What a crazy turns of events this week.
Do you guys think that he deserved to be fired, or was made a scapegoat by Penn State and the media?
He absolutely needed to be fired. Or at least resign immediately. The indictment is absolutely horrifying. Have you read it? By all accounts he was fully aware of at least the one rape victim. He never followed up on it at all.
The biggest reason he had to go is that he is bigger than the president, and it happened under JoePa's nose. In the locker room, by a close friend and a former staffer under him. His program was the reason this wasn't reported. Protect the football program and out of that you protect the school.
When shock waves of violent crime can touch many people. Turning a blind eye to it allows the damage to grow.
If you believe that Catholic bishops are responsible for following up on molestation charges in their dioceses, then Paterno is responsible for calling those under him to task as well. No one should turn a blind eye.
I'm an avid college football fan and have paid very close attention to this story. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the job as a mentor and coach Paterno has done over his very long tenure at Penn State.
However, with that in mind and especially after reading the Grand Jury Report and trying to gather as much of the details as possible through multiple media reports I have come to following conclusion regarding Paterno.
He did not do enough. Quite frankly, no one involved did enough. The 28 year old G.A. (now current wide receiver coach and recruiting coordinator at PSU) who witnessed the sodomizing of a 10 year old boy in the football athletics shower went directly to Paterno the next morning and told him exactly what he did. First the G.A. Should have went directly to the police and I feel he should be fired immediately as well. Next, Paterno went to the AD with these allegations and it stopped there. The AD briefed the GA and said that Sandusky had his keys to the facilities taken away and had notified his charity. The buck stopped there and 10 years later a grand jury investigation opened. Our own Paul Poz with the Jags who went to PSU said yesterday that Sandusky was around the program from 2003 through all of Poz's 4 years at PSU, which would put that around 2007. Paterno had a trusted Grad Assistant tell him He saw Sandusky sodomize a 10 year old boy in the football teams shower and that man was allowed to continually be a part of their program for years to come and that falls squarely on Paterno.
I am extremely passionate about this and Paterno's lack of action is indefensible and his firing was truly justified. His arrogance in his statement released telling the Board thst he would retire at seasons end an not to worry about his position almost made me sick as well. Sandusky is the monster. However, Paterno's unwillingness to do the right thing will forever be his legacy in my mind.
Again, these are my opinions on the subject.
Quote from: Bridges on November 10, 2011, 11:22:01 AM
The biggest reason he had to go is that he is bigger than the president, and it happened under JoePa's nose. In the locker room, by a close friend and a former staffer under him. His program was the reason this wasn't reported. Protect the football program and out of that you protect the school.
ABSOLUTELY agree.
This is the point that I think a lot of people are missing.
I'd like to know who this Graduate Assistant and his father are too, who thought they should go to Paterno rather than, you know, the
police.
It's so uncomfortable to see people actually protesting Paterno's firing.
Reading the Grand Jury Report, it's downright frightening too just how many warning signs there were with Sandusky, and how no one involved did ANYTHING to protect these children.
The Grad Assistant is Mike McQueary. He is a former Quarterback at Penn State. At the time of the incident he was a 28 year old Grad Assistant. He was putting a pair of sneakers away in the locker when he heard someone in the shower. He saw the sodomizing occur and both Sandusky and the 10 year old saw him (according to the grand jury report)
He is now the wide receiver coach and recruiting coordinator.
I have thought highly of Paterno and am so disappointed in him. I think everyone involved wanted the abuse stopped but also wanted to protect the Penn State brand. That is why everyone was not shouting as loud as they should and the abuse was not stopped. Fire them all and investigate for prosecution.
My dad went to Penn State and I was raised FSU first and Penn State second. I wish I hadn't read the Grand Jury report. Absolutely sickening stuff. There is no doubt in my mind that JoePa was aware of the 98 incident, which should have made him extra vigilant when the 2002 incident happened. As someone who grew up thinking JoePa was a saint, I can say that I am 100% behind him being fired for this. The Penn State BOT had no other choice. Especially with the prospects of civil cases looming.
