Penn State Child Molestation Scandal

Yeah I saw a picture of him. And a picture of Sandusky. I kind of retract what I said earlier about him not stepping in. He could've man-handled Sandusky without breaking a sweat.

 

In lieu of a position on an NFL team, Mark McQueary has (had?) the career opportunity of a lifetime - assistant coach for one of (the?) winningest college football teams in history and his alma mater to boot.

Mark: "Geez, geez, Joe Pa, what do I do? I saw Coach Sandusky raping a little kid in the showers, last night! I wanted to go break it up but.....well.....it was Coach Sandusky and...well ....you know.....I just figured that couldn't be right.....I must have been seeing things but now I'm sure of what I saw."

Paterno: "Don't worry, son, I'll handle it from here. You did the right thing coming to me first."

One month later:
Mark: "Is that all? You just took his locker room keys away! Shouldn't we be telling the police about it?"

The Gang: "Our University Police are aware of the matter and will be keeping an eye on him. You need to just let it go now. Making a fuss will only make matters worse and besides, you don't want to risk losing out on all the big plans we have for you in our organization, do you?"

Maybe unfair of me, but I can't help going there.

 

That's probably exactly how it went.

 

I keep thinking of the Eddie Murphy bit where he talked about how Black folks talked about slavery and how they'd smack the overseer in the mouth if they were slaves, then drive off in their "motherfuckin' Cadillac". I think that CoD and MW have kind of played into that school of thought.

Let's face it - none of us really know how we would react in that situation. We would all love to think that we'd step in and stop it, but there's no way to really know. We all want to right the obvious wrongs, but that's a much harder thing to do in real life. After all, Sandusky had been an authority figure for McQueary for a decade or longer and here's a situation that no one ever prepares for. So I'll give him a pass on the initial cowardly reaction of leaving the room.

What he doesn't get a pass for - from me - is what happened after that door closed. He should have called the cops. When that didn't happen, he should have been constantly reminding Joe Pa that something needed to be done. He should have gone to the university president. He should have gone to the campus police.

Regardless of his comparative size, McQueary shouldn't get blamed for not knocking the ever-loving crap out of Sandusky in that shower. That's an extreme circumstance, and there are only a few folks that run towards gunfire, metaphoically.

Oh, and Eddie, I'm glad to see that you've completely dropped your BS about the endowment. Hopefully you actually understand what an endowment is, what it does and how it's managed.
--- merged: Nov 11, 2011 2:21 PM ---
I just ran across some interesting articles. This one is written by a sportswriter who was molested as a child in response to the Penn State rioters:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...deserve-your-sympathy-penn-state-shame-on-you

More from Madden:

http://www.nesn.com/2011/11/jerry-s...source=bleacherreport.com&utm_medium=referral

And SI on whether or not Joe Pa should be charged with a crime and some specifics about PA law (probably not anything more than perjury, but he's potentially liable in civil court):

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...source=bleacherreport.com&utm_medium=referral

 

Maybe Penn State students aren't completely unredeemable.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...source=bleacherreport.com&utm_medium=referral

 

Much like the previous rioting by Penn State students, 99% of the students are decent people, and the 1% is a bunch of assholes looking for an excuse to act like assholes.

Didn't like the comments on WBC at the end of that article. Protesting and shouting slurs at 105,000 devoted fans who have been pre-gaming is not likely to end well.

 

This kind of sort of explains why McQueary is still a coach. He may have whistleblower status under state law.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...rotection-reporting-sandusky-alleged-incident

Makes as much sense as anything else. It also goes to my earlier point about reporting.

 

Even if he has whistleblower protection from the university, it's pretty obvious what he cares about in the fact that he hasn't resigned in the midst of all this. There's no excuse for thinking that just reporting to JoePa was enough, when clearly that didn't get anything done. On the other hand, he isn't likely to be able to get another job...ever...so maybe he's doing the right thing.

 

I don't disagree. But it explains why he hasn't been fired when everyone else has.

 

Donations being cheerfully accepted

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...g-funds-for-sandusky-20111111,0,6246317.story

And here I thought the students were being delusion in their support of the coaching staff....

 

My brain just absolutely exploded. I am speechless and aghast.

 

Put your brain back together, read the story, then react.

This is a 70 year-old guy making the donation. I'm sure in his head he's doing something nice. And it was $100, which is about 20 minutes of legal help. Maybe this guy dated Sandusky's wife back in the day and doesn't want to see her bankrupted. Maybe his kid is married to one of Sandusky's kids (he has 6). Maybe he's an out of touch old coot that doesn't know what the hell is going on. Oh, wait, he said that last part.

 

and, regardless of what you or i might think, it is nonetheless true that sandusky is in fact entitled to a trial and if people want to contribute to a defense fund to defray legal expenses so be it. this is quite different from the meatheads who were rioting in state college and who write stupid things on facebook or twitter.

 

Sandusky is still entitled to his day in court. Even the most vile of humans retain that. We can only hope that the prosecutor doesn't fuck up and let him walk on a technicality.

 

I did read the story. I still reacted that way.

I don't argue at all that he deserves his day in court. He absolutely does. Even so, the evidence in the grand jury report is also both overwhelming and damning. The state cannot punish him until he is found guilty, but I am not likewise required to wait until I make my decision. My shock and horror is that people would throw money at him to support his legal defense given everything that has come out in the past week. He must be tried, but donating money to help him defend against those allegations, given everything else, seems like a fairly tasteless gesture, and not one I feel much different about than meatheads who riot on a college campus.

If there were some doubt or some question about his involvement, then I readily accept that he deserves every bit of help to try to clear his name. I have not heard a shred of evidence suggesting this guy was anything other than a sick fuck who liked to screw 10 year old boys in the shower. Sending him money to support his legal defense is a tacit show of support for the man and his cause. Sandusky is not someone who deserves anyone's support. He deserves and is entitled to the rights guaranteed by our system of government, and that is all.

 

right...well, if that's your view, then by all means don't donate to his legal defense fund.
i am not going to contribute to the legal defense fund either---but i don't have a problem with the fact that it exists. nor do i have a problem with the fact that there may well be people who've known sandusky for maybe a long time and had no idea about this side of him and are having trouble squaring things and are thinking/hoping/imagine that what they're learning about their firend isn't true and that the courts will show that. i don't share that viewpoint in part because i have no investment in sandusky as a person before all this (or now for that matter) and so am neutral, taking information in (and being pretty thoroughly skeeved out by it).

but it's that understanding of who might be inclined to donate to such a fund that makes it different from the meatheads who rioted in state college is it's directed at sandusky and his personal situation and is not some reactive stupidity connected to the firing of paterno, and so is not exactly a subordination of child rape to the consequences of its cover-up for football. but i can see someone arguing the contrary position, that it's not that different in kind, but more at the level of scale, and i'd likely agree in the abstract while nonetheless holding onto the idea that there is a distinction somehow..

 

I need to check a point of fact, please: In England, we have 'Legal Aid' to ensure that anyone will get their day in court. In America, then without those donations, would he Not get his day in court?

 

We have the same concept, but if he's ruled to be able to afford his own defense, it's up to him to provide it. Even if it bankrupts him.