And you're a sack of #### and less than human if you don't blackout and render immediate judgement on a man raping a 10 year old boy. Anyone who would wait for institutional "justice" to grind out some ######## in that situation might as well hold the victim while he's being ass-raped.

Go jackoff to Clint Eastwood. You're a tumor on a keyboard talking smack about going black when you have no idea how you'd react. But if you want to fantasize about it go ahead.

I actually feel a bit bad for McQ. From what I know of his background Penn State Football and Joe Paterno were everything to him. It is actually very cult like. He saw something, reported it to Joe thinking he would take care of it. Joe didn't so I think McQ thought it was ok to do nothing. All these people took their cue from Paterno.

Wow i agree with Gaelan again. This is getting weird.

Ya Bernal. He was put in a bad spot and did the wrong thing. I can have pity for the guy, even if in the grand sense he deserves it for his lack of moral fortitude.

I just read another account of the Baylor thing and it didn't sound so clear cut. So I'm going to back away from that one. It does serve a point of contrast since that is a situation where we actually don't know and the reserve judgement calls make sense.

The story was that the head coach told the authorities the murdered player was a drug dealer and told the players to tell them that too. The assistant coach thought this was wrong and recorded him telling the players to lie. Boeheim and Krzynski came out and said that this was a violation of trust and they wouldn't feel comfortable with an assistant coach who would do that.

He should have had the moral fortitude but his whole life he hears about how Joe Paterno is godlike. He was brainwashed into the cult of Paterno. Hell JoePa might have been brainwashed into the cult himself. As I said in the lounge the whole thing reminds me of Jim Jones.

As I said in the lounge the whole thing reminds me of Jim Jones.

Or Charles Manson.

Actually there is one school that was sort of analogous to the Penn State situation but the coach wasn't as revered and that was the Lavell Edwards BYU team. But then again SLC is a lot bigger and more sophisticated than Penn State.

State College really is isolated.

I actually feel a bit bad for McQ.

Not me. While I hope I would react to witnessing this in the way Sam suggests, I can't be certain. I can even see a case for, though I disagree with, going to his dad and then to his football coach with this information rather than directly to the police. It's wrong, but not completely unforgivable.

What isn't forgivable is this: How did he not say himself at any point in the past nine years, "Why the #### isn't that kiddie rapist in prison yet," and realize that whatever procedure he followed when he witnessed the damn incident hadn't resulted in any kind of justice, and further steps needed to be taken.

Assuming that McQueary made it clear to Paterno and the administration that he saw Sandusky having sex with a 10-year-old child, then I don't have a problem with his actions in those first couple of weeks. He was probably in shock at the moment it happened.

But in the months and years that followed, to not only see that Sandusky clearly hadn't been arrested, but also to see him around campus, plainly involved with the program and with his charity (which Paterno was an honorary board member on), THAT'S when he should have finally gone to the police, and reported all of them, for the rape and the cover-up. That is when he lost his right to hold his job. That is when he lost the right to ever coach again, and justifiably so.

Had he been blackballed for reporting it in 2002, that would be wrong. He should be blackballed now. Go get a real job, your sports career is done.

Or Charles Manson.

Has anyone checked Posnanski's or James' foreheads for swastikas?

How did he not say himself at any point in the past nine years, "Why the #### isn't that kiddie rapist in prison yet," and realize that whatever procedure he followed when he witnessed the damn incident hadn't resulted in any kind of justice, and further steps needed to be taken.

Perhaps in his mind Joe Paterno said he would take care of it and he trusted him. Since Joe kicked it upstairs and did nothing perhaps McQ thought everything was ok and taken care of. After all, Joe Paterno took care of it.

I feel bad for McQ because he blindly trusted Paterno because he grew up with him as a god.

While I hope I would react to witnessing this in the way Sam suggests, I can't be certain. I can even see a case for, though I disagree with, going to his dad and then to his football coach with this information rather than directly to the police. It's wrong, but not completely unforgivable.

The third way and more realistic way for MCQ to handle this is to yell at Sandusky to stop. "What are you doing?" "Get off him." Take care of the child and bring him to the campus police.

Going black... we're all Jean Claude Van Damme while we sit at our laptops.

I feel bad for McQ because he blindly trusted Paterno because he grew up with him as a god.

Yeah, witness Joe Posnanski for the effects that being immersed in the Paterno-cult-of-personality bubble for a couple of months can do to even a non-affiliated, decent, thoughtful adult and then think of what it must be like for someone like McQueary, who spent his *entire* life immersed in it ...

Just to clarify, i agree with 3009, but i can still pity the guy for being a wretched human being

Hell JoePa might have been brainwashed into the cult himself.

It's a hell of a thing to believe your own hype, but it's hard not to when your hype is broadcast on national TV for decades.

McQ should go to the cops and say I want Sandusky arrested because I saw him raping some kid. Sandusky says, "Kid's ####### nuts." Schultz says, "I looked at the claim and there's nothing there." So you've got a witness, an accused who denies it, someone who claims to have investigated and corroborated it, and you don't have the kid. McQ doesn't know his name.