It is just sad that this incident will define JoePa's career and legacy because the man did do some great stuff for the institution. He has quite possibly done more for Penn State as a university than any other coach ever has for their school. This is a guy who had donated $4 million of his own money to Penn State Academics. Who raised money for a library expansion that is now renamed after him, and who has done an excellent job of blending athletics and academics within his football program.
Ohhh....and there are rumors now that Sandusky's non-profit was a meeting place for other pedophiles...This story will only get uglier.
Quote from: CityLife on November 10, 2011, 11:38:46 AM
Ohhh....and there are rumors now that Sandusky's non-profit was a meeting place for other pedophiles...This story will only get uglier.
That's what I hear from multple media reports as well....This story is being reported to have some very dark and deep roots to it.
Quote from: Basstacular on November 10, 2011, 11:33:23 AM
The Grad Assistant is Mike McQueary. He is a former Quarterback at Penn State. At the time of the incident he was a 28 year old Grad Assistant. He was putting a pair of sneakers away in the locker when he heard someone in the shower. He saw the sodomizing occur and both Sandusky and the 10 year old saw him (according to the grand jury report)
He is now the wide receiver coach and recruiting coordinator.
I also want to know why he didn't stop it when he watched it happening, instead running out of the room and calling his father, who even more bizarrely told him to leave the premises.
The two major rumors that appear to be circulating, which both appear to be coming from Mark Madden in Pittsburgh, are:
1) Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors.
2) Penn State agreed to cover up the abuse in exchange for Sandusky's resignation
If either one of these stories turns out to be true, this is a whole lot sicker than even initially thought.
Quote from: stephendare on November 10, 2011, 12:08:07 PM
this sounds like its a bit of sensationalism, but stranger things have happened.
Quotehttp://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/11/10/rumor-sandusky-pimped-out-young-boys-to-rich-donors/
(WSCR) As if the Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse allegations couldn’t get any worse, they potentially just took a devastating turn.
Sportswriter Mark Madden of 105.9 The X in Pittsburgh joined The Mully and Hanley Show on Thursday and claimed that Sandusky had pimped out young boys from his charity to rich donors.
“It’s going to get worse before it gets better,†Madden said. “The Second Mile, and there’s no nice way to say this, pimped out young boys to wealthy donors. That is being investigated.â€
Madden claims the rumors are being investigated by “two prominent columnists.â€
That is what most people's initial reaction is, however....Madden called the Sandusky story back in April, and had the details nailed back then. So there may be some truth to his claims.
http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html
Another interesting twist is that the DA who initially went after Sandusky disappeared off the face of the planet in 2005.
His car was recovered with the hard drive ripped out of his laptop, but his body was never found.
Of course, it's pure speculation whether or not his disappearance had anything to do with Penn State (this was 2005, after all), but a strange wrinkle nonetheless:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/DA-Who-Never-Charged-Sandusky-Has-Been-Missing-Since-2005-133615093.html
Quote from: stephendare on November 10, 2011, 11:53:33 AM
I also want to know why he didn't stop it when he watched it happening, instead running out of the room and calling his father, who even more bizarrely told him to leave the premises.
fear of pumphumping his own career obviously. The coach was a powerful guy, and there was clearly already a pattern of coverup happening. This stuff never stays secret from the team. It just never gets talked about outside of the circle. Classic pattern.
[/quote]
I'm sure of it. The question was more one of rhetorical outrage when we all know the answer. The janitors in the grand jury report also indicated not wanting to say anything for fear of their jobs.
My thought is he's a scapegoat for this..JoePa didn't committed the crimes..
Quote from: Rynjny on November 10, 2011, 02:29:23 PM
My thought is he's a scapegoat for this..JoePa didn't committed the crimes..
But he was well aware of them and failed to ensure that the proper authorities were notified. And he continued to allow this scumbag to be affilliated with his program. While no, Paterno did not rape these children himself, his inaction beyond telling the university higher ups is inexcusable and does warrant his dismissal.
