Penn State's Shameful Scandal

[LittleFuzzy]

This isn't a "mood of mine". That's somewhat insulting, Fuzzy.

Maybe, but saying it preempted any move on your part to start disparaging me for thinking 15 y/os can't be raped or something, which is about what I expect from you when you're running purely on emotion, when I'm seeking information which the state of Pennsylvania has seen fit to consider relevant and make distinctions with.

[Aimless]

I'm confused as to why a possible felony wouldn't be investigated by the police.

[CitizenCain]

You come off as pretty despicable here. I'm sure it's funny to someone?

I found it funny.

I'm confused as to why a possible felony wouldn't be investigated by the police.

Too busy focusing their efforts on asset forfeitures and misdemeanor "crimes" that come with higher fines than anal rape of a minor, probably. Why bother with some dumb preteen who can't pay you shit when you can make 3 grand off some drunk sleeping it off in his car and get awards for improving public safety while doing it?

[Lebanese Dragon]

So why are we outraged at Paterno? (Well, we know why you are, but why should the rest of us be?)

Because you should have standards beyond the law. You going to work with a guy that's raping kids, especially if you have the power to get him fired. There's just standards.

Too busy focusing their efforts on asset forfeitures and misdemeanor "crimes" that come with higher fines than anal rape of a minor, probably

Are you kidding me, it's because of the high profile nature of the people invovled.

[CitizenCain]

Because you should have standards beyond the law. You going to work with a guy that's raping kids, especially if you have the power to get him fired.* There's just standards.

*[Huge case of: citation needed]

Are you kidding me, it's because of the high profile nature of the people invovled.

And what about the cases without high profile people? You don't honestly believe there are no actual crimes cops could be assigned to instead of radar traps, DUI patrol, vice, and drug task forces, do you? Or is entirely coincidental that these crimes which generate revenue for the government are policed at incredibly disproportionate levels to the harm they inflict, and divert police attention away from, say, catching pedophiles who butt-fuck children in the locker room of a state-owned facility?

[Aimless]

Yeah LD why else do you think they were ignored even though they immediately reported this to the police??

[Catgrrl]

If only they had called the police....

[Lebanese Dragon]

And what about the cases without high profile people? You don't honestly believe there are no actual crimes cops could be assigned to instead of radar traps, DUI patrol, vice, and drug task forces, do you? Or is entirely coincidental that these crimes which generate revenue for the government are policed at incredibly disproportionate levels to the harm they inflict, and divert police attention away from, say, catching pedophiles who butt-fuck children in the locker room of a state-owned facility?

I agree that cops have to meet quotas and are used as tools to generate income, but I also think WHO is being accused is a big factor as well. AKA as you said a state owned facility who will use their resources/favors to protect someone they beleive is responsible for helping their football program (you know how much money is spent into football programs) I think that facts helps greatly. If a random professor was reported as doing it, I think the case would have unraveled much differently (as in much quicker to come to the conclusion it did.) This is as big as the president of the college caught raping a child, probably even bigger, because those coaches get paid more than him.

[Aimless]

If only they had called the police....

Yes, and that's what I'm trying to understand: why did they not call the police to report a felony?

[Catgrrl]

Who knows. Some people are too fearful of others; I guess maybe others didn't want to believe it was credible. As seen in GGT's other thread, some people don't want to risk anything to help another human being. A lot of human beings think it's not their job to help others, and it shows.

[Aimless]

Think or no think, somewhere on the ladder there is someone who is (I thought!) legally obligated to report even suspected child abuse to eg. child services or something similar, and somewhere along that line the police are supposed to enter the picture. Two staffers are apparently being formally accused of not reporting the abuse, so it doesn't just seem to be a matter of morals. Child abuse is one of those categories of crimes where people--such as school staff--may be held liable for not doing anything. In such cases they're also guaranteed some measure of anonymity while the preliminary investigation goes on, and, later, also guaranteed immunity from civil and criminal liability (unless it can be demonstrated that they knowingly made false allegations of child abuse).

I'm just trying to figure out what key piece of the puzzle it is that I'm missing.

[termite]

I'm just trying to figure out what key piece of the puzzle it is that I'm missing.

Conflict of interest... when an organisation investigates its own members the likelihood that a conflict of interest will arise is very high.

e.g. Bad publicity, the investigators don't want police involved because that means media, or there may be a relationship between the alleged offender and the investigators - hell there's plenty of possible scenarios.

