Penn State Goings-On

[jimmy olsen]

Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.

This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.

I hope I can find a way to live with it.

Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.

Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.

What. The. Fuck.

If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.

I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment?  I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would.

That's not what he argued. I can understand someone being traumatized by seeing that and running away in a panic.

Yi made a very insidious argument that unless the kid was resisting or screaming then most would assume it was consensual and not their problem.  He also quibbled about the age, as if anyone could mistake a 10 year old for someone of the age of consent.

[Malthus]

It isn't his reaction on the spur of the moment that people find puzzling - it is his continued non-action when he's told that, basically, all that will happen is that the fellow won't be allowed to use the shower anymore.

Is that what he was told?  When was he told that?

The argument that he should have pressed the matter at some point when he wasn't interviewed by police has some merit, but it isn't clear to me that anyone reported to him that there would be no investigation, and we are left with that whole frog in cold but heating water issue; at what point does the frog, or McQueary, find the stimulus to act?  Investigations often take a long time and often do not report progress to witnesses.  A McQueary assumption that events are proceeding according to the law isn't an unreasonable one; why would he assume the university higher-ups are in fact engaged in a cover-up of what he witnessed?

It's in Berkut's summary above:

— A couple of weeks after that, McQueary was contacted by Curley, who told him that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident reported to The Second Mile.

So, basically, the charity will be informed and the keys to the locker room removed. There is no suggestion here or anywhere else that anything else was going to happen.

It seems that everyone involved was okay with that. I dunno if it amounts to an active 'cover up' (I associate that with actual threats like 'don't talk or you are fired' and no-one has alleged any were made), more like a bunch of like-minded folks in the same biz deciding to take minimal action against one of their 'own', as if what he'd done was more an embarrasing faux pas than a serious crime - which in a way is almost worse: they all seem to assume that this was a reasonable response.

[frunk]

I think it's worth mentioning the type of culture you tend to have at big universities or big corporations or any big organization for that matter.  When someone reports something is wrong to a higher up it's easy for that higher up to go "we're taking care of it, such and such is being done and it'll all be fine".  Sometimes that's true.  You would think with a serious matter like this "such and such" would get done and the appropriate steps taken.  I think both Paterno and McQueary were sold that line, and if you hear it many times and it usually is taken care of you tend to rely on it.  This is a type of situation that it's uncomfortable to get involved and so it's quite a relief when you hear someone else is dealing with it.  It's unfortunate that McQueary and Paterno didn't pursue the matter further but it isn't nearly as heinous as what was actually done or the cover up by the upper level people which let it continue and let Sandusky get away scott free for so long.

[Rasputin]

i.e., we dont know what mcreary testified to; we know what the grand jury tells us he testified to

We know a little bit about what the gj says he testified about.  The difference between incomplete information and exact knowledge isn't semantics.

i agree with you on most of the what ifs but what he did in the moment he saw the rape is a huge freaking deal and was most certainly addressed in his testimony; given the level of minutiae on some of the report, had mcreary tried to be the hero in his testimony surely the report wouldve mentioned it, especially where mcreary's testimony and credibility forms the basis for the perjury charges

instead the report is written in a manner to suggest that mcreary promptly fled the scene and called his father

i have to believe that this report was edited for days before being released

as it relates to this issue i think we've got the best possible spin that the prosecutor could put on mcrearys version of victim two

[The Brain]

Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.

This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.

I hope I can find a way to live with it.

Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.

Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.

What. The. Fuck.

If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.

I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment?  I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would.

That's not what he argued. I can understand someone being traumatized by seeing that and running away in a panic.

Yi made a very insidious argument that unless the kid was resisting or screaming then most would assume it was consensual and not their problem.  He also quibbled about the age, as if anyone could mistake a 10 year old for someone of the age of consent.

Fight the good fight, Tim. Don't let the forum pedos step on you.

[Rasputin]

Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.

This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.

I hope I can find a way to live with it.

Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.

Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.

What. The. Fuck.

If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.

I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment?  I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would.

That's not what he argued. I can understand someone being traumatized by seeing that and running away in a panic.

Yi made a very insidious argument that unless the kid was resisting or screaming then most would assume it was consensual and not their problem.  He also quibbled about the age, as if anyone could mistake a 10 year old for someone of the age of consent.

Fight the good fight, Tim. Don't let the forum pedos step on you.

i thought you were one of the pedos?

i get so confused

[grumbler]

This is all reason to wonder what he did do. But it is not reason to even know what he SHOULD have done.

The one thing we know is that he said both Sandusky and the victim saw him, and knew he was there. That suggests that something happened, unless we assume that they just kept at it after seeing him, then the rape ended. Now, that hardly clears McQueary - after all, for all he knows Sandusky continued raping the kid somewhere else.

But we don't know. That is my only point - we do not know.

