Phil Knight calls it right at PSU

[Jarhead_1775]

God Almighty. The man is dead. Died two months after being fired. Do you think sitting at a computer arguing about Joe Paterno is going to make a difference in the world? There's so many injustices in this world and this issue gets the most attention from college sports fans? There's thousands of kids (at least) dying from starvation. If you want to make a difference, go help them. The Paterno era is over. The man's life is over. And here we are, egging on him as if it's going to make a difference? Get real. Go to a "third world country" if you want to see injustices. Do something about that, if you care so much, rather than being keyboard warriors.

No one here ever claimed to be eliminating child abuse by calling out inaction on the dash boneyard. I do not care how freshly dead he is. His inaction is inexcusable. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it and to air it.

 

[Adios]

No one here ever claimed to be eliminating child abuse by calling out inaction on the dash boneyard. I do not care how freshly dead he is. His inaction is inexcusable. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it and to air it.

Well, guess what? Child abuse (or abuse of people, in general) is not going to end anytime soon. Let's go apesh*t about that, shall we? If any of you believe in a God, God should suffice for judgement. If not, go and try to piss on his grave. You'll probably get arrested.

 

[Icebear]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Accepting "it's being followed up" as an answer but not questioning why they weren't contacted as potential witnesses/complainants by even a single investigator isn't sufficient in my eyes when child sexual abuse is alleged. If they did ask, I'd love to hear what answer they found sufficient to let the matter go while Sandusky continued interacting with children for years through his charity in the relatively small State College community. In either case, the essentially accepted that there was no legal investigation despite the severity of the matter.

JoePA wasn't a witness to anything. Why would he expect to be contacted as a witness. He passed along the one witness to Curley and Schultz and then closed the door making sure they had gotten together according to McQueary's testimony. Joe, also, asked McQueary some time later how he was doing regarding the situation. That is more than he was required to do and was all he had privy to.

 

[kibblesnbits]

FYI, Schultz was the same guy that reported the 1998 incident to police, so to say he was simpy a functionary isn't true. He oversaw the 1998 investigation.

I disagree with Knight on a variety of things here, and don't disagree that paterno should have been fired. but i think it's clear ow that Paterno did not cover things up and that he was simply not informed about what happened. people are still emphasizing the grand jury presentment which has already been contradicted by the pretrial testimony where it's been shown that mcQueary did not describe what he saw to Paterno nor to a prominent doctor he spoke to about the molestation on the night before meeting with Paterno.

What does "overseeing the 1998 investigation" mean to you? He probably received reports on it but he wasn't qualified in any way to make determinations regarding the investigation. Schultz had no background in law enforcement or criminal justice. He was an industrial engineer by education and an administrator by training. According to his bio, his administrative domain included the departments of Human Resources, Physical Plant, University Police, Investment Management, Auxiliary and Business Services, Corporate Controller, University Budget, Legal Services and Commonwealth Campus Business Operations. That's hardly qualifications to truly oversee any criminal investigation. If having a department report to you for administrative purposes makes one qualified to perform or even provide direct oversight on its operations, then he must also have been a damn good carpenter, janitor, cost accountant, benefits analyst, affirmative action specialist, copier repairman, etc.

 

[Icebear]

No one here ever claimed to be eliminating child abuse by calling out inaction on the dash boneyard. I do not care how freshly dead he is. His inaction is inexcusable. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it and to air it.

Folks are always allowed to be wrong and yes even as foolish as you. You don't know the facts. He took action, the only real action he could. There was no inaction. The AD head of the Athletic Department and the head of the campus of police were informed. He had no power or access to an authority higher than that. They are not campus security, they are badged police.

 

[Icebear]

What does "overseeing the 1998 investigation" mean to you? He probably received reports on it but he wasn't qualified in any way to make determinations regarding the investigation. Schultz had no background in law enforcement or criminal justice. He was an industrial engineer by education and an administrator by training. According to his bio, his administrative domain included the departments of Human Resources, Physical Plant, University Police, Investment Management, Auxiliary and Business Services, Corporate Controller, University Budget, Legal Services and Commonwealth Campus Business Operations. That's hardly qualifications to truly oversee any criminal investigation. If having a department report to you for administrative purposes makes one qualified to perform or even provide direct oversight on its operations, then he must also have been a damn good carpenter, janitor, cost accountant, benefits analyst, affirmative action specialist, copier repairman, etc.

