Maybe not, but he's still a sad, pathetic individual for not doing more. He put the school's "pride" in front of those kids.lhslep134;965005 wrote:A. Joe Pa isn't legally liable for anything
Did you read it? Because if you did, you'd realize in 1998 it WAS investigated by police, and no criminal wrong doing was found. The first time we know of that Paterno was told was of an allegation in 2002. He subsequently (next day) told his superiors.2kool4skool;965011 wrote:We've heard his side, read the GJ report. Whatever mumbling, senile speech he gives isn't going to tell us more.
No one cares. He is still in that chain and he could have done something about it.lhslep134;965044 wrote:Per ESPN's article:
Nov. 7, 2011
Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says Paterno is not a target of the investigation into how the school handled the accusations. But she refuses to say the same for university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz, who have stepped down from their positions, surrender on charges that they failed to alert police to complaints against Sandusky.
Funny how Joe Pa's SUPERIORS are in trouble not him. It's called chain of command. The graduate assistant followed it by alerting Paterno, and Paterno followed it by alerting his superiors. This must be done for every allegation, because the consequences of alerting the police to improper allegations has a higher societal impact than following the chain of command to the proper extent.
That's not how chains of command work...OneBuckeye;965046 wrote:No one cares. He is still in that chain and he could have done something about it.
It's not funny. What we are disgusted with isn't how the Coach acted with regards to the law but rather how he didn't act with moral conviction and character when faced with the situation.lhslep134;965044 wrote:P...
Funny how Joe Pa's SUPERIORS are in trouble not him. It's called chain of command. The graduate assistant followed it by alerting Paterno, and Paterno followed it by alerting his superiors. This must be done for every allegation, because the consequences of alerting the police to improper allegations has a higher societal impact than following the chain of command to the proper extent.
Fab1b;965050 wrote:
IMO no he or anyone should not remain on staff at PSU or none of them should ever coach again or be in any business where they have authority over any childrens activities!
All because you feel he didn't do what you wanted him to do with you having the 20/20 hindsight? smhFab1b;965050 wrote:Forget the damn law, we know JoPa won't be arrested and charged with any crimes!
The debate is strictly should he remain at PSU past this very minute or not? The same goes for McQueary and any others that knew!
IMO no he or anyone should not remain on staff at PSU or none of them should ever coach again or be in any business where they have authority over any childrens activities! They have clearly shown they will not protect them!
Am not, but they aided one, not too far off of being one if you want to take it that way! They protected this sleez!lhslep134;965057 wrote:So now all of them are pedophiles? That's what you're implying.
Yeah I'll take my 20/20 hindsight over your blindness here!Skyhook79;965059 wrote:All because you feel he didn't do what you wanted him to do with you having the 20/20 hindsight? smh
It takes one 20/20 hindsight to understand the importance of calling the authorities when a child is being raped in your campus facility? Sad.Skyhook79;965059 wrote:All because you feel he didn't do what you wanted him to do with you having the 20/20 hindsight? smh
Most companies, governments have a "whistleblowers" policy in place so when something unethical comes up it is not swept under the rug or lost in the chain of command.lhslep134;965053 wrote:That's not how chains of command work...
No, I carry the same innocent until proven guilty sentiment from the legal sense into my moral sense as well. Obviously a lot of you think differently, so it is what it is. I just refuse to ignore the possibility that Joe really didn't know as much as much as he is assumed to have until more is known. I'm done arguing this.WebFire;965195 wrote:I think ihslep's problem is bringing legal arguments to a morality fight.
Just as someone accused of a crime can be jailed prior to and during the trial, so it could work here. If you aren't going to fire him outright, there would be no due process issue with suspending Paterno pending the outcome of the investigations. Innocent until proven guilty does not require his being allowed to coach the team this week or subsequent weeks until everything shakes out.lhslep134;965203 wrote:No, I carry the same innocent until proven guilty sentiment from the legal sense into my moral sense as well. Obviously a lot of you think differently, so it is what it is. I just refuse to ignore the possibility that Joe really didn't know as much as much as he is assumed to have until more is known. I'm done arguing this.
How is he not morally guilty? He admitted to knowing in 2002. What else do you need?lhslep134;965203 wrote:No, I carry the same innocent until proven guilty sentiment from the legal sense into my moral sense as well. Obviously a lot of you think differently, so it is what it is. I just refuse to ignore the possibility that Joe really didn't know as much as much as he is assumed to have until more is known. I'm done arguing this.
I have news for you - there will be no jury trial for Paterno. He cannot be "proven" guilty. He, by all accounts, will not be charged with a crime. One's personal moral compass is the standard. Some, it appears, hold a higher standard for conduct in a tragedy such as this.lhslep134;965203 wrote:No, I carry the same innocent until proven guilty sentiment from the legal sense into my moral sense as well. Obviously a lot of you think differently, so it is what it is. I just refuse to ignore the possibility that Joe really didn't know as much as much as he is assumed to have until more is known. I'm done arguing this.
Video tape of Paterno cheerleading Sandusky through the rape. Nothing short of that will convince the Paterno fans, because damn it, he seemed like a nice guy on tv!OneBuckeye;965217 wrote:How is he not morally guilty? He admitted to knowing in 2002. What else do you need?
They teach you that at UofA Law? You are such a good student.lhslep134;965203 wrote:No, I carry the same innocent until proven guilty sentiment from the legal sense into my moral sense as well. Obviously a lot of you think differently, so it is what it is. I just refuse to ignore the possibility that Joe really didn't know as much as much as he is assumed to have until more is known. I'm done arguing this.
This. Not to mention he forced one of the premiere defensive coaches in America to retire one year after another complaint against Sandusky in 1998.OneBuckeye;965217 wrote:How is he not morally guilty? He admitted to knowing in 2002. What else do you need?