lhslep134;1070114 wrote:Anyone who thinks Paterno going to the police would have had a major effect. The person who should have gone to police is McQ (who directly witnessed the actions), or the people who were legally obligated to do so (ie the administrators who are facing legal sanctions).

O.K. but that had nothing to do with my post. Not sure why you qute me andthen state something that's not tied directly to the information in my post.

What "people" do you think don't understand that hearsay doesn't result in arrests?

Do you not agree with Mr. Paterno's self assessment that there was more that he could have done following him being made aware of the situation?

Con_Alma;1070121 wrote:O.K. but that had nothing to do with my post. Not sure why you qute me andthen state something that's not tied directly to the information in my post.

I didn't quote your post, I quoted Winston's. Go look.

lhslep134;1070114 wrote:Anyone who thinks Paterno going to the police would have had a major effect. The person who should have gone to police is McQ (who directly witnessed the actions), or the people who were legally obligated to do so (ie the administrators who are facing legal sanctions).

WE don't know what Paterno's going to the police would have done because it never happened. He chose the path of least resistence here. It'd be like watching a person getting attacked outside my office window and calling the building security office to let them know something "innappropriate" was going on outside. Technically I've done my duty. Morally and ethically all I've done is hand the problem off to someone else.

I dont' think Paterno was a bad guy at all. THe consequence of his inaction was severe. But that's the risk we all live with if we make a bad mistake like this. He was a good man. The fact is, there are good men all over. Because he was good at something that is popular and that a lot of us love with a passion, he gets venerated by some. Phil Knight fouled up Joe's ceremony by exonerating the coach. That was not deserved at all. Joe's accomplishments should be honored. But casting him as a fall guy victim is not only ridiculous, it further insults the children who were raped on his watch.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1070170 wrote:WE don't know what Paterno's going to the police would have done because it never happened. He chose the path of least resistence here. It'd be like watching a person getting attacked outside my office window and calling the building security office to let them know something "innappropriate" was going on outside.

No, it's not like that, not at all, and that's where you and the people who think like that are mistaken. Direct visual evidence and hearsay are two VERY different things. In your hypothetical, you have direct visual evidence that the police can use to corroborate and take action. In Joe Pa's case, all he had was hearsay from McQ, and as a football coach, wasn't in a legal position to really have done anything EXCEPT report it to his superiors, which is what he did.

It was on McQ or the superiors to take action, and both failed to do so. That cannot be blamed on Joe Pa.

Hope this clears up your misunderstanding of what happened.

lhslep134;1070159 wrote:I didn't quote your post, I quoted Winston's. Go look.

???

Yes you did. It's right above my post.

You quoted me and 1:37. I responded at 1:41 wondering why you quoted me and commented on something that wasn't related to my post.

It's post 157 and 158.

lhslep134;1070173 wrote:...

It was on McQ or the superiors to take action, and both failed to do so. That cannot be blamed on Joe Pa.

Hope this clears up your misunderstanding of what happened.

I can only speak for myself but that s not what I am blaming Mr. Paterno for.

Do you disagree with him when he stated he could have done more?

Con_Alma;1070186 wrote:???

Yes you did. It's right above my post.

You quoted me and 1:37. I responded at 1:41 wondering why you quoted me and commented on something that wasn't related to my post.

My response was to Winston's post that I quoted. You then responded, and I quoted your response, even though your response was directed towards my post that quoted Winston. This whole thing of "people" is directed at Winston and not at you. I don't know what part of that you're not comprehending...

Con_Alma;1070194 wrote:
Do you disagree with him when he stated he could have done more?

Hindsight is 20/20, so for me to even agree with him would have to take at 100% truth his statement that he could have done more. We don't really know if he could have done more, therefore I can't agree with his statement. There are too many legal boundaries and rules that I'm unfamiliar with in Pennsylvania for me to agree/disagree with him.

The only thing I know is that the Joe Pa going to the police with McQ's information is hearsay, which has no legal bearing except in very limited cases.

lhslep134;1070173 wrote:No, it's not like that, not at all, and that's where you and the people who think like that are mistaken. Direct visual evidence and hearsay are two VERY different things. In your hypothetical, you have direct visual evidence that the police can use to corroborate and take action. In Joe Pa's case, all he had was hearsay from McQ, and as a football coach, wasn't in a legal position to really have done anything EXCEPT report it to his superiors, which is what he did.