I'm totally fine with Paterno being fired. Several more need to go, imo.
I grew up in a house with two PITT alums...and then I went to Temple....needless to say, I am far from being a Penn State fan (or as we like to call it, the State Penn).
Furthermore, I have never been a big JoePa guy either....like Bobby Bowden, many fans of the school put him on too high a pedestal and turned a blind eye....and believe me, State College is so far away from anything that it is real easy to keep stuff quiet....plus, ins omething that affected me personally, JoePa doesn't let the bands play on "his" field if its wet (band shoes might ruin the field, football cleats won't).
All that said, I think his immediate removal wasn't necessary...the Trustees could have been a bit more decent and let him coach this Saturday against Nebraska....it is Penn State's final home game of the season.
Quote from: Rynjny on November 10, 2011, 02:29:23 PM
My thought is he's a scapegoat for this..JoePa didn't committed the crimes..
Of course not. But his failure to follow up with his report and/or report it to the proper authorities certainly enabled this man to continue his abuse.
I keep seeing people saying Paterno is a scapegoat, why? Cause he gets the most media attention? He is the name, so of course he is getting attention. I never heard of the AD or President before this.
The school needs to clean house with anyone and everyone who let this happen. The other coaches will be gone soon enough. If you're a Penn State player, how in the world do you use that shower again?
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 10, 2011, 02:54:44 PM
All that said, I think his immediate removal wasn't necessary...the Trustees could have been a bit more decent and let him coach this Saturday against Nebraska....it is Penn State's final home game of the season.
Do you have any idea of what kind of circus that would have created? Students took to the streets after learning he was leaving at the end of the year.
I can't even imagine it. It would have been an absolute nut house. The school failed to deal with this properly back when it should have. Now it has no choice but to immediately clean house, no ifs ands or buts.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 10, 2011, 02:53:44 PM
I'm totally fine with Paterno being fired. Several more need to go, imo.
Agreed. IMHO... at the end of the season the entire coaching staff needs to go. First... McQueary... who actually witnessed the rape is still coaching. He should be gone yesterday. It is beyond believability that the rest of the staff does not know various parts of this entire mess. The board of trustees needs to go also.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 10, 2011, 03:12:33 PM
First... McQueary... who actually witnessed the rape is still coaching. He should be gone yesterday.
Absolutely. The school is treading very lightly here though. They're concerned about a lawsuit, and I bet they're trying to figure out if McQueary is protected under whistleblower status.
Quote from: Bridges on November 10, 2011, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 10, 2011, 02:54:44 PM
All that said, I think his immediate removal wasn't necessary...the Trustees could have been a bit more decent and let him coach this Saturday against Nebraska....it is Penn State's final home game of the season.
Do you have any idea of what kind of circus that would have created? Students took to the streets after learning he was leaving at the end of the year.
yes...the school didn't want the image of Paterno being carried off the field by his players with 100,000 people giving him a standing ovation.
Certainly that is how it would go down. Just look at the calm and reasonable manner with which everyone handled the past 2 nights.
Let it be known. The small price to pay for indifference to the rape of a 10 year old is your job, effective immediately.
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 10, 2011, 04:00:18 PM
Quote from: Bridges on November 10, 2011, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 10, 2011, 02:54:44 PM
All that said, I think his immediate removal wasn't necessary...the Trustees could have been a bit more decent and let him coach this Saturday against Nebraska....it is Penn State's final home game of the season.
Do you have any idea of what kind of circus that would have created? Students took to the streets after learning he was leaving at the end of the year.
yes...the school didn't want the image of Paterno being carried off the field by his players with 100,000 people giving him a standing ovation.
The victims lawyers sure probably do....That scene would be salt in the wounds of all victims that JoePa and his cronies could have saved.
