Way to go JoePa
 

qv [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Paterno#Sandusky_scandal_and_dismissal[/url]

What do you think about the way the chips are falling in this case?

Well, Mr Paterno reported a (big) problem up the line and nothing happened....obviously, covering it up was policy....the question is how much risk he should have taken by going around the athletic director and asking the College President, given his stature, or discussing it with the cops.

Also, I suspect there was a lot of testosterone poisoning going on around him, so this was probably only a little different than what happened routinely around him -- though for a NCAA division I coach, he seems a little too honest for his own good.

The last time I checked, Joe's title was Head Coach of the Penn State football team, and not Detective, Policeman, or Criminal Investigator. He reported something he did not observe to his superior (the Director of Athletics), which is all he could do. Did the observer himself follow through when questioned? Did the observer file a police report? Isn't that how it should happen? What was Joe supposed to say "Someone told me that they saw someone else doing..."?

There were subsequent misdeeds, of which Joe was not made aware, that the Athletic Director was made aware, yet why is Joe being roped into this circle? Just because he was aware of one alleged incident does not mean he was aware of everything. Furthermore, on getting this "second report," the Athletic Director had Sandusky turn over all of his keys. Sandusky couldn't open an unlocked door anymore without someone else's help.

Joe had superiors to whom he reported, they were aware of things that are decidedly outside of his normal scope of work and function, and Joe was not supposed to follow up with them, it was the other way around. If they had the information, they were supposed to act on it.

Joe got railroaded in my opinion, and it doesn't seem fair based on what is known at this point.

If we learn later that there was more involved, my conclusion would be the exact opposite. Until that time, I say Joe was punished without proper justification.

The problem is, we see someone being sent to the gas chambers...where is the boundary of responsibility? Would Paterno talking to the cops have made any difference? (doubtful) Would having his observer talk to the cops have made any difference? (again, doubtful -- and remember, with all the players in trouble, it would have looked *really* funny)

But I do see the university being punished, and Joe, as the most public symbol of the university, thus must also be punished....whatever you may think about the logic involved.

But at least responsibility has fallen at the top....instead of the bottom where it is usually assigned.....and I have several times told my own boss he wasn't supposed to let me know how a personnel problem got responded to.

[QUOTE=SaneMur;277868]The last time I checked, Joe's title was Head Coach of the Penn State football team, and not Detective, Policeman, or Criminal Investigator. He reported something he did not observe to his superior (the Director of Athletics), which is all he could do. Did the observer himself follow through when questioned? Did the observer file a police report? Isn't that how it should happen? What was Joe supposed to say "Someone told me that they saw someone else doing..."? [/QUOTE]

The person who witnessed the sexual assault was probably afraid of being fired. Note that he was a graduate assistant. We all know how whistleblowers tend to take the fall for the misdeeds of their employers. I think that he was doing was he was told to do and presuming he worships Joe Pa (as many at Penn State do), then his actions are understandable. I think that most people would have done the same thing under those circumstances. (Considering his age, he might have lacked the maturity or knowledge to make a decision on his own to go to the police.)

[QUOTE]There were subsequent misdeeds, of which Joe was not made aware, that the Athletic Director was made aware, yet why is Joe being roped into this circle? Just because he was aware of one alleged incident does not mean he was aware of everything. Furthermore, on getting this "second report," the Athletic Director had Sandusky turn over all of his keys. Sandusky couldn't open an unlocked door anymore without someone else's help.

Joe had superiors to whom he reported, they were aware of things that are decidedly outside of his normal scope of work and function, and Joe was not supposed to follow up with them, it was the other way around. If they had the information, they were supposed to act on it.

Joe got railroaded in my opinion, and it doesn't seem fair based on what is known at this point.

If we learn later that there was more involved, my conclusion would be the exact opposite. Until that time, I say Joe was punished without proper justification.[/QUOTE]

As for Joe Pa, although I can't say that he got what he deserved, I think that Penn State had to fire him, just as they fired the president. Considering how long the investigation might take (which could allow Joe Pa to retire on his own terms) it was the only way in which he could be punished.

