Joe Paterno fired as football coach at Penn State

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by butcherguy

 

--Subjectivity refers to a person and his or her perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires--

The subject of moral subjectivity is not an action, but a person.

Morals and ethics are different for each person.

Yes, and I would like to point out that I tend to enjoy the company of people that believe that sodomy of a ten year old boy by anyone is morally repugnant.... AND, that thinking that it is okay to sweep it under the carpet is ethically challenged.

The people that differ from that view..... Well, I really don't wanna hang out with them. K?

Originally posted by mishigas
A young boy walked into the shower room and saw Sandusky sodomizing the 10 yr old boy.

He was a graduate asisstant, aged 28 at the time. Not a young boy.

The witness was horrified and ran for his dad. He and his dad found Paterno and told him what happened.

Yes

Paterno and Sandusky 'consulted', and the story was that this was only horseplay, nothing serious. It didn't get escalated at that point. Now this.

No, McQueary and Paterno went to Paterno's superiors (Curly and Schultz) who had a meeting with Sandusky, where it was concluded that they were horsing around

Joe had the duty to notify the highest levels of Penn State.

Of which he did. But apparently, the sheep wanted him to go vigilante on Sandusky over a crime that Paterno did not witness.

Originally posted by mishigas
Paterno was Sandusky's immediate boss; that means Sandusky's actions affect Paterno.

Here's what I heard happened: A young boy walked into the shower room and saw Sandusky sodomizing the 10 yr old boy. The witness was horrified and ran for his dad. He and his dad found Paterno and told him what happened. Paterno and Sandusky 'consulted', and the story was that this was only horseplay, nothing serious. It didn't get escalated at that point. Now this.

Joe had the duty to notify the highest levels of Penn State. He hadn't witnessed anything so whether the police should have been notified is questionable. But the boy and his father should have gone directly to the State Police.

Just my .02

Are you freaking serious?

A grown male soaping up a 10 year old boy, in the shower, not even his own. "Horseplay, nothing serious" WTF! Let's just take out the sodomy part and stick with soaping a young child.

I don't care what chain of command people are brainwashed into thinking they have to follow, but when a child is assaulted, it should immediately get reported to the proper authorities.

Here is what Joe should have done. Used his gut instinct and thought passed football, money, the University reputation and his own reputation at stake, did the right thing and went to the police with that father and both boys.

Joe would have been a hero at that point.

reply to post by TheInterceptor


The difference is that Paterno did not witness it. McQueary did.

So why in the hell is Paterno being crucified, while McQueary is getting off scott free?

reply to post by BadNinja68


That is not the case in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, the campus police have full authority as police officers.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by mishigas
A young boy walked into the shower room and saw Sandusky sodomizing the 10 yr old boy.

He was a graduate asisstant, aged 28 at the time. Not a young boy.

You really need to read the entire Grand Jury Report before commenting.

The GA that witnessed the sodomy taking place was 28 years old at the time, the boy was 10 years old.

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by Salamandy


No sir. It's not ridiculous. He told his superiors. Then he pretty much dropped the matter. Hell he never even bothered to ask Sandusky about it. A man he worked with for three decades. Never asked him. Which tells me either he didn't want to know the answer... or he already did.

The most damning thing though is this : "This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." His words. He knows he should have done more. Questions he should have asked.

At the very least he should have severed ties with Sandusky. But no... what he actually did was even more confusing. Sandusky was banned from having youth camps on campus. Yet Sandusky had the run of the football facilities. So... come and go as you please... use our facilities... but no more "youth camps" here you naughty boy? Please. Not to mention how the main concern seemed to be where he had these "youth camps" not if he was still having them. Just not on campus.. and it's fine.

Maybe you'd feel different if you had a kid in one of those "youth camps"?

Yes morality is subjective, but when one of the main things you're known for is espousing moral accountability... you tend not to get a pass.

If you want to discount moral accountability ... that's fine.

That's also what's wrong with society today.

If you don't believe me...

Ask Joe Paterno

Goodbye pervert!!!

Not only do I think this guy covered it up..

I think he has enabled it to happen
and might of been involved in molestation's!

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by TheInterceptor

 

The difference is that Paterno did not witness it. McQueary did.

So why in the hell is Paterno being crucified, while McQueary is getting off scott free?

Agreed.
When he witnessed it, I believe that Mike had a moral obligation to stop it then and there, and call 911. He was a 28 year old male in good physical shape. What did he do? He went to his father and told him about it. I think he acted like a coward, he was afraid of losing his position at the university. Just like the janitorial staff did when they witnessed other inappropriate actions by Sandusky. It is in the grand jury's findings, where they discussed that they shouldn't report what they saw because they might lose their jobs.

From this point onward I offer the following advice, and I'll tell you why I offer it.

Advice: Completely IGNORE every talking head, every "news" report, every "rumor or gossip source" and wait for the legal system's wheels to turn. Discuss it? Sure.

Why: Because the media has a bad habit of trying these cases based upon talking head hyperbole, populist pandering to emotions, and sensationalism rife with bias. The media can single-handedly ensure a mistrial or a miscarriage of justice based upon the gleeful schadenfreude of some, contrasted against the knee-jerk loyalty of others.

