RE: Penn State (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

servantforuse -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 7:37:27 PM)

One thing keeps coming back to my mind. When Joe did report this to his superior, did he never think of the insident again ? Wouldn't he even ask a simple follow up question like what ever happened with my report ?



candisa -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 7:59:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

One thing keeps coming back to my mind. When Joe did report this to his superior, did he never think of the insident again ? Wouldn't he even ask a simple follow up question like what ever happened with my report ?
[/quote

Your concerns are at the heart of the entire Joe issue.

Of course Joe did.
He without doubt knew what was said to him was true.
Joe did his legal obligation and reported this to his superior: True enough.

Joe, on the other hand made a "choice" to not look further into the allegations, because, sadly Joe did not want to damage the precious schools' reputation, so morals went flying right out the window.

My question would be:
Why does the " whistle blowing law" work for the Assistant coach(was not fired) who witnessed and reported to Joe, his superior, but the same law does not work for Joe (was fired) who also reported to his superior?



slvemike4u -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 8:01:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

They should make the law that states if you witness it, or are informed of it, and do nothing, you are just as guilty as the abuser.
Tazzy believe me I well understand the intention there,but wouldn't that be akin to making the inaction seem as equivalent to this most heinous of acts.
Guilt must be measured with participation and while not reporting,stopping or interceding while these acts are occurring is indeed craven.....it does not have the moral equivalency with the perpatrator.
Just my opinion.



slvemike4u -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 8:06:12 PM)

Perhaps Candisa the difference lies in the different positions the ga held as opposed to the all powerful position "Joe" held.If you can not see the moral failure that was "Joe's" actions here.....than you need to look at this harder.
Please try to forget whatever image you might have a good old Pa Joe.....and look at the possibility that a few more children's lives were irrevocably damaged in part because the "program" and Penn State was most important in Joe Pa's mind.



tazzygirl -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 8:15:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

They should make the law that states if you witness it, or are informed of it, and do nothing, you are just as guilty as the abuser.
Tazzy believe me I well understand the intention there,but wouldn't that be akin to making the inaction seem as equivalent to this most heinous of acts.
Guilt must be measured with participation and while not reporting,stopping or interceding while these acts are occurring is indeed craven.....it does not have the moral equivalency with the perpatrator.
Just my opinion.


If you are in a car when an armed robbery occurs, arent you also considered guilty of that crime? If you witness a murder and say nothing, arent you also an accessory to murder?



tazzygirl -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 8:16:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Perhaps Candisa the difference lies in the different positions the ga held as opposed to the all powerful position "Joe" held.If you can not see the moral failure that was "Joe's" actions here.....than you need to look at this harder.
Please try to forget whatever image you might have a good old Pa Joe.....and look at the possibility that a few more children's lives were irrevocably damaged in part because the "program" and Penn State was most important in Joe Pa's mind.


Imagine how much his status as "hero" would have risen even more had he turned the case over to the police.



candisa -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 8:17:42 PM)

I would think the most powerful person in all of this should have been the person who was the actual eyewitness to the event.

You know the one who witnessed what was happening, and did nothing to stop it? Why the hell did he not call 911 ?





Aileen1968 -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 8:22:24 PM)

Why didn't he beat the living crap out of the pervert first and then call the police?



slvemike4u -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 8:23:30 PM)

No tazzy,if you had no foreknowledge of the crime,nor participated in it you are not an accessory .Not reporting a crime is not in and of itself the same as abetting that crime.
For instance if I were to get into a "friends" car and we go for a ride,he stops for gas and robs the attendant .....how am I an accessory?
I am simply a witness,now if I lie to the police when being questioned I am sure I would leave myself open to some charges.Same holds true for the murder....I am under no obligation to report it( legal obligation) ,I can keep walking and kind my own business( makes me a lousy citizen,not a criminal) but should I lie to the police than I am guilty of obstruction in a criminal investigation.
That at least is my understanding of things.



tazzygirl -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 8:35:35 PM)

quote:

Same holds true for the murder....I am under no obligation to report it( legal obligation) ,I can keep walking and kind my own business( makes me a lousy citizen,not a criminal) but should I lie to the police than I am guilty of obstruction in a criminal investigation.


Knowledge of the crime
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

Thats the way I always understood it.



slvemike4u -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 8:48:54 PM)

"evade detection or escape" seems to read to me one who "knowingly" helps another avoid arrest and or capture...I don't think that applies to an unconnected third party who due to timidity or just a general desire to not "get involved" does nothing.



tazzygirl -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 8:56:07 PM)

Curly and Shultz were charged with failing to report. McQueary and Paterno didnt fall into the same category...

The people who fall in the list of mandated reporters varies from state to state, though they all deal with having employment in certain fields. In Pennsylvania, the list of occupations include licensed physicians, dentists, registered nurses, school teachers, school nurses, school administrators, members of the clergy, social services workers, day care workers, coroners and law enforcement officials, according to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network.

According to the grand jury's presentment, colleges also fall into this category, even though most employees interact with mostly adult students.

Read more: http://www.cumberlink.com/sports/penn-state-fb/article_19416b16-0bd6-11e1-b9f8-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1dYfFM39k

The reporting requirements do vary by state. So, yes, you can be required by law to report,all depends on the state you reside in.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 10:37:16 PM)

I have not been following this story because reading the court documents grossed me out so badly, but I do have a question.  McQueary is the graduate assistant who reported right?  I don't understand why he is getting death threats.





tazzygirl -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 10:44:14 PM)

Because so many are questioning why he, who did not report it to the authorities, but only to the school officials, is allowed to remain while JoePa, who also reported it to the school officials and not to the authorities, was fired. They dont understand why they are guilty (or not guilty) of the same actions, but one was treated differently than the other. McQueary was given immunity.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 10:56:50 PM)

Thanks,  that clears this up.  The parallels to the cover up by the Catholic Church are striking.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 11:02:58 PM)

Wait, so why is the anger directed at McQueary for that?  He wasn't the one who made the decision to fire the coach.  I don't want to know the sordid details of this situation, but it is interesting the way it is unfolding.  



tazzygirl -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 11:04:36 PM)

On the why.... its college sports. I never said fans made any sense.



tazzygirl -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 11:05:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Thanks,  that clears this up.  The parallels to the cover up by the Catholic Church are striking.


Arent they though? College sports, for some people, as someone else said... is their religion.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 11:19:47 PM)

This is why I hate team sports.  Some people DO think of it is a religion.  The obsession seems irrational and beyond my understanding  



tazzygirl -> RE: Penn State (11/12/2011 11:55:36 PM)

Makes me wonder if their own kids had to go through all this, would they be as fanatical about "JoePa".



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125