The problem with college football, especially in programs like Penn State, is that the coach is a figurative "god". They have the power to make most if not all decisions associated with the athletic department. The buck stopped with Joe, thus he should have been calling the shots and reported Sandusky to the police.

IMO, Penn State needed to push him out so that it could move forward, because as long as Joe Pa would be there, there would be questions about the Penn State football program.

[QUOTE=rogue;277872]The problem with college football, especially in programs like Penn State, is that the coach is a figurative "god". They have the power to make most if not all decisions associated with the athletic department. The buck stopped with Joe, thus he should have been calling the shots and reported Sandusky to the police.[/QUOTE]

1. Joe reports to the Athletic Director, so the "buck" technically stops there. His "perception" as being a god falls far short of the reality: He can be overruled by the Athletic Director. Much weaker than a god once you get down to brass tacks.

2. Nobody who "hears of something" from somebody else can file any such report. Distinction: report. Sure, you can NOTIFY the police, but you can't file a report unless you are the firsthand observer. Ever hear in a courtroom "Objection: Hearsay."? That means a witness is referring to the testimony of someone who has NOT been sworn in (yet), so the testimony is not admissible. Only the firsthand account can give the account, only the firsthand account can file a report or give information leading to an eventual arrest in matters such as these.

[QUOTE=rogue;277872]
IMO, Penn State needed to push him out so that it could move forward, because as long as Joe Pa would be there, there would be questions about the Penn State football program.[/QUOTE]

Or they could have demonstrated having a backbone and exonerated him and stood behind him, and told everyone else to go jump in a lake. It may have been the "easier thing to do" to get rid of him, but that was cowardly in my opinion.

[QUOTE=SaneMur;278067]1. Joe reports to the Athletic Director, so the "buck" technically stops there. His "perception" as being a god falls far short of the reality: He can be overruled by the Athletic Director. Much weaker than a god once you get down to brass tacks.[/QUOTE]

Although the AD can overrule him, people there worship him and most would do anything he would ask of them. That happened at Ohio State with Jim Tressel and it has happened at many other campuses with large football/basketball programs.

[QUOTE]2. Nobody who "hears of something" from somebody else can file any such report. Distinction: report. Sure, you can NOTIFY the police, but you can't file a report unless you are the firsthand observer. Ever hear in a courtroom "Objection: Hearsay."? That means a witness is referring to the testimony of someone who has NOT been sworn in (yet), so the testimony is not admissible. Only the firsthand account can give the account, only the firsthand account can file a report or give information leading to an eventual arrest in matters such as these.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe that is true, but I'm not a lawyer.

[QUOTE]Or they could have demonstrated having a backbone and exonerated him and stood behind him, and told everyone else to go jump in a lake. It may have been the "easier thing to do" to get rid of him, but that was cowardly in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Your opinion is in the minority. I've read the many big time Penn State boosters told the university that Joe had to go or they would stop funding the program.

Have you read this [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/ray-gricar-missing-jerry-sandusky-pennsylvania-da_n_1088950.html?ref=sports&ir=Sports"]story[/URL]? I don't believe that Joe Pa had anything to do with this, but the disappearance is suspicious. I have heard rumors that some Penn State boosters were aware of Sandusky and his taste in young boys and that this scandal is going to extend beyond the campus.

I've done a little more ready on McQuery (who witnessed the abuse). It appears to me that he might have avoided going to the police in order to get a promotion. I wouldn't be surprised to see him lose his job over all of this. I don't understand why he is getting death threats though. He clearly didn't handle this correctly, but even if he went to the police I'm not certain things would be different today WRT Joe Pa.

Remember, in that environment, a winning football team was the ONLY thing that mattered. There's still a bunch of boosters out there that feel that way and need to get a life.

The university's trustees have decided to send a different message, and firing Joe is the most forceful way to say that they will not tolerate this sort of abuse on their campus, and they will not tolerate those who let it happen.

Would it have made a difference, if in 2002, Joe and McQueary had reported Sandusky to the police? Certainly not campus police...and with at least one prosecutor declining to prosecute for insufficient evidence, quite possibly not any police. The right question is, given the evidence in front of the grand jury, and the prosecutor declining to prosecute, what would the appropriate mechanism be (since the evidence far exceeded that needed for a search warrant) to have the police gather more evidence so that prosecution can proceed?

