So if you see a coworker kill someone at work your suppose to go to HR and your supervisor? I think you guys are confusing breaking company policy with committing one of the worst crimes imaginable.

 

For me it starts with McQueary. He should of A) stopped it and B) called the cops. Second it's on JoePa. When McQueary came to him they both should have gotten in the car and went to the police station. I'm having a hard time understanding the defense for anyone involved in this. There is no telling how many more kids were raped by Sandusky after this.

 

First, you're equating apples to oranges. Witnessing something is not the same as being told that something has happened. Again, if someone were going to leap frog the chain, then it should have been the eye witness...immediately. Instead, that witness informs someone else. Is the person receiving the information obligated to blindly believe allegations without proof? At what point does the person being reported lose his/her right to presumption of innocence? In my opinion, it's definitely at the point where an act was witnessed. But if that witness fails to report it, it becomes a situation where those further removed have to do what they're advised with the information they have. As HT said, if the allegations had been false the damage would have already been done to Sandusky's career and reputation.

 

I equate this to the Duke lacrosse scandal. Those boys were accused, arrested and tried. But they actually hadn't done anything. They and Duke and the coach, though were tried in the court of public opinion and to this day many still don't believe that the boys did not do what they were accused of.

 

I'm trying to be objective here. Yes, the rape of a 10 year old boy is heinus and nauseating to me. But I'm not ready to condemn the person who DID report it to the extent that he thought he was supposed to (based on hearsay).

 

Frankly, that JoePa DID report it gives me belief that he tried to do what he thought was the right thing. Some other situations would have seen the coach try to cover it up from the university officials.

It's mind-blowing that he could have witnessed this and done nothing at all. To top it off, as UKMF says, he continually saw Sandusky with children.

 

IF nothing had resulted from the investigation and there had been no charges brought, is it right to assume that because something had been alleged that Sandusky should NOT be around children?

Frankly, that JoePa DID report it gives me belief that he tried to do what he thought was the right thing. Some other situations would have seen the coach try to cover it up from the university officials.

Very fair point.

Joe is officially retiring at the end of the season.

IF nothing had resulted from the investigation and there had been no charges brought, is it right to assume that because something had been alleged that Sandusky should NOT be around children?

If it was indeed a completely false accuation then there is no reason he couldn't be around children. BUT, I'm speaking directly about the GA who witnessed him raping a ten year old boy. The fact that he continually saw Sandusky around children while he did nothing is mind-blowing and sickening.

IF nothing had resulted from the investigation and there had been no charges brought, is it right to assume that because something had been alleged that Sandusky should NOT be around children?

 

Another fair point. That does fall on the administration and what they said about the investigation. JoePa can only act on what he knew. Or what he wanted to know.

darrenrovell:

 

Paterno: "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.""

If it was indeed a completely false accuation then there is no reason he couldn't be around children. BUT, I'm speaking directly about the GA who witnessed him raping a ten year old boy. The fact that he saw continually saw Sandusky around children while he did nothing is mind-blowing and sickening.

 

 

I don't see how the GA can sleep at night.

darrenrovell:

 

Paterno: "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.""

 

 

We all do, Joe. We all do.

darrenrovell:

 

Paterno: "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.""

 

And frankly, don't we all fall into that boat more often than not?

"@jemelehill: Here's my litmus test: If that's your 10-year-old son, nephew, grandson, brother, do you think Joe Paterno did enough?"

First, you're equating apples to oranges. Witnessing something is not the same as being told that something has happened. Again, if someone were going to leap frog the chain, then it should have been the eye witness...immediately. Instead, that witness informs someone else. Is the person receiving the information obligated to blindly believe allegations without proof? At what point does the person being reported lose his/her right to presumption of innocence? In my opinion, it's definitely at the point where an act was witnessed. But if that witness fails to report it, it becomes a situation where those further removed have to do what they're advised with the information they have. As HT said, if the allegations had been false the damage would have already been done to Sandusky's career and reputation.

 

I equate this to the Duke lacrosse scandal. Those boys were accused, arrested and tried. But they actually hadn't done anything. They and Duke and the coach, though were tried in the court of public opinion and to this day many still don't believe that the boys did not do what they were accused of.

 

I'm trying to be objective here. Yes, the rape of a 10 year old boy is heinus and nauseating to me. But I'm not ready to condemn the person who DID report it to the extent that he thought he was supposed to (based on hearsay).

 

Frankly, that JoePa DID report it gives me belief that he tried to do what he thought was the right thing. Some other situations would have seen the coach try to cover it up from the university officials.

 

I haven't read every post in the thread, but I believe this to be the crux of the matter. What the GA saw and what he told JoePa may be two wildly different things. Most of this is on the GA.

 

He is taking a lot of heat for not charging in and protecting the child. If he did anything less than doing whatever he could to make sure the actions were stopped (whether by physical confrontation or at least ensuring that Sandusky "ran away") AND THEN making sure the child was taken care of (a point I haven't really heard being discussed), then he didn't do enough. Not nearly enough.

 

The fact that this has taken some nine and a half years to see the light of day tells me that in this instance, Penn State University was a lot more interested in protecting its football program and the university's reputation than it was in protecting young boys.

"@jemelehill: Here's my litmus test: If that's your 10-year-old son, nephew, grandson, brother, do you think Joe Paterno did enough?"

 

That's a question we'd all answer subjectively.

That's a question we'd all answer subjectively.

I know. But to me it says a lot about what his moral obligation was...

First, you're equating apples to oranges. Witnessing something is not the same as being told that something has happened. Again, if someone were going to leap frog the chain, then it should have been the eye witness...immediately. Instead, that witness informs someone else. Is the person receiving the information obligated to blindly believe allegations without proof? At what point does the person being reported lose his/her right to presumption of innocence? In my opinion, it's definitely at the point where an act was witnessed. But if that witness fails to report it, it becomes a situation where those further removed have to do what they're advised with the information they have. As HT said, if the allegations had been false the damage would have already been done to Sandusky's career and reputation.

 

I equate this to the Duke lacrosse scandal. Those boys were accused, arrested and tried. But they actually hadn't done anything. They and Duke and the coach, though were tried in the court of public opinion and to this day many still don't believe that the boys did not do what they were accused of.

 

I'm trying to be objective here. Yes, the rape of a 10 year old boy is heinus and nauseating to me. But I'm not ready to condemn the person who DID report it to the extent that he thought he was supposed to (based on hearsay).

 

Frankly, that JoePa DID report it gives me belief that he tried to do what he thought was the right thing. Some other situations would have seen the coach try to cover it up from the university officials.

OK, fair enough. One of your subodinates comes to you and says they saw a coworker murdering someone the night before. Your course of action would be to go to your supervisor and HR and forget about from there on? I'm sorry but when it comes to a crime this serious the only chain of command is 911. You then let the police sort it out.