Penn State Head Coach Joe Paterno FIRED *SuperMerge*

[Cajuncowboy]

For the same reason an alcoholic or heroine fiend leaves an intervention meeting with his family and goes to get hammered.

He's an addict. He cannot control himself. The end of any sense being made in the situation arrives when he starts raping little boys. Anything beyond that is just the course of events.

I don't buy that for a minute and I doubt anyone else does either. I think he was told that for football reasons. And then he turned to the child. If he was that shaken by it based on what he was doing with little boys, you would think that he would get home and discuss with his wife rather than run out and do the exact same thing again.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Who said Paterno didn't think it was a big deal? He took it to his superiors immediately as he was supposed to do. If he didn't think it wasn't a big deal, would he do that?

You're wasting your time..

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Then why do we keep having to hear about the cops?

And action within his authority? I have none, I would have produced better results and I hope that you in your state of ZERO authority in the matter would have produced better results as well.

Because if he knew about 1998 (which it appears he didn't) and the cops did NOTHING, what could he have done to Sandusky? Nothing. Other than what he did and that was tell him he wouldn't be HC. Now you can make an assumption that Paterno told him it was because of the incident and then told him to retire, but why wait until the end of the year? Then go and negotiate a retirement settlement? Maybe because he didn't think they were aware of it or at least he didn't think it mattered since he was cleared by the police.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

But the incident that McQueary told Paterno about was only one boy. The 1998 incident had nothing to do with what Paterno knew in 2002. There is no evidence that Paterno knew about that.

If he did know, and there is no proof he did, and the cops did nothing and Paterno told him he wouldn't be coach here, that would seem to me that Paterno did all he could do within his power to punish Sandusky.

I believe that proof will come out that Paterno knew about the '98 incident. But, it's not a stretch to connect the dots. One of the victims states that Sandusky told him that he was just told that he would 'never be the head coach here' by Paterno in a meeting. Sandusky then just so happens to retire.

Complete concrete evidence? No. Of course not. But, being a coincidence is more far fetched than connecting the dots.

So, if you believe that Paterno knew about the '98 incident and this happened AGAIN in 2002, for him to do nothing more than tell the AD...is incredibly weak.

Put yourself in Paterno's shoes for a second.

And lets hypothetically say that he knew about the incident for the first time in 2002.

I'm sure it would come to me as a shock to hear a GA tell me that a lifelong friend was fondling a boy.

If the GA tells me that (and comes to my home with his dad and was visibly shakened as Paterno described)...the first thing I would do is confront Sandusky about it.

I would say "Jerry, I have a person who told me that he witnessed you fondling a young a boy in the shower. Is this true?"

But, Paterno never did that.

I honestly believe that almost all of us, if we were in the position that Paterno claims he was in...would have confronted their friend first.

That's unless you know about previous incident(s), want to protect yourself legally and are afraid that your legacy and program will be tarnished. That's when you go straight to the AD and don't confront your friend.

Because if this is presented to you...don't you want to hear your friend's side of the story, first?

I think so...unless you know that the story the GA is telling you is true.











YR

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't buy that for a minute and I doubt anyone else does either. I think he was told that for football reasons. And then he turned to the child. If he was that shaken by it based on what he was doing with little boys, you would think that he would get home and discuss with his wife rather than run out and do the exact same thing again.

You don't have to buy it. The guys an addict just the same as any other.

What they do only makes sense to them.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I believe that proof will come out that Paterno knew about the '98 incident. But, it's not a stretch to connect the dots. One of the victims states that Sandusky told him that he was just told that he would 'never be the head coach here' by Paterno in a meeting. Sandusky then just so happens to retire.

Complete concrete evidence? No. Of course not. But, being a coincidence is more far fetched than connecting the dots.

So, if you believe that Paterno knew about the '98 incident and this happened AGAIN in 2002, for him to do nothing more than tell the AD...is incredibly weak.

Put yourself in Paterno's shoes for a second.

And lets hypothetically say that he knew about the incident for the first time in 2002.

I'm sure it would come to me as a shock to hear a GA tell me that a lifelong friend was fondling a boy.

If the GA tells me that (and comes to my home with his dad and was visibly shakened as Paterno described)...the first thing I would do is confront Sandusky about it.

I would say "Jerry, I have a person who told me that he witnessed you fondling a young a boy in the shower. Is this true?"

But, Paterno never did that.

I honestly believe that almost all of us, if we were in the position that Paterno claims he was in...would have confronted their friend first.

That's unless you know about previous incident(s), want to protect yourself legally and are afraid that your legacy and program will be tarnished. That's when you go straight to the AD and don't confront your friend.

Because if this is presented to you...don't you want to hear your friend's side of the story, first?

I think so...unless you know that the story the GA is telling you is true.


YR

Dont know how you can say "You Believe t will come out that Paterno Knew" since there is NOTHING in the indictment that points to that. Further you are basing this on what a pedophile told one of his victims. So the pedophile tells his victim that I won't be coach here because of what I am doing to you. See, none of that makes any sense. Why the hell would Sandusky tell him that?

And why would Paterno confront Sandusky anyways on the shower thing Since he already did the right thing and took it to the authorities? Let the people who are supposed to investigate, do so.

 

[casmith07]

I just read that Sandusky was seen working out in the Penn State gym as recently as one week ago. Obviously Paterno knew about this.

At best this makes Paterno look like a very stupid man.

There is no excuse for at the minimum cutting all ties with that dog of a man.

I honestly don't think Paterno has really known what's going on around him for the last 10 years.

