There was no "lack of ethics" either. There is no such thing. What the NCAA recently enacted was exactly what Joe did. There was no "more", no "lack of ethics" and no "bare minimum". That is all BS.
Awesome Thread on the Penn St Board
- Thread starter Abro1975
- Start date
- Status
There was no "lack of ethics" either. There is no such thing. What the NCAA recently enacted was exactly what Joe did. There was no "more", no "lack of ethics" and no "bare minimum". That is all BS.
Yes Joe "The Enabler" did the minimum when he followed the law.
Pennsylvania
Child Abuse and Neglect
Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect
To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (763 KB) of this publication.
Professionals Required to Report
Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311
Persons required to report include, but are not limited to:
- Licensed physicians, osteopaths, medical examiners, coroners, funeral directors, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, podiatrists, interns, nurses, or hospital personnel
- Christian Science practitioners or members of the clergy
- School administrators, teachers, school nurses, social services workers, daycare center workers, or any other child care or foster care workers
- Mental health professionals
- Peace officers or law enforcement officials
Reporting by Other Persons
Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6312
Any person who has reason to suspect that a child is abused or neglected may report.
Institutional Responsibility to Report
Citation: Cons. Stat. Tit. 23, § 6311
Whenever a person is required to report in his or her capacity as a member of the staff of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility, or agency, that person shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility, or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge. Upon notification, the person in charge or the designated agent, if any, shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with § 6313. This chapter does not require more than one report from any such institution, school, facility, or agency.
That isn't even the minimum protection for children, but he was following the "Law" and never once went to Pennsylvania Law enforcement on his own after he finally reported what he was told about Sandusky
to his "so called "bosses
Last edited:
Not relevant to Paterno. This has been explained many times before. Paterno had no "requirement to go to the Law" under the statute you're trying to spin. He had no requirement to go to the Law based upon vague hearsay. He witnessed nothing. He did not oversee children. He had no requirement to go to the Law at all.
Nice try, but epic fail.
In 2001, no one but Dranov and Mike's dad were mandatory reporters. Paterno, Curley, Schulz and Spanier were not.
You're nuts. Is your grasp on realty that shallow, that if you believe for one second that your god Paterno did something wrong, it would all crumble around you?
With the laws being what they are today, situations like Sandusky are toxic, even if you want to push it you stand to get sued. Anybody with substantial assets could lose everything, everyone on here surely understands this? Not that that was the motivating factor for Paterno, it is what it is.
He did nothing wrong. Get over your hatred and jealousy and live with it. Take some courses in Law, or get yourself a copy of Black's Law. It's apparent you and others are lost in made up, mindless spins of fictions.
Yes save yourself from being sued , is a great defense for not reporting any illegal act , especially a child being molested.
All the enabler had to do is contact child welfare explain he didn't see the act personally but was told about it by someone who did and then give the name of that witness and contact info.
JoePed-helper wouldn't have put himself in a position to be sued, but in one that showed he cared about protecting children.
Joe didn't have to do anymore than he did. What isn't connecting up with any terminal in your brain?
I forgot Jack Raykovitz from the 2nd Mile who told Sandusky to "wear swimming trunks" when he was told about Jerry.
He did nothing wrong, that was doing something wrong in itself.
Just protecting himself by passing along info about a child molester and not caring if that molester was stopped.
Not wanting to ruin anyone's weekend, so holding off reporting it to who he had to report it to is a great indicatition
Paterno didn't concern himself about a child's welfare
He allowed a child molester to continue molesting children for 10 more years, even seeing that pervert on campus and not doing a thing to stop him..
No one's jealous of that scumbag, his allowing Sandusky to remain free instead of doing what it takes to protect children , disgusts everyone who cares about protecting children from perverts like Sandusky.
You can cite the law, but I cite common decency and though that scumbag couldn't be arrested : Joe Paterno deserved to be horse whipped for what he didn't do. ( make sure Sandusky wasn't able to molest anymore children)
But Joe didn't and now we can say this about his coaching career: "Success with Dishonor "
you losers always try to subtly shift the argument like this. The argument isn't whether Joe did the right thing in the eyes of the law, its that he did the wrong thing from the ETHICAL AND MORAL standpoint. Of course, you know this, but you'd rather ignore it and live in your deluded fantasy world
There is no "ethical or moral" standpoint regarding vague, unspecific hearsay. Joe did what he was required to do. Get back under your bridge.
