Thoughts on the Joe Paterno Situation?

[iluvolives]

Ken, I agree with a lot of what you said. However, when it comes to McQueary there simply isn't enough evidence yet to say that he is absolutely complicit in the coverup. Keep in mind that JoePa, The AD, The VP, and President were all aware of the 1998 incident. McQueary was not aware of the incident.

He went to JoePa and then reported it to the Athletic Director and the man who oversaw University Police. How do we know that they didn't tell him that they were going to investigate it? How do we know that they didn't tell them that they talked to Sandusky and that he was getting treatment? We don't know how deep the coverup runs. How do we know that those 3 didn't tell McQueary that he would never get a job ever again if he reported it?

Another factor to consider. The Grand Jury found out about the 2002 incident. You know how? McQueary told them. So why would he all the sudden come out and tell them about that incident when he could have kept his mouth shut and saved face? The answer could very well be that he was misled by the AD/Paterno and wanted to finally get the truth out. The Grand Jury investigation is very possibly the only time he was made aware that Sandusky had been involved in other incidents (unlike JoePa and the AD). After finding this out, he then blew the whistle on JoePa (a legend to him) and the others.

He could very well come out looking terrible, but I am going to wait and hear his side before I lump him in with the others.

Whether or not McQueary knew about previous incidents is irrelevant- you walk in on a brutal raping of a child... Who cares if it's a first or second offense. The fact a grown man wouldn't step in to stop something like this is horrific- at a bare minimum he should have found a phone and made an anonymous call to 911 or pulled a fire alarm....something.

[CityLife]

Ken, I agree with a lot of what you said. However, when it comes to McQueary there simply isn't enough evidence yet to say that he is absolutely complicit in the coverup. Keep in mind that JoePa, The AD, The VP, and President were all aware of the 1998 incident. McQueary was not aware of the incident.

He went to JoePa and then reported it to the Athletic Director and the man who oversaw University Police. How do we know that they didn't tell him that they were going to investigate it? How do we know that they didn't tell them that they talked to Sandusky and that he was getting treatment? We don't know how deep the coverup runs. How do we know that those 3 didn't tell McQueary that he would never get a job ever again if he reported it?

Another factor to consider. The Grand Jury found out about the 2002 incident. You know how? McQueary told them. So why would he all the sudden come out and tell them about that incident when he could have kept his mouth shut and saved face? The answer could very well be that he was misled by the AD/Paterno and wanted to finally get the truth out. The Grand Jury investigation is very possibly the only time he was made aware that Sandusky had been involved in other incidents (unlike JoePa and the AD). After finding this out, he then blew the whistle on JoePa (a legend to him) and the others.

He could very well come out looking terrible, but I am going to wait and hear his side before I lump him in with the others.

Whether or not McQueary knew about previous incidents is irrelevant- you walk in on a brutal raping of a child... Who cares if it's a first or second offense. The fact a grown man wouldn't step in to stop something like this is horrific- at a bare minimum he should have found a phone and made an anonymous call to 911 or pulled a fire alarm....something.

Actually it is very relevant. Had he known, he would have been a lot more likely to jump in and stop Sandusky. He would have been a lot more likely to ensure that it wasn't covered up again.

A janitor also walked in on Sandusky and was so horrified that he also ran away from the scene. He also did not report Sandusky for fear of losing his job and due to the shock. Anyone ever walked in on a family member or friend having sex? It is shocking and your instinct is to quickly leave. Imagine the horror of seeing your former coach with a 10 year old boy. I guarantee he was severely mentally and emotionally disturbed for at least a few minutes. He wouldn't be human if he wasn't.

There is no indication from the Grand Jury report that McQueary didn't go back to do something to Sandusky after his initial shock. There has been no indication that the rape of the boy actually continued. There is also no indication that it was a "brutal" raping. The report only says McQueary heard noises that sounded sexual. Not noises of someone in distress.

I think people should at least wait and hear his side of the story before vilifying him. There are scenarios that would make McQueary's inaction a lot more understandable (not right). It is very easy to judge from a computer, but nobody can imagine what it was like to actually be in that position.

[iluvolives]

Seriously... Maybe you should reread the report

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF

also, perhaps there may have been a reason he did nothing in the midst of the act, but he continued to coach at games where Sandusky brought young boys to watch from the sideline on a regular basis for almost 10 years following his eye witness of a rape- so yea I feel just fine judging him from my computer.

[CityLife]

I read the report the day it came out...