I've got to give up to the CEO of US Steel and the rest of the Board of Trustees at Penn State for letting Paterno know he isn't invincible and that everyone has to deal with the consequences of their actions. JoePa made his bed when he said that the Board Of Trustees have better things to worry about and that they shouldn't waste a minute of their time worrying about him.
How about the grad assistant stepping in and pulling that pedophile off the kid and stopping the rape? How can you just walk away from that and do nothing? I think he should be fired too--and anyone else who knew about this stuff and said nothing.
It is so disappointing and heartbreaking that no one stood up to stop it and report it.
Quote from: Kay on November 10, 2011, 04:34:51 PM
How about the grad assistant stepping in and pulling that pedophile off the kid and stopping the rape? How can you just walk away from that and do nothing? I think he should be fired too--and anyone else who knew about this stuff and said nothing.
It is so disappointing and heartbreaking that no one stood up to stop it and report it.
I think most of this whole episode is black and white, but I am pretty conflicted and actually slightly sympathetic to McQueary the GA. In the Grand Jury Report there is a story of a janitor witnessing Sandusky raping a boy in the shower also. The janitor was mortified. He is now dead , but according to coworkers, he told them what he saw was worse than anything he had seen in the Korean War (which included guys getting limbs blown off). He also didn't report the incident to the police for fear of losing his job.
McQueary was a former Penn State QB. Sandusky was a former coach of his and an authority figure to him. Getting a Graduate Assistant position at a major college is very, very competitive. It is usually parlayed into a full time coaching job. This is likely what McQueary wanted to do the rest of his life and was a dream situation.
With that in mind and with what we know about the janitor's reaction, I think it is somewhat understandable why McQueary didn't immediately physically go after Sandusky. He was likely in complete shock. Also Sandusky saw him. Who is to say Sandusky didn't flee? Who is to say McQueary didn't stop him? We don't yet know. What we do know is that after talking to his dad, he thought it was best to run it up the chain of command to JoePa, a father figure and a man he thought he could trust. Going directly to the authorities about an in house matter that would reflect very poorly on PSU, would have likely blackballed him from coaching and ruined his career.
I think on paper it is very easy to question McQueary's decision making, but I think he was put in a very difficult position. Heck, who is to say that the AD and President didn't threaten the crap out of him if he went to the police about it? He didn't know about the 1998 incident (like the other guys did).
I know some will disagree with my take on that, but I think his role in this is yet to be fully determined.
For most crimes -- extortion, prostitution, embezzlement -- I think a reasonable argument could be made that McQueary and Paterno made a decent effort to do the right thing, and then moved on with their lives. I can sympathize with the fact that JoePa had an organization to run, and that McQueary was protecting his future. With that in mind, all of those things go out the window when you are talking about a child getting brutally raped by a colleague in your shower. Once you throw that into th equation, nothing short of stopping your life and making sure the behavior stops and isn't repeated can pass as "doing enough." Neither one gets an ounce of sympathy from me. Not an ounce. Who knows how many of these kids have had their lives destroyed and their souls ripped from bodies because these two men were too concerned with "the big ball game!" to bother with putting a stop to child rape. I'm not buying a single excuse. JoePa's career may be tarnished, but at least he's not swinging by the neck from the end of a rope like so many childhood victims of violent sexual abuse end up doing.
^^^
What he said!
Well said Ken.
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.
Quote from: CityLife on November 10, 2011, 07:48:40 PM
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.
Quote from: iluvolives on November 10, 2011, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: CityLife on November 10, 2011, 07:48:40 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: CityLife on November 10, 2011, 11:35:25 PM
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.
Quote from: CityLife on November 10, 2011, 09:59:29 PM
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.
Quote from: CityLife on November 10, 2011, 09:59:29 PM
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.
???
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.
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.
Quote from: sanmarcomatt on November 11, 2011, 09:09:29 AM
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.
Quote from: iluvolives on November 11, 2011, 08:45:22 AM
Quote from: CityLife on November 10, 2011, 11:35:25 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on November 11, 2011, 09:29:39 AM
Quote from: NotNow on November 11, 2011, 09:25:04 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on November 11, 2011, 09:44:39 AM
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.
