Viper

Say it ain't so, Joe

Recommended Posts

Yesterday.

HARRISBURG, Pa. ? A judge ruled Monday that former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky can have supervised contact with most of his grandchildren, saying there was no evidence that the children's parents wouldn't be able to keep them safe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/jerry-sandusky-grandchildren-local-jury-judge_n_1273304.html

Today.

Accused Penn State child molester Jerry Sandusky has been hit with a new complaint, this one filed by his daughter-in-law, who claims he abused one of his grandchildren.

The complaint was filed with Centre County's Children and Youth Services by the wife of one of his adopted sons, Sandusky's lawyer told ABC News.

The lawyer, Joe Amendola, said the allegation cites the abuse of one grandchild.

"The allegations are ridiculous and unfounded. Jerry has absolutely denied any inappropriate contact with his grandkids," Amendola told ABC News.

The lawyer said, "It's important to keep in mind these allegations were made after the attorney general filed charges against Jerry even though the alleged incident took place before the AG's charges were filed."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/penn-state-molester-accusation-includes-grandson/story?id=15019709#.TzpqMbGQaIx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this man allowed to walk free

STATE COLLEGE - Prosecutors yesterday asked to have Jerry Sandusky kept indoors as part of his bail conditions, citing complaints that the former Penn State football assistant coach was seen outside and watching children in a schoolyard from the back porch of his home, where he is under house-arrest while awaiting trial on child-molestation charges.

The state Attorney General's Office argued in a court filing that Sandusky's bail conditions should be revised so that he is not allowed outside except to seek medical treatment. Prosecutors also oppose Sandusky's request to be allowed contact with his grandchildren.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-08/news/31038043_1_accusers-phone-numbers-house-arrest

He's hardly going to be 'walking free' if he is effectively under house arrest. And like it or not the guy still is entitled to a trial, and 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that.

Not to pile on, but just can't stop rushing to the Sandusky defense can't you?

Yeah because the concept he's talking about isn't, like, what this country's legal system is founded on or anything. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this man allowed to walk free

STATE COLLEGE - Prosecutors yesterday asked to have Jerry Sandusky kept indoors as part of his bail conditions, citing complaints that the former Penn State football assistant coach was seen outside and watching children in a schoolyard from the back porch of his home, where he is under house-arrest while awaiting trial on child-molestation charges.

The state Attorney General's Office argued in a court filing that Sandusky's bail conditions should be revised so that he is not allowed outside except to seek medical treatment. Prosecutors also oppose Sandusky's request to be allowed contact with his grandchildren.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-08/news/31038043_1_accusers-phone-numbers-house-arrest

He's hardly going to be 'walking free' if he is effectively under house arrest. And like it or not the guy still is entitled to a trial, and 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that.

Not to pile on, but just can't stop rushing to the Sandusky defense can't you?

Yeah because the concept he's talking about isn't, like, what this country's legal system is founded on or anything. :rolleyes:

The opinions of posters on an internet forum are not legally binding. Are you familiar with the term court of public opinion that I used a page or two back? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this man allowed to walk free

STATE COLLEGE - Prosecutors yesterday asked to have Jerry Sandusky kept indoors as part of his bail conditions, citing complaints that the former Penn State football assistant coach was seen outside and watching children in a schoolyard from the back porch of his home, where he is under house-arrest while awaiting trial on child-molestation charges.

The state Attorney General's Office argued in a court filing that Sandusky's bail conditions should be revised so that he is not allowed outside except to seek medical treatment. Prosecutors also oppose Sandusky's request to be allowed contact with his grandchildren.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-08/news/31038043_1_accusers-phone-numbers-house-arrest

He's hardly going to be 'walking free' if he is effectively under house arrest. And like it or not the guy still is entitled to a trial, and 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that.

Not to pile on, but just can't stop rushing to the Sandusky defense can't you?

Yeah because the concept he's talking about isn't, like, what this country's legal system is founded on or anything. :rolleyes:

The opinions of posters on an internet forum are not legally binding. Are you familiar with the term court of public opinion that I used a page or two back? :rolleyes:

Yes, and thankfully this country is smart enough NOT to have a legal system that fully caters to the, mostly stupid, general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and thankfully this country is smart enough NOT to have a legal system that fully caters to the, mostly stupid, general public.

Good thing they wont be catering to you I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whatever helps you sleep at night, and caters to your personal agenda, no matter how unconstitutional or ridiculous it may be, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" in any given case applies to precisely twelve people. I can say Jerry Sandusky is a child-rapist openly and freely without having taken in the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, because I am not in the jury box, nor will I be.

