Sexual abuse charges Rock Penn State University (Page 10)

The only 'price' paid so far by Paterno is the loss of his job.  The Board of Trustees decides that.  Beyond that (and concience/guilt 'costs'), it IS for the courts to decide--civil and/or criminal.  NOBODY is convicting him in either of those at this point.

have to disagree - there's no proof or evidence he stuck his head in the sand

this is what I'm talking about... you're implying he deliberately looked the other way

which is it? deliberate? Or did he make a grave mistake by not following up further? We don't know the extent of his followup...

it's not that difficult... that's all I'm saying...

He was fired because the facts demanded it.  Yes, the facts include "saving face" and "money".  I do not think it is fair to say why McQueary is still there.  You are jumping to conclusions now.

guys it's been fun... I gotta run.

believe it or not I'm heading to the game tomorrow with my three boys... not kidding

got tickets before this all happened unfortunately

It's been nice discussing with you guys! No hard feelings.

Just playing some devil's advocate... although i do hold true to most of what I was saying and I guess we'll find out soon a lot more facts that will make the picture much more clear

He was told what happened (let's even give him the benefit of the doubt and say McQueary didn't give him a full picutre), reported it to others and basically nothing was done other than banning Sandusky from bringing kids into PSU facilities anymore.  He had a responsibility to follow up on accusations like that, in my opinion (and those of many others).  Deliberate or 'benign neglect' does not matter at this stage.  You want to talk about civil or criminal liabilites, fine.  Then more facts are clearly needed.

benign neglect is good...

I agree, it doesn't make him innocent

I never said he was innocent... just saying his guilt doesn't match the past five days and I think they could have let him coach this weekend and then bag him, but they want it off the front page and I understand that.

There are no hard feelings here either.  But I do not believe we need to know more facts to justify what happened to Joe so far.  We need more facts to figure out will/should happen to him and the others involved down the road.

And, touching on something said many pages ago, things may get worse for many people involved before they get better.  But, I firmly believe that things are already on the road to 'better' because the truth is coming out--albeit much later than anyone would have liked.

well the facts state that McQuery did commit a crime by not interceding and by not calling the police. I think...

I know exactly how I would act and I'm confident that I know how most people would act. As I stated clearly early in this thread, I have been in a situation similar to Paterno's.

I can't fathom acting as he himself described.  There was one immediate, overriding priority for myself and the other adults I notified: preventing the person from inflicting anymore harm.

Anyone who would not do that is beneath contempt, regardless of their position, standing in the community or good works.  

You can try to portray me as arrogant by using phrases like "high horse", but I'm relating experience that you seem to want to deny. All I did was act in a manner consistent with my morals, as did the people whom I notified. It was no great moral test. There was no decision to be made, only action to be taken. What I had to do was neither easy nor pleasant but it was very clear and there was no question about doing it.

I am not sure what the law states and am not about to argue it.  But, there may be other reasons why his role in the investigations (and the only eyewitness) may have affected what the Board could do.  I don't know.  Just saying that we would have to make some gross assumptions on why he's still there for now.  It would seem far easier to dump him if they were just interested in saving face.  I think *warning-gross assumptions coming* that they may fear that without him, the cover-up that others may, or may not, have done would be difficult to investigate thoroughly.  Just a guess.

Somehow I missed this post and your response earlier.  So, you agree with the poster?  Just picking out a few points:

"I can feel sad that his legacy ended and that this is how is legacy ended.  But I can STILL think he totally deserved the punishment he got."

"saying that he's the "scapegoat" isn't accurate"

"He says himself that he wishes he had done more, and I respect him for that because I truly believe he has a conscience (unlike the others, it seems), but that doesn't mean he did the right thing."

"Nobody is saying that these other guys don't deserve to be punished."

In summary, we can feel sad for Paterno yet still feel he deserved to be fired.  He is not a scapegoat here, just the center of media attention (for understandable reasons).  He admits that he wished he had done more. 

And you agree with all that?  Yet you continue to argue that Paterno's treatment is unfair?  I am sorry, this makes no sense given the rest of your arguments here.  Either Paterno deserves to be fired or he doesn't.  Either he is the sacpegoat or he isn't.  Either he should have done more (in which case his firing appears entirely justified) or "we don't know what he did or didn't do" (and can't be sure if he should be fired or not).  Your arguments appear wildly inconsistent.

WRONG!!

Sandusky was retired when McQuery saw what he did.  Although Sandusky had full use of the facilities, he was NOT employed by Penn State at that time.  As such, McQuery has no protection under the whistleblower statutes.

Pitt, that is speculation on your part.  There has been no ruling to that effect that has been made part of the record. (at least the record that has been released to the public)

Hearsay is inadmissible IN COURT, yes.  Although, a good trial attorney can pretty much get anything admitted, since there are like 1000 exceptions (or maybe it just seemed that way when I learned it in Evidence...).  BUT, you CAN go tell the police, and have the police do a thorough investigation that involves finding more direct evidence.  If Paterno (or anybody) had gone to the police and said "Our GA said this...," then the cops would still have to run an investigation on it.  However, Paterno might not be able to say in court "Our GA said..." because that's where hearsay is inadmissible.  

I hope I explained that well enough, but that's the difference.

Yup.   Hearsay only applies to testimony given in court.  I.e., Karen cannot say that "scott told me that jim ran the red light".   It's an out of court statement by someone not under oath.  Idea is that you have to be able to cross examine your accusers.  Also, in preliminary felony hearings hearsay by certain individuals (police officers, DA investigators), is admissible.

As noted, there are a ton of exceptions.