PDA

View Full Version : Judge throws out 3 of 51 counts against Sandusky



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20

taf2002
07-25-2012, 01:55 PM
My BIL played football in college only because that was the only way he could get a college education. He had no interest in going pro - he did have offers. In this situation he would not have transferred. Football is not life-and-death to every player. Neither are bowl games - after all, it's an extra game they have to play & they don't even get paid for it.

MacMadame
07-25-2012, 03:59 PM
I don't think it's completely different.
We'll have to disagree then.


I think you got off on a point she never made, abd have been vehemently defending it when it wasn't the argument made in the first place. But rather than admit you made a mistake, you keep on with you strawman argument.
For someone who loves to beat an argument to death, you seem rather bent out of shape because I'm trying to both defend and clarify my POV.

And speaking of straw man arguments, I don't think your example of the doorman is remotely applicable to this situation.


^it actually started with a shockingly literal interpretation of a rather rhetorical question imho.
SHOCKING, eh! :lol: Talk about blowing things out of proportion.

julieann
07-25-2012, 04:36 PM
My BIL played football in college only because that was the only way he could get a college education. He had no interest in going pro - he did have offers. In this situation he would not have transferred. Football is not life-and-death to every player. Neither are bowl games - after all, it's an extra game they have to play & they don't even get paid for it.

I didn't say it was life or death for every player for but it's an important stepping stone for many.

Here's an article (http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1388486&PT=4&PR=2) about the pros and cons about leaving verses staying.

heckles
07-25-2012, 05:28 PM
I don't think your example of the doorman is remotely applicable to this situation.

The doorman analogy was spot-on. These Penn State employees were planning the camps, creating the brochures, promoting the camps to local schools and coaches, enrolling the kids, checking them in--all while aware that a predator awaited them. Sandusky could not have done this without assistance from an army of enablers.

agalisgv
07-25-2012, 10:52 PM
For someone who loves to beat an argument to death, you seem rather bent out of shape because I'm trying to both defend and clarify my POV. I'm sympathetic to sustained argumentation ;), but it doesn't make sense to critique an argument by a poster they never made. That was really my point. If you look at taf's first post to which you responded, there was no mention of internet fans. The bone of contention was whether the people at Penn State and Mrs. Sandusky were as bad as Sandusky because they covered-up and enabled him to offend over decades.

Your initial reaction to that was incredulousness. Then you called it bizarre. When I pointed out that follows legal reasoning, you responded you don't agree with the law.

So to better focus the discussion, do you think the officials at Penn State who knew Sandusky was molesting/raping children on their campus but did nothing to stop it (thereby allowing it to continue unabated for years) are equally guilty of child sexual abuse?

I say they are.

Oh, and btw, the recent case where the Catholic Monsignor who oversaw pedophile priests and didn't intervene to keep them out of parishes was just sentenced yesterday. He was given longer jail-time than the pedophile priest.

Food for thought.
And speaking of straw man arguments, I don't think your example of the doorman is remotely applicable to this situation.


The doorman analogy was spot-on. Yeah, I was going to say that analogy was taken from the Freeh report. It was the conclusion of Freeh that the admins at Penn State were the effective gatekeepers, and had they at any time shut their doors to Sandusky, his method for luring in victims would have effectively ended, and many innocent lives could have been spared. But never once did those admins close the door on Sandusky's access, and this is what allowed the abuse to continue for so long.

So yeah, I think it's a pretty apt parallel.

MacMadame
07-26-2012, 06:38 AM
Your initial reaction to that was incredulousness. Then you called it bizarre. When I pointed out that follows legal reasoning, you responded you don't agree with the law.
Well, yes, as I said, just because that's how the law works, doesn't make it right. The law has many irregularities and when you compare sentences, you can find a lot of inconsistencies and things that most wouldn't agree is fair. Like women getting harder sentences for killing their spouses than guys who kill theirs.

And, as a victim of sexual abuse myself, I am still incredulous at the idea that anyone is more guilty than Sandusky. He is the one who did it. No one made him do anything; it was all on HIM. I don't understand how Paterno has become this lightening rod for scorn and derision when Sandusky actually raped young adults in his care. No punishment is good enough for Sandusky IMO.


So to better focus the discussion, do you think the officials at Penn State who knew Sandusky was molesting/raping children on their campus but did nothing to stop it (thereby allowing it to continue unabated for years) are equally guilty of child sexual abuse?
I already said they weren't. (I don't think the discussion actually needs "focusing" either. :P)


I say they are.
You already said that. ;)


Oh, and btw, the recent case where the Catholic Monsignor who oversaw pedophile priests and didn't intervene to keep them out of parishes was just sentenced yesterday. He was given longer jail-time than the pedophile priest.