It was on McQ or the superiors to take action, and both failed to do so. That cannot be blamed on Joe Pa.

Hope this clears up your misunderstanding of what happened.

My example is to illustrate only that doing the minimum required is different than doing what is right. Joe Paterno was the head guy in the football world at Penn State. In that position, he had an assistant coach tell him another member of the football family - who while retired was still and active member of the family - had done something with a child in the shower. Real leadership in this case would mean finding out EXACTLY what this guy saw, not accepting a somewhat obscure reference to inappropriate behavior. Where there is a child involved, there is no way you can do anything less than say to McQuery, "Don't tell me something inappropriate went on, tell me EXACTLY what you saw." Upon hearing this, you can certainly tell your superiors, because that's what you're supposed to do. But the message to the superiors should have been along the lines of, "A member of MY staff saw a former member of MY staff who still maintains an office in our football building, raping a little boy in OUR showers. I'm telling you because I have to. I also expect you to call the police right here in my presence. If you don't want to do that, I will call myself when this meeting is out."

Doing what was required in his job and legally is different from what he was in a position to do based upon his stature and authority. Because of this, he failed to practice the principles he apparently taught to legions of players. He was not a failure, but he did fail here.

Jesus some of you must really hate joe pa. I live near state college and friends that go to penn st. A lot of them said that joe pa hasn't had a lot to do with the university for years and at that point in his life he was just the football coach. Joe pa was one of the most caring people in all of college football. He went to his supervisors ( no he isn't higher than them like most of you think) and that's the right protocol in this situation whether you like it or not. Joe did exactly what he was suppose to do. Let's say joe went to the police and nothing came out of it, then he makes himself look dumb and ruined a friendship with a good friend.

Crimson streak;1070275 wrote:Jesus some of you must really hate joe pa. I live near state college and friends that go to penn st. A lot of them said that joe pa hasn't had a lot to do with the university for years and at that point in his life he was just the football coach. Joe pa was one of the most caring people in all of college football. He went to his supervisors ( no he isn't higher than them like most of you think) and that's the right protocol in this situation whether you like it or not. Joe did exactly what he was suppose to do. Let's say joe went to the police and nothing came out of it, then he makes himself look dumb and ruined a friendship with a good friend.

This has nothing to do with "hating" Paterno. I didn't have the privelage of knowing the man. My impression based upon what I've read about him over the years is that he was a very good person and a good coach. I don't think his life was a failure becuase of this situation either. We all have "marks" on our records, so to speak. I made my points only in response to the comments about Phil Knight's speech at Paterno's memorial. Knight turned a celebration of the coach's life into a campaign platform to make an argument that what Paterno did in this case was not only not wrong, that it was in fact right. I say two things to that. First, Paterno's memorial was not the place to makes such statements. Second, if you (Knight) are going to make such statements, then prepare to hear them rebuked by those who believe Paterno failed miserably here.

No doubt McQuery's accusation would have put Paterno into a tough situation. But that's life. Joe didn't do everything in his power to find out what McQuery saw. The incompetence of Joe's superiors meant that it fell to him to get the word out that children were raped in his building. At the very least, once Paterno's superiors told him that they'd looked into this and found nothing, I'd be in with McQuery saying, tell me EXACTLY what you saw.

Mcquery could have told joe pa that jerry was taking a shower with a 15 year old boy. That doesn't tell him anything, it doesn't mean inappropriate things were going on. So he alerted his supervisors of what was happening. It's as simple as that. I honestly didn't have a problem with knights speech. I thought it was fantastic and if it was morally wrong then why did he get a standing ovation?

Crimson streak;1070331 wrote:Mcquery could have told joe pa that jerry was taking a shower with a 15 year old boy. That doesn't tell him anything, it doesn't mean inappropriate things were going on. So he alerted his supervisors of what was happening. It's as simple as that. I honestly didn't have a problem with knights speech. I thought it was fantastic and if it was morally wrong then why did he get a standing ovation?

I agree with you, but he got a standing O because he was in State College giving a eulogy for the man, and what he said was exactly what the crowd of mourners wanted/needed to hear.

vball10set;1070340 wrote:I agree with you, but he got a standing O because he was in State College giving a eulogy for the man, and what he said was exactly what the crowd of mourners wanted/needed to hear.

