Little Danny;966330 wrote:Let me get this straight-

Some of you are arguing that JoePa should be in the clear because he told the AD about what the GA informed him. What I want to know from you JoePa apologists is, don't you think it is highly problematic that Paterno was aware of at least two incidents of inappropriate behavior with children (the 1998 incident and 2002) and yet had no problem with the fact that Sandusky still had an office and access to PSU facilities up until 2008? Wouldn't you think it is odd that no law enforcement agencies ever followed up on these two matters? Wouldn't you expect to be called as a witness in either instance since you were a party who was involved in the chain of reporting the incidents?

Basically what you all are aruging is that JoePa fulfilled the minimal obligation and therefore should not have lost his job. I'm sorry, when it comes to sodomy of 10-12 year old boys, minimal obligations do not cut it.

bigkahuna;966350 wrote:Joe Pa is bigger than the athletic department, I'll agree to that. He is not bigger than the university and the trustees that run it. THEY were the ones who granted him access to facilities. You're giving him too much credit for thinking he is bigger than the trustees that run the university. This is after the 1998 report, "Yea, we know there was a police report filed against you, here's access to the university, Happy Retirement!" If anything Joe Pa tried to remove Sandusky from the program getting rid of him did he not?

SMH, authorities want to talk to the person that saw the incident, not the person who heard second hand about the incident. Again one of the two people who were informed by McQueary/Joe Pa is head of campus police. It's safe to say that AT THE TIME, he thought they WERE taking care of it because of their position. I guarantee that at the time Joe Pa thought he was doing what was right with what he knew. It's so easy to judge based on hindsight nearly 10 years later.

bigkahuna;966350 wrote:Joe Pa is bigger than the athletic department, I'll agree to that. He is not bigger than the university and the trustees that run it. THEY were the ones who granted him access to facilities. You're giving him too much credit for thinking he is bigger than the trustees that run the university. This is after the 1998 report, "Yea, we know there was a police report filed against you, here's access to the university, Happy Retirement!" If anything Joe Pa tried to remove Sandusky from the program getting rid of him did he not?

SMH, authorities want to talk to the person that saw the incident, not the person who heard second hand about the incident. Again one of the two people who were informed by McQueary/Joe Pa is head of campus police. It's safe to say that AT THE TIME, he thought they WERE taking care of it because of their position. I guarantee that at the time Joe Pa thought he was doing what was right with what he knew. It's so easy to judge based on hindsight nearly 10 years later.

bigkahuna;966377 wrote:I'm just hesitant to go that route I guess. You hope/think that the higher ups make the right decision. I/We NEED to know if he did follow up and what he was told. I can't find anywhere if he did actually do that or not.

dat dude;966370 wrote:Wow. Just, wow.

This is not a $500 handshake. This is the rape and molestation of a defenseless child. You error on the side of caution. After he hears a firsthand account from someone including the words "shower, old man, young boy, naked" you cannot just let that go. No way. It simply blows my mind that some can accept that he "reported it to his superiors and that's all he had to do." That's such BS. If there is no police involvement, he HAS to take matters into his own hands. And make no mistake, Joe Paterno ran that university. There is a reason he is still coaching at the age of 84 and its not his coaching knowledge.

alwaysawarrior;966329 wrote:Your ignorance astounds me. You are completely right, Paterno had absolutely no power at PSU. In fact I'm sure he was never even allowed to give an opinion on his own damn program. He was always completely submissive to the figures "above" him I'm sure.

Paterno's retirement message shows how arrogant he had become in saying the board should not waste one more second in discussing his employment. That was the treatment he was used to. The BOT made a decision without JoePa for probably the first time in decades last night.

But again you are right he had no pull at all there.

dat dude;966370 wrote:Wow. Just, wow.

This is not a $500 handshake. This is the rape and molestation of a defenseless child. You error on the side of caution. After he hears a firsthand account from someone including the words "shower, old man, young boy, naked" you cannot just let that go. No way. It simply blows my mind

dwccrew;966387 wrote:He didn't. He would have publicly said by now, "When I followed up on the situation I was told that the allegations were unfounded" or something along those lines. The fact that they just (if they in fact did tell him) "it's been handled" means ****. What does "it's been handled" mean? They made payoffs, no truth to the allegations were found, etc.? If I were in JoePa's position I would NEED to know the exact findings, not that "it was handled" and think to myself "ok, that's that".

dwccrew;966387 wrote:He didn't. He would have publicly said by now, "When I followed up on the situation I was told that the allegations were unfounded" or something along those lines. The fact that they just (if they in fact did tell him) "it's been handled" means shit. What does "it's been handled" mean? They made payoffs, no truth to the allegations were found, etc.? If I were in JoePa's position I would NEED to know the exact findings, not that "it was handled" and think to myself "ok, that's that".

Skyhook79;966390 wrote:Where in my post did I say Paterno had NO power at PSU? I disputed your statement that he had ALL the power, not any.
Now who is the ignorant one?

Skyhook79;966394 wrote:2 Police Detectives and an investigator from the Pennsylvania Dept of Public welfare and a victim's Mother did let it go in 1998 and they heard it from Sandusky himself. But I'm sure that doesn't "blow your mind".

Skyhook79;966401 wrote:Isn't telling someone "its been handled" fall under "something along those lines"???

Little Danny;966330 wrote:Let me get this straight-

Some of you are arguing that JoePa should be in the clear because he told the AD about what the GA informed him. What I want to know from you JoePa apologists is, don't you think it is highly problematic that Paterno was aware of at least two incidents of inappropriate behavior with children (the 1998 incident and 2002) and yet had no problem with the fact that Sandusky still had an office and access to PSU facilities up until 2008? Wouldn't you think it is odd that no law enforcement agencies ever followed up on these two matters? Wouldn't you expect to be called as a witness in either instance since you were a party who was involved in the chain of reporting the incidents?

Basically what you all are aruging is that JoePa fulfilled the minimal obligation and therefore should not have lost his job. I'm sorry, when it comes to sodomy of 10-12 year old boys, minimal obligations do not cut it.

Little Danny;966489 wrote:Quite frankly, knowing what he knew about Sandusky, one would think he would physcially throw the man out the front door everytime he saw him hanging around campus (or better yet, getting a couple of his players to do this for him). However, that was not the case. On Mike & Mike this morning, they interviewed former linebacker Paul Pozlovsky. He was there from 2003-2007, after the 2002 incident. He told the listening audience that Sandusky was around all the time. In fact, the players were encouraged to interact with Sandusky and the Second Mile Program.