Penn State Head Coach Joe Paterno FIRED *SuperMerge*

[Yakuza Rich]

I would have confronted Sandusky first. Again, supposedly a lifelong friend.

I would be struck between believe a lifelong friend or a GA who has integrity and is telling me something because he feels he's obligated to.

So calling the police first, without getting Sandusky...your lifelong friend...story first.

I don't think that makes you a very good friend.

Of course, Sandusky would deny it. Then I would go back to the GA and tell him that Sandusky is denying it. I would tell him that 'I'm not calling you a liar, but if you tell me he was doing something wrong, I will believe you. I just need to be sure that you are telling the truth.'

I believe that McQueary would have been a bit more detailed. Then I would go to the police station WITH him. The police are going to want to talk to him more than they will want to talk to me. The only thing the police would ask me is what McQueary told me, when he told me it and what Sandusky said and when he told me it.

I honestly don't think it's that hard to think thru and doesn't require hindsight. It's more like how most people use their common sense. And I honestly don't believe soembody in Paterno's case calls the police at the drop of a hat. I think they get the stories and then go to the police.










YR

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I would have confronted Sandusky first. Again, supposedly a lifelong friend.

I would be struck between believe a lifelong friend or a GA who has integrity and is telling me something because he feels he's obligated to.

So calling the police first, without getting Sandusky...your lifelong friend...story first.

I don't think that makes you a very good friend.

Of course, Sandusky would deny it. Then I would go back to the GA and tell him that Sandusky is denying it. I would tell him that 'I'm not calling you a liar, but if you tell me he was doing something wrong, I will believe you. I just need to be sure that you are telling the truth.'

I believe that McQueary would have been a bit more detailed. Then I would go to the police station WITH him. The police are going to want to talk to him more than they will want to talk to me. The only thing the police would ask me is what McQueary told me, when he told me it and what Sandusky said and when he told me it.

I honestly don't think it's that hard to think thru and doesn't require hindsight. It's more like how most people use their common sense. And I honestly don't believe soembody in Paterno's case calls the police at the drop of a hat. I think they get the stories and then go to the police.










YR

Its very easy after the fact and removed from the situation to go back and list exactly what should have been done, isn't it?

 

[casmith07]

I would have confronted Sandusky first. Again, supposedly a lifelong friend.

I would be struck between believe a lifelong friend or a GA who has integrity and is telling me something because he feels he's obligated to.

So calling the police first, without getting Sandusky...your lifelong friend...story first.

I don't think that makes you a very good friend.

Of course, Sandusky would deny it. Then I would go back to the GA and tell him that Sandusky is denying it. I would tell him that 'I'm not calling you a liar, but if you tell me he was doing something wrong, I will believe you. I just need to be sure that you are telling the truth.'

I believe that McQueary would have been a bit more detailed. Then I would go to the police station WITH him. The police are going to want to talk to him more than they will want to talk to me. The only thing the police would ask me is what McQueary told me, when he told me it and what Sandusky said and when he told me it.

I honestly don't think it's that hard to think thru and doesn't require hindsight. It's more like how most people use their common sense. And I honestly don't believe soembody in Paterno's case calls the police at the drop of a hat. I think they get the stories and then go to the police.










YR

It's one thing to confront your friend if he robbed a bank, or stole something.

I don't give a **** about my friend's side of the story if someone comes TO MY HOME visibly sick and says he saw him raping a 10-year-old boy in the showers. Why would anyone make that up if he was supposedly such an upstanding citizen?

Straight to the police. Delaying that to confront him and give him an opportunity to assuredly lie to your face is no better than doing what Paterno did in reporting it to his supervisor, which you're crushing him for.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

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.

Not guilty by insanity is almost impossible to prove. It's essentially asking the question 'does this person know right from wrong in any way possible?

If the prosecutor can show any instance where the person has shown a shred of knowing right from wrong...then the person is not considered insane.

Sandusky wouldn't stand a chance with that because the DA would just show the instances and little things he did so he wouldn't be caught. When you try to do things so you won't get caught...that means the person knows...on some level...right from wrong.