Indeed.  The evidence we have is inconclusive.  McQueary may not have even comprehended at the time that what he witnessed was a crime.  He certainly realized that what he saw was wrong, on some level, and reported it.  Should he have called the cops right away?  Yes, in retrospect, he should.  Instead, he did what a confused person would do, and asked his most trusted advisor, his father, what he should do.  His father didn't tell him to call the police, he told McQueary to come back to his fathers house immediately, and after hearing the story told McQueary to go to Paterno, which McQueary did.

At some point, McQueary should have realized that insufficient action was being taken and that he needed to go to the police himself, but at what point did that obligation exist?  That isn't clear to me, and it seems entirely human that he trusted the system to act until the whole event and its investigation got buried under the day-to-day obligations he had, and nothing triggered a re-assessment of his actions until the police contacted him (too) many years later.

So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.

[The Brain]

Are you goddamn retarded? This is without a doubt the worst thing ever said on Languish.

This line of thought is contemptible and I utterly reject it. I've lost all respect for you.

I hope I can find a way to live with it.

Fuck off you piece of shit.
That line of thought is exactly why so many children in the world get abused. Because human filth like you just can't be bothered. It is absolutely unconscionable.

Don't bother responding, you're not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter.

What. The. Fuck.

If I saw some grown man having anal sex with a ten year old boy in the showers (and a very successful and powerful man at that) I have no idea what I'd do about it the moment it happened.

I know what I'd do eventually (report to police and CFS) but at the very moment?  I hope I'd try and stop it, but I'm not 100% positive I would.

That's not what he argued. I can understand someone being traumatized by seeing that and running away in a panic.

Yi made a very insidious argument that unless the kid was resisting or screaming then most would assume it was consensual and not their problem.  He also quibbled about the age, as if anyone could mistake a 10 year old for someone of the age of consent.

Fight the good fight, Tim. Don't let the forum pedos step on you.

i thought you were one of the pedos?

i get so confused

Nah.

[frunk]

So, basically, the charity will be informed and the keys to the locker room removed. There is no suggestion here or anywhere else that anything else was going to happen.

It seems that everyone involved was okay with that. I dunno if it amounts to an active 'cover up' (I associate that with actual threats like 'don't talk or you are fired' and no-one has alleged any were made), more like a bunch of like-minded folks in the same biz deciding to take minimal action against one of their 'own', as if what he'd done was more an embarrasing faux pas than a serious crime - which in a way is almost worse: they all seem to assume that this was a reasonable response.

The charity reference is a nice touch.  It's like kicking it up the chain of command.  Sandusky wasn't a coach anymore, so it sounds right that Second Mile should be taking care of it not the school.  It is disturbing if that was all they said would be done, but I'm sure they coated it with many soothing "don't worry about it"s.

[grumbler]

It's in Berkut's summary above:

— A couple of weeks after that, McQueary was contacted by Curley, who told him that Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken away and the incident reported to The Second Mile.

So, basically, the charity will be informed and the keys to the locker room removed. There is no suggestion here or anywhere else that anything else was going to happen. 

So you assume, from this summary by a sports site, that McQueary was told that this would be the only action taken?  Okay.  I, however, reject the idea that lack of evidence in a summary document not dealing with the question at hand says anything except that the summarizer didn't think anything else was necessary to the summary.

In other words, i contend that we don't actually know enough about what McQueary was told to conclude anything.  I don't think we have any evidence to exonerate McQueary, but I also don't think we have evidence to condemn him.

[Rasputin]

...So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.

in my experience most people who fuck up are decent people; it's rare to find someone who is truly evil

[Berkut]

...So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.

in my experience most people who fuck up are decent people; it's rare to find someone who is truly evil

Indeed.

I would content that Sandusky was probably a pretty evil guy, even if he doesn't think he is...

[Barrister]

...So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.

in my experience most people who fuck up are decent people; it's rare to find someone who is truly evil

Hell even in criminal court I've only prosecuted maybe a half dozen people who were a complete and utter waste of skin.  Almost everyone has a decent side to them - guys who repeatedly and savagely beat their wife might be good providers for their children, or some such.

Trying to divide the world into 'good guys' and 'bad guys' is a fools errand.

[Berkut]

I think we are just going for "people who should live" and "people we hope will commit suicide".

Surely that is a much simpler division?

[Barrister]

...So, he fucked up, but for his reasons don't seem to require that he was an evil actor.

in my experience most people who fuck up are decent people; it's rare to find someone who is truly evil

Indeed.

I would content that Sandusky was probably a pretty evil guy, even if he doesn't think he is...

Even Sandusky - he probably did help a lot of kids through that charity, and probably was genuine in wanting to help them.

Doesn't make what he did any less heinous though.

In short - I'm just tired of hearing how every single accused who is pleading out 'oves his mother and supports his kids'.  I. Don't. Care.  You do the crime, you do the time.