up in the head when it comes to diddling around like that. It takes more, like a victim and the police being involved before they can accept something as :censored:ed up as that. Which is why I totally believe Paterno. I've seen it happen before. His "position" doesn't change the reality that most people can't accept that a friend would turn out to be a sexual miscreant.

[Sodboy13]

Am I the only one who thinks there had to be rumors of Sandusky's behavior? Especially after 2002? The fact that the guy still had access to the program after the 2002 incident leads me to think that a lot of people turned their heads and pretended that everything was A-OK. Sorry, but I'm just not buying the idea that everyone "was fooled."

No, you aren't because there's this in the grand jury report, via Deadspin:

Sandusky was investigated by university police in 1998 after a mother reported to them that her 11-year-old son had showered with Sandusky. A university police detective and a municipal police detective later eavesdropped on a conversation between the mother and Sandusky in which Sandusky answered "I don't know ... maybe" when the mother asked him if he had touched her son inappropriately. He also admitted he had showered with the boy to an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. The university police detective advised Sandusky not to shower with a child again, and Sandusky promised he would not. No charges were filed.

1998 - when he was still employed as an assistant coach. And then he retired with accolades and fanfare in 1999. My guess, though entirely unsubstantiated, is that by the time McQueary saw what he saw in 2002, the chain of command had established protocol on how precisely to handle situations like this one when it came to Jerry Sandusky.

[Cola]

I think Paterno did what is required of him in the situation, I don't see why his legacy should be tarnished at all. He followed chain of command and reported the information he had to the ones "above" him. It was up to them to take action and for all he knew, they did. This isn't a Paterno issue...this is a Penn State issue. Unfortunately, people are good at hiding how screwed up they are privately and sometimes you think you know someone so well, that some obvious things aren't so obvious (like random kids staying over...he ran a charity, makes a little sense).

I read the whole 23 page report earlier on the case...highly disturbing. This Sandusky guy is one sick and should be eliminated from this planet...Pulp Fiction gimp scene style.

When I was reading the report, each page had a heading "Victim 1, Victim 2, Victim X, etc" and I just kept reading expecting 3 or 4 to be an insane amount...no, it kept going. It was even worse hearing about the old Vet who witnessed him in the act and almost had a heart attack after seeing it...couldn't talk or explain it to anyone afterwards and compared it to things he saw in Korea.

Disturbing.

[The_Admiral]

Am I the only one who thinks there had to be rumors of Sandusky's behavior? Especially after 2002? The fact that the guy still had access to the program after the 2002 incident leads me to think that a lot of people turned their heads and pretended that everything was A-OK. Sorry, but I'm just not buying the idea that everyone "was fooled."

You've never had a friend who turned out to be a sexual deviant have you?

No, none of my friends rape boys. Maybe I just don't have enough friends.

[bosrs1]

Am I the only one who thinks there had to be rumors of Sandusky's behavior? Especially after 2002? The fact that the guy still had access to the program after the 2002 incident leads me to think that a lot of people turned their heads and pretended that everything was A-OK. Sorry, but I'm just not buying the idea that everyone "was fooled."

You've never had a friend who turned out to be a sexual deviant have you?

No, none of my friends rape boys. Maybe I just don't have enough friends.

No you've just been lucky. Let me tell you from someone who has had a friend turn out to be a sexual deviant (not a little boy rapist but bad enough), people have a VERY hard time accepting it. And in a university setting it's even worse. A university goes to whatever means it can to avoid involving the police to avoid the ding to it's image. I saw it happen first hand. If a university can, it will sweep it under the rug and individuals do not want to believe it is possible so they don't.

[Sodboy13]

Am I the only one who thinks there had to be rumors of Sandusky's behavior? Especially after 2002? The fact that the guy still had access to the program after the 2002 incident leads me to think that a lot of people turned their heads and pretended that everything was A-OK. Sorry, but I'm just not buying the idea that everyone "was fooled."

