The Glade 4.0

I am not aware of a situation in which the BoD of 2nd Mile, as a private board, could not remove Sandusky based upon the situation as it was known and their judgement, or at the minimum suspended his affiliation with the group pending the outcome of the investigation.

One change every 5 years on average is hardly a difficulty to keep current on.

More importantly you just linked a section that basically says that Penn State can't do a damn thing to him without entitling him to civil relief if he made a good faith effort to report it. This doesn't establish whether or not what Paterno did was a good faith effort (although I'm quite certain he believed it was); it establishes that if it was, Penn State just openeed itself up to a major lawsuit by firing him.

In fact, looking at the section above the one you quoted, it seems that reporting to his superior is sufficient under PA state law; it does not establish that he was required to report to his superior by contract. If, however, this is true, then you are incorrect about the "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" aspect of the case. It appears that Penn State simply has no leg to stand on in firing him.



This is not true. His employer (as in University of Pennsylvania) may not legally establish any procedure requiring that he not report a crime, nor may it mandate that he report it only in accordance with its own prescribed procedures. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania legislature may do so, but there is no evidence that he did. The fact that it is acceptable to report to the head of the institution does not in any way proscribe reporting directly to the police - nor does it absolve him of the moral requirement to follow up and make sure action was taken if there was reason to suspect it was not. In fact, if he were to have become aware that his superiors did not do what they were supposed to do, it is highly questionable whether he is legally protected from action by not following up. For them to fail to do their duty in following up accusations of child abuse is, itself, a crime, and if he was aware that they did not he could be guilty of failing to report that crime.



In other words, his firing has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with him reporting the crime or not, or being in an untenable position. Whether he could make public statements is not something any of us have been discussing, as far as I can tell.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

If I tell you that Billy Bob **** murdered a federal agent, but I want 24 hours and consult a lawyer first ...

Can you report a crime? Or just that you've received allegations of a crime?

_________________

How so? If you're talking about contractual penalties, those would likely be unenforceable. If you're talking about slander/libel/defamation, everyone reporting a crime to the cops runs that risk (which, in practice, is virtually nil absent malicious intent), so there's nothing special about Paterno's position in that regard.

The problem here is there is no crime ... yet inasmuch as Paterno is concerned. The Graduate Assistant has all sorts of options all sorts, being a witness, that Paterno does not.

_________________

Irrelevant. The special reporting requirements in cases of child molestation do not apply to murdered Federal Agents.

More importantly, if you tell me that, I can still start taking action in other ways, and that applies in this case as well. Either you report the crime (tell an authority) or you don't. You don't go say "Hey, look, crime X occured but I don't want to actually report it yet." If you tell me a Federal agent was murdered but don't want to say anything else, I'm still going to, at the very least, start procedures to make sure that no Federal law enforcement officers are unaccounted for. If it's child molestation, it might be a little harder to start investigating, but it could most likely still be done in some form or other. You've basically already reported the crime in either case; you're just not really saying what any of the details are.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I already pointed out that A) reporting to his superiors in no way precludes contacting the police B) any contracting purporting to prevent contacting the police would be unenforceable and C) if he became aware that his superiors did not, in fact, follow up legally, that is a crime in and of itself, and one that he arguably also had a duty to report. I don't believe that issue has actually been explored in this incident, nor has that claim made (AFAIK) against him, but the fact is that it is not entirely clear that Paterno made a good faith effort to report it. Making a report that is technically in accordance with requirements but knowing that the person you are reporting to is not going to do what they are supposed to at the least imposes a moral requirement, and possibly a legal one as well, to push the issue.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Forgive the somewhat rambling nature of this post. I'm a second-time Penn State student who has heard a whole lot on both sides for a few days now and there is a lot to be said. It doesn't help that I came to this thread a bit late, even though a few pages worth seem to be legal speculation away from tends to be the center of the uproar... Paterno and his role in all this. In watching and reading the news from across the country it all seems a little bit... off to me as someone who has been a part of Penn State awhile now. So here are some thoughts...



You say 'he altered' but that's the equivalent of saying 'McQueary is telling the truth and Paterno is lying'... might be the case, but the point is we don't really know at the moment.

Not much really is known as far as Paterno's involvement. It may come to light in time. We shall see.

Everyone's handling everything poorly here at PSU, though. A lot of you guys say Paterno should be out, yet McQueary himself who saw all this? The board has asked him not to be on the field this Saturday. Harsh stuff, eh.

