It's definitely arguable. The action he did take resulted in the man with oversight of the university police meeting with the GA who was an actual witness to a crime. That is an action that could (and should) have prevented additional victims. Also (see 1998), there's no way to guarantee that a police report "would" have resulted in an arrest/conviction and "would" have prevented additional victims. It could have and should have, but so should the course of action Paterno took.queencitybuckeye;964906 wrote:what is not seriously arguable is that he could have taken actions that would have prevented additional victims of the monster Sandusky, and he did not. That's his legacy.
It's easy to look back on it now and say he was wrong because his course of action didn't result in Sandusky being caught sooner, but that's the fault of the people who did nothing with the information they were given.
If what Paterno did was so terrible, then the law needs to be rewritten. Doing exactly what the law tells you to do in that situation shouldn't be considered the wrong course of action to take.
But his legacy will be determined by society, not by me, and it's clear that it will be severely tarnished. Some parts of it should be, but not the entirety of it and not to the lengths it may end up being in my opinion. And with that I think I've said all I have to say on the topic. Until more information breaks, at least.