I really think some of you are making this the movie of your heroism, but I'm not buying the script.

So you've got a witness, an accused who denies it, someone who claims to have investigated and corroborated it, and you don't have the kid. McQ doesn't know his name.

And that's why you have to protect the kid and bring him to the police. The kid is real witness. Of course, if he runs off as you take 45 minutes to kill Sandusky then I'm not sure where you're at legally.

McQ should go to the cops and say I want Sandusky arrested because I saw him raping some kid. Sandusky says, "Kid's ####### nuts." Schultz says, "I looked at the claim and there's nothing there." So you've got a witness, an accused who denies it, someone who claims to have investigated and corroborated it, and you don't have the kid. McQ doesn't know his name.

That's why he went to Paterno.(**) You have to have some indication of what way Paterno's going to go. Going to the cops without Paterno behind you is utterly pointless.

(**) Which isn't to say he didn't go to Paterno for other reasons, including cultish ones.

The third way and more realistic way for MCQ to handle this is to yell at Sandusky to stop. "What are you doing?" "Get off him." Take care of the child and bring him to the campus police.

Yeah. I very much identify with Sam H's idea of running over & beating the living hell out of Sandusky, but yelling "What in the ####### name of god are you doing, you ####### perverted piece of ####?" is probably a lot more realistic.

The third way and more realistic way for MCQ to handle this is to yell at Sandusky to stop. "What are you doing?" "Get off him." Take care of the child and bring him to the campus police.

I'm not going to condemn McQ for not kicking Sandusky's ass right then and there. I don't know that I would have instantly become violent there either. I *do* know, however, that the only way Sandusky would have left that building with that child would have been over my dead body.

I mean, that's just the worst image in my mind of the whole thing. The poor kid being violated in the shower looks up and sees an adult, not some pimply student, but a 28 year old, ex-football playing MAN, looking right at him.

How could that kid not think, "THANK GOD, I'm saved"???

And then, to think what must have gone through his mind, not just that day, but every day since, when that man turned and ran away, leaving him alone with Sandusky.

Is there any evidence that Sandusky and the kid saw McQ?

Is there any evidence that Sandusky and the kid saw McQ?

Just McQ's testimony that they both saw him looking at them.

retracted

Ok. I haven't read the testimony.

I *do* know, however, that the only way Sandusky would have left that building with that child would have been over my dead body.

I agree with you. It was his leaving the building without the child that boggles my mind.

From the Grand Jury Report, page 7:

The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.

Ok. I haven't read the testimony.

DO NOT READ THE TESTIMONY.

I do not have children, and it curdled my blood.

I do have children which is why I won't read the testimony.

DO NOT READ THE TESTIMONY.

Unless you are interested in knowing what you are talking about.

returning to Bernal's 3011, and as has been mentioned before, it's not just that Paterno was a god, but for someone like McQ, so was Sandusky. I thought he was a town in Ohio until a couple days ago, but he was on the staff when McQ played there, he was the Legendary Molder of Linebackers, he was a neighbor. He was at the time widely thought to be a benefactor of wayward youth; McQ would have known all about the adopted kids the Second Mile, the legend. Sure, he drank the blue kool aid; what else would he do?

And then he walks in and sees this? I won't judge.

I do not care knowing the details of the crime. I am interested in the cover up. I am interested in learning how very prominent and accomplished people covered for this guy. I am interested in the why of that.

I do have children which is why I won't read the testimony.

Exactly. I can't imagine how a parent can read it without picturing their child as each of the victims.

NY Post pegs Joe Pos' book advance on Joe Pa at..... 750K

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/posnanski_still_in_the_game_with_9Exoqj3XZbL1MJZSvlcR9N

When Simon & Schuster won the auction, the book had the upbeat title, “The Grand Experiment: The Life and Meaning of Joe Paterno. A biography of America’s winningest college football coach, who changed the country one football player at a time.”

I do not care knowing the details of the crime. I am interested in the cover up. I am interested in learning how very prominent and accomplished people covered for this guy.

You have to know what the various people did or didn't do in this case before you can talk about it intelligently. One of the problems with our society is that people do not want to confront what really happens in these cases - I'm sure Paterno was one of them. Burying your head in the ground because the grand jury report may offend your sensibilities or coming up with ridiculous revenge fantasies about beating up Sandusky is a continuation of the immature attitude that brings about scandals like Penn State.

Not convinced that police/media would have done anything other than go see St. Joseph. Look how the cops handled 1998.

First, that's no excuse not to report it.

Second, the law actually requires reporting to the Dept of Public Welfare (by telephone and in writing within 48 hours).

Exactly. I can't imagine how a parent can read it without picturing their child as each of the victims.

You can imagine. It ends with blood. I don't know exactly how I would react if I was McQ. I do know that if I was the parent of one of these kids there wouldn't be an investigation into Sandusky because Sandusky would be dead.