Hence, people are losing their careers and their reputations for allegedly not following due diligence.

[LittleFuzzy]

Think or no think, somewhere on the ladder there is someone who is (I thought!) legally obligated to report even suspected child abuse to eg. child services or something similar, and somewhere along that line the police are supposed to enter the picture. Two staffers are apparently being formally accused of not reporting the abuse, so it doesn't just seem to be a matter of morals. Child abuse is one of those categories of crimes where people--such as school staff--may be held liable for not doing anything. In such cases they're also guaranteed some measure of anonymity while the preliminary investigation goes on, and, later, also guaranteed immunity from civil and criminal liability (unless it can be demonstrated that they knowingly made false allegations of child abuse).

I'm just trying to figure out what key piece of the puzzle it is that I'm missing.

I won't speak for the entirety of ten years of activity, but one factor I suspect is in play with regard to what was reported in the original post is the legal difference between suspicion and allegation. An allegation by a third party is hearsay and hearsay is not cause for suspicion, as far as legal terms are parsed. The third party might have cause to suspect child abuse and hence the obligation to report may come into play for them but what the third party tells others does not. They may or may not take those allegations as cause to conduct their own investigation which would provide them with information they can personally attest to.

[GGT]

Maybe, but saying it preempted any move on your part to start disparaging me for thinking 15 y/os can't be raped or something, which is about what I expect from you when you're running purely on emotion, when I'm seeking information which the state of Pennsylvania has seen fit to consider relevant and make distinctions with.

That doesn't make sense. Of course I can have an "emotional reaction" to kids being raped--who wouldn't?

That doesn't mean running on purely emotion after the grand jury report, which was quite shocking, and the investigative reporting done by a Harrisburg newspaper. Finding this has been ongoing (allegedly) since 1999 adds another element that goes beyond (but includes) emotion. I presumed you'd read my earlier post about PA's laws surrounding mandatory reporting, and how the university was able to operate within the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.

I won't speak for the entirety of ten years of activity, but one factor I suspect is in play with regard to what was reported in the original post is the legal difference between suspicion and allegation. An allegation by a third party is hearsay and hearsay is not cause for suspicion, as far as legal terms are parsed. The third party might have cause to suspect child abuse and hence the obligation to report may come into play for them but what the third party tells others does not. They may or may not take those allegations as cause to conduct their own investigation which would provide them with information they can personally attest to.

Being an eyewitness to an adult raping a child goes beyond "suspecting" child abuse or making "suspected allegations". No idea how that could be parsed as legal hearsay. Witnesses like McQueary and the janitor said the boys looked to be about ten years old, obviously children. Not that they might be confused with a consenting 21 yr old football player having sex with an ex-coach in his 50's, and possibly none of their business. Big difference.

Each state has its own mandatory victim reporting laws, even when the crimes involve children, whether on state or private property. As far as I know, only around 17 states have mandatory reporting laws; requires notifying Child Protective Services and/or police, any time there's a suspicion of child abuse. PA has those laws in place for schools, but apparently there are "loopholes" if it's not involving a student or paid employee of the school.

When accusations of rape involve students and/or employees, "reporting" can mean simply telling anyone of authority on the campus. That can mean campus police, a TA or professor, a coach or AD. The university itself isn't required to notify police, but can legally choose to deal with it internally. In other words, when they deal with rape accusations by students or faculty, they have a duty to inform the victim they can make an official crime report to the "real" police....but they're not required to make the report or file charges themselves.

There's a lot of discussion of beefing up PA's child victim and protection laws. Even that sparks emotions that go beyond legal-speak. That we'd even consider a law telling people they should call police if they see an adult raping a child, any time/anywhere--that is a disappointing assessment of our society. A moral breakdown. That we've ignored pedophiles who can find ways to subvert legal authority, by using their Alumni perks or charitable organizations to get kids naked and into University shower/locker rooms, and do whatever they like......when neither are students or faculty, knowing NO ONE has to report it, or probably won't---well, that is despicable.

