Football not #1 on Joe Paterno's priority list?

Just read this article on KSL. Very interesting reading about Penn State's priorities with Jo Pa as the head coach. I thought I was reading about Bronco in a lot of ways.



http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=18964487&nid=294&title=family-football-meant-everything-to-joe-paterno" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A fair and good article. Joe Paterno was much more than a coach. A quality and special guy. The way things ended was tragic.

Of course it wasn't. Helping to cover up child rape was first on his list.













That article was absolute tripe. (No offense to either of you, the whole JoePa thing is so underthought).

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Of course it wasn't. Helping to cover up child rape was first on his list.



That article was absolute tripe. (No offense to either of you, the whole JoePa thing is so underthought).

Yeah, because when you report something it means you're covering it up... :roll:

This has been discussed ad nauseam.



If someone came to you and told you your child or grandchild had been raped and they had witnessed it (have you read the jury reports? I have, and they are graphic. There is NO doubt Sandusky is guilty of anal rape against a child among many other things), so you report it:



Now imagine that scenario, and then you see him walking around on campus a few weeks later. Do you do something about it? I mean, it's your child or grandchild. When told "It's taken care of. Don't worry about it." What is your next move? Throw your hands up in the air and say, "Well, that is that."



(Are you really naive enough to think that the AD has more sway and power than a coach that has been there for 30+ years? JoePa could have done something more about it above and beyond one conversation with his boss and then washing his hands of it. without looking it up, what are the names of the AD and the other man that resigned? That'll give you a quick idea of who has the most power and sway in that organization)



Read the grand jury reports, and tell me he couldn't do more.



Only God officially knows who will have what blame, but as for me, I'm not going to laud and praise a guy who **at best** looked the other way when told "everything is ok, we took care of it". Ummm, he isn't in jail for what is one of the harshest felonies a man can commit. How is that being taken care of, exactly?



http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(grand jury report)

I didn't read the report AND I'm not about to excuse his lack of proportional response, but I do believe that "at best" he did more than "look away", he told his superiors/administration. Whether this puts him in a situation of 'plausible deniability" toward what action he should or should not have taken, I have my doubts.

Whether he should have hung a "millstone around Sandusky's neck" (aka, kicked the crap out of him) is another matter. JoePa's guilt/wrong is not even close to Sandusky's. Its hard for people to separate that. Same goes for the grad assistant. Hate to live with that man's shame and guilt for this life and eternity.

But can't we let this die along with the man. Do we have to clutter up this forum with any more talk of this?

So, we read a few media reports and pronounce judgement. Discount a lifetime of positive influence from a person with one mistake? I am sure glad that I don't have to stand in judgement by some of you at the final judgement. No one here knows what was in Jo Pa's head, or what he was thinking but reading about the guys life, he tried to do good wherever he could. I don't see him maliciously covering up child rape. All of us can proudly claim that "I would have done different" with perfect 20/20 hindsight. None of us really knows what we would have done though. I think it is time to remove the beam from our eyes though and let God sort all this out. I, frankly, posted this article because it shows that you can win when football isn't #1 on your priority list, in fact Jo Pa did it to the tune of the winningest coach in Div 1 history. I didn't expect this thread to get hijacked by the scandal.

Frdbtr,



You didn't expect the thread to get hijacked by the scandal? They are synonymous...

Penn State might not even HAVE a football program when this all gets wrapped up in the courts! You think all those 4 and 5 star athletes would have had their parents absolute consent had they known any of this was going on? Of course it applies to the "success" of the program. They had a recruiting advantage by touting their "only competitive school that hasn't had any violations" clean image.



I didn't say anything about "maliciously" covering up anything. He was in a position to do more, and he didn't - for whatever reason. Again, if this was his own grandchild, do you think Sandusky would be walking around Penn St campus with young boys for the next 13 years?



I'm sorry, but the "beam" in my eye doesn't have anything to do with being implicit in child rape, as a bystander or otherwise. I don't find it helpful to take others down unnecessarily, but I also don't see the reason to hold up in high esteem an individual that has done the bare minimum in what has to be the most evil and vile act that a person can commit on this earth.

dmcougar wrote:
I do believe that "at best" he did more than "look away", he told his superiors/administration.

Did you miss the part where I included all of that? I inferred that he went to his superiors in the same sentence you are quoting. Also, mentioned he did above that too...

blueisbetter wrote:
I'm not going to laud and praise a guy who **at best** looked the other way when told "everything is ok, we took care of it"

Again, he did the bare minimum of what was expected. All of the bystanders that watch people getting mugged and beat to death don't need to step out of their comfort zone and help. JoePa was in probably the best position of any man in the country to see something like this to trial and sentence, and he didn't - for whatever reason. Can you think of a person in America that had better job security than JoePa in the 1990's?

dmcougar wrote:
But can't we let this die along with the man. Do we have to clutter up this forum with any more talk of this?