Then you would have an abused ###### up kid with a parent in jail. How would that help?

Second, the law actually requires reporting to the Dept of Public Welfare (by telephone and in writing within 48 hours)

Where did you see that? The statute I've seen referenced appears to allow for passing it up the chain.

Second, the law actually requires reporting to the Dept of Public Welfare (by telephone and in writing within 48 hours).

Not in PA. The law is that you report up -- that's why Paterno reported up.

In Pennsylvania, where former Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and senior vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz have been charged, failing to report child abuse doesn't even rise to the level of a crime for the first violation, says Cervone.

As Curley's attorney Caroline Roberto reportedly put it at her client's arraignment Monday, the charge amounts to nothing more than a "speeding ticket."

That may not be the case for long, however. On Thursday, Pennsylvania State Rep. Kevin Boyle (D-Philadelphia) announced he plans to introduce legislation that would mandate that people who witness abuse must report it to legal authorities, not just their supervisor.

"In light of the alleged child sex abuse scandal at Pennsylvania State University, it is clear that a loophole exists in our law," Boyle said in a statement. "My legislation would close that loophole by requiring those who are aware of the abuse to report it to law enforcement authorities, rather than simply following an in-house chain of command."

Maureen Farrell-Stevenson, the director of the National Association of Counsel for Children, says that the Penn State case is likely to prompt legislators all over the country to take a look at their reporting laws and "see if they are adequate."

According to Cervone, head of the Support Center for Child Advocates, Pennsylvania has actually addressed this issue before. In 2006, after revelations about how the Catholic Church covered up abuse within its ranks chilled the public, the legislature amended the state's mandatory reporting law.

Before the new law went into effect in 2007, Cervone explains, "In order to trigger the duty to report, a child had to actually come before the reporter who was dealing with the child in a 'professional capacity.' But the scenario that happened over and over was that a parent would hear from their child that a pastor touched them, and then go to another pastor and say this is what my child told me. But then the pastor didn't have to report because the child didn't go before him directly."

"The mind of the original statute," continues Cervone, "was we're not going to cause a duty to report with strictly heresay information, but the legislature saw this as a silly farce," and in 2006 passed a law that eliminated the language mandating that a child come before you. The new law, says Cervone, requires that anyone in an organization with reasonable cause to suspect child abuse must report their concerns to state authorities.

Still, because Curley and Schultz are charged with failing to report crimes that allegedly occurred in 2002, Cervone believes that their defense will be that they are not mandatory reporters because the abused child didn't actually come before them.

source

Then you would have an abused ###### up kid with a parent in jail. How would that help?

He would know that there was retribution in the world. I'm far from convinced that doing away with revenge has been a net good for the psychic health of human beings.

[Edited a few times]

[And then edited again to say] You don't think the guys in Sleepers did the right thing? You don't think that they felt better about themselves after they killed the abusers? I feel good about both counts. In some cases revenge is the only path to justice.

From the lawyer's defense of Paterno in #2989:

Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities.

I have no idea what this means. Paterno had no evidence that any police department (either University or state), or any child welfare department, had even been informed. They were required to be informed by law. Not by him, once he reported it up the chain, but the moral thing for Paterno to do was to follow up with his superiors and report it himself if they failed to.

It's hard for the police department to figure out where a crime falls in its "policing priorities" when they are not informed of the crime.

2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take.

He could have -- very reasonably -- reported it to state authorities. No defamation suit can stem from him following this mandatory reporting law, to report what an eye witness said he saw about a child being sexually abused.

If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another

This is tin foil hat stuff.

3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination?

It would not be. The incident was required to be reported. If Schultz didn't do it himself (or see that it was done), he was violating state law. So even if Schultz told Paterno "We are not reporting it and you are forbidden from doing so also" (setting Paterno up for the act of "insubordination"), it was Schultz who would have been violating the law.

What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.

What if a kid was raped and nobody reported it to authorities in contravention of state law? Would that be wronger?

And what does "Taking one man's word against another's" mean? Taking McQueary's word against... who is the "another"? Did Paterno talk to Sandusky?

But as far as the mandatory reporting law goes, it is not the job of the school officials to decide whose "word" to take. It is not the job of the school officials to decide who is telling the truth. It is the job of the school officials to simply report the allegation as a matter of course. If Paterno followed up and learned that Schultz et. al. had not done that, then morally it was his turn to do it.

He would know that there was retribution in the world. For practical reasons it was necessary for the State to have monopolized violence however doing so has done serious damage to our souls. In a world without revenge there is no way for the soul to reconstitute itself against primal violations. For a long time the idea of hell served this function but now that we no longer have hell to act as a balm on our souls we are left lost in a barren world.

That's totally ###### up. Your child needs a dad more than an inmate.

And having been in the scenario of the revenge-seeking parent, I look back often and am not sure that what I did was sane, necessary or solved anything. Outside of the fact that my children believe I'm a bit unhinged. That works for some things and doesn't work for others.