You've never had a friend who turned out to be a sexual deviant have you?

No, none of my friends rape boys. Maybe I just don't have enough friends.

No you've just been lucky. Let me tell you from someone who has had a friend turn out to be a sexual deviant (not a little boy rapist but bad enough), people have a VERY hard time accepting it. And in a university setting it's even worse. A university goes to whatever means it can to avoid involving the police to avoid the ding to it's image. I saw it happen first hand. If a university can, it will sweep it under the rug and individuals do not want to believe it is possible so they don't.

So, what you're saying then is, based on experience, a lot of people tend to turn their heads and pretend everything is A-OK.

[bosrs1]

Am I the only one who thinks there had to be rumors of Sandusky's behavior? Especially after 2002? The fact that the guy still had access to the program after the 2002 incident leads me to think that a lot of people turned their heads and pretended that everything was A-OK. Sorry, but I'm just not buying the idea that everyone "was fooled."

You've never had a friend who turned out to be a sexual deviant have you?

No, none of my friends rape boys. Maybe I just don't have enough friends.

No you've just been lucky. Let me tell you from someone who has had a friend turn out to be a sexual deviant (not a little boy rapist but bad enough), people have a VERY hard time accepting it. And in a university setting it's even worse. A university goes to whatever means it can to avoid involving the police to avoid the ding to it's image. I saw it happen first hand. If a university can, it will sweep it under the rug and individuals do not want to believe it is possible so they don't.

So, what you're saying then is, based on experience, a lot of people tend to turn their heads and pretend everything is A-OK.

No, based on experience, they tend to be unable to believe it until evidence is slapping them in the face.

And in some cases, even then they're in such shock over it they still have a hard time totally accepting it at first and it takes a long time if ever to overcome that. If I had to guess it goes to the base idea that no one want to think that THEY befriended, invited to their home, introduced to their families, etc... a person who is so reprehensible as to abuse other people in one of the most disgusting ways imaginable. To do so would be to admit that your ability to judge character was so massively flawed that how can you ever trust it again? It's much more complex that simply pretending everything is OK. And I say that not just as the friend of someone who was a deviant, but one of their victims as well. So if it seems like I have sympathy for Paterno, it's because I do. I absolutely believe him when he says he was fooled. He probably was (unless evidence to the contrary that he was there during one of the shower sessions, etc... comes out).

[Gothamite]

The grad student did what he was supposed to - report it to an authority. Maybe he should have called the cops as well, but his moral responsibility to do do wasn't half as strong as Paterno's, who was an authority figure.

And I'm not buying the "old man" defense. Was he incapable of dialing 911? If he was aware enough to tell his AD, he was aware enough to enquire as to why no punishment was ever leveled against the pedophile.

Wait, so you're saying the GA (who being a graduate student was a 22+ year old adult had no moral duty to call the police. After witnessing the event all he had to do was report it up the chain? Yet Paterno, as a second hand party who did not witness anything and was not likely to believe the accusation against an old friend on the word of some person he hardly knows, did have a moral duty to call the police rather than report it up the chain as he did? Sorry but that's a bit of a double standard there. You can't have it both ways.

Not trying to have it both ways at all - as the head coach and a member of administration at the school, Paterno has a responsibility for the safety of everyone who uses the facilities. It's in his job description.

So yes, he has more responsibility than a graduate student.

Does he have as much responsibility as the AD? No, which is why the AD is facing jail time and JoePa is not. But if Paterno is so disinterested as to report these accusations and never follow up, even when he sees the accused in team facilities in the company of little boys, then he does not deserve his position of authority.

[dfwabel]

Even the punishment which the university gave Sandusky was "unenforceable", but Paterno legally did what he was required to do, but there was a moral obligation in which he failed to engage in at the time. The State Police Commissioner, Frank Noonan said it best today,

"but somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child. I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone. Not whether you're a football coach or a university president or the guy sweeping the building. I think you have a moral responsibility to call us."