When a 28 yr old man claims to witness a 50 yr old+ ex-coach raping a 10 year old in Penn State's showers, and doesn't rush in fully clothed to pull the kid away, grab a helmet to hit the man in the head, try to stop the rape in progress somehow....Hey there, what the hell are you doing!!.....but leaves the boy alone and goes home!.....well, I don't have words for that emotion. It's not like he witnessed an armed robbery in progress, or felt outnumbered by a gang of thugs, and worried for his own immediate safety. They were naked and in the damn shower, a grown man against a little boy!

Telling Paterno the next day didn't get an "appropriate" reaction, either, apparently. Passing it onto the AD or others in administration was Good 'Nuff. Someone else will take care of the mess, ugh. And none of them seemed concerned about the little boy(s).

Reasonable adults have looked the other way, or tried to say it's acceptable to do the "minimum legally required". Our laws don't protect kids as much as they protect adults from law suits, and probably can't be relied upon to prosecute the pedophiles who abuse them. That sickens me. Oops, sorry if that's too emotional.

[CitizenCain]

Reasonable adults have looked the other way, or tried to say it's acceptable to do the "minimum legally required". Our laws don't protect kids as much as they protect adults from law suits, and probably can't be relied upon to prosecute the pedophiles who abuse them.

Solution: more laws and higher expectations about human behavior. Good luck with that.

[LittleFuzzy]

I presumed you'd read my earlier post about PA's laws surrounding mandatory reporting, and how the university was able to operate within the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.

I didn't read it, but it doesn't matter because I simply would not put credence in what you might say on legal matters.

Being an eyewitness to an adult raping a child goes beyond "suspecting" child abuse or making "suspected allegations". No idea how that could be parsed as legal hearsay. Witnesses like McQueary and the janitor said the boys looked to be about ten years old, obviously children. Not that they might be confused with a consenting 21 yr old football player having sex with an ex-coach in his 50's, and possibly none of their business. Big difference.

Way to read my qualifiers. Good job!

[Lebanese Dragon]

Solution: more laws and higher expectations about human behavior. Good luck with that

There are societies where people woudl kill themselves for dishonor (beyond any law, beyond whether they are caught or not). Society and yourself can place a lot of pressure on people to have certain standards. It's very possible to raise those standards.

[GGT]

Solution: more laws and higher expectations about human behavior. Good luck with that.

Some might believe that laws are the answer to raise expectations of ALL human behavior. I don't, but I can see how victims would expect legal recourse for their injuries, and want to punish those who've harmed them.

Without laws against certain behaviors, there's no corresponding trial or punishment for criminal behavior. Sorry, but I don't think it's Jurisprudence to treat raping or molesting children as civil misdemeanors instead of felonies. Do you?

[GGT]

I didn't read it, but it doesn't matter because I simply would not put credence in what you might say on legal matters.

Way to read my qualifiers. Good job!

You didn't read the link I posted about legal matters....because I posted it? Then you talk about emotions, and qualifiers?

It was already made clear in the OP that this wasn't about the legal difference between a suspicion or an allegation. Or hearsay. This wasn't child victims coming forward with uncorroborated, flimsy allegations. This included third party witnesses coming forward, and eventually making sworn statements to a Grand Jury. While you tried to give minx some legal foundation for the question, it didn't necessarily apply. Good job?

[LittleFuzzy]

You didn't read the link I posted about legal matters....because I posted it? Then you talk about emotions, and qualifiers?

After the first couple of posts, I stopped reading most of your posts in here and usually just skimmed the ones I did read. Same thing I did for Kane's posts. I wasn't interested in that sort of duel when Tear was starting them and I'm not interested now. But I probably would have ignored your link even if I was actively reading everything you posted because I have seen, we've all seen, how you use links. Most of them aren't actually to data they're to interpretations of data at best. Even when you post something that's actually information and not merely editorializing you radically misinterpret in most cases and when others attempt to point out what the material really says you divert the thread on a tangent trying to demand your bad interpretation accurately reflects reality with all sorts of subjective emotional reasoning. I'm not interested. I don't trust anything you say about legal matters will reflect reality and I've lost any expectation that you will link to material about legal matters that will do so either.

It was already made clear in the OP that this wasn't about the legal difference between a suspicion or an allegation. Or hearsay. This wasn't child victims coming forward with uncorroborated, flimsy allegations. This included third party witnesses coming forward, and eventually making sworn statements to a Grand Jury. While you tried to give minx some legal foundation for the question, it didn't necessarily apply. Good job?