Sandusky having private meetings in private rooms with the last couple of victims is a clear case of him trying to not get caught.






YR

 

[casmith07]

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.

I believe that it makes sense to the pedophiles. In some warped sense of reality, it makes sense.

 

[casmith07]

Not guilty by insanity is almost impossible to prove. It's essentially asking the question 'does this person know right from wrong in any way possible?

If the prosecutor can show any instance where the person has shown a shred of knowing right from wrong...then the person is not considered insane.

Sandusky wouldn't stand a chance with that because the DA would just show the instances and little things he did so he wouldn't be caught. When you try to do things so you won't get caught...that means the person knows...on some level...right from wrong.

Sandusky having private meetings in private rooms with the last couple of victims is a clear case of him trying to not get caught.






YR

It's not that impossible to improve. That shred of sanity doesn't matter if it's after the fact or before the fact. Defense only has to prove insanity at the time of the offense, in most jurisdictions.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I believe that it makes sense to the pedophiles. In some warped sense of reality, it makes sense.

Regardless, no one on this forum, or even in the indictment, said Paterno knew about the 1998 incident when he told him he would 't be coach.

Pretty much end of story.

 

[Concord]

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.

Cajun man...come on...you're not stupid.

Pedophiles can not control themselves...no matter how bad they think the behavior may be......or even the chance that they may be caught...they will still do it because the insatiable urge is there to do it.

Just like Sandusky continuing to "Wrestle" with a kid or "Showering" with a kid after he had been talked too and caught in the act.

This has been proven over and over with pedophiles.

Ever watch Dateline...To Catch a Predator?

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

No, I was saying that the entire situation makes zero sense.

You can't say that it doesn't make sense to molest a kid after being essentially fired for it because the entire underlying situation of molesting kids does not make sense.

You suggested that Paterno didn't tell him he wouldn't get the job because he was a pedophile but rather because his football acumine wasn't up to snuff because nobody would be told such a thing for being a pedophile and then proceed to be a pedophile.

I was just saying that you can't even begin to try to make sense out of a situation like (raping a kid after being punished for raping a kid) that because the root problem (raping kids) doesn't make sense in the first place.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It's one thing to confront your friend if he robbed a bank, or stole something.

I don't give a **** about my friend's side of the story if someone comes TO MY HOME visibly sick and says he saw him raping a 10-year-old boy in the showers. Why would anyone make that up if he was supposedly such an upstanding citizen?

You've missed my point...entirely.

First off, there have been PLENTY of false accusations of child molestation in this world. I don't think they are common, but the *do* happen. Why some people falsely accuse is beyond me.

Paterno says what the GA told him wasn't what the GA said in the Grand Jury. He said the GA told him he saw him fondling a boy in the shower and he wasn't comfortable with it and that the GA was visibly upset about it.

Paterno going to the police by himself...does nothing because the police want to talk to the witness. Where I 'crush' Paterno is that he could have brought and encouraged the GA to go to the police station and didn't.

Where I 'crush' Paterno is that I believe most people would confront Sandusky about the incident immediately, get his side of the story and see what the GA has to say in response and if the GA feels he's telling the truth...encourage him to go to the cops. And tell him you will go with him.

Where I 'crush' Paterno is that going to the AD about it, without any confrontation with Sandusky, is bullcrap. Unless you have alterior motives and knew about Sandusky's problems beforehand.









YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It's not that impossible to improve. That shred of sanity doesn't matter if it's after the fact or before the fact. Defense only has to prove insanity at the time of the offense, in most jurisdictions.

Let me know of all of the insanity pleas that work. And ask lawyers who deal with this how many sanity pleas work.

It's about the fundamental knowlege of right or wrong. If you don't have that ability, then you can be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

But, if the prosecutor can show that you tried to prevent yourself from being caught...which is not that hard to prove in almost all instances...then you're not going to be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Find a few defense attorneys, they will tell you the same thing.







