Former Penn State Coach Arrested

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

The NY Times is reporting that plans are being made for Paterno to bow out in the very near future:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sp...t.html?_r=1&hp

I just saw this. So sad.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I just saw this. So sad.

I don't think Paterno's imminent resignation is sad at all. I think the ongoing rape of children, with Paterno among others looking the other way, is sad as hell.

It's especially not sad with all that he did to make Penn State appear to be this shining example of how college football is supposed to be, when he knewSandusky had a predilection for raping little boys. I'd rather hear about PSU football players taking gifts of cars from boosters and grade fabrication rather than this.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I don't think Paterno's imminent resignation is sad at all. I think the ongoing rape of children, with Paterno among others looking the other way, is sad as hell.

It's especially not sad with all that he did to make Penn State appear to be this shining example of how college football is supposed to be, when he knewSandusky had a predilection for raping little boys. I'd rather hear about PSU football players taking gifts of cars from boosters and grade fabrication rather than this.

Absolutely. Of course, I'm an SEC girl, so gifts from boosters is pretty old hat to me.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by honeychile

While another victim steps forward, JoPa cancels the interview. Can't say that I blame him.

I read that Spanier was actually the one who cancelled it.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I don't think Paterno's imminent resignation is sad at all. I think the ongoing rape of children, with Paterno among others looking the other way, is sad as hell.

I'm sorry, could you point out to me where I said I was upset because a guy who may have looked the other way at a rape allegation is leaving the university.. Because I don't remember saying that.

I don't know what Paterno really knew, nor will I ever (most likely). And if this is how his time at Penn State has to end, so be it. But it doesn't make it any less heart-breaking.

It's especially not sad with all that he did to make Penn State appear to be this shining example of how college football is supposed to be, when he knewSandusky had a predilection for raping little boys. I'd rather hear about PSU football players taking gifts of cars from boosters and grade fabrication rather than this.

Please don't tear down our entire football team, and everything they've accomplished, over this. That's bs.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I'm sorry, could you point out to me where I said I was upset because a guy who may have looked the other way at a rape allegation is leaving the university.. Because I don't remember saying that.

Calm down. I didn't say you said that. I just don't think Paterno's resignation is all that sad in comparison to the preventable events that preceded it.

I can think that, right?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I don't think Paterno's imminent resignation is sad at all. I think the ongoing rape of children, with Paterno among others looking the other way, is sad as hell.

It's especially not sad with all that he did to make Penn State appear to be this shining example of how college football is supposed to be, when he knewSandusky had a predilection for raping little boys. I'd rather hear about PSU football players taking gifts of cars from boosters and grade fabrication rather than this.

Agreed. It's incredible that someone like Paterno let this go so far.

Let's not kid ourselves: Paterno has more power than anyone at that school, including the administration. If he went to the administration and wanted this information taken to the authorities, they would have done it.

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Let's not kid ourselves: Paterno has more power than anyone at that school, including the administration. If he went to the administration and wanted this information taken to the authorities, they would have done it.

Agreed!

[KSig RC]

Pillorying Paterno for being a hypocrite (in terms of how he held himself/presented his football team/"old world values") is missing the forest for the trees - there's a MUCH larger moral issue, completely unrelated from how he presents himself or his program.

Doing the bare minimum (as even Paterno's supporters note was the case) is really the virtue we want to espouse here?

[DrPhil]

Has this been posted?

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoot...-Valley-110811

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by psusue

Everyone keeps talking about a moral obligation, but a moral obligation cannot supersede protocol.

I cannot say whether Paterno did all he could or should have -- I think we have to know all the facts before we can say that. That said, I have to join others in vehemently disagreeing with this statement. Morals can and should supercede protocol.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Morals can and should supercede protocol.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way (or maybe I watch too many episodes of Law and Order ), but I would think a lawyer would have the opposite view.

Would (general) you advise an officer to arrest someone you "know" committed a crime without first making sure the allegations had merit?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way (or maybe I watch too many episodes of Law and Order ), but I would think a lawyer would have the opposite view.

Would (general) you advise an officer to arrest someone you "know" committed a crime without first making sure the allegations had merit?

I'm a little confused by this. How can you "know" that someone has committed a crime and at the same time not know whether there is any merit to allegations of criminal activity? Or do you mean "know" as in "suspect," or "heard"?

In any event, I'd give two answers: First, yes, I actually thought about what I said coming from a lawyer, but the statement was that morals do not supercded protocol, not that morals do not supercede the law. (Though isn't the whole concept of civil disobedience predicated on the idea that morals do supersede the law if the law is itself immoral or compels an immoral result?)

Second, I don't think I see a conflict for your hypothetical officer. If he "knows" (as in strongly suspects) a crime has been committed, then there is a moral and legal obligation to pursue the matter further to determine whether a crime was in fact committed or not.