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 (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7219659/penn-state-assistant-coach-whistleblower-protection-reporting-sandusky-alleged-incident)
Quote from: stephendare on November 11, 2011, 04:08:06 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 11, 2011, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: stephendare on November 11, 2011, 09:29:39 AM
Quote from: NotNow on November 11, 2011, 09:25:04 AM
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?
Quote from: CityLife on November 11, 2011, 10:09:06 AM
Quote from: iluvolives on November 11, 2011, 08:45:22 AM
Quote from: CityLife on November 10, 2011, 11:35:25 PM
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.
Had this victim not been successful in starting an investigation (by agencies outside the university police) i feel confident in thinking McQuery would not have come forward on his own. He would have to have known that if there was a legitimate investigation taking place that the fact that he had told peterno about witnessing abuse would eventually have been found out... Especially if he felt that he had taken the appropriate steps in reporting it in the first place, surely it would be on record somewhere. I'm not saying he doesn't feel guilty, he should feel guilty and like a complete coward- but it wasn't till he knew it was all about to unfold that he made an effort to make it right. So his current behavior is exactly like his behavior 10 years ago- completely in his own interest.
You are right- no need to try and argue with me- anyone who makes claims that because a child isn't screaming means they aren't in distress when being raped is someone I have no interest in finding a common ground with.
Reports coming out that the Paterno statue will be taken down over thanksgiving.
Wow.
Also reports out that McQueary is saying he stopped the rape, "I didn't just turn and run ... I made sure it stopped ... I had to make quick tough decisions".
I'm sure we won't get to hear the full story anytime soon because he is a witness, but like I said. Lets at least hear this guys side of the story before vilifying him.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7238963/penn-state-nittany-lions-scandal-mike-mcqueary-stopped-alleged-assault-source-says
He is also saying he went to the police.
Sandusky was interviewed by telephone by a TV news anchor yesterday. They played part of the interview on ABC news last night.
Sandusky was so obviously lying it was pitiful. He showed every "tell" that a trained interviewer looks for to see if someone is lying; repeating the question, shifting to passive voice, flat affect, diminishing his actions, etc. A jury could convict him on that interview alone.
^It was pretty stupid of his lawyers to let him do that interview. Everything is admissible as evidence.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 01:51:28 AM
Quote from: iluvolives on November 11, 2011, 10:20:08 PM
Quote from: CityLife on November 11, 2011, 10:09:06 AM
Quote from: iluvolives on November 11, 2011, 08:45:22 AM
Quote from: CityLife on November 10, 2011, 11:35:25 PM
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.
Had this victim not been successful in starting an investigation (by agencies outside the university police) i feel confident in thinking McQuery would not have come forward on his own. He would have to have known that if there was a legitimate investigation taking place that the fact that he had told peterno about witnessing abuse would eventually have been found out... Especially if he felt that he had taken the appropriate steps in reporting it in the first place, surely it would be on record somewhere. I'm not saying he doesn't feel guilty, he should feel guilty and like a complete coward- but it wasn't till he knew it was all about to unfold that he made an effort to make it right. So his current behavior is exactly like his behavior 10 years ago- completely in his own interest.
You are right- no need to try and argue with me- anyone who makes claims that because a child isn't screaming means they aren't in distress when being raped is someone I have no interest in finding a common ground with.
This is a ridiculous and unfair strawman argument. Are you sure you arent also against murder and burning nuns alive as well?
What about eating puppies. Live. In front of the children who know them as pets?
I bet you also couldnt find much common ground with the puppy chompers either, right?
Here we go again with Steph resorting to nastiness (his trademark) in a post that would otherwise be enlightening. Its a similar pattern with him. He of all people (a moderator, i guess)who should be a calming force on this forum is instead the vicious attack dog for anyone with a different opinion. It always culminates in a thread like the one above. The forum deserves better.