.

It goes further for McQueary, who was 28 at the time of the 2002 incident and did not report it to law enforcement, but rather just called his Dad on advice. He, as well as the janitor, have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

Joe's press conference tomorrow could be fascinating television.

Also, why is an assistant football coach given emeritus status?

[WJMorris3]

No offense, but Joe Paterno's failure to report to police makes it as if he had done it himself. He needs to be fired, immediately.

[crashcarson15]

No offense, but Joe Paterno's failure to report to police makes it as if he had done it himself. He needs to be fired, immediately.

I heard today that it's Pennsylvania law that if you hear of something along these lines that you're required by law to report it to the authorities.

Just saying what I heard.

[The_Admiral]

It goes further for McQueary, who was 28 at the time of the 2002 incident and did not report it to law enforcement, but rather just called his Dad on advice.

Well, you know, there comes a time in every father's life when he has to sit down with his son and explain what he, as a man, must do when he goes into a locker room after hours and sees an old man buttraping a 4th grader in the shower. Apparently that is "talk about it for like eight hours and tell your boss to tell his boss to tell his boss."

[Eye]

It goes further for McQueary, who was 28 at the time of the 2002 incident and did not report it to law enforcement, but rather just called his Dad on advice.

Well, you know, there comes a time in every father's life when he has to sit down with his son and explain what he, as a man, must do when he goes into a locker room after hours and sees an old man buttraping a 4th grader in the shower. Apparently that is "talk about it for like eight hours and tell your boss to tell his boss to tell his boss."

Is that what that guy really did? Called his dad and told him what he saw? What. The. Hell.

[Viper]

So, what you're saying then is, based on experience, a lot of people tend to turn their heads and pretend everything is A-OK.

No, based on experience, they tend to be unable to believe it until evidence is slapping them in the face.

And in some cases, even then they're in such shock over it they still have a hard time totally accepting it at first and it takes a long time if ever to overcome that. If I had to guess it goes to the base idea that no one want to think that THEY befriended, invited to their home, introduced to their families, etc... a person who is so reprehensible as to abuse other people in one of the most disgusting ways imaginable. To do so would be to admit that your ability to judge character was so massively flawed that how can you ever trust it again? It's much more complex that simply pretending everything is OK. And I say that not just as the friend of someone who was a deviant, but one of their victims as well. So if it seems like I have sympathy for Paterno, it's because I do. I absolutely believe him when he says he was fooled. He probably was (unless evidence to the contrary that he was there during one of the shower sessions, etc... comes out).

See also any number of terrorism arrests in the U.S. since 9/11 where people who knew the suspect have said they can't believe the guy could have been a terrorist.

Anyway, the NCAA is not likely to punish Penn State for this, for the simple reason that the case doesn't involve people who were recruits or current student-athletes at the time of these crimes, and is therefore beyond the purview of NCAA rules. The only way they're likely to get involved is if, as has been speculated elsewhere, Sandusky knows about major NCAA violations by Penn State that haven't come to light yet (which would certainly explain the reluctance to turn him in back in '02), and figuring he has nothing to lose anymore, pulls a Nevin Shapiro and throws JoePa under the bus.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Suffice to say there are no winners here.

[dfwabel]

It goes further for McQueary, who was 28 at the time of the 2002 incident and did not report it to law enforcement, but rather just called his Dad on advice.

Well, you know, there comes a time in every father's life when he has to sit down with his son and explain what he, as a man, must do when he goes into a locker room after hours and sees an old man buttraping a 4th grader in the shower. Apparently that is "talk about it for like eight hours and tell your boss to tell his boss to tell his boss."

Is that what that guy really did? Called his dad and told him what he saw? What. The. Hell.

That is what the Grand Jury report said he did. He called his Dad and his Dad told him to tell Paterno.

if you have the stomach for it, read the Grand Jury report.