Paterno retires - what say you?

[Aceman]

Yeah, speeding and child molestation are definitely the same level of crime. I have actually turned a blind eye to jay walkers dozens of times too.

You must be one of them rocket scientist.

Ok - let me make the situation more in line: When was the last time someone told you a guy was driving drunk, and you reported it to the supervisor/owner etc, and then followed up to make sure that they checked it out thoroughly?

Drunk driving gets people dead.

[texasguitarslinger]

Ok - let me make the situation more in line: When was the last time someone told you a guy was driving drunk, and you reported it to the supervisor/owner etc, and then followed up to make sure that they checked it out thoroughly?

Drunk driving gets people dead.

Again, child molestation is the same crime as a DWI. You're so spot on with your comparison of apples and oranges. Bet if it were your child, you'd sing another tune.

[Aceman]

Maybe if your child got run over by methed up truck driver.

It's not EXACTLY the same situation. But it's the same moral dilema. Should YOU be held accountable for actually reporting the methed up driver and not following up just to make sure that the Police did their job. People were being endangered. Why is a child worth more than a mother, or any other human. You are a PRO driver. I expect you do do the right thing.

Sit and think about all the dangerous drivers you have seen and let go by. I wonder if any of them killed anyone. So - basically, you are are murderer. Just as bad as a molester IMO.

EVOLVE bro!

Basically - you are saying that Joe should be toast - When you are also recusing yourself of any responsibility in a situation where you SHOULD prevent senseless death - not just possible mental scarring.

You are saying random death isn't as bad as being felt up? We differ in this opinion. Being felt up is surely bad - but unlike death, you can recover from it.

[LesStrat]

Folks, Dr. Bob never questioned WHETHER the incident(s) should be reported; he questioned whether JoPa is the key person.

It could be argued that a G.A. IS a mandated reporter, and as a witness has the most responsibility to report. There is a significant gray area in the PA law that suggests the G.A. did comply. IDK.

ALL mandated reporting laws are fuzzy with third hand knowledge, yet JoPa seems to have complied as well.

Methinks there is more to this story.

Meanwhile, lynch mobs are alive and well in the 21st c., albeit in virtual form (which might not be an improvement).

[Aceman]

There are a couple of absolute key people that ABSOLUTELY have responsibility to report. I'm not seeing Paterno as one of them. He did exactly what he was supposed to do - and now he is being tried in the media, and scapegoated by the trustees. Perhaps.

And Tex - my analogy is ABSOLUTELY dead on for you, the second one.

[tone4days]

i understand where you are coming from, Bob

but i dont think you are adjusting for the gravity of the scale here ... JoPa isnt some assistant vice principle of an elementary school in podunk, usa ... he is the head coach of a massive Div 1 football program at a public financed institution

he had responsibility greater than the perhaps ambiguous letter of the law(s)
--------------------
grad student: i saw sandusky blah blah blah

jopa: i'm on it

jopa (conference call with all the relevant admins): Guys, you got 24 hours to call the cops and all other relevant authorities, or i am ... then i am holding a press conference ... i am putting maximual distance between this program /university and sandusky until the legal system plays out ... who do you all think the public is going to back? me, doing the right thing? or you guys, trying some under-rug-sweeping nonsense?--------------
i dont think jopa broke the law .. i think he let his program and university down ON TOP OF any other victims of sandusky ... for that, the university needed to fire him - he didnt use his position to do the right thing ... and a bunch of others should be fired too if they havent been yet

[texasguitarslinger]

EVOLVE bro!

You can rationalize what Paterno did or didn't do until the end of time but it won't take away the fact that he ****ed up. He's gone and his stellar record will ALWAYS be tainted with the stink of boy love. Once they had knowledge of child abuse occurring then that BS veil of institutional propriety should have given way to total transparency and scrutiny from law enforcement.

You Evolve, bro.

[LesStrat]

Actually, Bob, a better analogy would be if a trainee driver TOLD you about a drunk driver he saw and you notified the boss (still a strange gray area for me--we're required to notify child protection ourselves).

From what I'm hearing, JoPa had no direct knowledge of the abuse, yet he reported it anyway.

[LesStrat]

I must be on everyones ignore list.