We've seen this before; and the one thing that is certain at this point is that a) we don't know all the details, b) we are consistently fixated on "coulda, woulda, shoulda" which will likely be devoid of relevance to the case in point. Too many trials have been ruined by media coverage and the self-righteous or unduly tolerant; as well as the public creating pressure for a 'popular' result.... trial by mob.

This is a story about a man who is alleged to have damaged children. The damage done was exacerbated by inaction. There are too many ideas about who did and didn't 'break a law' or 'do what they were supposed to.' Discussions like these are about a reckoning... not justice. These are different things entirely.

For the record (if anyone is interested at all) I look at it like this:

"What more was he legally obliged to do?"

"Oh... I don't know.... protect innocent children from gut wrenching abuse?"

"That's someone else's job (police, administration, etc.)!"

"Yeah... remind me not to leave my kids in your care."

When those in the chain of command fail to respond to a crime it is the moral obligation of any citizen to recognize that the chain of command has failed. When the chain of command fails... it no longer exists. When there is no longer a chain of command, YOU MUST become the principle actor in the response. Just as you would hope a concerned citizen might act to protect YOUR son, brother, friend, or even yourself......"


".... I did nothing." Is a cop out. The reality is the answer which translates to "I chose to do nothing" demands an explanation. I fear that explanation will have to do with money, political relevance, and celebrity glory.....

But time will tell.

By the way, criminal charges notwithstanding, I promise you as you read this... there are lawyers posturing to handle the civil cases that will keep the media "entertained" for a long time to come. After all people paid to have their kids 'exposed' to these 'great men' and their 'great institution' in the name of 'professional sports.'

Liability? Yup. There is some.

Originally posted by BadNinja68

No you are REQUIRED by law to report ANY crime to the PROPER LEO.

It was reported to the head of police (Schultz).

No they are not.
You are terribly wrong.
I was a Campus security officer (Campus police) at Appalachian State University.
Campus Police have no more power than a security guard.

Campous police do not have any authority to investigate or arrest anyone especially in a child abuse case.
This is why POLICE are called when a crime happens on campus.

Actual Crimes are not investigated or handled in any way internally by Campus police.

Really dude?

The department provides 24-hour patrol services to the campus and University-owned properties year round. The University Police is governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers.

Link

Most large colleges and universities set up full-fledged police departments on school grounds. These sworn officers have the same authority as any other members of the police—they carry weapons, make arrests, and enforce local, state, and federal laws.

. . .

The Penn State police force comprises 46 armed officers. According to state law, these have both the power and the duty "to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts … and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner." The department's website further lists among its core values "Accountability—University Police employees accept responsibility for their decisions and for the foreseeable consequences of our actions and inaction, as well as setting an example for others."

Link

Deny ignorance.

It's sad how you think Joe is justified in keeping this horrible child abuse internal.

He did not keep it internal. He followed the law to a tee.

He deserves alot worse than he will get. He's a filthy excuse for a human being.

For what crime?

Im a parent. If you were too, this would enrage you to the limits of your being.

I am a parent of four young girls. I get it.

The problem is you are reacting with emotion, and not logic.

reply to post by butcherguy

NVM

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by TheInterceptor

 

The difference is that Paterno did not witness it. McQueary did.

So why in the hell is Paterno being crucified, while McQueary is getting off scott free?

I agree. They all need to burn. Scum, the lot of them.

reply to post by Realtruth


He did not know who the victim was, and he did go to the head of police, along with McQueary.

reply to post by Maxmars


Fantastic advice.

reply to post by popsmayhem


Proof?

Or are you going the guilty until proven innocent route?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by butcherguy

 

So you know that Paterno thinks rape of a 10 year old boy is not repugnant.

Because why again?

Well he sure did not kick his assistant coach out!!

Because someone saw Paterno's assistant coach
going down on a 10 year old maybe!!?!?!?!?!?

Paterno DID NOTHING!!

It must not of upset him to much.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by TheInterceptor

 

The difference is that Paterno did not witness it. McQueary did.

So why in the hell is Paterno being crucified, while McQueary is getting off scott free?

Agreed.
When he witnessed it, I believe that Mike had a moral obligation to stop it then and there, and call 911. He was a 28 year old male in good physical shape. What did he do? He went to his father and told him about it. I think he acted like a coward, he was afraid of losing his position at the university. Just like the janitorial staff did when they witnessed other inappropriate actions by Sandusky. It is in the grand jury's findings, where they discussed that they shouldn't report what they saw because they might lose their jobs.

That I agree with

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by butcherguy

 

So you know that Paterno thinks rape of a 10 year old boy is not repugnant.

Because why again?

Well he sure did not kick his assistant coach out!!

Because someone saw Paterno's assistant coach
going down on a 10 year old maybe!!?!?!?!?!?

Paterno DID NOTHING!!

It must not of upset him to much.

edit on 10-11-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

He had no proof. Just allegations. He took it up the ladder (including law enforcement), as he is required to do.

It is then out of his control. You can't just fire someone who the higher ups have cleared.

I am a parent of four young girls. I get it.

The problem is you are reacting with emotion, and not logic.

edit on 11/10/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

This is a sad statement. So logically this man did everything in his power to stop the raping of little boys to you?

And if you think CAMPUS POLICE is the best avenue to go down when reporting the HEAD FOOTBALL COACH AT THAT SCHOOL IS RAPING CHILDREN, then something is wrong with you.

But he didnt break any laws so lay off him. He is so good at coaching afterall, we should let him be.