You know he is the one that brought this incident up to the authorities right? He did so when he found out that they were investigating Sandusky for other offenses. That shows that he was not happy that it had been covered up or that he was deceived. It also shows that he has remorse about the situation and was willing to tarnish his own name and the university he loves in order to get the truth out. Have you ever had to make a decision that difficult? A decision with implications so large? At the age of 28? You are free to judge all you want or disagree with me all you want, but there is still a lot of gray when it comes to McQueary's story. If it was as black as you are making it out, he would be fired like the others.

[iluvolives]

I read the report the day it came out...

You know he is the one that brought this incident up to the authorities right? He did so when he found out that they were investigating Sandusky for other offenses. That shows that he was not happy that it had been covered up or that he was deceived. It also shows that he has remorse about the situation and was willing to tarnish his own name and the university he loves in order to get the truth out. Have you ever had to make a decision that difficult? A decision with implications so large? At the age of 28? You are free to judge all you want or disagree with me all you want, but there is still a lot of gray when it comes to McQueary's story. If it was as black as you are making it out, he would be fired like the others.

You are incorrect- the boy called victim 1 in the report is the one who went to authorities and insisted on an investigation. McQuery's testimony is what lead to Sandusky's arrest because he was an eye witness, so telling the truth while under oath is the most he did to assist in the investigation. 

[KenFSU]

There is also no indication that it was a "brutal" raping. The report only says McQueary heard noises that sounded sexual. Not noises of someone in distress.

This is kind of where you lose me. I'm not entirely sure there is such thing as a gentle rape. Aside from the emotionally brutal aspect of the rape, physically -- to be entirely blunt -- I'm not sure a 10 year old boy is used to having a grown man's penis shoved up his anus.

I totally do understand you and Stephen's point of view, but from my reading of the Grand Jury report (as quoted below), there really isn't much room for doubt or misinterpretation:

"As the graduate student entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on," the grand jury report stated. "He then heard rhythmic, slapping sounds." The assistant looked into the shower and "saw a naked boy ... whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."

It's impossible to know how any of us would have reacted in the same situation with the same stakes, obviously, and I'm not putting the full blame on McQueary, but he should have gone immediately to the police.

[Bativac]

There is also no indication that it was a "brutal" raping. The report only says McQueary heard noises that sounded sexual. Not noises of someone in distress.

This is true. This isn't brutal child rape we're talking about. Just regular child rape.

[NotNow]

The facts are clear.  Read the indictment:

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf

McQuery knew what he saw.  He should have acted immediately to protect the boy.  He didn't.  It is that simple.   Excuses are just that, excuses. 

Penn State has a great football program with a wonderful tradition.  It is sad that Paterno's time ends this way, but it is because of the failure of a number of individuals (including Paterno) to act responsibly concerning a child molester in their midst and to McQuery's report of Sandusky sodomizing a child in campus facilities.

[NotNow]

It's a black and white issue, StephenDare!.  He should have immediately stopped the rape.   And then contacted the police.  What he did was not criminal, and met the minimum actions that was required by his employer, but it was not enough morally.  Now, I suppose that morals may vary, but that is how I feel. 

Officer Nobles on the other hand, acted as he was trained when faced with a threat to life. 

Two very different situations.  Perhaps you should stick to the Penn State thread.

[CityLife]

There was no indication that the rape was "brutal" and there were no "sounds of distress." NAMBLA says Hi!

Are you f'n kidding me? That is a repulsive claim and quite a leap to make. You are a pretty sick individual to post that.

You do realize that there would be a difference here if McQueary heard the boy screaming for help or had indications the boy was in pain right? The Grand Jury report does not in any way indicate such. Yes all rape of young boys is disgusting, but I was merely trying to point out that there may not have been signs that the boy was in physical pain. All I was doing was trying to put myself in McQueary's shoes and think of possible reasons for his inaction. If you took that I was trying to minimize rape or the incident, than you are free to wrongly think that, but I guarantee I am as disgusted as you are about Sandusky. Just trying to rationalize McQueary's situation.

[CityLife]

I read the report the day it came out...

You know he is the one that brought this incident up to the authorities right? He did so when he found out that they were investigating Sandusky for other offenses. That shows that he was not happy that it had been covered up or that he was deceived. It also shows that he has remorse about the situation and was willing to tarnish his own name and the university he loves in order to get the truth out. Have you ever had to make a decision that difficult? A decision with implications so large? At the age of 28? You are free to judge all you want or disagree with me all you want, but there is still a lot of gray when it comes to McQueary's story. If it was as black as you are making it out, he would be fired like the others.

You are incorrect- the boy called victim 1 in the report is the one who went to authorities and insisted on an investigation. McQuery's testimony is what lead to Sandusky's arrest because he was an eye witness, so telling the truth while under oath is the most he did to assist in the investigation.

