[toesuf94]

Originally Posted by 2ndgenz28

Great question for him.

Yea Mike McQueary its Mike & Mike from ESPN Radio: "If by chance you find your self a victim of an attack by someone upset with how you handled this situation. And say someone saw this attack in the midst. Should they call 911 immediately like when you witness a rape? Or wait a day, call their Dad then tell the attackers boss what happened?"

Oh, so true. Mike failed everyone in this instance. I understand the shock factor, but where is the spine? He should have been so repulsed that he should have grabbed a solid object in the locker room and beaten Sandusky to a pulp with it - THEN called the police. I hope he cries himself to sleep every night for not manning up and protecting a child.

[PQ]

Bottom line is Joe takes the biggest hit because he was the one who could have done the most. And because you don't get the respected reputation he had by taking the rape of a child with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by G-Oil Guy

I didn't say banned from campus, I said banned from the football facilities and from using them for Second Mile events.

I won't speak for anyone else here and I do not take any sick pleasure in my opinion of Joe Paterno. There are a LOT of people who are equally and a bunch MORE culpable for this. But joe knew a child had been raped...... SODOMIZED ....... crying in the shower at his U. Joe Paterno could have, and should have thrown his weight at it. Even Joe says the same.

What a terrible situation.

[ssump29]

Originally Posted by TurboTA

I'm aware of the order. Joe and the administration knew that Sandusky was a threat to children, correct? And they kept their mouths shut for years knowing that pedo's never stop, but hey, as long as its not happening on "our campus" its ok. Shame on Joe and PSU.

OK say what you will but legally they can't run around bad mouthing the man when he at the time wasn't charged or guilty of anything. If they were to do that Sandusky could own the freaking school with the amount of lawsuits he could put on them for slander. Quit using hindsight and think time period, until any charges would come they can't talk about things like that legally. It's no different then a drug dealer being able to sue an employer because they are telling all people he come into contact with what kind of person he is and hindering his character even tho its the truth by law you can't disclose that information and if found to be doing so you get sued and have to pay for it.

[rmpackers]

An email I just received:
Dear All,

I have now done 4 TV and radio interviews related to this disgrace, and there are greater issues here, to me they are about the mentality of the sporting community at large. The lives, and safety of vulnerable children that were disregarded for the sanctity of football. When you live in Pennsylvania you know football is king, but to this degree signifies deep rooted problems to be addressed. This is not about just Penn State, but about a culture that condones what happened. Just my thoughts…..we have much work to do in all our communities……

Joan

Joan ****
Manager
A Child's Place at Mercy
Allegheny County Child Advocacy Center

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

[TurboTA]

Originally Posted by ssump29

OK say what you will but legally they can't run around bad mouthing the man when he at the time wasn't charged or guilty of anything. If they were to do that Sandusky could own the freaking school with the amount of lawsuits he could put on them for slander. Quit using hindsight and think time period, until any charges would come they can't talk about things like that legally. It's no different then a drug dealer being able to sue an employer because they are telling all people he come into contact with what kind of person he is and hindering his character even tho its the truth by law you can't disclose that information and if found to be doing so you get sued and have to pay for it.

Read the post above yours. Joe could've done what needed to be done. He failed.

[ssump29]

Originally Posted by PQ

Bottom line is Joe takes the biggest hit because he was the one who could have done the most. And because you don't get the respected reputation he had by taking the rape of a child with a grain of salt.



I won't speak for anyone else here and I do not take any sick pleasure in my opinion of Joe Paterno. There are a LOT of people who are equally and a bunch MORE culpable for this. But joe knew a child had been raped...... SODOMIZED ....... crying in the shower at his U. Joe Paterno could have, and should have thrown his weight at it. Even Joe says the same.

What a terrible situation.

I ask you this question PQ what more could he have done at this point when in the pass according to the grand jury when police were made aware and also public wellfare and they had Sandusky addmit to wrong doing back in 98 but nothing came of it, what could Joe have done that would made any difference? All the attacks except one happened prior to Joe being made aware, so the damage was done and had been done so what more could Joe do, its not like he could arrest the guy. The GA was the only and I repeat only one that could have done something since he was the witness. Everyone else is second hand and not allowed by law as far as being allowed in court to testify. Its probably the exact reason why in 98 nothing came from the mother reporting the situtation because she wasn't there to witness it and was told second hand.

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Originally Posted by ssump29

OK say what you will but legally they can't run around bad mouthing the man when he at the time wasn't charged or guilty of anything. If they were to do that Sandusky could own the freaking school with the amount of lawsuits he could put on them for slander. .

