tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post3526416270598988981..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: What More Could Joe Paterno Have Done In the Jerry Sandusky Scandal?legalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-77125594090602700812012-03-13T10:08:33.747-05:002012-03-13T10:08:33.747-05:00When all is said and done, the ultimate responsibi...When all is said and done, the ultimate responsibility for the Sandusky scandal lies with the Board of Directors of the University. If there was a failiure on the handling of the situation, the blame belongs at the very top. However, they have chosen to use Joe Paterno as a scapegoat for their lack of courage, conviction, and direction. Shame on the entire board, they all should be fired!@!! asap...jfw(Ohio))jfw (Ohio)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-43871479205794023372012-02-03T16:27:57.587-06:002012-02-03T16:27:57.587-06:00Anon 2:
According to Paterno's deathbed inter...Anon 2:<br /><br />According to Paterno's deathbed interview with Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post, Paterno said he did not know about the earlier investigation of Sandusky. Paterno said that he told Sandusky he would not succeed him as head coach because Sandusky was spending so much time with the Second Mile that it was detracting from his work, that he was doing hardly any football recruiting etc. That supposedly was when Sandusky decided to retire, and the administration worked out a deal where he still had access to the university facilities. I always figured it went down about the way you stated. But Paterno's account in the WaPo article is pretty interesting.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-40850626536349436012012-02-03T14:33:31.303-06:002012-02-03T14:33:31.303-06:00The red flag for me is Sandusky retiring in 1999. ...The red flag for me is Sandusky retiring in 1999. If the truth ever comes out it wouldn't surprise me if Paterno allowed Sandusky to retire (or be fired) in 1999 to protect Penn State. What went down there is key. The line we're being sold is that Paterno called Sandusky in and told him he would not be the next head coach. Then Sandusky resigns. My guess is a deal was made then. Something along the lines of we'll allow you to resign with dignity and it'll end there. It appears Penn State was being protected with little concern for the young victims. I understand that Penn State is Paterno's job and not protecting the victims. My guess is Paterno was one of the players in protecting Penn State at the expense of the victims. I think it would be naive to think Paterno was not a key player in how the shower episode of 1998 was handled. You don't think everyone involved didn't feel the pressure to protect the school? In the end maybe Paterno was thrown under the bus or maybe it's known that the pressure to keep this incident quiet came from Paterno. It appears Sandusky had to go for known reasons. Reasons that should have been brought to the attention of Second Mile. No matter how you cut it many didn't do their job. My guess is Paterno was just one of many.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-35730339791563832072012-02-02T21:35:34.628-06:002012-02-02T21:35:34.628-06:00Anon:
I still want one and all to take on those w...Anon:<br /><br />I still want one and all to take on those who harm others. But based on news reports I've seen, Joe Paterno had very little information about what took place. Had he discouraged Mike McQueary from reporting what he had witnessed, that would be a different story. But I've seen no indication that is the case. If you tell me that you witness someone break into the house next door to me and make off with valuables, that's alarming information. But if I didn't witness it, there's not a whole lot I can do about it. Because children were involved in the Sandusky case, that touches an emotional cord with folks, and it's easy to forget the evidentiary standards that are at the heart of our criminal-justice system. Those standards still apply, no matter how emotional the case might be. I think that's why Joe Paterno said he felt "inadequate" to handle the situation. His problem, in my view, is that he had "inadequate" information to do anything about it, other than to encourage Mike McQueary to report it--which he did.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-82254169599000730102012-02-02T21:24:11.495-06:002012-02-02T21:24:11.495-06:00I find this post a surprising incongruity to your ...I find this post a surprising incongruity to your usual fearless taking on of those who unjustly and shamelessly harm others. One example being your very next post. Not that I personally disagree with the advice in this post concerning counting on laws to be just. Better to be aware of reality. As far as what Paterno should have done, definitely not look the other way or let it slide. He could have found a way to protect the young victims from Sandusky. One of the reasons sexual abuse of children by coaches, clergy, scout leaders continues is because anything other than looking the other way is so messy and risky. Easier for everyone to ignore the damage being done to innocent children.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-12081300963053475192012-02-02T08:19:14.763-06:002012-02-02T08:19:14.763-06:00Redeye:
Good point. I've never much cared for...Redeye:<br /><br />Good point. I've never much cared for guns and often wondered why so many people, of all colors, wanted them. Well, I think I'm starting to understand why. <br /><br />I also used to wonder why so many African Americans were suspicious of law enforcement. I'm starting to understand that, too. <br /><br />I described my situation to a lawyer several years ago, and he said that he advises clients not to prosecute crimes because of the malicious-prosecution threat. He knew of a woman who owned an apartment building, tried to evict someone, and got sued over it. According to the lawyer, she lost her building.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-52820240085266315662012-02-02T08:13:37.644-06:002012-02-02T08:13:37.644-06:00"The bottom line? Mrs. Schnauzer and I have l..."The bottom line? Mrs. Schnauzer and I have learned a hard lesson on the American frontier: If you want your rights respected, you had better be prepared to protect them yourself. Trying to rely on authorities is likely to blow up in your face."<br /><br />Welcome to African American world, only in the African American world you aren't allowed to protect yourself...from white people.Redeyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16726342951810334788noreply@blogger.com