YR

 

[TellerMorrow34]

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

Ahhh...excellent information here.

I was completely wrong in what I thought I was reading. I thought people were saying he reported it in 1998. My mistake completely there.


So Joe alegedly didn't know anything about the 1998 incident. Hmmmm...hard to say to be honest. i know they were great friends, and all that, but lets be honest about this a moment.

How many serial killers, when they're caught, do people who knew them say "I had no idea".

Sick people, who do sick things, are often able to hide such thinks from even their family and closest friends. The fact that Joe was friends with him, even worked closely with him, doesn't mean one way or another that he knew or had any way of actually knowing.


Now, saying that, I'm not saying he didn't either. I'm just saying that assuming he knew simply cause they worked together and/or were great friends is just assuming to much IMO.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

You've missed my point...entirely.

First off, there have been PLENTY of false accusations of child molestation in this world. I don't think they are common, but the *do* happen. Why some people falsely accuse is beyond me.

Paterno says what the GA told him wasn't what the GA said in the Grand Jury. He said the GA told him he saw him fondling a boy in the shower and he wasn't comfortable with it and that the GA was visibly upset about it.

Paterno going to the police by himself...does nothing because the police want to talk to the witness. Where I 'crush' Paterno is that he could have brought and encouraged the GA to go to the police station and didn't.

Where I 'crush' Paterno is that I believe most people would confront Sandusky about the incident immediately, get his side of the story and see what the GA has to say in response and if the GA feels he's telling the truth...encourage him to go to the cops. And tell him you will go with him.

Where I 'crush' Paterno is that going to the AD about it, without any confrontation with Sandusky, is bullcrap. Unless you have alterior motives and knew about Sandusky's problems beforehand.


YR

Well since we want to rewrite history without any proof, let's try this...

McQeary comes to Paterno and tells him.

Paterno goes to Sandusky and confronts him..

Joe...Jerry, someone saw you fondling a boy in the shower. What do you have to say?

Sandusky... I didn't do it.

Option 1...

Joe..."OK Jerry, since you are a life long friend, I believe you. I will let it drop."

Sandusky..."Thanks pal."

Nine year later this blows up and it's "Joe covered up for his boy! Off with Joe's head.

Or....Option two....

Joe..."Jerry I don't believe you and I am going to the authorities."

Sandusky..."I don't care. I didn't do it."

Sandusky flees town and disappears.

Joe is accused of NOT going to the authorities first and allowing the perp to get away. Off with Joe's head!!!!

Which would be the preferred option?

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Paterno going to the police by himself...does nothing because the police want to talk to the witness. Where I 'crush' Paterno is that he could have brought and encouraged the GA to go to the police station and didn't.

Where I 'crush' Paterno is that I believe most people would confront Sandusky about the incident immediately, get his side of the story and see what the GA has to say in response and if the GA feels he's telling the truth...encourage him to go to the cops. And tell him you will go with him.

Where I 'crush' Paterno is that going to the AD about it, without any confrontation with Sandusky, is bullcrap. Unless you have alterior motives and knew about Sandusky's problems beforehand.

YR

How do you know that Joe didn't encourage McQueary to go to the police?


I'll answer that for you.. you don't.

Also, when you go straight to the athletic director and he informes the head of campus police and they tell you they'll investigate and they come back weeks later and tell you there's nothing there.. what is Joe supposed to think at that point?

They straight up lied to the man, and made him think that McQueary was being untruthful.

 

[casmith07]

You've missed my point...entirely.

First off, there have been PLENTY of false accusations of child molestation in this world. I don't think they are common, but the *do* happen. Why some people falsely accuse is beyond me.

Paterno says what the GA told him wasn't what the GA said in the Grand Jury. He said the GA told him he saw him fondling a boy in the shower and he wasn't comfortable with it and that the GA was visibly upset about it.

Paterno going to the police by himself...does nothing because the police want to talk to the witness. Where I 'crush' Paterno is that he could have brought and encouraged the GA to go to the police station and didn't.