Quote from: Tacachale on November 16, 2011, 11:53:45 AM
^It was pretty stupid of his lawyers to let him do that interview. Everything is admissible as evidence.
His lawyer actually set up the interview with Bob Costas!
Quote from: CityLife on November 16, 2011, 10:45:05 AM
Also reports out that McQueary is saying he stopped the rape, "I didn't just turn and run ... I made sure it stopped ... I had to make quick tough decisions".
I'm sure we won't get to hear the full story anytime soon because he is a witness, but like I said. Lets at least hear this guys side of the story before vilifying him.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7238963/penn-state-nittany-lions-scandal-mike-mcqueary-stopped-alleged-assault-source-says
Either McQueary or the police are lying....
Police: No reports from Mike McQuearyQuoteA central Pennsylvania police chief says his department did not receive a report from then-Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary related to an allegation of child sexual abuse against former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.
McQueary, now the Penn State wide receivers coach who was placed on administrative leave Friday, had told a friend in an email that in 2002 he stopped the alleged rape of a boy he thought to be about 10 years old and discussed the matter with police.
But State College police chief Tom King said Wednesday McQueary didn't make a report to his department.
"He didn't come to State College police. The crime happened on campus and we don't have jurisdiction on campus," King said. "We've had no reports (of Sandusky sexually abusing someone) from anybody."
The university also has its own police force, and said they have no record of any police report filed by McQueary.
"This is the first we have heard of it," said Lisa Powers, Penn State's director of public information.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7243505/police-say-no-record-penn-state-mike-mcqueary-reporting-assault
^We'd better just get used to not hearing from McQueary directly until this is all said and done with. Unlike the defense, the prosecutor is evidently not an idiot and is keeping a lid on him.
Either McQueary lied to the Grand Jury or he lied in the email... I tend to think he lied in the email in an attempt to save face. Here is what he told the grand jury...
QuoteThe graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both
Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.
The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he
had seen. His father told the graduate assistant to leave the building and come to his home. The
graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to report what
he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno ("Paterno"), head football coach of Pemi State. The next
morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home,
where he reported what he had seen.
Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a
Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called
Tim Curley ("Curley"), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate superior, to his
home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry
Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a
young boy.
Approximately one and a half weeks later, the graduate assistant was called to a meeting
with Penn State Athletic Director Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business
Gary Schultz ("Schultz"). The graduate assistant reported to Curley and Schultz that he had
witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building
showers. Curley and Schultz assured the graduate assistant that they would look into it and
determine what further action they would take. Paterno was not present for this meeting.
The graduate assistant heard back from Curley a couple of weeks later. He was told that
Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and that the incident had been reported to
The Second Mile. The graduate assistant was never questioned by University Police
Can't we assume that the entire city has know about this behavior and noone wants to see the money go so mouths are kept shut?....How about they end the entire sports program for a few years?...Money makes people blind deaf and dumb and apparently it makes you unable to see children being abused.....hmm???....nothing new i guess...this has been happening in every college and or highschool....has sports and the love of the money it brings made the programs untouchable?....it's all about money people...if the jag players made $50k a year...i can guarantee you there would be noone turning thier heads when kids are raped...put the money in the picture...."what kid?"...."that coach would never do that"
Quote from: Garden guy on November 17, 2011, 08:14:51 AM
untouchable?....it's all about money people...if the jag players made $50k a year...i can guarantee you there would be noone turning thier heads when kids are raped...
wow...nice rant...too bad it doesn't 100% compute given that college players aren't paid (at least in theory).
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 17, 2011, 10:48:53 AM
Quote from: Garden guy on November 17, 2011, 08:14:51 AM
untouchable?....it's all about money people...if the jag players made $50k a year...i can guarantee you there would be noone turning thier heads when kids are raped...
wow...nice rant...too bad it doesn't 100% compute given that college players aren't paid (at least in theory).
Considering Penn State tuition is 14k for in-state and 26k for out of state... I would say they are paid pretty well