He is Joe ####### Paterno at Penn State. If he wanted this thing reported to police it would have been reported to police. To me the first cover up was to protect his friend. The subsequent cover ups were to protect Paterno and the administration.

No son needs a father that is a coward and it is only fear of getting caught that would stop me. If I knew I would get away with it there is no question in my mind what would happen. I don't know how I could live with myself if I discovered I was the kind of person who would take this lying down. Now obviously I'm speaking out of white hot rage here but what kind of person wouldn't feel white hot rage in this situation. No human being I ever want to know. Where is this rage supposed to go? Does it dissipate? I don't want to know the kind of person who rationalize this away and I don't want to be the kind of person who can "deal" with their anger. As what you might call a high-spirited person I've learned that in life it is important not to overreact. Unfortunately in life there are some things that are so terrible that it is impossible to overreact. One of the problems with out society is that we've tried to deal with violence by crushing the spirit. Insofar as this reduced the overall level of violence this is a good thing. However, this harms the actual victims of violence because it forces them to suppress their very human reaction. It removes the one balm of their souls and leaves them as perpetual victims. Only a true Christian can forgive. For the rest of us there is either retribution or to become dead inside.

Only a true Christian can forgive.

Long time lurker on this thread, first time poster. The above is the single most ludicrous thing I've ever read on this website in just under ten years of hanging out here. Wow.

No son needs a father that is a coward and it is only fear of getting caught that would stop me. If I knew I would get away with it there is no question in my mind what would happen. I don't know how I could live with myself if I discovered I was the kind of person who would take this lying down. Now obviously I'm speaking out of white hot rage here but what kind of person wouldn't feel white hot rage in this situation. No human being I ever want to know. Where is this rage supposed to go? Does it dissipate? I don't want to know the kind of person who rationalize this away and I don't want to be the kind of person who can "deal" with their anger. As what you might call a high-spirited person I've learned that in life it is important not to overreact. Unfortunately in life there are some things that are so terrible that it is impossible to overreact. One of the problems with out society is that we've tried to deal with violence by crushing the spirit. Insofar as this reduced the overall level of violence this is a good thing. However, this harms the actual victims of violence because it forces them to suppress their very human reaction. It removes the one balm of their souls and leaves them as perpetual victims. Only a true Christian can forgive. For the rest of us there is either retribution or to become dead inside.

Is this screed something you've lived - actual violent retribution - or is this you pulling out your penis so we can all admire it?

Long time lurker on this thread, first time poster. The above is the single most ludicrous thing I've ever read on this website in just under ten years of hanging out here. Wow.

Only a true lurker can forgive a ludicrous post.

Is this screed something you've lived - actual violent retribution - or is this you pulling out your penis so we can all admire it?

One time at Starbucks the barista messed up his order so he gave him a withering look.

3049. I know...you're right...but man...

alright, back in the bunker. Happy Armistice Day, everyone.

Long time lurker on this thread, first time poster. The above is the single most ludicrous thing I've ever read on this website in just under ten years of hanging out here. Wow.

So, this is the 1st delightfully rabid, frothingly unhinged Gaelen screed you've run across in your time at BBTF?

=)

Where did you see that? The statute I've seen referenced appears to allow for passing it up the chain.

Perhaps I was unclear. I agree that, legally, all Paterno needed to do was report it up the chain.

I was responding to the notion that the police would just sweep it under the rug by saying that the law actually requires it to be (ultimately) reported to the PA Department of Welfare -- not necessarily (or not only) to the police.

----------

I want to quote three other provisions of the law. This is 23 Pa. Cons. Stat, SUBCHAPTER B: PROVISIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR REPORTING SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE

1. For what it's worth, the law attempts to protect McQueary from being discriminated against for reporting Sandusky:

6311(d) Civil action for discrimination against person filing report.
--Any person who, under this section, is required to
report or cause a report of suspected child abuse to be made and
who, in good faith, makes or causes the report to be made and,
as a result thereof, is discharged from his employment or in any
other manner is discriminated against with respect to
compensation, hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of
employment, may commence an action in the court of common pleas
of the county in which the alleged unlawful discharge or
discrimination occurred for appropriate relief.

2. Paterno, while not legally required to go to the state authorities once he reported it to his superiors, certainly was permitted to do so by law:

§ 6312. Persons permitted to report suspected child abuse.
In addition to those persons and officials required to report
suspected child abuse, any person may make such a report if that
person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is an abused
child.

3. And Paterno could not have been sued by Sandusky (for defamation or what not) for so doing. All that is required is that Paterno act in good faith in reporting the suspected case of child abuse. And there is no reasonable argument that Paterno did not have a good faith basis once McQueary came to him. Quoting:

§ 6318. Immunity from liability.
(a) General rule.--A person, hospital, institution, school,
facility, agency or agency employee that participates in good
faith in the making of a report, whether required or not,
cooperating with an investigation, testifying in a proceeding
arising out of an instance of suspected child abuse, the taking
of photographs or the removal or keeping of a child pursuant to
section 6315 (relating to taking child into protective custody),
and any official or employee of a county agency who refers a
report of suspected abuse to law enforcement authorities or
provides services under this chapter, shall have immunity from
civil and criminal liability that might otherwise result by
reason of those actions.

