Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 12, 2011 9:47pm
Following the law is the path of least resistance and opposite of the correct action?Writerbuckeye;970052 wrote:BS. You keep ignoring Paterno's own words to the GJ that he was told something "sexual" had occurred between Sandusky and a child.
You don't need anything more than that to take the correct action -- which is opposite what Paterno actually did. He took the path of least resistance and least effort.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Nov 12, 2011 9:54pm
"From the GJ testimony The AD said Sandusky's keys were taken away and that he reported to the head of the second mile what Sandusky was accused of."
The head of Second Mile doesn't have authority to arrest people or perform a criminal investigation. The police do. Why State College cops weren't contacted that weekend by someone is unfathomable.
The head of Second Mile doesn't have authority to arrest people or perform a criminal investigation. The police do. Why State College cops weren't contacted that weekend by someone is unfathomable.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Nov 12, 2011 9:57pm
What does following the law mean? Aside from Seinfeld final episode laws I typically don't have a duty to report a crime. That doesn't mean that reporting it isn't the correct action, or on the other hand failing to report it is correct.Skyhook79;970060 wrote:Following the law is the path of least resistance and opposite of the correct action?
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 12, 2011 10:03pm
Neither does JoePa yet you say he is suppose to conduct an investigation into the identity of a crime victim, after he was told that Agencies and people have been contacted and its being handled.Manhattan Buckeye;970075 wrote:
The head of Second Mile doesn't have authority to arrest people or perform a criminal investigation. The police do.
B
Big Gain
Posts: 2,073
Nov 12, 2011 10:06pm
WRONG WRONG WRONG....READ THE GRAND JURY REPORT. Paterno told the Grand Jury UNDER OATH. QUOTE>>>>>"Sandusky was in the shower fondling AND doing something of a sexual nature TO a young boy. That's not "serious"??? If you don't think so you must be a deviant also.reclegend22;969869 wrote:Yes, but in this case, with hindsight Joe Paterno now knows new information. That he wasn't told the truth with regard to how key Penn State administrators handled their "investigation" of McQueary's story. And, also as we know now, Paterno was never told that anything relating to the seriousness of intercourse or rape of a child had ever occurred.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Nov 12, 2011 10:08pm
It wasn't handled. And the guy testifying that he "believed" they contacted a "child protection agency" [NOTE, the lack of specific term of which agency] is being charged with perjury.Skyhook79;970093 wrote:Neither does JoePa yet you say he is suppose to conduct an investigation into the identity of a crime victim, after he was told that Agencies and people have been contacted and its being handled.
All JoePa has to do is go to his old buddy Sandusky and utter four words, "Who is the kid?"
He didn't do it.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 12, 2011 10:16pm
Sandusky has denied the allegations why would he tell him who the kid is if he denies it happened?Manhattan Buckeye;970106 wrote:It wasn't handled. And the guy testifying that he "believed" they contacted a "child protection agency" [NOTE, the lack of specific term of which agency] is being charged with perjury.
All JoePa has to do is go to his old buddy Sandusky and utter four words, "Who is the kid?"
He didn't do it.
What does JoePa's superior possibly perjuring himself have to do with what JoePa was told? So he possibly lied to JoePa too.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Nov 12, 2011 10:27pm
Perhaps he would have denied it, JoePa Leader/Legend didn't even bother himself to contact him. This is why the matter is so outrageous. These people didn't do anything.Skyhook79;970119 wrote:Sandusky has denied the allegations why would he tell him who the kid is if he denies it happened?
What does JoePa's superior possibly perjuring himself have to do with what JoePa was told? So he possibly lied to JoePa too.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 12, 2011 10:50pm
How do you know whether JoePa contacted Sandusky or not about the incident? No one from the GJ asked the question. Saying "these people" didn't do anything is also wrong, you may not like what was done with your benefit of Hindsight and testimony, but JoePa did what the law says he should have done and that doesn't fall under "didn't do anything".Manhattan Buckeye;970136 wrote:Perhaps he would have denied it, JoePa Leader/Legend didn't even bother himself to contact him. This is why the matter is so outrageous. These people didn't do anything.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Nov 12, 2011 10:54pm
"How do you know whether JoePa contacted Sandusky or not about the incident? No one from the GJ asked the question."
Exactly. You don't think that would be relevant? Sandusky is the main person on trial - any contact from McQueary, JoePa, etc. post the incident would certainly be presented by the prosecution.
Exactly. You don't think that would be relevant? Sandusky is the main person on trial - any contact from McQueary, JoePa, etc. post the incident would certainly be presented by the prosecution.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 12, 2011 11:04pm
Wouldn't the question have to be asked at the GJ hearing for them to know? It wasn't asked from anyone who gave testimony whether they contacted Sandusky.Manhattan Buckeye;970179 wrote:"How do you know whether JoePa contacted Sandusky or not about the incident? No one from the GJ asked the question."
Exactly. You don't think that would be relevant? Sandusky is the main person on trial - any contact from McQueary, JoePa, etc. post the incident would certainly be presented by the prosecution.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Nov 12, 2011 11:13pm
From the Grand Jury report (yawn) yet again:
"....and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the University did so. Schultz did not ask the graduate assistant for specifics. No one ever did."
A good friend of mine who's ex-wife went to PSU is telling me the JoePa camp is claiming that when McQueary met him he stopped him before the conversation got too "graphic." That's the defense. Ignorance.
This isn't a Duke lacrosse situation where you had a rogue prosecutor making a case to save his re-election attempt in a matter of days. This case has been investigated for years, the state prosecutors are involved.
When they claim "No one ever did." I know that they have chosen their words carefully.
"....and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the University did so. Schultz did not ask the graduate assistant for specifics. No one ever did."