On the one hand, there's significant evidence that this guy is a predator, but, on the other hand, accusations are easy to make when you don't like someone, and, at least in theory, one is innocent until proven guilty. Not only that, but if Sandusky ever goes to prison, his life expectancy is about 6 months -- when the other prisoners find out what he did, they will murder him, just as they did John Goeghan, the pedophilic Catholic priest.

As for the threats to McQueary...well, the logic is that had he not told Joe, Joe would still be coach...so he is responsible for the mid-season loss of the football coach.

[QUOTE=rogue;278078]Although the AD can overrule him, people there worship him and most would do anything he would ask of them. [/QUOTE]

That is an exaggeration. Respecting the man and liking him is one thing, but there is no need to be that extreme with a remark such as this.


[QUOTE=rogue;278078]
I don't believe that is true, but I'm not a lawyer.
[/QUOTE]

I've raised this objection personally and it was sustained. So it is true, trust me.

[QUOTE=rogue;278078]
Your opinion is in the minority.
[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't be the first time, I doubt it would be the last. As I said, if more evidence comes to light where JoePa is shown to have known more info, or was party to or a witness of the associated events, then I readily acquiesce. But to hang him twisting in the wind after 46 years of outstanding service because of the horrific deeds of another is unfair, in my opinion.

[QUOTE=rogue;278078]
Have you read this [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/ray-gricar-missing-jerry-sandusky-pennsylvania-da_n_1088950.html?ref=sports&ir=Sports"]story[/URL]?
[/QUOTE]

Now that is truly bizarre! I don't even know where to begin to comment, other than that is very, very, very suspicious!

[QUOTE=Christenson;278084]Remember, in that environment, a winning football team was the ONLY thing that mattered. There's still a bunch of boosters out there that feel that way and need to get a life.[/QUOTE]

I am not one of these boosters, and I agree, the purpose of a university should focus foremost on an education.

[QUOTE=Christenson;278084]
The university's trustees have decided to send a different message, and firing Joe is the most forceful way to say that they will not tolerate this sort of abuse on their campus, and they will not tolerate those who let it happen.
[/QUOTE]

I agree it is the most forceful message. But is it the most just?


[QUOTE=Christenson;278084]
Would it have made a difference, if in 2002, Joe and McQueary had reported Sandusky to the police? [/QUOTE]

Joe would not be able to make the report, since he was not a firsthand witness to anything. It is up to the witness to come forward. He could have confided in Joe, and Joe should have strongly suggested that he file such a report. As far as Joe's responsibilities are concerned, he did what he had to do. Someone else came to him with an allegation, he reported it to the Athletic Director. That is where Joe's responsibility should have ended. The Athletic Director should have followed up with McQueary, and then McQueary should have gone to the police.


[QUOTE=Christenson;278084]The right question is, given the evidence in front of the grand jury, and the prosecutor declining to prosecute, what would the appropriate mechanism be ...
[/QUOTE]

I agreed, wholeheartedly. Why were things dropped? And who does the prosecuting attorney have to report to when such a thing is dropped? These answers would shed a great deal of light on the whole matter.

While I don't think testimony from Joe about Sandusky's behavior as alleged by McQueary would stand up in court, I also remember a cop, in that book I can't find right now about some public corruption involving a black politician in Georgia, that the cops (feds) started to investigate when they heard repeated rumors. That is, Joe's word would have held some weight with the cops, who might then have asked McQueary if he was willing to talk...who might then have figured out which parents to ask...who might then have investigated....

That's how it's SUPPOSED to work....though there's plenty of evidence that it would not have worked that way...

****
Example of this: I'm fairly sure I know where (but not exactly when) to find a chicken fight in this neighborhood I live in. I've been told by multiple people about it...I can't swear to it in court, but it's enough to make a (good) cop go look.

This is how Michael Vick got in trouble...stories got out, the cops started looking....and found...

**********
As for the disappearing prosecutor: Remember that a prosecutor has many enemies...all the people he has put behind bars and all of their friends...and given that he declined to prosecute Mr Sandusky, it's unlikely that Mr Sandusky engineered that disappearance.
****************