Your child needs a dad more than an inmate.

Man walks in and sees someone raping his child. He acts to protect his child. In the heat of things, the perpetrator ends up dead.

I'll take that defense case.


Right now, we know of about 20 children that have come forward to finger Sandusky, since they set up that hot line. Given what we know of his kind, you can reasonably assume that there were twice that many and more. Apparently, he had grown quite comfortable using the Penn State shower room as the scene of his raping.

I don't know all the facts, but given what we know about the incidents in 1998, 2000 and 2002, there were far too many people at Penn State who had to know, and who turned away.

I first started getting interested in College Football right when Paterno was making his bones. Penn State football was the only real team in the East. Joe Paterno was a folk hero. When the first rumblings of the story came out, I really, really wanted to believe that he was not gravely at fault. I understand the mind set of people who just did not want to believe.

But once you know all the facts, you just have to accept that he did a terrible thing. Because of the weakness of Pennsylvania law, he is probably not criminally liable. But he is personally, morally culpable.

And I absolutely do not accept that McQueary did not give him "specific details", because IF he didn't, WHY DIDN'T PATERNO ASK? I mean, if somebody comes and says he just saw something really disturbing involving a child in a shower, don't you ask "What did you see? What exactly did you see"? Before you send it up the chain, isn't the first thing you do is find out what happened? Even if McQueary said it in detail, you still ask: Are you sure? Did you see that? What happened? The only way Joe did not receive and did not ask for, the details, is he did not want to know, or he knew what the answer was going to be.

As for McQueary, ASSUMING he was not privy to the earlier information, he walked in on a man he had known all his life, had respected and admired, and saw him doing something terrible. I don't blame him for his initial shock. I think if you walked in on a stranger raping a little boy, there would be a moment of shock -- to have it be someone you know and respect, must be a blow.

But how long does that blow last? McQueary wasn't a child any more. He was 28 years old. He should have acted, then and there. He should have done something other than just call Daddy.

Perhaps, as part of the athletic establishment, he has been cocooned his whole life, and never really did grow up, never really had to take responsibility for anything that matters. That would certainly put the lie to the whole "Sports builds character" nonsense. That might be some small basis for a minor exculpation, that he is more of a crippled man-child that the system made him than a Man ("Daddy, what should I do?").

So I went into the story, not wanting to believe, hoping for something that would exculpate Joe and the program. The more I review it, the more I think about it, the more I am coming around the the position, Burn It Down. Let the players transfer to other schools, or stay at Penn State and keep their scholarships. But Burn The Whole Thing Down, and see if you want to re-start it later.

Of course, given the economic impact of Penn State and the program on the area -- and the many people who had no part in the thing, but would be damaged by the loss of this economic engine, it's not going to happen that way.

Right now, we know of about 20 children that have come forward to finger Sandusky, since they set up that hot line.

Well, right now (AFAIK) we have an unsubstantiated report from a Philly Fox TV station that there are now close to 20 victims. Nobody else seems to confirm anything close to that based on other sources. I've seen multiple reports of only 1 additional victim that's come forward so far since the hotline was set up.

Not that I don't think that there won't be 20+ victims that come forward before this is said and done. Hell, I'd be surprised if it's that low, given what we know about these kind of cases and how long Sandusky had access to kids ...

And re immunity (section 6318), I note again why the analysis from the lawyer in 2989 is incorrect. The lawyer said:

If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another

Flat wrong. As provided by 6318, Sandusky could not sue Paterno (or the school) for libel. It didn't matter why McQueary was "distraught." All Paterno needed was a good faith basis to make the complaint. Paterno did not need "any proof of his own" as to whether the allegation was true.

Man walks in and sees someone raping his child. He acts to protect his child. In the heat of things, the perpetrator ends up dead.

I'll take that defense case.

Good for you. We'll note your heroic deed and fit you for a medal. You may put your penis away and zip your fly.

Good for you. We'll note your heroic deed and fit you for a medal. You may put your penis away and zip your fly.

I was merely pointing out that, if it happened, it would not mean that the guy was going to jail, because it would be defensible. I nowhere even implied that I would do it.

You did not need to be a complete dick. Except, of course, if you can't help it, because you are a complete dick.

So, are you a complete dick?

I'll keep this simple for the thinking impaired. It is natural for parents to want to avenge their children. Further, the desire for vengeance against those that harm our loved ones points to the highest qualities of human beings. I can understand why society acts to prevent this and I also understand how there might be a greater good here that society is acting upon but you are being myopic if you deny the cost that this does.