None of these things you just said are true. The quoted material in the original post was [i]all about[i] the legal difference between hearsay and legal suspicion, it didn't even tell us that the victim in that particular event was a child rather than a minor, the witness *who I acknowledged might have an obligation to report* was not the target of your ire in the initial post, Paterno was.

[GGT]

After the first couple of posts, I stopped reading most of your posts in here and usually just skimmed the ones I did read. Same thing I did for Kane's posts. I wasn't interested in that sort of duel when Tear was starting them and I'm not interested now. But I probably would have ignored your link even if I was actively reading everything you posted because I have seen, we've all seen, how you use links. Most of them aren't actually to data they're to interpretations of data at best. Even when you post something that's actually information and not merely editorializing you radically misinterpret in most cases and when others attempt to point out what the material really says you divert the thread on a tangent trying to demand your bad interpretation accurately reflects reality with all sorts of subjective emotional reasoning. I'm not interested. I don't trust anything you say about legal matters will reflect reality and I've lost any expectation that you will link to material about legal matters that will do so either.

You just "editorialized" your way into pot/kettle territory. Good job.

None of these things you just said are true. The quoted material in the original post was [i]all about[i] the legal difference between hearsay and legal suspicion, it didn't even tell us that the victim in that particular event was a child rather than a minor, the witness *who I acknowledged might have an obligation to report* was not the target of your ire in the initial post, Paterno was.

Right, and you decided to ignore my link to NYT in post #18 as well. Hard to believe you're claiming "ignorance" about this unfolding scandal, based on what I post or link. There's been a Grand Jury report, firings at the top of Penn State's administrative positions (as well as Sandusky's Third Mile charity), multiple felony criminal charges filed, and US congress re-evaluating Child Protection/Pedophilia laws and loopholes.

I mentioned mandatory reporting laws, and how they vary by state. PA has some "quirks" any pedophile would love---including being a Penn State alumnus (but not an employee) with questionable access privileges, getting little boys (but not Penn State students) into the football locker rooms and showers, being naked and "horse playing". Despite reports of inappropriate behavior at the least, and charges of molestation at its worst. For over a decade.

The latest PA "quirk" surrounds the Open Reporting law required of most state agencies or universities. Penn State's president reportedly lobbied congress for an exemption; lo and behold they got that exemption. That means "sunshine laws" don't apply, and they don't have to publicize the entirety of campus police reports, or any intra-departmental reports. How convenient.

Look, you don't have to believe any damn thing I post or link, Fuzzy. But since you're inclined toward legal issues, I don't find it credible that you haven't read ANY news source that hasn't mentioned this scandal, or piqued your interest.

[LittleFuzzy]

Look, you don't have to believe any damn thing I post or link, Fuzzy. But since you're inclined toward legal issues, I don't find it credible that you haven't read ANY news source that hasn't mentioned this scandal, or piqued your interest.

Other than the results of a google search for context after this thread first started, I haven't. I'm mostly interested in Constitutional issues *like cases before SCOTUS* and legal topics with international significance. I don't give a rats ass for the latest legal troubles of Hollywood starlets, I skip over reporting on legal charges of fiduciary misconduct, and I pay no attention to whatever is the current high-profile murder case dominating the headlines. It's drek. It has no bearing on my life, it doesn't educate me about anything, and it does nothing to aid being an informed citizen. It's journalistic rubbernecking, gawking at the car crash on the side of the road as you pass by. The only criminal reporting that might ever have a bearing on someone's life beyond those people who are already involved is local reporting and even then it's usually not the case. You may like rubbernecking, looking for things to feed you strong emotional reactions, but I see no point in it.

[GGT]

Other than the results of a google search for context after this thread first started, I haven't. I'm mostly interested in Constitutional issues *like cases before SCOTUS* and legal topics with international significance. I don't give a rats ass for the latest legal troubles of Hollywood starlets, I skip over reporting on legal charges of fiduciary misconduct, and I pay no attention to whatever is the current high-profile murder case dominating the headlines. It's drek. It has no bearing on my life, it doesn't educate me about anything, and it does nothing to aid being an informed citizen. It's journalistic rubbernecking, gawking at the car crash on the side of the road as you pass by. The only criminal reporting that might ever have a bearing on someone's life beyond those people who are already involved is local reporting and even then it's usually not the case. You may like rubbernecking, looking for things to feed you strong emotional reactions, but I see no point in it.

Whoa! So sorry for having thought you were interested in legal issues surrounding/protecting children. Could have sworn you were active in every thread legally defining a minor child, the age of consent, sexual exploitation and/or pedophilia, or juvenile justice as its own special legal division. Now it's all just drek, huh.

It has no bearing on my life, it doesn't educate me about anything, and it does nothing to aid being an informed citizen.

Right, just more drek you can't be bothered with. Fine then, just stop posting on any legal topic before it hits SCOTUS status, retract your legal interpretations as posted to minx, and stop giving me flak for having an opinion before it reaches SCOTUS.

[LittleFuzzy]

Whoa! So sorry for having thought you were interested in legal issues surrounding/protecting children. Could have sworn you were active in every thread legally defining a minor child, the age of consent, sexual exploitation and/or pedophilia, or juvenile justice as its own special legal division. Now it's all just drek, huh.



Right, just more drek you can't be bothered with. Fine then, just stop posting on any legal topic before it hits SCOTUS status, retract your legal interpretations as posted to minx, and stop giving me flak for having an opinion before it reaches SCOTUS.

I'd stopped posting in this thread, until Minx had a legal question and then I answered it. In fact, I gave the exact answer which motivated your Attorney-General to say that Paterno had met his legal obligations. This digression is all because you couldn't stop yourself from objecting to my giving a reasonable and accurate answer to that question, on the basis that it did not involve waving your fists in the air and yelling "OUTRAGE."

You don't get to control discourse. If you want to wrap yourself in a cocoon of emotion and reject all reality on that basis you're free to do so, but if I might make my own request keep your obscurantism to yourself. You get your jollies by feeling outrage, I get mine from being able to explain something. I may be pedantic, a fussbucket, self-righteous, or any other aspersion you or others on here have leveled my way but I will be damned before I let you or anyone else here prevent me from answering a genuine query.

[Nessus]

Aww. I like it when you answer queries! Now, the way you answer sometimes...

[GGT]

I'd stopped posting in this thread, until Minx had a legal question and then I answered it. In fact, I gave the exact answer which motivated your Attorney-General to say that Paterno had met his legal obligations. This digression is all because you couldn't stop yourself from objecting to my giving a reasonable and accurate answer to that question, on the basis that it did not involve waving your fists in the air and yelling "OUTRAGE."

You don't get to control discourse. If you want to wrap yourself in a cocoon of emotion and reject all reality on that basis you're free to do so, but if I might make my own request keep your obscurantism to yourself. You get your jollies by feeling outrage, I get mine from being able to explain something. I may be pedantic, a fussbucket, self-righteous, or any other aspersion you or others on here have leveled my way but I will be damned before I let you or anyone else here prevent me from answering a genuine query.

Answer Minx's legal query all you want, but expect your reply to be challenged when it's got holes. And don't expect your pedantic jollies to be maximized by insinuating that my OUTRAGE comes in a cocoon of emotion or rejecting reality....when legalities and jurisdictions are part of this scandal, and part of my OUTRAGE. That's not a digression in any way.

There is something seriously wrong when children are knowingly being sodomized, raped, or sexually abused....and the adults who know aren't calling the police to report a crime. Instead, they felt their legal duty had been fulfilled by saying, "I followed SOP and reported it to my boss, and they should take care of it." When university protocol doesn't comply with existing laws that protect children, but has been manipulated to protect faculty/ex-faculty/athletic programs, at the expense of vulnerable kids, that's not just waving my fists in the air.

But I'll be damned before you try to control this discourse by saying my emotions cloud the clear failures of the law to have protected those victim children, or prosecuted their abuser.

[Aimless]

Can't you write a letter to the uni or to a newspaper.

[CitizenCain]

Should make it a video tirade, so they can see her furious fists of outrage flail about. For the children, and whatnot, of course.

[GGT]

Voire Dire and jury selection was completed. The trial has been in progress, with testimony from several young adult men that were once young boys...who found themselves showering and/or participating in sexual activity with Sandusky.

It's been suggested that the Penn State Athletic Department had "files" documenting many sexual complaints against Sandusky. Things they'd rather keep secret, without admitting any liability, or making any changes.

Sounds creepily familiar, when very powerful institutions choose to protect the pedophiles in their midst, instead of protecting their victims. ie, the Catholic church.