When someone posts an article praising him and his organization, I think it fair game. It's not like I solicited it, creating a thread saying "I hate JoePa, etc etc etc".

BlueIsBetter wrote:

I do believe that "at best" he did more than "look away", he told his superiors/administration.

Did you miss the part where I included all of that? I inferred that he went to his superiors in the same sentence you are quoting. Also, mentioned he did above that too...

blueisbetter wrote:
I'm not going to laud and praise a guy who **at best** looked the other way when told "everything is ok, we took care of it"

Again, he did the bare minimum of what was expected. All of the bystanders that watch people getting mugged and beat to death don't need to step out of their comfort zone and help. JoePa was in probably the best position of any man in the country to see something like this to trial and sentence, and he didn't - for whatever reason. Can you think of a person in America that had better job security than JoePa in the 1990's?

This is the part where I find it very intersting.... most people wanted Joe Pa to have formed some sort of lynchmob and kill the guy on the spot, they want to completely ignore the "due process" portion of the Constitution. We, as a society on this issue seem to be taking a "batman" position, where laws are there to protect only the criminals, and we cannot have justice unless we act above the law. Gues swhat - that's not real life. A good majority of folks on this issue are perfectly fine with giving up someone else's constitutional protections, and wanted a level of clairvoyance from someone that is simply not possible.



What you are calling the "bare minimum" others would argue to be the absolute maximum. If you realy wanted him to do more, I'd like to see if you are voting for more government rather than less,in the upcoming election. What you are wanting seems an aweful lot "big brother" to me. -" let's not let an investigation get in the way of a good lynching."



We all wanted Jo Pa to have said "ready... fire... aim"

I find it interesting that people who knew Jo Pa personally are not judging him so harshly. Lavelle Edwards being one of them. I just can't judge a person's entire character by one lack of action. Kind of goes by the "by their fruits ye shall know them" Jo Pa spent a lifetime of living honorably to the best of his ability and trying to influence people associated with him to live honorably and yet in a 20/20 hindsight, he is now a bad guy because he didn't "do more". I don't disagree that he could have done "more" but none of us know what was in his head or heart. I think if he knew that his inaction was hurting someone, he probably would have reacted differently but that is just a personal opinion based on what I have read from others who knew him personally. It will be interesting to me when we all get to the final judgement if some of us who think we are perfect and enjoy pointing out others flaws will not fare more harshly then the folks we feel the need to stand in judgement of.



This will be my last statement on the scandal in this thread. This is not a thread about the scandal, it is a thread about "winning with honor" which is what Bronco has stated as his goal for BYU as well (Tradition, spirit, honor).

ABYUFAN wrote:



This is the part where I find it very intersting.... most people wanted Joe Pa to have formed some sort of lynchmob and kill the guy on the spot, they want to completely ignore the "due process" portion of the Constitution. We, as a society on this issue seem to be taking a "batman" position, where laws are there to protect only the criminals, and we cannot have justice unless we act above the law. Gues swhat - that's not real life. A good majority of folks on this issue are perfectly fine with giving up someone else's constitutional protections, and wanted a level of clairvoyance from someone that is simply not possible.



What you are calling the "bare minimum" others would argue to be the absolute maximum. If you realy wanted him to do more, I'd like to see if you are voting for more government rather than less,in the upcoming election. What you are wanting seems an aweful lot "big brother" to me. -" let's not let an investigation get in the way of a good lynching."



We all wanted Jo Pa to have said "ready... fire... aim"

Going to authorities (as in, the police) when it is clear that your supervisors haven't done so isn't getting a lynch mob together, or vigilantism. Get real.



How do you know that the authorities weren't involved? He is walking around campus!!! And not in jail...!!!



It's not that hard to make a phone call to the police. And that certainly isn't taking justice into your hands.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

This is the part where I find it very intersting.... most people wanted Joe Pa to have formed some sort of lynchmob and kill the guy on the spot, they want to completely ignore the "due process" portion of the Constitution. We, as a society on this issue seem to be taking a "batman" position, where laws are there to protect only the criminals, and we cannot have justice unless we act above the law. Gues swhat - that's not real life. A good majority of folks on this issue are perfectly fine with giving up someone else's constitutional protections, and wanted a level of clairvoyance from someone that is simply not possible.



What you are calling the "bare minimum" others would argue to be the absolute maximum. If you realy wanted him to do more, I'd like to see if you are voting for more government rather than less,in the upcoming election. What you are wanting seems an aweful lot "big brother" to me. -" let's not let an investigation get in the way of a good lynching."



We all wanted Jo Pa to have said "ready... fire... aim"

Going to authorities (as in, the police) when it is clear that your supervisors haven't done so isn't getting a lynch mob together, or vigilantism. Get real.



How do you know that the authorities weren't involved? He is walking around campus!!! And not in jail...!!!



It's not that hard to make a phone call to the police. And that certainly isn't taking justice into your hands.

He talked to the head of the campus police.. you know, the police department with jurisdiction over the alleged crime... He heard of a potential crime, reported it to the chief of police, and saw the person still out on the campus... what would you have had him do? Make noise? What if there were an investigation going on at the time? That would only have tipped off the person being investigate...



Next time you are not a witness to a crime, but hear about it from someone else, I want you to assert yourself into the middle of the police investigation and see how well that goes for you....

BlueIsBetter wrote:
This has been discussed ad nauseam.



If someone came to you and told you your child or grandchild had been raped and they had witnessed it (have you read the jury reports? I have, and they are graphic. There is NO doubt Sandusky is guilty of anal rape against a child among many other things), so you report it:



Now imagine that scenario, and then you see him walking around on campus a few weeks later. Do you do something about it? I mean, it's your child or grandchild. When told "It's taken care of. Don't worry about it." What is your next move? Throw your hands up in the air and say, "Well, that is that."



(Are you really naive enough to think that the AD has more sway and power than a coach that has been there for 30+ years? JoePa could have done something more about it above and beyond one conversation with his boss and then washing his hands of it. without looking it up, what are the names of the AD and the other man that resigned? That'll give you a quick idea of who has the

most power and sway in that organization)



Read the grand jury reports, and tell me he couldn't do more.



Only God officially knows who will have what blame, but as for me, I'm not going to laud and praise a guy who **at best** looked the other way when told "everything is ok, we took care of it". Ummm, he isn't in jail for what is one of the harshest felonies a man can commit. How is that being taken care of, exactly?



http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(grand jury report)

Steeped in emotion as usual, but a little off on the facts. Joe Paterno did not witness anything. The guy you never even mentioned witnessed it. Mike McQueary - sorry for spelling it wrong most likely. Catching a plane. No time to look iy up.



Joe was in the awkward position of having to pass along hearsay evidence, and not as graphically verbalized as it is now, a day or two after the event. He reported it anyway, incurring some significant personal risk of being wrong about what someone else saw. MM is the one who should have acted sooner and followed up. But lest we forget, Jerry Sandusky is the accused. Even he is innocent until proven guilty in this country. Probably his time is finally coming. On the other hand, look up McMartin. I still am not sure what the truth was there. Glad you are able to grasp truth so clearly when you were not there and do not know the people involved. Let it play out.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

ABYUFAN wrote:



He talked to the head of the campus police.. you know, the police department with jurisdiction over the alleged crime... He heard of a potential crime, reported it to the chief of policethe rent-a-cops, and saw the person still out on the campus... what would you have had him do? Make noise? What if there were an investigation going on at the time? That would only have tipped off the person being investigate...



Next time you are not a witness to a crime, but hear about it from someone else, I want you to assert yourself into the middle of the police investigation and see how well that goes for you....

The head of the rent-a-cops? You DO know that they aren't ACTUAL policemen, right?



They have no more actual authority than someone that has a "security" shirt ushering you to your seats.



lol. I would have had him contact an ACTUAL policeman. He could even do that anonymously if he wanted. Or CPS. A simple phone call and 13 years (on the short end) of this crap would have gone away.

Bib2,



Where am I "off on the facts?" I didn't say he eyewitnessed the crime anywhere. He was told in very certain, graphic detail, the incident. As to leave no doubt in anyone's mind.



They both immediately went to their superior (the AD and the head of the rent a cops happened to be there too). Up to that part we are gravy.



The part I don't get, is when you see Sandusky walking around campus a few weeks later, and when you follow up a question to the superior you hear "Don't worry about it, we took care of it, he isn't allowed to come onto campus with children anymore."



A) He isn't in prison, so they didn't "take care of it". (It is a state law for school workers to report knowing child molestation to police in just about every state.)



B) You see him, repeatedly, walking on campus WITH children over the 13 year period leading up to when the story leaked and he actually got caught.



The jury is still out on the situation, literally. But there were many opportunities to put a stop to these kind of things. JoePa obviously thinks he should have done more, as he said "It is my life's greatest regret that I didn't do more." He was in the best position to stop this, and see it through. He didn't. For whatever reason.



I'm just not going to sit around and hear what a great man he was, and what a great program and blah blah blah.



The program will get the death penalty within the next few years, and the AD and head of the rent a cops, (who was also a teacher, or something) might actually get the death penalty, too. They will get life in prison, at the very least. Maybe a couple counts of it.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
The head of the rent-a-cops? You DO know that they aren't ACTUAL policemen, right?



They have no more actual authority than someone that has a "security" shirt ushering you to your seats.



lol. I would have had him contact an ACTUAL policeman. He could even do that anonymously if he wanted. Or CPS. A simple phone call and 13 years (on the short end) of this crap would have gone away.

I'm pretty sure the Penn State Police Department has actual jurisdiction on campus. They're not rent-a-copy, but actual policemen. I'll double check and edit my post.



Edit:

The Penn State Police Department is an actual police department. It is not just a name. From their website (http://www.police.psu.edu/faq/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

Where do the Penn State University Police have police powers?

University Police have police powers in their primary jurisdiction, which is defined as any grounds (property owned, controlled, leased, or managed by Penn State University) or within 500 yards of the grounds. University Police are also entered into mutual aid agreements with all surrounding police jurisdictions and may respond to police calls when requested to do so.

Their police powers (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for further definition of police powers) are derived from Pennsylvania State Statutes.

Powers and Duties

From Section 2416.1 of the Administrative Code of 1929 (Act 57 of 1997) and Section 2416.1 Campus Police Powers and Duties



Campus police shall have the power and duty:

1. to enforce good order on the grounds and in the buildings of the college or university.



2. to protect the grounds and buildings of the college or university.



3. to exclude all disorderly persons from the grounds and buildings of the college or university.



4. to adopt whatever means may be necessary for the performance of their duties.



5. to exercise the same powers as are now or may hereafter be exercised under authority of law or ordinance by the police of the municipalities wherein the college or university is located, including, but not limited to, those powers conferred pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D (relating to municipal police jurisdiction).



6. to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts, apprehend, arrest, and charge criminal offenders and issue summary citations for acts committed on the grounds and in the buildings of the college or university and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner and prefer charges against him under the laws of this commonwealth. Except when acting pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D, campus police shall exercise these powers and perform these duties only on the grounds or within 500 yards of the grounds of the college or university. For the purposes of applying the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D, the grounds and within 500 yards of the grounds of the college or university shall constitute the primary jurisdiction of the campus police.



7. to order off the grounds and out of the buildings of the college or university all vagrants, loafers, trespassers, and persons under the influence of liquor and, if necessary, remove them by force and, in case of resistance, carry such offenders before an alderman, justice of the peace, bail commissioner or magistrate.



8. to arrest any person who damages, mutilates, or destroys the trees, plants, shrubbery, turf, grass plots, benches, buildings, and structures or commits any other offense on the grounds and in the buildings of the college or university and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, bail commissioner or magistrate and prefer charges against him under the laws of this commonwealth.

a. Campus police and municipalities are authorized to enter into an agreement with the municipality wherein the college or university is located to exercise concurrently those powers and to perform those duties conferred pursuant to a cooperative police service agreement in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953 (relating to statewide municipal police jurisdiction). When so acting, the campus police of the college or university shall have the same powers, immunities, and benefits granted to police officers in 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D.



b.When acting within the scope of the authority of this section, campus police are at all times employees of the college or university and shall be entitled to all of the rights and benefits accruing there.



c. As used in this section:

Campus police means all law enforcement personnel employed by a state-aided or state-related college or university who have successfully completed a campus police course of training approved under 53 Pa.C.S. Ch. 21 Subch. D (relating to municipal police education and training).

College or university means all state-aided or state-related colleges and universities.

Grounds means all lands and buildings owned, controlled, leased, or managed by a college or university.

SpiffCoug wrote:

The head of the rent-a-cops? You DO know that they aren't ACTUAL policemen, right?



They have no more actual authority than someone that has a "security" shirt ushering you to your seats.



lol. I would have had him contact an ACTUAL policeman. He could even do that anonymously if he wanted. Or CPS. A simple phone call and 13 years (on the short end) of this crap would have gone away.

I'm pretty sure the Penn State Police Department has actual jurisdiction on campus. They're not rent-a-copy, but actual policemen. I'll double check and edit my post.

That's my understanding as well. If that is correct, and they are actual peace officers, does that change your positon Blue is Better?

SpiffCoug wrote:

The head of the rent-a-cops? You DO know that they aren't ACTUAL policemen, right?



They have no more actual authority than someone that has a "security" shirt ushering you to your seats.



lol. I would have had him contact an ACTUAL policeman. He could even do that anonymously if he wanted. Or CPS. A simple phone call and 13 years (on the short end) of this crap would have gone away.

I'm pretty sure the Penn State Police Department has actual jurisdiction on campus. They're not rent-a-copy, but actual policemen. I'll double check and edit my post.



Edit:

The Penn State Police Department is an actual police department. It is not just a name. From their website (http://www.police.psu.edu/faq/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

Where do the Penn State University Police have police powers?

University Police have police powers in their primary jurisdiction, which is defined as any grounds (property owned, controlled, leased, or managed by Penn State University) or within 500 yards of the grounds. University Police are also entered into mutual aid agreements with all surrounding police jurisdictions and may respond to police calls when requested to do so.

Their police powers (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for further definition of police powers) are derived from Pennsylvania State Statutes.

Powers and Duties

From Section 2416.1 of the Administrative Code of 1929 (Act 57 of 1997) and Section 2416.1 Campus Police Powers and Duties



Campus police shall have the power and duty:

1. to enforce good order on the grounds and in the buildings of the college or university.



2. to protect the grounds and buildings of the college or university.



3. to exclude all disorderly persons from the grounds and buildings of the college or university.



4. to adopt whatever means may be necessary for the performance of their duties.



5. to exercise the same powers as are now or may hereafter be exercised under authority of law or ordinance by the police of the municipalities wherein the college or university is located, including, but not limited to, those powers conferred pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D (relating to municipal police jurisdiction).



6. to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts, apprehend, arrest, and charge criminal offenders and issue summary citations for acts committed on the grounds and in the buildings of the college or university and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner and prefer charges against him under the laws of this commonwealth. Except when acting pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D, campus police shall exercise these powers and perform these duties only on the grounds or within 500 yards of the grounds of the college or university. For the purposes of applying the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D, the grounds and within 500 yards of the grounds of the college or university shall constitute the primary jurisdiction of the campus police.



7. to order off the grounds and out of the buildings of the college or university all vagrants, loafers, trespassers, and persons under the influence of liquor and, if necessary, remove them by force and, in case of resistance, carry such offenders before an alderman, justice of the peace, bail commissioner or magistrate.



8. to arrest any person who damages, mutilates, or destroys the trees, plants, shrubbery, turf, grass plots, benches, buildings, and structures or commits any other offense on the grounds and in the buildings of the college or university and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, bail commissioner or magistrate and prefer charges against him under the laws of this commonwealth.

a. Campus police and municipalities are authorized to enter into an agreement with the municipality wherein the college or university is located to exercise concurrently those powers and to perform those duties conferred pursuant to a cooperative police service agreement in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953 (relating to statewide municipal police jurisdiction). When so acting, the campus police of the college or university shall have the same powers, immunities, and benefits granted to police officers in 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D.



b.When acting within the scope of the authority of this section, campus police are at all times employees of the college or university and shall be entitled to all of the rights and benefits accruing there.



c. As used in this section:

Campus police means all law enforcement personnel employed by a state-aided or state-related college or university who have successfully completed a campus police course of training approved under 53 Pa.C.S. Ch. 21 Subch. D (relating to municipal police education and training).

College or university means all state-aided or state-related colleges and universities.

Grounds means all lands and buildings owned, controlled, leased, or managed by a college or university.

And if you don't feel comfotible with a wikipedia reference, their website also includes a link to the state statutes...



http://www.police.psu.edu/statestatutes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ABYUFAN wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:
The head of the rent-a-cops? You DO know that they aren't ACTUAL policemen, right?



They have no more actual authority than someone that has a "security" shirt ushering you to your seats.



lol. I would have had him contact an ACTUAL policeman. He could even do that anonymously if he wanted. Or CPS. A simple phone call and 13 years (on the short end) of this crap would have gone away.

I'm pretty sure the Penn State Police Department has actual jurisdiction on campus. They're not rent-a-copy, but actual policemen. I'll double check and edit my post.

That's my understanding as well. If that is correct, and they are actual peace officers, does that change your positon Blue is Better?

No, because the person Paterno talked to was not an actual cop. He was in administration, and "oversaw" it in one capacity or another. I assumed they were rent a cop, but if they weren't than all he had to do was drop a note by after practice one day, if it is an actual working precinct. Which I doubt that it would be a precinct on campus, because it is such a pleasant place, with no crime or crimes happening on campus :)



He didn't talk to any cops. Would he have let it rest where it did if it was his own grandson, and he saw the offender walking around campus a short time after? (And not, you know, in jail getting his life threatened with a shiv... which is where he should have been)