Now, I have doubts I'd be able to do it. But that's because, surprising as it may sound, I have a great deal of empathy for other people. However, there is no such thing as unmitigated goods. Empathy sounds nice but along with the good comes the opening to weakness and a failure of courage. This very case is proof of that. Posnanski's empathy for Paterno is blinding him to the true terror of the situation.

Some of you are very naive about human qualities. Empathy and kindness are not always good while violence and anger are not always bad. The tragedy of life is how hard it is to tell the difference. I say that a parent avenging their child is one of those cases in which violence is a good thing. Asking them to swallow their anger in order to enact a sterile and bureaucratic form of justice is a great deal to ask of a human being.

I was merely pointing out that, if it happened, it would not mean that the guy was going to jail, because it would be defensible. I nowhere even implied that I would do it.

You did not need to be a complete dick. Except, of course, if you can't help it, because you are a complete dick.

Apparently. I said I hoped I would react physically (rather than flee like McQueary did) and that somehow made me Van Damme. Conversing with Sam has left him a bit unhinged.

So, are you a complete dick?

I believe I was pointing out your chest-thumping dickiness when you boldly stepped through - heroic music playing - to say that you'd defend the case. If you explained your point, which likely is valid, I wouldn't snark back at you.

I say that a parent avenging their child is one of those cases in which violence is a good thing.

Not always and not in every case.

It is one thing to walk in on the act, and take steps to protect your child. That is not vengeance, that is defense of others, and a perfectly legal act.

It is another thing to appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner after the fact, especially since you could damn well be wrong.

And where do you draw the line? Is it okay ONLY if it's a parent "avenging" a child? How about a husband avenging a wife? A brother avenging a brother? A very close friend?

And what if they screw up, and get the wrong guy?

Yeah, in the abstract, revenge makes a good story and a great movie. For a person who deals only in abstract theory, it makes a great talking point.

In the real world, things tend to get complicated And messy.

Save it for Death Wish VIII.

I'll just quote myself:

I can understand why society acts to prevent this and I also understand how there might be a greater good here that society is acting upon but you are being myopic if you deny the cost that this does.

So we can agree that your response is non-responsive.

I believe I was pointing out your chest-thumping dickiness when you boldly stepped through - heroic music playing - to say that you'd defend the case

That's reading a whole lot into five words, which are a lawyer's short hand for which side of a case you think you could win with.

I just take Sosh's word for it, and assume that you're suffering from Sam Derangement Syndrome.

So we can agree

No, we can't. Not on much of anything. Even when I can figure out what the hell you're saying.

I'll keep this simple for the thinking impaired. It is natural for parents to want to avenge their children. Further, the desire for vengeance against those that harm our loved ones points to the highest qualities of human beings. I can understand why society acts to prevent this and I also understand how there might be a greater good here that society is acting upon but you are being myopic if you deny the cost that this does.

Now, I have doubts I'd be able to do it. But that's because, surprising as it may sound, I have a great deal of empathy for other people. However, there is no such thing as unmitigated goods. Empathy sounds nice but along with the good comes the opening to weakness and a failure of courage. This very case is proof of that. Posnanski's empathy for Paterno is blinding him to the true terror of the situation.

Some of you are very naive about human qualities. Empathy and kindness are not always good while violence and anger are not always bad. The tragedy of life is how hard it is to tell the difference. I say that a parent avenging their child is one of those cases in which violence is a good thing. Asking them to swallow their anger in order to enact a sterile and bureaucratic form of justice is a great deal to ask of a human being.

I've been there and done it. You paint a picture that is black and white - guns blazing killing everyone or cowering in a corner watching your child buggered. I hate to say it but life is a bit more gray than that. I'm very fortunate that my situation dissolved at the end of a tire iron before anyone was hurt. And I would do it again, which concerns me. My children need me here, not in prison or, and we don't discuss this because we do believe we're superman and the bad guys are weak but there is the possibility that we fail and we die.

I wish MCQ had stopped Sandusky the moment he saw him. I believe his leaving the scene without the child in his custody says something in his personality that he needs to discuss with a professional. His not using violence is not an issue. His leaving without the child is.

Do people not read my words? I did not at all paint a picture that was black and white. I'll quote myself again:

Empathy and kindness are not always good while violence and anger are not always bad. The tragedy of life is how hard it is to tell the difference.

All of these things are gray. I was trying to point out that the desire for vengeance, if not practical, is not necessarily a bad desire. I find it hard to imagine being a human being without it.

I was trying to point out that the desire for vengeance, if not practical, is not necessarily a bad desire. I find it hard to imagine being a human being without it.

The desire for vengeance is fine. I don't think I'm arguing against the desire for vengeance. I'm arguing against the act of vengeance as the only recourse. McQ had a bunch of things he could've done. As I said way back he made the least best choice. Killing Sandusky was not the best choice. Protecting the child was the best choice. That is his failure. That child needed protection.

Jon Ritchie, who was recruited by Jerry Sandusky, reacts to Penn State scandal.

[3070] That's a great link, thanks.

