Originally Posted by Mudder (Post 416313)

What about the graduate student who is said to have witnessed something in a locker room? Why didn't he go to police??? It's a mess. I'm sorry to say but it's just another example of men with power attempting to sweep things under the rug in hopes that the problem will just go away quietly.

Originally Posted by Loveithere (Post 416230)

Hope everyone is happy now.:ohdear:

Originally Posted by tpop1 (Post 416330)

Nothing about this mess has made me happy, especially after reading the Grand Jury report....every word of the disturbing 23 pages.

Joe's no victim here, Spanier's no victim here; the young boys are the ONLY victims here. Read the Grand Jury report!!!!

So many opportunities to stop the creep; but NO ONE stepped up. Adult after adult had a chance but living in such an insular society there on campus, they had no real idea how to go about it.

Not so much bad people, as BAD desisions.

And the bad decisions continued last night with the rioting students turning over a TV truck.

Edmund Burke's quote has never been more applicable..."All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 416335)

This appears to be just another case of someone protecting the "Institution" at the expense of a child. How many times is it that an Institution is protected and there is outrage when leaders, etc. are charged with abuse of children as it will have a negative effect on the "Institution". Many raise to the defense of the person who abused the child in order to protect the institution. How many will say they feel sorry for Paterno when in fact they
want to protect the image of the Institution. How many will try to defend the Institution which failed the child as it [Institution] did not ensure the enviorement at the Institution was such as to make sure all knew the penalty and seriousness of any volation. Was Paterno's only notification to the Management of Sports at Penn State was kept quiet so as to protect the Institution and therefore it was not reported to the police?
The child is always more important than any institution. :(

Originally Posted by hedoman (Post 416263)

Ye who have no sin cast the first stone.

Joe Pa IS Penn State so any conflict that needs headlines will involve him.

Anybody know the heirarchy of University Security? There is protocol and only higher ups may involve outside agencies at their discretion. So some body comes to you and says they saw something happen as it relates to a previous employee. Protocol dictates that I report this to higher authorities in the chain of command, which he did. They investigate it and take control. Follow up? With all the othr responsibilities you think I have time to follow up?

Everybody is treating this as if Joe SAW the event and did nothing.... You make it sound like he did it NOT a former coach years removed. It IS horrific what happened but to tarnish a man for doing what he is instructed to do and follow the chain of command on hearsay, well you all have got it wrong!

Many other horrors were witnessed and not reported in Corporate and in the military ... That'sno excuse but it happens......

Originally Posted by Bill-n-Brillo (Post 415913)

And we thought Ohio State was having problems! Pales in comparison to what Penn State is having to deal with.

Bill :)

Originally Posted by Pturner (Post 416571)

Penn State is not the victim here. It appears that Penn State leadership facilitated the crimes by not going to police. The cover-up was institutional, was it not?

The very idea that only higher ups are allowed by policy to notify police of a suspected crime on campus seems wrong-headed. What could possibly motivate such policy but protecting the university at the expense of transparency, integrity and justice.

I realize that many if not most universities have this same policy. If we learn nothing from this tragedy, it should be that those self-serving campus policies are a travesty.

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 416892)

It is interesting as to why some feel the need to insult, call names and use that as a defense against supporting those who point out the fact that Joe Paterno was in fact complicit in the abuse of a child. It may be because they have no facts and must rely on calling names and insulting the ones who feel that children should be protected! They should examine themselves in order to be better equipped to disucss issues and avoid the pit falls of name calling.
They should try to better understand the underpinnings of their behavior so they can grow and be a better person. When I read something from a person who uses that approach I am sad as it is clear the person does not think enough of themseleves to try to improve.
I have not and will not call names or use insults to try to shut down discussion as that would make me no better than the one who does.:wave:

Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 416718)

That is not quite the case here. I think that if the graduate assistant had called the police immediately that night it would have been consistent with the school policy. (Assuming it is similar to those I have encountered at several institutions and corporations.) All policies I have seen do not restrict the ability to call the police when a crime is ongoing. But they do require notification of administration when police need to be contacted about something that happened in the past. Since Coach Paterno and subsequently the AD and others were notified of that abuse 24-48 hours later, there was no immediate need for a police presence at the school. The perpetrator and the victim were long gone. Therefore, it fell on the administration to notify the police, per policy, and get an investigation started. Whether they failed in that duty or not will be determined.

There may be a coverup in this case. But if it is determined that a cover-up did occur, I don't believe the policy caused it, rather the failure of people to do their jobs. Obviously, anyone who decided to bury this affair to protect the university's reputation failed miserably when you look at the result.

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 416892)

It is interesting as to why some feel the need to insult, call names and use that as a defense against supporting those who point out the fact that Joe Paterno was in fact complicit in the abuse of a child. It may be because they have no facts and must rely on calling names and insulting the ones who feel that children should be protected! They should examine themselves in order to be better equipped to disucss issues and avoid the pit falls of name calling.
They should try to better understand the underpinnings of their behavior so they can grow and be a better person. When I read something from a person who uses that approach I am sad as it is clear the person does not think enough of themseleves to try to improve.
I have not and will not call names or use insults to try to shut down discussion as that would make me no better than the one who does.:wave:

Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 417070)

Since you're referring to the self-righteous comment, is that any worse than you indicating that those who disagree should "better understand the underpinnings of their behavior so they can grow and be a better person."? Does disagreement with your position make someone a lesser person?

Remember: The most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process. Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call. The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer or family in the room, and can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury and all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.

It appears the major portion of the invective posted on several online boards is directed toward Paterno, and less toward the perpetrator and/or the graduate assistant who witnessed the event and failed to do anything to stop/rescue the youth. Paterno may be involved in this up to his eyeballs, but everything I have read about this man from people who played for him indicates that integrity was a major point with him. It is noteworthy that Penn State is one of only 4 Division 1 schools that has never had an NCAA violation. I think if his sole driving force was to win at all costs and maximize revenue for the school, that there would be issues that resulted in sanctions from the NCAA.

It is entirely possible to disagree with those who portray Paterno as complicit or an enabler and still find the actions of Sandusky reprehensible.

Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 417070)

Since you're referring to the self-righteous comment, is that any worse than you indicating that those who disagree should "better understand the underpinnings of their behavior so they can grow and be a better person."? Does disagreement with your position make someone a lesser person?

Remember: The most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process. Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call. The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer or family in the room, and can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury and all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.

It appears the major portion of the invective posted on several online boards is directed toward Paterno, and less toward the perpetrator and/or the graduate assistant who witnessed the event and failed to do anything to stop/rescue the youth. Paterno may be involved in this up to his eyeballs, but everything I have read about this man from people who played for him indicates that integrity was a major point with him. It is noteworthy that Penn State is one of only 4 Division 1 schools that has never had an NCAA violation. I think if his sole driving force was to win at all costs and maximize revenue for the school, that there would be issues that resulted in sanctions from the NCAA.

It is entirely possible to disagree with those who portray Paterno as complicit or an enabler and still find the actions of Sandusky reprehensible.

Originally Posted by ilovetv (Post 416443)

What it really boils down to is that "the Institution" needs MONEY....continuing and perpetual donations....by football-obsessed alumni into athletic budgets....or by parishioners into the collection basket or diocesan campaign fund.

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 417120)

Yes !!:wave: