Mulva;966894 wrote:I'm not the moral authority, but I would say something along these lines. Ask her why she didn't call the police, whether anyone else was in the bank working/as a customer at that time, call and report the incident to whoever your supervisor is, and have her file a report with the cops (hey look, I can be rational and not deny it should have happened!)

But, let's say you don't have her call the cops. Instead you report it to your supervisor. He speaks to the teller who was robbed at gunpoint, and tells you he will handle it. 6 months later (let's shorten the time frame) another bank is robbed, and the teller is killed. The teller sees the suspect on the news and realizes he is the same one who robbed her.

Turns out your supervisor never went to the cops. The CEO of the company finds out and determines that you should have done more than just reporting the incident to your boss and fires both of you. Is it justified? Yes. Are you a monster and an enabler of armed robbery for reporting the incident to your boss (who then met with the teller)? No. Do you wish you had done more? I'm sure you do.

Plus, I would hope you can admit that there's a significant difference between reporting that someone robbed your bank and that a specific identified person sexually abused a child. One has to be handled with a little bit more discretion.

Plus plus, what if you dispute the teller? She says she was robbed at gunpoint. You and your supervisor say all she told you was that "someone took money from the register". If your version is accurate, running to the cops doesn't seem as obvious. It still should have been done so feel free to save the READ THE GJ!!!!!!111 comments, but it makes following procedure more appropriate than the other case.

Again if more comes out that he was actively involved in a coverup then my opinion will completely change. But for now those are my feelings.

Please see my more accurate version.

dwccrew;966881 wrote:
Hearsay? The GA admitted that he saw it with his own eyes. That's not hearsay.

It is hearsay for joe pa. Especially after he reported it the day after he saw happened? Joe did the right thing. He reported it to his higher ups and campus secerity.

WebFire;966897 wrote:Please see my more accurate version.

But it took me so long to do that one!

Alright, looking at that one, if "nothing ever happened" (which for me would probably only take a couple of days before I checked back with my manager) you should follow up with the manager first. If the manager gives some bullshit like "we looked into it" then you should demand to know what was found, because either the accuser should be fired or the accused should investigated by an actual law enforcement agency.

Remember, in this scenario the manager (plus let's say the man in charge of company security) meet with the accusing employee after you go to them. It isn't just you go to manager, case is closed.

Honestly, my next step would be to go to the accusing employee. I would tell her that my boss clearly found the accusations to be baseless, and so if she was sure about what she saw then she needed to go to the police immediately, which she should have done in the first place. If she filed a police report the accused employee (although ex-employee is more accurate) is suspended pending the investigation. If she doesn't file a police report at that point then I personally think she made it up and I let her know that if she doesn't go to the cops with what she saw then I will fire her because I will have to assume she made it up.

I would offer to go to the cops with her, but I'm still not going to the cops for her.

But that's assuming I only told my manager in the first place. Again, I'd tell my manager and inform the actual witness to call the cops. Either way I'm not labeling you an enabler for getting caught in the middle of a witness who won't go to the cops on her own and a boss who apparently doesn't buy the story or wants to sweep it under the rug.

The rest of the scenario stays the same. If the employee is found guilty later and you never did more than have the witness meet with your manager then you deserve to be fired. You still aren't a monster.

WebFire;966837 wrote:I work above a bank. If one of the tellers runs upstairs and says, "Someone just robbed us. Call the police!", I should say "No, that is just an allegation and you have no proof."?

Precisely. And then when the robbers get away and go on to knock over another bank, you can then say that in hindsight, you wish you had done more back then. And then no one should ever be able to say anything whatsoever to you about that situation.

gorocks99;966883 wrote:Stay classy, Bielema:



http://twitter.com/#!/trenni/status/134703222307827713

So, how long until Wisconsin gets busted for something big? Because that's just the sort of comment that is destined to set off some sort of "karma's a bitch" comeuppance.

WebFire;966828 wrote:That's funny. I thought the person that WITNESSED it told him. Enjoy!

I can say I witness you abusing a child, doesn't make it true. That's the point that you can't use hindsight.

sleeper;966933 wrote:I can say I witness you abusing a child, doesn't make it true. That's the point that you can't use hindsight.