I've never heard of Ritchie before, but that was probably the most honest, open, thoughtful, articulate, soul-searching reaction to this scandal, from someone who was close enough to the black hole to KNOW it's gravitational pull that we'll likely see, anytime soon.

Other thoughts ... bowtie dude is a staggering, clownshoes nitwit.

And.

Skip Bayless, is, now and forever, still the "Prune of Evil" ...

I agree with CoB. Thanks for the link.

Impressed me, too. I appreciated its honesty and thought it a useful "informed" counter to a fair bit of the posts here. It doesn't surprise me in the least; it's a recurrent theme in American lit.

The only thing I questioned while watching it is whether "Uncle Jerry" really was embarrassed rather than performing the selfless role. I certainly understand why Ritchie wants to believe Sandusky had an active conscience; I just don't know what the disconnect is in him or how deep it runs.

Great interview. Ritchie was a solid player who got hurt and was left on the side of the road.

Great interview. Ritchie was a solid player who got hurt and was left on the side of the road.

to clarify 3073 (should anyone care) the disconnect I refer to is in Sandusky, not Ritchie

Wow. That's the best link in the thread.

I recommend the link to the Jon Ritchie video to those who haven't watched it.

3002. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder.  Posted: November 11, 2011 at 08:47 PM (#3991564)
I actually feel a bit bad for McQ. From what I know of his background Penn State Football and Joe Paterno were everything to him. It is actually very cult like. He saw something, reported it to Joe thinking he would take care of it. Joe didn't so I think McQ thought it was ok to do nothing. All these people took their cue from Paterno.

3003. zenbitz  Posted: November 11, 2011 at 08:55 PM (#3991565)
Wow i agree with Gaelan again. This is getting weird.

Ya Bernal. He was put in a bad spot and did the wrong thing. I can have pity for the guy, even if in the grand sense he deserves it for his lack of moral fortitude.

I'm late, but no. No, no no no no. No. Absolutely not.

I'm late, but no. No, no no no no. No. Absolutely not.

Ok, and.....why is that incorrect? Keep in mind how ingrained the culture of Penn State football and Joe Paterno is in these people. Seriously they are brainwashed. The entire state needs to be deprogrammed.

Right now, we know of about 20 children that have come forward to finger Sandusky

So, really, they started it.

Ritchie captures my thought very well so of course he's a brilliant guy. I agree with him that I don't even care about sports that much today. I was going to tune in to the PSU Nebraska game but now I find I couldn't care less about it. That game is completely meaningless.

I agree with him that I don't even care about sports that much today.

I do. It's been a tough week to be a sports fan. This, Joe Frasier dying, Ramos getting kidnapped. It's time for a reminder of why we are all sports fans. Watching kids compete today is going to be an a quick breath of relief from all that has happened and I am looking forward to it. I'll go back to being horrified and angry at reality tomorrow, today I want to watch some football.

There is zero change I'm watching the Penn St. game though. I'll just root for Nebraska while watching the scoreboard.

Ok, and.....why is that incorrect? Keep in mind how ingrained the culture of Penn State football and Joe Paterno is in these people. Seriously they are brainwashed.

These people have not been set in a windowless room and conditioned with drugs and psychological torture. They have lives. They have free will. I recognize the exposure is long-term, but I do not accept it as an excuse for their actions, or for lessening their responsibility.

If your free will is such that you can't split yourself off from your love of college football enough to make sure someone YOU PERSONALLY SEE raping a child isn't most assuredly made to answer for his actions, it is YOUR fault, not Joe Paterno's and the state of Pennsylvania's. (And Paterno's response in the aftermath is also terrible.)

It would not be possible for me to have LESS sympathy or pity for McQueary. He was 100% in error in his actions.

[A] Patriot-News report indicates that Sandusky's alleged deviant behavior could be traced back even further, and may have involved one of his six adopted children, Matt Sandusky.

In the Patriot-News report, it reveals that Matt Sandusky's adoption file contains letters written by Matt's biological mother, Debra Long, which depict Long's concern for Matt living with the Sandusky family.

Matt began living at Sandusky's State College home in 1995. The Patriot-News report says Long was only able to visit her son a half day per month.

The report also says Matt Sandusky attempted suicide a few months after moving into the Sandusky home and that a probation officer assigned to Matt Sandusky, Terry Trude, later wrote a letter to Centre County Judge David Grine stating that the probation department was concerned for Matt Sandusky's "safety and his current progress" in the Sandusky family's care. The letter stated that Debra Long had concerns about Matt's personal safety and mental stability as well. Trude requested to the judge that Matt's living situation go under review.

---

Who knows. I do wonder where the #### his wife was in all of this. Did he just fool her?

He is Joe ####### Paterno at Penn State. If he wanted this thing reported to police it would have been reported to police. To me the first cover up was to protect his friend. The subsequent cover ups were to protect Paterno and the administration.

This, a thousand times this.