Actually I am 100% correct and your inability to realize this tells me I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

My post stated: "You know he is the one that brought this incident up to the authorities right? He did so when he found out that they were investigating Sandusky for other offenses."

How do you think the investigators found out about the McQueary incident? Duh...because when he found out there was an investigation into Sandusky, he came forward and told them the truth about incident 2. He could have kept his mouth shut and nobody would have ever known. JoePa wouldn't have lost his job. The President and AD wouldn't be fired. And Penn State (his alma mater) wouldn't look as bad. That is part of the reason that Penn State fans are so mad at him and why he is receiving death threats.

The fact that he would come forward when he knew the potential consequences tells me he was deeply troubled and conflicted about the whole thing.

[NotNow]

It's a black and white issue, StephenDare!.  He should have immediately stopped the rape.   And then contacted the police.  What he did was not criminal, and met the minimum actions that was required by his employer, but it was not enough morally.  Now, I suppose that morals may vary, but that is how I feel. 

Officer Nobles on the other hand, acted as he was trained when faced with a threat to life. 

Two very different situations.  Perhaps you should stick to the Penn State thread.

We agree on what he should have done.  But I don't think its very moral to equate shooting a young man in the back several times and killing him in front of his grandmother with a 'grey' area of morality.

Nobles faced no threat to his life, but there were extenuating circumstances which----only if you gave Nobles the most extreme benefit of the doubt---may have clouded his perception as to necessary force.

You cant have it both ways, Notnow.  Either there are sometimes circumstances which cloud a persons judgement and they call for a bit of forgiveness for the bad results of poor decisions or they don't.

You obviously have your facts wrong in Officer Nobles case.  The State's Attorney found that there was a threat to life in the case, which is the only justification for the use of deadly force.  If you wish do display your complete lack of understanding of both the law and police procedure once again, start another thread.

There are no grey areas in either case.  But you are entitled to an opinion, as long as you don't try to change the facts.

[NotNow]

And yes, notnow. I agree.  It was not enough morally, and displayed a weakness that seems to be a mixture of cowardice and blind deference to authority in his character.

Even though he was the one who eventually did go to the police when nothing seemed to be working internally, not wanting to get a guy in 'too much' trouble when it comes to child sex is a pretty serious thing.

Im sure he will go through internal hell for a few years, and probably already has.

Sometimes doing whats right isnt the most popular thing for the group you derive your identity from, no?

I just think that people are being awfully quick to judge.

I agree with you on these points.  Doing what is right is not always easy, and is sometimes very hard.  But that is what defines character in us, isn't it?  An excellent case is point is the young man who stabbed a homeless man earlier this year.  His parents made him turn himself in.  Says quite a bit about the parents in my mind.

[JeffreyS]

My friend wrote a story for ESPN.com talking about how assistant coach Mike McQueary is protected under Pennsylvania's whistle blower law.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7219659/penn-state-assistant-coach-whistleblower-protection-reporting-sandusky-alleged-incident
 

[NotNow]

It's a black and white issue, StephenDare!.  He should have immediately stopped the rape.   And then contacted the police.  What he did was not criminal, and met the minimum actions that was required by his employer, but it was not enough morally.  Now, I suppose that morals may vary, but that is how I feel. 

Officer Nobles on the other hand, acted as he was trained when faced with a threat to life. 

Two very different situations.  Perhaps you should stick to the Penn State thread.

We agree on what he should have done.  But I don't think its very moral to equate shooting a young man in the back several times and killing him in front of his grandmother with a 'grey' area of morality.

Nobles faced no threat to his life, but there were extenuating circumstances which----only if you gave Nobles the most extreme benefit of the doubt---may have clouded his perception as to necessary force.

You cant have it both ways, Notnow.  Either there are sometimes circumstances which cloud a persons judgement and they call for a bit of forgiveness for the bad results of poor decisions or they don't.

You obviously have your facts wrong in Officer Nobles case.  The State's Attorney found that there was a threat to life in the case, which is the only justification for the use of deadly force.  If you wish do display your complete lack of understanding of both the law and police procedure once again, start another thread.

There are no grey areas in either case.  But you are entitled to an opinion, as long as you don't try to change the facts.

Ah, so we are back to what was technically legal.  Not bad for a complete flip flop, Notnow.  Don't you think that consistency is also a measure of moral character?

I have no idea what "flip flop" you are referring to, but do you think the obvious falsehood you are attempting to perpetuate about whether the Officer was threatened says something about your "moral character".  I have already pointed out that you are factually wrong, are you honest enough to own it?  Or will you do what you always do and reach for a totally unrelated subject like this, or just make some claim like "flip flop" and hope no one notices?

I suggest you just stop now.  But you just can't, can you?