So only forensics can be proof? Why are witnesses ever called to the stand then?

sleeper;966933 wrote:I can say I witness you abusing a child, doesn't make it true. That's the point that you can't use hindsight.

This comment doesn't even make sense. But lets play along..... A man tells you they saw someone (someone who btw had been accused of this before, and there was obviously enough there to force him to retire) raping a child. You call the proper authorities, and find out the first man was lying....worse case scenario if handled properly by the authorities, you have one man pissed off at you. Now worse case scenario if you handle it the way JoePa did and you do nothing, a scumbag gets to rape innocent children for ten more years. I can see why this makes the decision so hard.

sleeper...

Better yet, the only person who should ever call the cops is the victim him or herself. Everything else is just accusations.

That is what you are saying?

Let me make this clear for everyone again....

Determining whether information is hearsay or not is not to be determined on the street. Hearsay is a legal term used in the context of a court of law. It is for the judge and/or the jury to make that determination, not for people on the street in the context of their daily lives. You call the police, period. The police conduct an investigation, it is turned over to the prosecution and they put on the case.

Crimson streak;966756 wrote:Who seriously calls the police on hearsay?

EL-OH-MOTHERFUCKING-EL. You must not ever look at police reports. People call the cops about all sorts of things, many of them FAR more frivolous than hearing about a potential case of child molesting.

WebFire;966950 wrote:So only forensics can be proof? Why are witnesses ever called to the stand then?

No I'm saying if you're Joe Pa you don't go call the police, accuse someone in which you have no proof of raping a child WITHOUT going to your boss and informing him of the incidents. Joe Pa isn't a witness.

Clearly, you guys aren't getting it.

WebFire;966954 wrote:sleeper...

Better yet, the only person who should ever call the cops is the victim him or herself. Everything else is just accusations.

That is what you are saying?

In this particular context, because of the seriousness of the allegations, then yes.

Heretic;966982 wrote:EL-OH-MOTHERFUCKING-EL. You must not ever look at police reports. People call the cops about all sorts of things, many of them FAR more frivolous than hearing about a potential case of child molesting.

+1

Its amazing how uninformed some people really are. Please go to a local community college and spend like 300 bucks and take a intro to criminal justice class you'll learn a lot especially since some people don't have any common sense.

sleeper;966987 wrote:No I'm saying if you're Joe Pa you don't go call the police, accuse someone in which you have no proof of raping a child WITHOUT going to your boss and informing him of the incidents. Joe Pa isn't a witness.

Clearly, you guys aren't getting it.

No, you don't get it. With your thinking, PSU should give all jobs back and just close the books on it. Because McQueary is the only one that can call the cops. And he didn't. Case closed.

WebFire;966993 wrote:No, you don't get it. With your thinking, PSU should give all jobs back and just close the books on it. Because McQueary is the only one that can call the cops. And he didn't. Case closed.

SMH.

sleeper;966997 wrote:SMH.

SMH.

vball10set;967002 wrote:

Haha this is exactly how I've felt the last two days and it just keeps getting worse.

Iliketurtles;967006 wrote:Haha this is exactly how I've felt the last two days and it just keeps getting worse.

You can't argue with people caught up in a cult of personality. They'll defend the guy even if they saw him murder someone on the street in broad daylight.

WebFire;966861 wrote:Actually, hell this isn't even accurate. How about this.

I am the bank manager. An employee comes in to my office and tells me she witnessed a 10 year old boy getting raped by another employee in the bathroom the previous day. She did not call the police. I called my manager and told him. Nothing ever happened. What should I do?

Did the eyewitness run away out of the bank after she saw what was happening and not attempt to stop the assault? Did she then go home and call her Mom for advice? Did your manager call the eyewitness in to ask her questions? Did your manager tell you its been handled?

Crimson streak;966903 wrote:It is hearsay for joe pa. Especially after he reported it the day after he saw happened? Joe did the right thing. He reported it to his higher ups and campus secerity.

Good God, see below.

Little Danny;966979 wrote:Let me make this clear for everyone again....

Determining whether information is hearsay or not is not to be determined on the street. Hearsay is a legal term used in the context of a court of law. It is for the judge and/or the jury to make that determination, not for people on the street in the context of their daily lives. You call the police, period. The police conduct an investigation, it is turned over to the prosecution and they put on the case.

I can't believe you had to explain this more than once and people still don't get it!