He's just there...in his own world, detached.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

You don't have to buy it. The guys an addict just the same as any other.

What they do only makes sense to them.

Well now you are setting up a case for him to be innocent by means of insanity if you are saying he was incapable of thinking clearly. That's why I don't buy it. Sandusky is a creep and he knew what he was doing. I don't think he was insane or couldn't think logically.

 

[casmith07]

I honestly believe that almost all of us, if we were in the position that Paterno claims he was in...would have confronted their friend first.

I would have called the police.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

That's not the point at all.

1. There are people, including Paterno....who claim Paterno never knew about the '98 incident. I'm not sure what you believe or not. But I find that incredibly difficult to believe that Joe knew nothing of the '98 incident.


2. Despite that, Sandusky was given AN OFFICE on campus, professor emeritus status, unlimited access to the facilities and still allowed to run the 2nd Mile program (which Paterno is a member of the 2nd Mile board).


3. When this incident is reported in 2002, Paterno is claiming that it was 'watered down' so he didn't know how bad the incident was.


4. Accoridng to the grand jury report, McQuery told Paterno that he saw him fondling a boy in the show and he was uncomfortable with that.


5. Paterno says point blank, that McQuery was 'visibly shakened' when he reported it to Paterno.


Nobody expects Paterno to be judge, jury and executioner. But, to act like what McQuery told him in '02 was so watered down that he didn't think it was that big of deal and to allow Sandusky to stay on campus and with the 2nd Mile program is incredible.




YR

1. He wasn't prosecuted in 1998, but I guess an accusation is enough for you. May God have mercy on your soul if you're ever accused of anything.





2. Many on Penn State's coaching staffs are technically professors. They have it in their contracts to receive "emeritus" status upon retirement. There was nothing Paterno could do to revoke this status. And Paterno was an "honorary" board member of the Second Mile, a stark difference to actually being a board member.

3. Paterno didn't claim it was "watered down"...Mike McQueary claims he did not tell all the graphic details to Paterno.

4. see 3

5. see 3

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I honestly don't think Paterno has really known what's going on around him for the last 10 years.

He's just there...in his own world, detached.

Joe hasn't really "coached" the team for a few years. His assistants run the practices and take care of game prep. He makes the game day decisions with the input from his staff. The final call on game day though is still his.

 

[casmith07]

Well now you are setting up a case for him to be innocent by means of insanity if you are saying he was incapable of thinking clearly. That's why I don't buy it. Sandusky is a creep and he knew what he was doing. I don't think he was insane or couldn't think logically.

Not even close.

An NGI defense requires the accused to be incapacitated beyond the point at which he would be able to reasonably distinguish right from wrong.

Sandusky knew what he was doing was wrong. He just didn't think he'd get caught.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I would have called the police.

Me too. I think most people would.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Not even close.

An NGI defense requires the accused to be incapacitated beyond the point at which he would be able to reasonably distinguish right from wrong.

Sandusky knew what he was doing was wrong. He just didn't think he'd get caught.

I agree. I was just referring to what Hoof was saying. He acted like he didn't think logically. I agree, he knew what he was doing and was thinking clearly.

 

[casmith07]

I agree. I was just referring to what Hoof was saying. He acted like he didn't think logically. I agree, he knew what he was doing and was thinking clearly.

I understand where you would've thought that, but Hoof is going along the lines of even though he knew it was wrong, he can't help himself.

It's like a drug addict - they are not insane, and even though they know smoking meth will kill them, they can't stop.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Well now you are setting up a case for him to be innocent by means of insanity if you are saying he was incapable of thinking clearly. That's why I don't buy it. Sandusky is a creep and he knew what he was doing. I don't think he was insane or couldn't think logically.

I agree that he knew what he was doing, but being an addict doesn't fit the "legal" term of insanity. Or else alcahoolics would get off for drinking and driving.

There really is no defense for Sandusky. Too many victims with matching stories. Too many witnesses describing the same pattern (Showering, wreslting, ect).

This won't go to trial, and he'll plead no contest to the charges.

 

[Hoofbite]

Well now you are setting up a case for him to be innocent by means of insanity if you are saying he was incapable of thinking clearly. That's why I don't buy it. Sandusky is a creep and he knew what he was doing. I don't think he was insane or couldn't think logically.

What?

Being an addict doesn't mean you are insane.

He knew it was wrong but couldn't control himself. That's not going to get him an insanity plea.

 

[casmith07]

Me too. I think most people would.

And I probably would have continued to call the police to ensure something was done about it.

Coming home from Brusters when I lived in Georgia I witnessed a young man brandishing a handgun in the direction of his girlfriend outside my apartment building. I immediately called the police. They didn't do anything, though. I was pretty upset about that part.

The girl ended up moving out of the apartment the next day and the guy got evicted.

 

[casmith07]

I agree that he knew what he was doing, but being an addict doesn't fit the "legal" term of insanity. Or else alcahoolics would get off for drinking and driving.

There really is no defense for Sandusky. Too many victims with matching stories. Too many witnesses describing the same pattern (Showering, wreslting, ect).

This won't go to trial, and he'll plead no contest to the charges.

Fortunately because of the egregiousness of the offenses, he won't even get leniency for pleading no contest or guilty to the charges.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

What?

Being an addict doesn't mean you are insane.

He knew it was wrong but couldn't control himself. That's not going to get him an insanity plea.

You were saying that what he did makes sense to him. I am saying it doesn't make sense to anyone. And again, I said I didn't believe that was the case. Which leads me to believe that Paterno let him go because of football issues, not the rape. Which would lead me to believe he didn't know about it.