The First Law of Professional Sports (College Division) is "Protect The Program", followed by "What Happens in the Locker Room Stays in the Locker Room" and "Winning isn't Everything, It's the Only Thing".

And that's exactly what happened here. My personal interest is to see what the NCAA does in this case. My guess is they are going to treat this the same way Bowie Kuhn treated Cesar Cedeno after he shot that woman in the head.

Who knows. I do wonder where the #### his wife was in all of this. Did he just fool her?

Here's a quote from one of the numerous timelines that has been published:

1994: Sandusky meets Victim 7 through The Second Mile. Sandusky allegedly touched Victim 7 in a manner that made the boy uncomfortable, and both Sandusky and Sandusky's wife attempted to contact Victim 7 in the weeks leading up to his grand jury appearance.

3081 is so awful. So, so awful.

I would also like to be clear I think that reacting the way Gaelan and Sam (and Srul?) consider they might, homicidally in the moment, would be far, far worse for the children involved.

It is indeed almost entirely a selfish impulse, acting on your own needs rather than the events in front of you and the child.

I've been there and done it. You paint a picture that is black and white - guns blazing killing everyone or cowering in a corner watching your child buggered. I hate to say it but life is a bit more gray than that. I'm very fortunate that my situation dissolved at the end of a tire iron before anyone was hurt. And I would do it again, which concerns me. My children need me here, not in prison or, and we don't discuss this because we do believe we're superman and the bad guys are weak but there is the possibility that we fail and we die.

Looks to me like booond has talked the talk & walked the walk, while the odds are that no one else here who's advocating violent action, including Descartes Jr., has done anything more than think about the latter. Forgive me if I find those people's chest-thumping a bit ludicrous, especially in the case of the always-laughable Descartes Jr., who's AFAIK has never generated a post indicative of any sort of real-life experience beyond dreamily recalling the contents of some dusty book written by a dead white mental masturbater at least 200 years ago.

Also, it's sort of ... well, not nice, really, but reassuring ... to see the Era of Good Feelings here start showing holes. Back to terra cognita!

3081 is so awful. So, so awful.

A post along those lines occurred to me as well, I admit. Probably just as well that I haven't yet made this morning's frappucino & thus am not particularly alert.

I would also like to be clear I think that reacting the way Gaelan and Sam (and Srul?) consider they might, homicidally in the moment, would be far, far worse for the children involved.

A generation of men raised by women.

I recognize the exposure is long-term, but I do not accept it as an excuse for their actions, or for lessening their responsibility.

Not and excuse or lessening of responsibility. Perhaps a reason why they failed to act appropriately. They were conditioned to protect the mothership at all costs.

A generation of men raised by women.

Spare me. Go drink some more deer's blood. If you're going to (rightfully) hammer libertarians for living in some world that exists only in their heads, your desire for a suburban blood warrior is no less a fantasy.


Not and excuse or lessening of responsibility. Perhaps a reason why they failed to act appropriately. They were conditioned to protect the mothership at all costs.

I can understand a reason, but again, I stand by a lack of acceptance for feeling any pity or sympathy.

To clarify what I said (again, no caffeine yet this a.m.) -- I completely get where Sam H. & (god help me) Gaelen are coming from. I'd love to think I'd react that way, too, if confronted with such a situation right before my incredulous eyes.

Booond, though, from what he said, is speaking from experience (that I hope to god falls far short of the Sandusky shower scenario). I think that lends his thoughts a certain amount of validity that I don't know the rest of us can claim. (I could, of course, be wrong.)

I would also like to be clear I think that reacting the way Gaelan and Sam (and Srul?) consider they might, homicidally in the moment, would be far, far worse for the children involved.

Srul said nothing of the sort. He said as an attorney, he'd be pretty confident taking the case of a man who kills someone in the act of molesting a child.

I would also like to be clear I think that reacting the way Gaelan and Sam (and Srul?) consider they might, homicidally in the moment, would be far, far worse for the children involved.

Why? Other than going to jail, which would be worse for the children.

Forgive me if I find those people's chest-thumping a bit ludicrous, especially in the case of the always-laughable Descartes Jr., who's AFAIK has never generated a post indicative of any sort of real-life experience beyond dreamily recalling the contents of some dusty book written by a dead white mental masturbater at least 200 years ago.

Descartes? Really? I couldn't be less like Descartes. If you are going to cast aspersions they might as well be accurate.

[Edit to add] I go into my son's room every night to make sure he is still breathing. That's my real-life experience. I love my kids with an intensity that extinguishes thought. That is my real-life experience. This love is directly and irrevocably attached to feelings of anger at the thought of someone harming them. That is my real-life experience. Excuse me for not apologizing for that. There is no such thing as love without anger. They come from the same part of us. Now I agree that doesn't mean that violence is the best recourse but I think it is pretty damn intelligible.

Srul said nothing of the sort. He said as an attorney, he'd be pretty confident taking the case of a man who kills someone in the act of molesting a child.

Yeah, I probably had my setting on "skim" at that moment, sorry.

flip