First of all it is laughable to think Sandusky would ever bring a lawsuit against Penn St. for slander at that time. He would want NO part of a legal system examining him. Bottom line is, Joe Pa and a whole lot of other PSU employess knew he raped a boy in the shower. They failed to act, they are paying the consequences and Joe gets most of attention because he is Joe Pa.

[TurboTA]

Originally Posted by ssump29

I ask you this question PQ what more could he have done at this point when in the pass according to the grand jury when police were made aware and also public wellfare and they had Sandusky addmit to wrong doing back in 98 but nothing came of it, what could Joe have done that would made any difference? All the attacks except one happened prior to Joe being made aware, so the damage was done and had been done so what more could Joe do, its not like he could arrest the guy. The GA was the only and I repeat only one that could have done something since he was the witness. Everyone else is second hand and not allowed by law as far as being allowed in court to testify. Its probably the exact reason why in 98 nothing came from the mother reporting the situtation because she wasn't there to witness it and was told second hand.

You don't understand the law first of all. All Joe Pa had to do was walk in to the closest Pa State Police Barracks (which the PSP said he should have done) and reported what his GA told him that he witnessed. The PSP would then contact and interview the GA and if the GA told the same story that he told his father, Sandusky would have been questioned immediately. Ask me how I know all this. It could have ended right there. The PSP is very vocal of what Joe didn't do.

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Just stated by interim coach Tom Bradlley that Mike McQueary will be coaching Saturday, either on sidelines or in the booth. Unbelievable.

[2ndgenz28]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

Just stated by interim coach Tom Bradlley that Mike McQueary will be coaching Saturday, either on sidelines or in the booth. Unbelievable.

Maybe they want lynch mob justice to happen live on TV?

[TurboTA]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

Just stated by interim coach Tom Bradlley that Mike McQueary will be coaching Saturday, either on sidelines or in the booth. Unbelievable.

Wow. I don't see how he can show his face. Coward.

[ssump29]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

First of all it is laughable to think Sandusky would ever bring a lawsuit against Penn St. for slander at that time. He would want NO part of a legal system examining him. Bottom line is, Joe Pa and a whole lot of other PSU employess knew he raped a boy in the shower. They failed to act, they are paying the consequences and Joe gets most of attention because he is Joe Pa.

You may be correct it could be laughable but a man like Sandusky clearly is capable of anything and with him knowing they have no proof or evidence on him to make them claims I could see him going that far as to keep himself clear and free to be able to still be around these kids. I understand the failed to act thing, the issue here isn't legal but moral and thats what all you are blurring the lines with. Legally Joe did the right thing and thats why he was cleared of any wrong doing, morally is the subjective piece that everyone can agrue over whether he did enough or not.

[ssump29]

Originally Posted by TurboTA

You don't understand the law first of all. All Joe Pa had to do was walk in to the closest Pa State Police Barracks (which the PSP said he should have done) and reported what his GA told him that he witnessed. The PSP would then contact and interview the GA and if the GA told the same story that he told his father, Sandusky would have been questioned immediately. Ask me how I know all this. It could have ended right there. The PSP is very vocal of what Joe didn't do.

Please refrain from telling me what I don't know about as clearly I do. You can't read is the problem. I never said Joe couldn't I said "as far as the court of law goes, Joe's accounts of what happen would not be allowed in court if he was to testify because its hersey". So again like you said the PSP would contact the GA for his account of events not Joe and Joe's wouldn't matter as its a second hand account, they would have to go off what the witness told them not what Joe said the witness said and thats required before they even start to look into the matter. Which still can all be for not if the boy isn't willing to talk and at that age I doubt he would.

[TurboTA]

Originally Posted by ssump29

Please refrain from telling me what I don't know about as clearly I do. You can't read is the problem. I never said Joe couldn't I said "as far as the court of law goes, Joe's accounts of what happen would not be allowed in court if he was to testify because its hersey". So again like you said the PSP would contact the GA for his account of events not Joe and Joe's wouldn't matter as its a second hand account, they would have to go off what the witness told them not what Joe said the witness said and thats required before they even start to look into the matter. Which still can all be for not if the boy isn't willing to talk and at that age I doubt he would.

I repeat, you don't understand the law. Hearsay is accepted in a court of law depending on the circumstances and I guarantee you that if this ever sees the inside of a courtroom, Joe Pa will be asked on the witness stand what the GA told him that he saw.