Exactly and it wasn't a funeral. It was a memorial for joe pa. I honestly had no problem with it

Crimson streak;1070347 wrote:Exactly and it wasn't a funeral. It was a memorial for joe pa. I honestly had no problem with it

Nor did I...I actually thought it was very good.

Some people need to look up the true definition of "hindsight" and who is the Supervisor of the Campus Police at Penn State.
Hint: Its one of the 2 superiors that Joe Pa reported to.

Hindsight is 20/20. I've done plenty of stupid things in my life - poor judgements, bad actions, etc. I would like to think that those things don't define me. I expect the same could be said of Paterno. Him being a good person and screwing up on this situation are not mutually exclusive.

If Paterno were not the beloved head coach of a football program in a football mad state, would you still allow him the same latitude?

lhslep134;1070198 wrote:My response was to Winston's post that I quoted. You then responded, and I quoted your response, even though your response was directed towards my post that quoted Winston. This whole thing of "people" is directed at Winston and not at you. I don't know what part of that you're not comprehending...

What I didn't understand was you quoting me as a response to Winston and then stating that you didn't quote me. It's right there!

People is plural. Who are the people you are refering to? It can't just be Winston.

lhslep134;1070205 wrote:Hindsight is 20/20, so for me to even agree with him would have to take at 100% truth his statement that he could have done more. We don't really know if he could have done more, therefore I can't agree with his statement. There are too many legal boundaries and rules that I'm unfamiliar with in Pennsylvania for me to agree/disagree with him.

The only thing I know is that the Joe Pa going to the police with McQ's information is hearsay, which has no legal bearing except in very limited cases.

Why are you assuming that when Mr. Paterno said he should have done more that he was suggesting going to the police? That's only one thing that we have agreed wouldn't have mattered. Doing more doesn't necessarily mean going to the police.

He could have seen this thing through in many ways that would have been helpful to all involved. He didn't. He knew he didn't. He should have done more. That is now part of his legacy.

^^^

Agreed, moreover "hearsay" has nothing to do with Paterno. Hearsay is an evidentiary concept at TRIAL. Cops act on hearsay, tips, other information that may not be admissible all of the time. If my 21 year old son calls me and tells me his roommate at college told him he is going to go on a mass murder spree, that this is hearsay doesn't mean I can't contact the campus police about it, or that they won't investigate.

lhslep134;1070098 wrote:1. Hindsight is 20/20

2. The police can't do anything about what Joe Pa has to say because it's hearsay, they would need to hear directly from McQ before anything. Again, that's a fact that people fail to realize.

This might be the strangest post I've ever read here, so cops don't act on anonymous tips? The University of Arizona school of Law needs to lose its accreditation. Who the heck in Tucscon taught you this?

Manhattan Buckeye;1071866 wrote:This might be the strangest post I've ever read here, so cops don't act on anonymous tips? The University of Arizona school of Law needs to lose its accreditation. Who the heck in Tucscon taught you this?

LOL once again Manhatten swoops in with his superiority complex.

To save us all time, no one cares about your "high and mighty" lawyer friends in NYC, no one cares about anything you do related to law.

So cops act on every anonymous tips all the time? No, there are certain thresholds the tipster must meet for the police to act accordingly. McQ would have met this threshold. Paterno? Not so sure.

Also, the campus police were notified. It's not Paterno's fault the person in charge of the campus police is one of the people now in major trouble.

lhslep134;1072084 wrote:...

Also, the campus police were notified. It's not Paterno's fault the person in charge of the campus police is one of the people now in major trouble.

Do you understand that the disapproval of Mr. Paterno has nothing to do with his lack of notification to the legal authorities?

Even if he had notified the police, this is not why he is being spoken about negatively.

Con_Alma;1072106 wrote:Do you understand that the disapproval of Mr. Paterno has nothing to do with his lack of notification to the legal authorities?

It's pretty much a circular argument. You think Joe Pa "should" have done more, but in reality it was on the campus police/administration who were notified to do more. Had they done more, the guy would have been thrown in prison and then there's no need for Paterno to "do more".

No. That's not it at all. The disappointment is greater than that.

It' about what "is" as opposed to your hypothetical of if the police were notified then Mr. Paterno wouldn't have had to do more. If they were notified or not, he did not carry himself with the moral aptitude that many had protrayed him as haveing. It has nothing to do with the police being involved or not, with the police being notfied, or not.

There's nothing circular about it nor is it an arguement.