Schultz was clearly responsible to inform those who were trained to carry on just that type of investigation and overseeing that department he had better know both the chief and who were qualified investigators.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

Folks are always allowed to be wrong and yes even as foolish as you. You don't know the facts. He took action, the only real action he could. There was no inaction. The AD head of the Athletic Department and the head of the campus of police were informed. He had no power or access to an authority higher than that. They are not campus security, they are badged police.

Seems like when you wield the power of paterno, certainly a lot more could have been done. It's been through. You think that his report was sufficient. I disagree. I've been called lots of things and merely foolish was the lightest of them, for that thanks... Lol.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

Well, guess what? Child abuse (or abuse of people, in general) is not going to end anytime soon. Let's go apesh*t about that, shall we? If any of you believe in a God, God should suffice for judgement. If not, go and try to piss on his grave. You'll probably get arrested.

I'll save the god debate for the cesspool... Lol.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Because he had approached Joe about the possibility when he might become the head coach. Joe told him that he would not be able to be both head coach and continue his work at Second Mile. Further Joe told him Sandusky needed to begin taking better care of the responsibilities he had as Defensive Coordinator which Joe felt had been lagging. Sandusky made the choice and was given the same severance conditions and access to the facilities that all former coaches were granted. That only makes sense if no one had any awareness of any accusations against Sandusky in the past.

Sorry, but that is just a load of crap. Penn State had won 5 out of their last 6 bowl games before Sandusky retired. They were coming off of back to back 10 win seasons.

There was a police report about a prominent assistant football coach in 1998, and you're going to sit there and tell me that the HEAD FOOTBALL COACH didn't know about it?

Also, how can Joe Paterno watch a practice of his own and allow a man to take young boys to the practice, 5 years after being told that the same man was raping another boy? How?

Your whole defense about this is just saying that Joe Paterno was a naive and senile man, who somehow didn't know about these things happening in and under HIS program.

 

[CTMike]

How can people say he did all he could when JoePa himself said he could have and should have done more to help the victims? End of story right there.

 

[Icebear]

Seems like when you wield the power of paterno, certainly a lot more could have been done. It's been through. You think that his report was sufficient. I disagree. I've been called lots of things and merely foolish was the lightest of them, for that thanks... Lol.

Doing that is exactly the kind of thing that would get one in trouble for interfering with an investigation. As I said blame the law if you think it is wrong, work to get it changed, but the law is the law and it is what you have. Curley and Schultz are being prosecuted under the law, Joe and McQueary fulfilled what it requires even if doing it blindly and without being even accountable to what it requires.

 

[EricLA]

he wasn't mandated to report it under the law? good lord is that a joke? i guess there are some who can forgive anything.

it's pretty clear there are two sides to this - those who think Joe did nothing wrong, and those who think that when you are aware of young boys being molested you have a moral and ethical obligation to report it. you will NEVER convince me that Joe was not culpable unless you can prove he knew ZERO about it. i don't care if he never witnessed any of it. if he KNEW or was told that there was some kind of molestation going on, then the guy needed to man up. next we are going to be told it's ok that the bishops didn't report the priests molestation of the alter boys because they never actually saw it.

if that's really the argument, and people continue with it, then i hope JoPa's image rots in hell because it's sick that people are defending it.

it's like trying to convince someone who feels otherwise that the death penalty is ok or that abortion is ok. i do NOT think molesting young children is ok nor do i give anyone a free pass who knows about it but turns the other cheek. that's splitting hairs in the most despicable way, regardless what the law is.

Bottom line - did know or not? when someone comes out and proves that JoPa knew NOTHING about the abuse, then i will take back everything i said. If he did know, then his legacy deserves all the rot and tarnish it gets.