Food for thought.
My thought is that our criminal justice system is a mess.


Yeah, I was going to say that analogy was taken from the Freeh report.
No wonder people have been criticizing it then...

This is what I think:

The guilt of the officials at Penn State is variable. Some of them are like the bar owner who let's the mob run something illegal in his back room because they pay him to turn a blind eye. Some are like a landlord who suspects he's rented to the mob but doesn't investigate so he can claim he didn't know anything; but he kind of does know. And some are like an absentee landlord whose really does have absolutely no idea something hinky is happening on his property. These people are not all equally guilty as each other let alone equally guilty with the ones committing crimes.

The bouncer in the above example is actually a member of the gang. He's like the driver of a getaway car in a bank robbery. Maybe he didn't come in to the bank and say "give me all your money" but he committed the same crime because the job wouldn't have been successfully pulled off without his contribution. I don't see any of the officials in that role unless there was one who actively funneled boys to Sandusky to keep him happy.

Maybe Mrs. Sandusky is playing that role, but I don't know enough details as to what she did and didn't know to say that for sure. I also suspect that Sandusky abused her emotionally because pedophiles often do that their spouses. Which makes her a victim too.

As for the penalties, I think the fine should have been twice what it was at a *minimum*. But I think the stripping of the titles was petty and dumb. I also think most of the sanctions hurt the people least involved including some who are completely innocent.

If they want to punish wrong-doers, they should take away everyone's coaching credentials (well the NCAA equivalent of that) and bar them from coaching anywhere for at least 5 years but preferably more. THAT would punish people who actually did something wrong instead of players some of whom are not only victims of Sandusky but now are victims of the NCAA.

heckles
07-26-2012, 07:43 AM
I don't understand how Paterno has become this lightening rod for scorn and derision when Sandusky actually raped young adults in his care.

The buck has to stop somewhere. Joe was in charge, Joe knew about it, Joe didn't fire Sandusky, Joe didn't contact authorities. Heck, Joe could have at least cancelled the camps, citing liability or streamlining the program or similar. Sandusky is in jail as he should be; Joe had the lucky break of dying at a convenient time.

CDANN1013
07-26-2012, 10:17 AM
The buck has to stop somewhere. Joe was in charge, Joe knew about it, Joe didn't fire Sandusky, Joe didn't contact authorities. Heck, Joe could have at least cancelled the camps, citing liability or streamlining the program or similar. Sandusky is in jail as he should be; Joe had the lucky break of dying at a convenient time.

One problem with that, Heckles, Sanducksy WAS NOT an employee of Penn StTe football in 2002 when the shower scene happened. Sanducksy was granted access BY the Athelic director and the President of the university NOT by Joe Paterno. When the shower scene happened it was reported to Paterno by McCleary, if Joe Paterno or anyone else reported it to the authorities, the cops would have asked if they witnessed the crime, otherwise it might be considered hearsay evidence.

Carol

judiz
07-26-2012, 11:42 AM
Joe Paterno had major influence on the Penn State campus and the surrounding town. A co-worker's daughter was at Penn State a few years ago and this co-worker said you could not go one block without seeing the Paterno name or image on a store or building. She said when people spoke of Joe, it was like they were talking about a holy man. Maybe, if Paterno had gone to the police, his reputation alone would had given the police cause to formally investigate. AND, if Paterno couldn't go to the police, what about a call to child protective services? Those calls can be made anonymously.

BelleBway
07-26-2012, 03:36 PM
The guilt of the officials at Penn State is variable. Some of them are like the bar owner who let's the mob run something illegal in his back room because they pay him to turn a blind eye. Some are like a landlord who suspects he's rented to the mob but doesn't investigate so he can claim he didn't know anything; but he kind of does know. And some are like an absentee landlord whose really does have absolutely no idea something hinky is happening on his property. These people are not all equally guilty as each other let alone equally guilty with the ones committing crimes.


I think in some cases it may also have been like a landlord who rented an apt to his friend and didn't want to think the friend could be up to no good.

Sandusky fooled a hell of a lot of people- it's easy for us now to see him for what he is when we are distanced from the situation and when a ton of kids have come forward. But at the time? To someone closer to the situation? Not to excuse them or say that they behaved appropriately- just saying that I think they are imperfect human beings who made some huge mistakes (which deserve to be punished) and not the root of all evil.

michiruwater
07-26-2012, 04:39 PM
One problem with that, Heckles, Sanducksy WAS NOT an employee of Penn StTe football in 2002 when the shower scene happened. Sanducksy was granted access BY the Athelic director and the President of the university NOT by Joe Paterno. When the shower scene happened it was reported to Paterno by McCleary, if Joe Paterno or anyone else reported it to the authorities, the cops would have asked if they witnessed the crime, otherwise it might be considered hearsay evidence.