Skyhook79;967033 wrote:Did the eyewitness run away out of the bank after she saw what was happening and not attempt to stop the assault? Did she then go home and call her Mom for advice? Did your manager call the eyewitness in to ask her questions? Did your manager tell you its been handled?

How does any of what you just said change what JoePa did? Or lack of what he did?

"I can't believe you had to explain this more than once and people still don't get it!"

It is obvious short of JoePa buggering the kids himself in front of a national televised audience people will continue to defend his lack of action.

Hearsay is an evidence issue AT TRIAL. People call the cops all of the time for much less. Have some of you mooks never been to a public airport, subway station or other public area where you see 1-800 number signs to call the police if you suspect criminal activity? What happens if you call the police? They investigate and they take control of the situation. There is no legal liability for the person calling in a tip unless it is malevolent and fraudulent. If someone tells you they witnessed a crime and you deem said person credible, there is zero legal liability to tipping the police, regardless of what Lionel Hutz' ambulance-chasers claim on a stupid blog. The worst thing that would have happened if JoePa tipped the cops would be for them to interview McQueary, which they did anyway 10 years too late.

Anybody who believes a good samaritan must risk their lives is missing the point. If your life is in jeopardy in order to help a victim, that's your personal call to make. Maybe McQueary feared the large naked man would try to fuck him if he interfered, who knows.

Misdemeanor crimes, etc. Yeah, maybe I'd just report it higher up. But a 10-year-old being rammed in the ass by an old man is something I would at least call the cops for. You're equating a 10-year-old being raped to witnesses a coworker stealing money from the register, etc. This is criminal. In fact, it's right up there with murder in terms of damage they're doing.


If McQueary walked in on Sandusky killing a full-grown man by stabbing them in the abdomen with a machete, would McQueary just run home to daddy? Would him and his dad just decide to tell Paterno in the morning? Would Paterno just tell his AD and wash his hands of it? Would McQueary just stay there knowing a murderer was walking around the campus and had free access to that building? Would the AD and VP just ignore it and tell McQueary he can't bring machetes onto school property anymore? Would nobody call the cops at all?

The people doubting McQueary's testimony would have to then question each of the seven boys that told their stories of what happened to them. All of which sync up with each other in regard to Sandusky's MO in how he befriends them, treats them, assaults them, etc. So, McQueary's testimony is not unbelievable. Considering the fact JoePa admits that McQueary came to him and was told of (in Joe's words) fondling and of a sexual nature, etc and then told the AD the next day himself.

So, there's no debate between anybody that McQueary came to JoePa to tell him. There's no debate by JoePa that he went to the AD. Only the AD and VP are in trouble because they lied about it (hence the perjury charges). The only dispute is that JoePa said it was 'fondling' and of a 'sexual nature', while McQueary claims he told him specifically what he saw. Which, in Joe's terminology, 'sexual nature' might mean the same as 'fucked in the ass'.

And despite all this, you have the one victim's mother who Sandusky told her he was sorry and that he wished he was dead. Police were in the other room. But the prosecutor felt there wasn't enough evidence to go after him. So, he walked there. The janitors witnessed something, but had a meeting first to decide if they should tell their boss (they were contract cleaners, not university employees) and were afraid they might lose their jobs. They went ahead voted amongst each other to tell their boss.

If it were one accusation, I could understand how this could be blown out of proportion. But, McQueary's testimony fits into the picture when confronted with the other seven victims that were known about at the time. Since then, more have come forward. But not the boy McQueary saw in 2002. It's not something the victim even wants to talk about. And a 10-year-old that's lived with it for nine years could've done a great job telling himself it didn't happen.

Manhattan Buckeye;967259 wrote:"I can't believe you had to explain this more than once and people still don't get it!"

It is obvious short of JoePa buggering the kids himself in front of a national televised audience people will continue to defend his lack of action.

Hearsay is an evidence issue AT TRIAL. People call the cops all of the time for much less. Have some of you mooks never been to a public airport, subway station or other public area where you see 1-800 number signs to call the police if you suspect criminal activity? What happens if you call the police? They investigate and they take control of the situation.

Yeah that happened in 1998 the mother of victim 2 called the authorities, 2 Police Detectives and an investigator took control of the situation and Sandusky was booked,charged and taken off the street...oh wait.