[tone4days]

From what I'm hearing, JoPa had no direct knowledge of the abuse, yet he reported it anyway.

yes, that is what is in the indictment

is there a point to your pointing out this obvious factoid, especially out of context?

point of clarity folks - remember, we are not discussing whether or not jopa committed a crime nearly as much as we are discussing if his firing was justified

to me, it is clearly a 'yes - totally justified'

ps - i gotta go out of the office for a meeting - will try to check in later this afternoon if i get a moment - have fun

[ehdwuld]

ok so whos calling this in
we all know now and should be fired
I'm dailing........

its busy
I'll call back when one of yall are thru


are you serious

since when is hearing about a crime a punishable offense?

[innerdreamrecords.co]

I haven't read everything here since yesterday but this morning the Feds are involved stating the Clery Act as one of the reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clery_Act One of the statements on the news stated a "legal and MORAL" obligation to report a crime. I personally think though he may not have broken any laws that can be proved in a court of law the moral obligation is clear to me.

[LesStrat]

I don't get the "obvious" reasons for his termination. Enlighten me. Exactly what is his culpabity? Simply because he is "visible"? That's absurd.

I did not see this outrage when Kevin Jennings was appointed head of Safe and Drug Free Schools when he CLEARLY had violated mandated reporting law as a teacher. Yet a man who has spent decades teaching young men how to physically damage/overpower opponents somehow should be a beacon of higher morality? Mr. Spock would have difficulty with this reasoning. I "get" what you're suggesting about leadership; however I believe it is misguided.

What, exactly, is out of context about JoPa's actions?

[Reload in 5]

none of what you guys are arguing makes any difference.

Joe was there
Joe was part of the program
Joe knew at least some of what supposedly happened

Truth that appears to have been covered up comes out
University is getting black eye
Fire everyone that could have in any way been involved, whether they were at fault or not

Thats the university way.

Same as recruiting violations, or anything else that gets them in trouble "if we proactively fire everyone maybe it will save OUR butts"

[King IzzO)))]

TLNR; just chiming in, I think it sucks that they're hanging this around his neck, especially at this point in his life after an illustrious career. That said, I think he did the right thing by reporting it to his superiors, but when nothing was done law enforcement wise, Joe should have. He had an obligation to stay on top of this and make sure it didn't go unreported/unpunished.

I have to agree with the notion that they've been trying to force him out for a while, this just gave them the excuse, but I can't say I disagree with them doing it either. They have some damage control to do.

[tone4days]

What, exactly, is out of context about JoPa's actions?

i know you already know the answer to this, so i won't belabour it .. but i will give the summary for those following along

that which i beleive to be out of context in your simplistic assertion (about the fact that he passed along the allegation as he received it) is what you attempt to dismiss as absurd

its silly on its face to try to put forth that joe paterno is 'just another cog in the wheel' at Penn St who passed along the allegation to his boss and cleanly wiped his hands to resume his workaday job .. the full context is this: his job was to be the face head and heart of PennSt football .. he failed in that job when he didnt vigorously work to ensure that the university was out front on protecting the youth that were in danger on their campus at the hands of an emeritus professor (sandusky) ..

to his credit, he clearly told the whole truth as he knew it to the grand jury - wouldnt expect less from the man, frankly, given his "caesar's wife' demeanor thruout his career

but i still that being fired is the correct outcome

[The Dali]

You guys are crazy if you think that he didn't know his defensive coordinator was touching boys on campus for 20 years.

[jcthejester13]

[BlueSnMettle]

I've read through this thread now and it makes me feel sick to the stomach. There seems to be two types of people here, and the whole disagreement rests on one issue.

- Some people think that when you're told of a child rape in your workplace, your moral obligation is fufilled at exactly the time you tell your relevant superior and nothing else is required.

- Some people think that when you're told of a child rape in your workplace, your moral obligation doesn't end until you're sure the police are involved as they should be.

I've got nothing against going to your superiors first, i think Paterno was right to do so, and i think the Catholic priests were right to go to the Bishops... but no way in hell should you just leave it at that, no way should you allow time for internal reviews or investigations to avoid the police being called nor to protect anyone's reputation. If i saw a rape in my workplace and my boss was nearby, i'd tell him first and if he wasn't on the phone to the police as i stood there then i would be calling them myself!

This. It appalls me too.

Peace,

Darrin

[innerdreamrecords.co]

Paterno is mention probably 100 to 1 vs the actual criminal. And I think we do have reason to question is Paterno even liable here (maybe yes, maybe no).

Because that's news! The name Sandusky is not going to bring in the news ratings that the name Paterno does.

It's like "here is a guy who is awesome for all time - and we could make it look skeeby and interesting"

They (the ESPN talking heads) paint a picture of him being a God like figure and not in a good way but in a egocentric way. That's awesome? That's ass hole in my book.