Carol

Oh come on. So Paterno was just supposed to stay mum and hope that McCleary reported the CHILD MOLESTOR to the police, and when he didn't, it was okay that Paterno didn't do ANYTHING? How much CSI do you watch? Do you seriously think that it's okay for an authority figure, who did have power over McCleary, to not immediately take what McCleary told him to the police? 'Hearsay evidence'? Are you kidding me? Do you really think that you cannot report something to the police unless you have witnessed it yourself or have solid, incontrovertible evidence? That's what a courtroom is for.

Anyone with a brain knows that because these things were happening on Penn State grounds, Penn State was liable. It was Paterno's duty, if not in writing as part of his job than as a human being, to report such things and stop them from happening - because, don't you know, child molestation is llegal.

taf2002
07-26-2012, 05:12 PM
And, as a victim of sexual abuse myself, I am still incredulous at the idea that anyone is more guilty than Sandusky.

I dont think anyone said that the people who covered up are more guilty than Sandusky. Of course not. But I think McQuery for one should go to jail & he probably would have if he had not made a deal for his testimony. I can't even imagine in my wildest not stopping whatever was going on in the shower. Why didn't he run in there & break it up? Why didn't he go to the police instead of to Paterno? It looks like he won't get any punishment at all for his involvement. He should be blackballed from any sports-related jobs. I for one would not want a child of mine in his care. He had very poor judgement to say the least.


The guilt of the officials at Penn State is variable. Some of them are like the bar owner who let's the mob run something illegal in his back room because they pay him to turn a blind eye. Some are like a landlord who suspects he's rented to the mob but doesn't investigate so he can claim he didn't know anything; but he kind of does know. And some are like an absentee landlord whose really does have absolutely no idea something hinky is happening on his property. These people are not all equally guilty as each other let alone equally guilty with the ones committing crimes.

The bouncer in the above example is actually a member of the gang. He's like the driver of a getaway car in a bank robbery. Maybe he didn't come in to the bank and say "give me all your money" but he committed the same crime because the job wouldn't have been successfully pulled off without his contribution. I don't see any of the officials in that role unless there was one who actively funneled boys to Sandusky to keep him happy.

I agree with most of this but once they knew about the abuse & said nothing when they saw Sandusky having access to other young boys, then I see them as the bouncer or the getaway driver....an active participant in the crime.


As for the penalties, I think the fine should have been twice what it was at a *minimum*. But I think the stripping of the titles was petty and dumb. I also think most of the sanctions hurt the people least involved including some who are completely innocent.

If they want to punish wrong-doers, they should take away everyone's coaching credentials (well the NCAA equivalent of that) and bar them from coaching anywhere for at least 5 years but preferably more. THAT would punish people who actually did something wrong instead of players some of whom are not only victims of Sandusky but now are victims of the NCAA.

I agree with the 2nd paragraph but I also agreed with the stripping of titles. That hurt the school, not the players. Any individual stats or titles were not affected. The atmosphere at the school was that football was king & everything else could go to hell. The coaching staff did not create this atmosphere in a vacuum. Football was big money & the college administrators went along with whatever promoted football.

Vagabond
07-26-2012, 09:38 PM
Why didn't he run in there & break it up?

According to McQueary, he did.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/penn-state-mike-mcqueary-made-stopped-talking-jerry-sandusky-alleged-sex-abuse-shower-article-1.977525

Unless the victim comes forward or Sandusky makes some mind-boggling confession, I think we need to take him at his word.

gkelly
07-26-2012, 09:48 PM
According to McQueary, he did.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/penn-state-mike-mcqueary-made-stopped-talking-jerry-sandusky-alleged-sex-abuse-shower-article-1.977525

That article is too short and vague. I can't tell whether "made sure it stopped" means going in to break it up right then and there, since all the details are about what he did elsewhere and afterward.


Unless the victim comes forward

Apparently he is in the process of doing so: http://news.yahoo.com/jerry-sandusky-shower-victim-comes-forward-says-sue-164900942--abc-news-topstories.html

Vagabond
07-26-2012, 09:58 PM
That article is too short and vague. I can't tell whether "made sure it stopped" means going in to break it up right then and there, since all the details are about what he did elsewhere and afterward.

What else could it mean?

By the way, McQueary has claimed that he did go to the police.

http://articles.mcall.com/2011-11-15/sports/mc-penn-state-scandal-mcqueary-20111115_1_tough-impacting-quick-decisions-grand-jury-report-joe-paterno

I don't know whether Louis Freeh's investigation (or anything else) corroborated this, but I'm inclined to believe McQueary about this too.