A good friend of mine who's ex-wife went to PSU is telling me the JoePa camp is claiming that when McQueary met him he stopped him before the conversation got too "graphic." That's the defense. Ignorance.
This isn't a Duke lacrosse situation where you had a rogue prosecutor making a case to save his re-election attempt in a matter of days. This case has been investigated for years, the state prosecutors are involved.
When they claim "No one ever did." I know that they have chosen their words carefully.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 12, 2011 11:21pm
Manhattan Buckeye;970196 wrote:From the Grand Jury report (yawn) yet again:
"....and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the University did so. Schultz did not ask the graduate assistant for specifics. No one ever did."
A good friend of mine who's ex-wife went to PSU is telling me the JoePa camp is claiming that when McQueary met him he stopped him before the conversation got too "graphic." That's the defense. Ignorance.
This isn't a Duke lacrosse situation where you had a rogue prosecutor making a case to save his re-election attempt in a matter of days. This case has been investigated for years, the state prosecutors are involved.
When they claim "No one ever did." I know that they have chosen their words carefully.
Well why didn't you tell me earlier one of your good friends whose ex-wife went to Penn State knows what happened and what JoePa's defense team defense plan is even though no one ever testified to JoePa stopped McQuaery even McQuaery himself. /sarcasm
Prosecutors are so good that after the GJ testimony it still took them 11 months to arrest Jerry Sandusky, a supposed serial rapist.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Nov 12, 2011 11:26pm
Wow. That made no sense whatsoever.Skyhook79;970210 wrote:Well why didn't you tell me earlier one of your good friends whose ex-wife went to Penn State knows what happened and what JoePa's defense team defense plan is even though no one ever testified to JoePa stopped McQuaery even McQuaery himself. /sarcasm
Prosecutors are so good that after the GJ testimony it still took them 11 months to arrest Jerry Sandusky, a supposed serial rapist.
B
Big Gain
Posts: 2,073
Nov 12, 2011 11:30pm
EXACTLY "hind sight" means in the past....when the sexual abuse took place in the past Paterno admits he didn't do enough.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 12, 2011 11:32pm
Makes more sense than saying "who's ex-wife". It's "whose ex-wife" Mr. grammar police man. :laugh::laugh::laugh:Manhattan Buckeye;970221 wrote:Wow. That made no sense whatsoever.
B
Big Gain
Posts: 2,073
Nov 12, 2011 11:32pm
EXACTLY..."hindsight" means in the past. When the sexual abuse happened in the past, Paterno admits he should have done more.Skyhook79;969803 wrote:Here is his ENTIRE quote: “This is a tragedy,” Paterno said in a statement addressing the allegations against Sandusky. “It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, I wish I had done more.”
Way to pick out only the part that benefits your argument.
B
Big Gain
Posts: 2,073
Nov 12, 2011 11:34pm
He is as good as fired. He WILL be fired, once his trial is over, guilty OR not.Skyhook79;969363 wrote:Why don't you answer the question? It is a yes or no question,pretty simple, except for a Lawyer I guess.
Were you lying when you said the AD has been fired?
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 12, 2011 11:36pm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hindsightBig Gain;970232 wrote:EXACTLY..."hindsight" means in the past. When the sexual abuse happened in the past, Paterno admits he should have done more.
1. Perception of the significance and nature of events after they have occurred
1. the ability to understand, after something has happened, what should have been done or what caused the event
Any questions Big Gain?
B
Big Gain
Posts: 2,073
Nov 12, 2011 11:36pm
You know he let it go because if the most powerful man on the campus of Penn State wanted more done TI WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE, he remained silent.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 12, 2011 11:38pm
Big Gain;970236 wrote:He is as good as fired. He WILL be fired, once his trial is over, guilty OR not.
Are you also having trouble with "Has been fired" vs "will be fired"?
B
Big Gain
Posts: 2,073
Nov 12, 2011 11:39pm
It does not matter. Paterno knew Sandusky messed around with young boys. How many molestations was Paterno going to allow? He admits he should have done more.Skyhook79;970056 wrote:From the GJ testimony The AD said Sandusky's keys were taken away and that he reported to the head of the second mile what Sandusky was accused of. Shultz testified that he and Curley reported the incident to the Child Protective Agency. It is completely plausible that Paterno was told by 2 of his superiors that he reported the incident to that the incident has been reported to the proper authorities and they are looking into it along with what Curley said was done. You cannot just assume what Paterno was told about what was being done.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 12, 2011 11:41pm
We have already had the hindsight discussion, have you learned the real meaning of hindsight yet?Big Gain;970243 wrote:It does not matter. Paterno knew Sandusky messed around with young boys. How many molestations was Paterno going to allow? He admits he should have done more.
B
Big Gain
Posts: 2,073
Nov 12, 2011 11:43pm
PATERNO BROKE NO LAW.Skyhook79;969980 wrote:How do you know he let it go? The GJ testimony has nothing about what JoePa did or didn't do for follow-up. There are 23 pages in the GJ testimony and there are 5 sentences from JoePa total.
Why would you bring the moral into the legal? everyone gets to interpret that (moral) in their own way.
Would YOU consider this a moral or amoral happening?? "Sandusky was in the shower fondling AND doing something of a sexual nature TO a young boy."
Simple question, simple answer. Multiple choice. 1) moral 2) amoral. Pass or fail.
Take your test.
B
Big Gain
Posts: 2,073
Nov 12, 2011 11:50pm
YES indeed, a PERFECTLY chosen word by Paterno. Hindsight - Bias, or alternatively the knew-it-all-along effect.Skyhook79;970246 wrote:We have already had the hindsight discussion, have you learned the real meaning of hindsight yet?