Also, I can say that because Jerry Sandusky is a child-rapist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't have a problem with that, and I'm not saying he isn't a child rapist, but what I do have a problem with is everyone acting as if he doesn't deserve the same rights that we are all entitled to as citizens of the United States. I'm certainly not defending his actions, but what everyone seems to forget is that scumbag child rapist or not, he's still presumed innocent untill proven guilty, at least legally. The court of public opinion is meaningless in that respect. I can't tell you exactly why the specifics of his bail are seemingly so lax, but regardless, he is still entitled to a trial by a legal jury and untill then, there isn't much anyone can do about it. I'm not defending the scumbag, I'm defending the support of the legal system that, hopefully, fries his ass if/when he is found guilty.

There's a reason why we have a legal system that is set up to separate reason from passion. It's because, regardless of how anyone feels about a legal issue, we're still all entitled to a proper and fair legal trial. That's, in the very least, what the system is set up to do. Now one can argue that due to the media coverage this trial has gotten that may not be fully possible, but we still have to at least attempt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" in any given case applies to precisely twelve people. I can say Jerry Sandusky is a child-rapist openly and freely without having taken in the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, because I am not in the jury box, nor will I be.

Also, I can say that because Jerry Sandusky is a child-rapist.

Actually it applies to everyone. You can say Sandusky is a child-rapist if you like, but then you could say trees are purple, if you wanted, or that OJ Simpson is a murderer. Noone is guilty of a crime until they are convicted of it. In an actual bona fide court of law. OJ Simpson stands as a monument to that.

Again none of this is to say Sandusky is innocent, simply that the legal process needs to be allowed to happen and it's best if it happens without an atmosphere of hysteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't have a problem with that, and I'm not saying he isn't a child rapist, but what I do have a problem with is everyone acting as if he doesn't deserve the same rights that we are all entitled to as citizens of the United States. I'm certainly not defending his actions, but what everyone seems to forget is that scumbag child rapist or not, he's still presumed innocent untill proven guilty, at least legally. The court of public opinion is meaningless in that respect. I can't tell you exactly why the specifics of his bail are seemingly so lax, but regardless, he is still entitled to a trial by a legal jury and untill then, there isn't much anyone can do about it. I'm not defending the scumbag, I'm defending the support of the legal system that, hopefully, fries his ass if/when he is found guilty.

There's a reason why we have a legal system that is set up to separate reason from passion. It's because, regardless of how anyone feels about a legal issue, we're still all entitled to a proper and fair legal trial. That's, in the very least, what the system is set up to do. Now one can argue that due to the media coverage this trial has gotten that may not be fully possible, but we still have to at least attempt that.

Nobody has argued against him having due process in his legal matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former AD Curley: I want my charges dropped

Gary Schultz: Me too

tl;dr version: PA law requires two witnesses to support a perjury charge. McQueary was the first.....Paterno the second. No Paterno, no case - they contend.

So it's conceivable two of the key figures in the cover-up could skate. Ridiculous.

Paterno died just to help get his friends off...

...that son of a bitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former AD Curley: I want my charges dropped

Gary Schultz: Me too

tl;dr version: PA law requires two witnesses to support a perjury charge. McQueary was the first.....Paterno the second. No Paterno, no case - they contend.

So it's conceivable two of the key figures in the cover-up could skate. Ridiculous.

:censored: everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former AD Curley: I want my charges dropped

Gary Schultz: Me too

tl;dr version: PA law requires two witnesses to support a perjury charge. McQueary was the first.....Paterno the second. No Paterno, no case - they contend.

So it's conceivable two of the key figures in the cover-up could skate. Ridiculous.

Both also claim that they the failure to report law they are being charged with was enacted in 2007 while the crimes they are charged with committing occurred in 2002. The statute of limitations for such charges is two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paterno died just to help get his friends off...

...that son of a bitch

Now THAT'S funny.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people (including some that frequent these very boards) that seriously do think what you wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're all gonna end up skating. Even Sandusky.

If that means Sandusky gets justice served to him on the street by a mob of parents, that's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're all gonna end up skating. Even Sandusky.

"...this Fall, as Jam Productions and Wheat Thins present 'Pedophiles On Ice'!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former AD Curley: I want my charges dropped

Gary Schultz: Me too

tl;dr version: PA law requires two witnesses to support a perjury charge. McQueary was the first.....Paterno the second. No Paterno, no case - they contend.

So it's conceivable two of the key figures in the cover-up could skate. Ridiculous.

Yeah, but Paterno's testimony from the Grand Jury transcipts (you know, the ones that most ALL of you have never read) could possibly be read into the court proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paterno died just to help get his friends off...

...that son of a bitch

Now THAT'S funny.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people (including some that frequent these very boards) that seriously do think what you wrote.

So it's NOT funny then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now