The Board is panicking based on all the media attention right now is what's happening. Paterno and now-ex-president Spanier are out because they're the big names that can be pointed at while saying "look! we're so far against this conflict we're tearing down these big names!"

...and it may well turn out that's what they should do, but we don't quite yet know. I think that's what is making a lot of the Penn State faithful unhappy now. Things headed south in a big way very quickly and fingers are being pointed in all kinds of directions and everyone is getting blamed for everything, and it seems the board is taking the stance of making a show of taking out the big names in the confusion just to be safe.

I think there is an additional aside here in that there may have been some pressure on the board to show that the football program is not bigger than the school. Penn State often gets that accusation, and for good reason. Here is an opportunity for the board to make a show of saying that it isn't true. I don't have any evidence to back up any claim that this was weighted into their decision, but I know this issue has been around for... probably decades now at Penn State. Maybe I should be using past tense.

I feel like I should include a disclaimer here that despite being a Penn State student for nearly two full bachelor's degrees now, I've seen exactly one half of one game at Beaver Stadium, and it was the intrasquad Blue and White game at that. This includes the years I spent living about 30 minutes by foot away from the stadium. I dislike a lot of Penn State policies and the way they operate in general. I have a screenshot of spending $14 for a "convenience fee" for paying a bill by credit card and they charged me $10 to accept a transcript of other classes I've taken -- even though they won't count towards any degree. In short, I am no diehard Penn State fan... but the way this has been done just doesn't sit well with me.

And though it doesn't count a whit legally and probably not much at all morally speaking, I can 100% absolutely guarantee you that none of you would be having this discussion if it wasn't for Joe Paterno. Maybe people have put too much power in the hands of the football program here, but it has indirectly made the university into one nationally renowned for more than just football. I imagine there is a wide range of opinions on whether or not a person can be owed any benefit of the doubt or whatever for their contributions to an organization/society/etc, and every person's values are their own, but for those who do value loyalty/benefits/etc to organization I can say as someone who has lived Penn State for a very long time now that if anyone is deserving of anything, it would be Paterno.

The bad situation is only being made worse by the inconsistent way the board is handling this. You want to remove any possible suspicion of corruption? Fine. Start with Spanier and work your way down the chain, to Paterno and beyond to the people under him. Picking some sacrificial lambs just looks shallow and is very bad karma. Their method of firing was hardly admirable, either. No meeting and telling him he has to resign tomorrow. Instead he got a letter with a number to call, and at the other end was someone telling him he was fired.

Then the big businesses who are suddenly calling up PSU graduates in 2nd and 3rd interviews and telling them they filled the position with someone else? I don't see that stopping because of Paterno being ousted. It could be coincidence, I suppose... ... . . .

Grar. There is a lot of conflicting information going around campus now, from professors as well as students, from articles from all different news sources, and so on. There are various and sundry other issues I didn't see covered here: the DA and I believe a chief of police who knew about stuff years ago... the former, I believe, who went missing. The consequences current and future students who had nothing to do with it (including having professors and departments that had nothing to do with it) will face as a result. And if somehow information comes out that exonerates Paterno completely? There is going to be some bad times in State College if that happens. And given his age and the way he was thrown to the curb completely disrespectfully, if his health goes out quickly while there's still anger smoldering over this there may be significant problems to come.

I'm waiting to see the Nebraska game and aftermath. It's somewhat both sad yet appropriate that I feel the score in that game is going to have a lot to do with Penn State opinion on this whole situation.

Noggel, I appreciate your insight.

I'd like to add a few things after reading your post.

1)Paterno did say he changed the wording of what he was told by the GA. He testified before the Grand Jury as such. If he's lying about that, then he's guilty of perjury.
2)I agree that if it weren't for Paterno, it would not receive this kind of attention. But I dare say that some of us wouldn't be having a discussion on this given it's nature.
3)I do think they should clean house of everyone that had involvement, and not just Joe and the president.
4)I'm not sure about Paterno being exonerated part. As far as I can see so far he's only being charged with poor decision making/morals. He's not charged with a crime at this time. I don't think anything will change from the Grand Jury transcript that will remove him from the event as it stands. It was made pretty clear about his actions. Some things could come to light, though.
5)Penn State (the university, not the current student body) is looking bad, but some of that is their own doing. In what appears to be either a cover up or plain old not caring, they kept a dirty secret instead of stepping up and making sure it didn't happen again. They are now paying the price for those decisions.
6)Penn State's student body looks bad at the moment, because of those that decided to act like riff-raff and have a nice riot on national television last night. It stinks for those who weren't involved, but pouring gasoline on a fire doesn't help the school's image.