Where I 'crush' Paterno is that I believe most people would confront Sandusky about the incident immediately, get his side of the story and see what the GA has to say in response and if the GA feels he's telling the truth...encourage him to go to the cops. And tell him you will go with him.

Where I 'crush' Paterno is that going to the AD about it, without any confrontation with Sandusky, is bullcrap. Unless you have alterior motives and knew about Sandusky's problems beforehand.









YR

And you've missed mine. I go to the police and I say "I would like to report a possible rape of a child. A witness named ______ approached me and said that he had seen X, Y, and Z."

Confronting him, without being a law enforcement official yourself, does nothing. The first action should be to turn the situation over to the authorities immediately with everything you know. They are professionals - they can figure it out from there.

 

[casmith07]

Let me know of all of the insanity pleas that work. And ask lawyers who deal with this how many sanity pleas work.

It's about the fundamental knowlege of right or wrong. If you don't have that ability, then you can be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

But, if the prosecutor can show that you tried to prevent yourself from being caught...which is not that hard to prove in almost all instances...then you're not going to be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Find a few defense attorneys, they will tell you the same thing.







YR

I'm not talking about whether or not they work or how many guys' NGI pleas fail and they're found guilty anyway. I'm talking about the elements necessary in order to achieve a verdict of NGI.

 

[Stautner]

It's one thing to confront your friend if he robbed a bank, or stole something.

I don't give a **** about my friend's side of the story if someone comes TO MY HOME visibly sick and says he saw him raping a 10-year-old boy in the showers. Why would anyone make that up if he was supposedly such an upstanding citizen?

Straight to the police. Delaying that to confront him and give him an opportunity to assuredly lie to your face is no better than doing what Paterno did in reporting it to his supervisor, which you're crushing him for.

I have to go along with Yazuka. It's not, nor should it be, that easy to automatically accept a horrendous story about a lifelong friend from someone you have known 5 years without trying to get the story straight first. I can't imagine any real friend not first reacting with the thought that there has to be some other explaination. I know I wouldn't want to risk screwing a lofelong friend by getting him arrested and having his reputation tarnished for life without being pretty damn sure the story was true and/or being certain there is no misunderstanding with the accuser. But just like Yazuka said he would do, even if my friend denied it, I would go back to the accuser and confirm again there was no misunderstanding, and as long as there was no reason to believe he wasn't sincere i would still go to the police.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I have to go along with Yazuka. It's not, nor should it be, that easy to automatically accept a horrendous story about a lifelong friend from someone you have known 5 years without trying to get the story straight first. I can't imagine any real friend not first reacting with the thought that there has to be some other explaination. I know I wouldn't want to risk screwing a lofelong friend by getting him arrested and having his reputation tarnished for life without being pretty damn sure the story was true and/or being certain there is no misunderstanding with the accuser. But just like Yazuka said he would do, even if my friend denied it, I would go back to the accuser and confirm again there was no misunderstanding, and as long as there was no reason to believe he wasn't sincere i would still go to the police.

Well, if Paterno had told him a few years before that he wasn't going to be coach, maybe they weren't such good friends at the time.

 

[Stautner]

Well, if Paterno had told him a few years before that he wasn't going to be coach, maybe they weren't such good friends at the time.

Maybe, but we are talking hypotheticals and not trying to fit into it every detail about what Paterno may or may not have known, and when he may or may not have known it.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Well, if Paterno had told him a few years before that he wasn't going to be coach, maybe they weren't such good friends at the time.

This is what im talking about. Im fairly sure that Joe knew about the first reported incident, and im fairly sure that is the reason he called him in and told him he would never be the head coach at this university. Why else would he all of a sudden call him in and tell him that when they are good friends?

I don't think Joe wanted much to do with the man after that, and after the 2002 incident was reported to him, he went immediately to report it to his superior and was told by him and the head of campus police that they would investigate immediately and take care of it.

Both those idiots came back to him a couple weeks later and flat out lied to him telling him there was nothing there. What is he supposed to think after that? He was banned from campus after that.