Let's face it. In hindsight, Mike's Dad, Paterno and Dranov should have all told him the same thing. Go to the police and file a report. Instead they poo pooed the whole thing and here we are. McQueary's Dad is just as much at fault as anyone else and should have known better himself. If you witness a murder, you don't go tell your boss, you tell the police.
Problem is, Mike was as vague with them as Paterno. Dranov asked him 3 times if Mike saw anything sexual. Each time Mike said no. It's also in the transcript. The only 2 who were required to report it were Dranov, and Mike's dad. Then Raykovitz, a few weeks later.
How do you explain Mike sitting on it for ten years?
I don't. Unlike you, I think all of them are sick, twisted individuals who should live the remainder of their lives in compete shame.
By the letter of the law you are actually correct. But you and I both know the only reason for that is the email. Like I said, better hope the three bozos never see the inside of a court room.
I don't think they ever will. The state is stalling hoping the feds get them off the hook.
"How do you explain Mike sitting on it for ten years?"
Paterno sat on it, Mike followed his lead.
The man who could have stopped Mike from sitting on it didn't and set the standards
He didn't even want to spoil anyone's weekend by telling them a child was molested.
All of them sat on it so they wouldn't spoil Penn St FB's image, knowing 1998 would be brought up.
If he did nothing wrong then why did Paterno himself admit he wished he did more? Because he knew damn well that he could have stopped this in its tracks, but failed to act, and because of that many other kids were raped and otherwise sexually abused and psychologically f*cked for life by Sandusky.
It seems you are too far indebted to the Paterno cult to realize that from the jump, he SHOULD have told McQueary to go straight to the police that night McQueary showed up at his house to explain what he had just witnessed. He should have probably dialed the police for McQeary.
Pattern said that what McQueary told him involved an underage boy and was of a sexual nature. How is that not enough for Paterno to tell McQueary to pick up the phone and get the police involved if he witnessed a crime being committed?
To every sensible person in the world other than you pathetic Joebots, it was more than enough.
Instead, we later find out that the three men (Curly, Schultz, and Spanier) had a plan to report Sandusky to a PROPER authority and not just an internal University division...an actual Governmental agency... but Paterno is the one and only person to enter the equation before a decision is made to change the plan of reporting and....and instead keep it out of the public and handle it internally, even though your president said in an email that if word were to get out that they were not reporting a a proper authority, they would be in big trouble.
So maybe Paterno did enough to keep himself out of legal trouble.....but he absolutely failed to do what a good and decent person was.....like finding out if the kid was OK. Hell, he didn't even ask what the kid's name was. And you say he did enough?
You Joebots are nearly as disgusting as human beings as Paterno was.
The PA Attorney General is on record saying, had he lived, Joe Pa would have been criminally charged as well.
More BS. Instead of the Litany According to Troll, how about some tangible, objective proof anyone at Penn State did anything wrong. You can't because there isn't any.
Paterno says he was told Sandusky had done something inappropriate with a child but that he didn't press McQueary for details because McQueary was very upset.
Guess Paterno didn't want to know ( just like you don't want to know about Joe) , in order to protect himself and the program
from being investigated about their knowledge of .Sandusky and why he was made Coach Emeritus even after he admitted
acting inappropriately with a child in 1998 after a kids mother turned him in for child abuse.
Joe knew what McQueary was saying and did nothing more than what he had to for 10 years
Funny because Joe himself said, "fondling a young boy" and that, "It was of a sexual nature." Those two statements seem to be pretty clear and are definitely not fictions since they come right from the transcript of his testimony.
Retired federal prosecutor Seth Weber agreed that the documentary evidence might support a charge that Paterno was part of the alleged conspiracy. But the email from Curley to Schultz alone would probably be insufficient to get a conviction, he said.
"Might", "retired", BS.
Still unable to provide objective, tangible proof anyone did anything wrong. Keep ducking that question.
Because there is none.
Uh, I see. So...let's just belittle the testimony and toss it aside. Got it. I'm not even condemning Paterno. The McQueary father and son are pieces of state college trash though.
And you conveniently dismiss that Paterno himself said it was of a sexual nature. If you say fondling a young boy and that is of a sexual nature, can the specific acts be anything that aren't disgusting? No, they can't. Now you will go to the Joe was dumb and Joe didn't know, blah, blah, blah. The problem is that he used that exact same aww shucks strategy with the media for years.
Loons gonna loon though. Keep on cultin'.
And qualified it with I don't know what you would call it.
So you are saying that he didn't know what fondling a young boy and something of a sexual nature meant? gotcha.
I'm saying he couldn't call it anything because what he was told was unspecific. Those were guesses Paterno tossed out, nothing more.
- Status
Similar threads