 

[Icebear]

he wasn't mandated to report it under the law? good lord is that a joke? i guess there are some who can forgive anything.

it's pretty clear there are two sides to this - those who think Joe did nothing wrong, and those who think that when you are aware of young boys being molested you have a moral and ethical obligation to report it. you will NEVER convince me that Joe was not culpable unless you can prove he knew ZERO about it. i don't care if he never witnessed any of it. if he KNEW or was told that there was some kind of molestation going on, then the guy needed to man up. next we are going to be told it's ok that the bishops didn't report the priests molestation of the alter boys because they never actually saw it.

if that's really the argument, and people continue with it, then i hope JoPa's image rots in hell because it's sick that people are defending it.

it's like trying to convince someone who feels otherwise that the death penalty is ok or that abortion is ok. i do NOT think molesting young children is ok nor do i give anyone a free pass who knows about it but turns the other cheek. that's splitting hairs in the most despicable way, regardless what the law is.

Bottom line - did know or not? when someone comes out and proves that JoPa knew NOTHING about the abuse, then i will take back everything i said. If he did know, then his legacy deserves all the rot and tarnish it gets.

eric, tell me what Joe should have done that is legal under the law. Tell me what the more is. There is no indication that Joe knew for fact that young boys were being molested. He knew of one accusation which McQueary admitted on the stand he did not tell Joe details. Joe made sure that information was passed on to those with real power and authority and checked to make sure those involved did connect. What, specifically, more should he have done? Tell me how you prove a negative, how does one prove that Joe didn't know something? You are asking the impossible.

No one is suggesting forgiving anything, Sandusky is the accused, Curley is the accused, Schultz is the accused. They are being tried. What is being said is hold the right people accountable

 

[whaler11]

Did I miss the coaches at UConn speaking out on Gregory McKee? Or did they let the authorites do their due diligence and investigation?

I have to tip my hat to you. You've come up with the stupidest post in the history of the Boneyard and that is saying something.

 

[EricLA]

eric, tell me what Joe should have done that is legal under the law. Tell me what the more is.

are you serious? really? so someone tells you that a fellow priest is molesting alter boys and girls, but since it's not the law you do nothing? seems pretty black and white to me. I don't care what the law is. it's the right thing to do.

 

[JaYnYcE]

This is why the law is set up in a way to protect the accused. the lynch mob has been assembled, pitchforks at the ready, and the fire set just beneath the stake. If any of us knew the facts this might be different - but we don't. The only fact we know is that we don't know. Let the process play out and let the facts surface. And then you can judge. Then again, this is the day of the internet - so, anyone w/a keyboard and a random thought, please post it - by doing so, it makes it fact.

This times a thousand. That last sentence will be my new signature if you don't mind!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whaler11]

eric, tell me what Joe should have done that is legal under the law. Tell me what the more is.

Seriously, you might want to go back to the insulation of the women's board. For the love of God... I can't believe an adult needs this explained to him.

Joe Paterno was Penn State University. He employed a coach who was a serial rapist. He knew about this behavior, and removed him from his coaching staff. He did not call attention to the fact that this person was still running a charity that gave him access to children. He allowed this person to have access to his building and program.

In 2012, a professed Catholic attempted to claim on his deathbed that he did not understand the crime of sodomy of boys by men.

A man who was intelligent enough to dominate an entire community and university claims that he was ignorant that men sexually abuse boys.

If you are seriously stupid enough to believe that, then I don't know what to tell you. He knew. He knew for years. He chose his program over children. There is no defense, so do yourself a favor and stop trying.

 

[whaler11]

Folks are always allowed to be wrong and yes even as foolish as you. You don't know the facts. He took action, the only real action he could. There was no inaction. The AD head of the Athletic Department and the head of the campus of police were informed. He had no power or access to an authority higher than that. They are not campus security, they are badged police.

Joe Paterno had no power or access to an authority higher than that.

I mean how can you possibly debate with someone who can type those words?

 

[Icebear]

are you serious? really? so someone tells you that a fellow priest is molesting alter boys and girls, but since it's not the law you do nothing? seems pretty black and white to me. I don't care what the law is. it's the right thing to do.