All we have at the moment is what we read/see/hear. Nothing is set in cement from our perspective. These are all opinions on the subject. Don't take anything said here or elsewhere personal. I don't think Joe Paterno is a bad guy. I do think he may have made a poor decision. I also think McQueary (if everything holds true) is less than a man in his inaction to stop what he described as rape of a 10 year old boy. He was a 28 year old man. Surely he could have yelled, called for help, or physically intervened. Going home and calling your dad isn't enough for most people. Not in this case.

I do think there is more than what has been told. I do think it could become a lot more messy. I still have questions of the missing ADA. His involvement given his wife worked for PSU at the time. The actions of those in charge (Joe, the AD, and the President, as well as the campus police). Only time will tell.

Stay safe.

I foresee the university paying out lots of money in the future.

_________________
I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil

Re-emerging, on the heels of this Penn State mess, is a similar situation that occurre within the Boston Red Sox organization in the 80's and early 90's. I'll make the story available to you tomorrow.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

While it's true from a legal perspective that precise details about culpability are important, from a moral perspective, I think the "wait and see" approach is inappropriate for this situation. Although the details will no doubt shift around a bit as time goes on, it seems like the general storyline is well established. McQueary, a grown man, directly witnessed Sandusky raping a child, and instead of intervening, he left, and instead of calling the cops, he called his father and then spoke to Paterno the next day. Paterno (and subsequently, McQueary) spoke to Curley and Schultz about what McQueary saw, and they in turn sat on the information instead of reporting it to the cops. Some ambiguous, unofficial arrangement was evidently made with Sandusky to reduce his access to University property, but that's about it. Then everyone went back to their lives as if nothing had happened.

I don't see any reason to suspect those basic elements of the story will change much. And those elements are more than enough to justify condemning these guys as moral degenerates who, at the very least, should be fired and subject to public opprobrium (and probably civil liability). There's no need to wait for more details.

I'm just curious how many of you agree with this post.

Why?

Where in this whole post have you outlined your opinions, or discussed the topic at hand? All I've seen you do thus far, is criticize and analyze other posters.

trollish if you ask me.

I'll tell you why in the near future. Do you agree with the post?

On second thought, forget I asked because I already have a pretty good idea of the answer.

I won't comment on the majority of RD's post, because quite frankly, I think you are asking the question with only the following in mind:



Based upon what I have read (more details about actual events would potentially change these comments):

1) I don't think Paterno should have been fired, certainly not in the manner he was, but at the same time, I can see why the Board of Trustees chose to follow that path.

2) I think it odd that McQueary was not fired given the BoT fired Paterno. McQueary appears to have failed morally far more than Paterno. If I were the parents of that child, I would be blind with fury at McQueary. I couldn't say the same for Paterno.

2) I have no opinion on the firing of the President, since I don't know what he knew when, or his actions. I assume the BoT has reasons at this point though. However, I think it strange that the AD and VP weren't fired first. They have actually committed crimes that endangered the status of the University.

Yep, troll.

You have no idea what I think, other than what you have read in this thread. You are fishing for someone to answer, so you can then bash their opinion as you've done before in this thread. Welcome to /ignore, troll.

I'm looking for people to ignore that I asked. I'm sorry you were unable to.

No, no you weren't. You were taking back-handed stabs in the most passive-aggressive way possible. Don't play coy and innocent, you are neither.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

So, in your opinion, it's not possible for someone to have second thoughts and change their mind? Look, I have an opinion about all this, but I have decided it profits no one for me to express it any further. Just because you have an opinion does not require you to speak up.

But I am glad to know that I'm not actually doing what I am doing, but rather I'm doing what you say I'm doing.

Seriously, take it at face value: Ignore what I asked and move forward.

See, now you're being insincere. Had you really decided you didn't want an answer, and for people to ignore your post, you wouldn't have felt obligated to tell people, in your back-handed way, that you didn't neeed their reasons, because you had already pre-judged them.

You would have simply said, "Ignore this post." or, better yet, not **** posted.

Please, don't further muddle this by lieing. Just admit your error, and move on.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Frankly, I wish I had not posted, from the beginning. And since you cannot seem to let it go, have the last word, and move on.

A man would admit his mistake.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

What was the question again? I've now totally lost track of what we were talking about.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."