Yes, I am serious, tell me what more under the law Joe should have done. He met the ethical obligation which society defines under the law. The there absolutely no evidence that Joe enabled a KNOWN child molester. He had exactly one accusation which was not described in detail and which he handed on to the proper authority. You want Joe to stand on the street corner and shout that Jerry Sandusky is a pervert and molester. Well, to date Sandusky isn't convicted of anything and wasn't even charged with anything at that point and so that would put Joe in jeopardy for slander.

 

[whaler11]

Defend this:

“I should have said ‘Hey where are we with this thing?’ ” Paterno said. He described himself as paralyzed by the unthinkable subject matter. He had “backed away,” he said, and trusted his bosses to handle it.

There is nothing to debate. He knew and he didn't act. If you think his good outweighs that, good for you. There is no defending his inaction in this situation.

 

[whaler11]

Yes, I am serious, tell me what more under the law Joe should have done. He met the ethical obligation which society defines under the law. The there absolutely no evidence that Joe enabled a KNOWN child molester. He had exactly one accusation which was not described in detail and which he handed on to the proper authority. You want Joe to stand on the street corner and shout that Jerry Sandusky is a pervert and molester. Well, to date Sandusky isn't convicted of anything and wasn't even charged with anything at that point and so that would put Joe in jeopardy for slander.

No one is saying to arrest his dead body. They are saying, hey maybe lets not deify this guy who gagged on his biggest moment.

Yes, Paterno should have stood on the corner and shouted that. If Sandusky was found innocent after that action - bully for him, but HE NEVER HAD THAT TRIAL BECAUSE PATERNO TURNED A BLIND EYE.

How can anyone be this dense. Paterno himself admitted on his deathbed he was wrong, how can you defend him.

 

[Icebear]

Seriously, you might want to go back to the insulation of the women's board. For the love of God... I can't believe an adult needs this explained to him.

Joe Paterno was Penn State University. He employed a coach who was a serial rapist. There is no evidence he knew this. He knew about this behavior, and removed him from his coaching staff. He did not call attention to the fact that this person was still running a charity that gave him access to children. He allowed this person to have access to his building and program. All your presumptions have exactly zero evidence.

In 2012, a professed Catholic attempted to claim on his deathbed that he did not understand the crime of sodomy of boys by men.

A man who was intelligent enough to dominate an entire community and university claims that he was ignorant that men sexually abuse boys. He never said that.

If you are seriously stupid enough to believe that, then I don't know what to tell you. He knew. He knew for years. He chose his program over children. There is no defense, so do yourself a favor and stop trying.

Whaler you represent the very ignorance that decides one knows everything that others knew and when they knew it. I have lived in the State College area for 30 years and nothing you dscribe about Joe and the community is accurate or near true. Since you can't even represent facts correct it is no wonder you are confused.

 

[Icebear]

No one is saying to arrest his dead body. They are saying, hey maybe lets not deify this guy who gagged on his biggest moment.

Yes, Paterno should have stood on the corner and shouted that. If Sandusky was found innocent after that action - bully for him, but HE NEVER HAD THAT TRIAL BECAUSE PATERNO TURNED A BLIND EYE.

How can anyone be this dense. Paterno himself admitted on his deathbed he was wrong, how can you defend him.

He turned in the one instance he knew of. It was not Joe's fault it did not go to trial.

 

[JaYnYcE]

Whaler you represent the very ignorance that decides one knows everything that others knew and when they knew it. I have lived in the State College area for 30 years and nothing you dscribe about Joe and the community is accurate or near true. Since you can't even represent facts correct it is no wonder you are confused.

You should read what he thinks of Rutgers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whaler11]

Whaler you represent the very ignorance that decides one knows everything that others knew and when they knew it. I have lived in the State College area for 30 years and nothing you dscribe about Joe and the community is accurate or near true. Since you can't even represent facts correct it is no wonder you are confused.

Joe admitted he didn't do anything to Sally Jenkins. I'm sure his bosses were going to do something any one of the upcoming decades.

You live near State College? Does that mean I need to listen to the opinion of 9/11 crackpots who happened to live near Manhattan or the Pentagon?