Didn't see the interview, have read a few reports.
It seems that those who are accused of these kind of acts really don't see their own actions as wrong or harmful. Hard to believe that Sandusky would be speaking out prior to his court hearings or that his attorney would allow him to do so.
Probably some kind of maneuver toward juror nullification.
posted by quizman at 02:06 PM on November 15
Thanks Joey Michaels for that post and thanks to the author Joe Posnanski.
The article is very well written and from that perspective I completely agree.
posted by quizman at 08:04 PM on November 10
If the only thing being aired out here was the moral correctness of Paterno's actions we might be on the same page.
The reason I have been stating my position here is that there seems to be a considerable crossing over of legal and moral obligation. Then once that is in play the moral issue takes over all together. Not everyone sees the moral issues the same or from the exact perspective.
My raising the question about a robbery or fight was not to suggest putting ones self in harms way but to suggest that many people see plenty and do little about it.
I think the eyewitness was a coward and should have done whatever it took to stop the crime at that very moment. Calling the police right then and there was the right thing to do, legal and moral.
Think what you will about me, I'm doing just fine. BTW I've stepped in where others did not in the protection of a child. I know what that is like firsthand.
posted by quizman at 05:46 PM on November 10
"If I'm understanding you correctly (and given your recent posts, I can't say that I am with all certainty), you are stating that Joe Paterno telling the president of the university about what was told to him was the correct thing to do. There was no other obligation (moral, legal, or otherwise) that Paterno had after he told the president?"
As I understand the Policies and Procedures that govern these kind of incidents, yes. After informing those who "are" obligated to report to the police, Joe did what he was supposed to do. At that point it was turned over to his superiors and they should have informed the police.
That does not mean that he could not have gone further and gone to the police himself, however that is the order of things. For this reason, I believe, Paterno has not been charged with breaking the law. Joe has said that in hindsight he wishes he had done more. Can't change what took place back then.
In as much as people would like to stand on their moral outrage, the law does not support that belief system in this area.
posted by quizman at 04:45 PM on November 10
I concur on both of your points.
Nothing I have stated absolves the real perpetrator or those that had the obligation to go to the police. My points have been that some in this mess did report what they saw and or heard and they too are being taken down.
Mob mentallity, if the shoe fits.
posted by quizman at 03:04 PM on November 10
"The question was raised about other coaches and how they might respond to this same kind of issue. I think its clear that now, if they want to continue coaching, they will report to the police as well as to their superiors. Fear is a great motivator.
You make it sound like they are being peer/public pressured into doing something wrong, and that the only reason they should do it is to keep their jobs, like the welfare of a child being raped (and potential future victims) isn't enough to motivate someone to call the cops.
I have to assume by your callous attitude and flippant responses to other people being upset that you are just trolling at this point.
I would be very disappointed to find out that you aren't."
Any portion of a conversation taken by itself can be misconstrued to mean something other than what was intended.
Nothing callous or flippant here just speaking to human nature and what motivates people into action.
Its not about peer pressure to do something wrong, its peer pressure to act or do something other than what they would otherwise do without the pressure.
posted by quizman at 02:08 PM on November 10
"Do you stop to help a person along the highway broken down? Do you step in to stop a robbery or a fight?
I do. Dont know about the robbery part because they could be armed and I am not putting myself at risk for phycial harm, but thats a different situation. There is a MAJOR difference between helping someone with a flat, and helping a child not be molested and fucked in the showers.
posted by Debo270 at 12:21 PM on November 10"
"Just my observations here, morally there is no difference, seems that lines are drawn anyway. Just sayin.
posted by quizman at 01:09 PM on November 10"
Morally there is no difference between what and what? What are you talking about?
You've done quite a lot of speculation about what other people would and wouldn't do in Paterno's situation. For all you know, there's someone here who has been in that situation. You don't know how the people you're talking to here would respond, or have responded, when the question of "what to do" was no longer academic. You say it's just your observation, but it's not -- it's speculation. The two are very different.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:34 PM on November 10"
There is your answer.
posted by quizman at 02:02 PM on November 10
I too have my reasons for my perspective.
That does not excuse the broad strokes taken or the personal attacks here on posters that have a differing opinion.
Standing up for what a person feels is right is the right we all have. Even if its not popular.
Enjoy your day.
posted by quizman at 01:57 PM on November 10
Just my observations here, morally there is no difference, seems that lines are drawn anyway. Just sayin.
posted by quizman at 01:09 PM on November 10
In a perfect world the eyewitness would report to the police what they saw and it would be handled from there. Isn't it a shame that didn't occur?
I'll bet that the vast majority of those here that advocate moral outrage toward Joe Paterno's choice to report to his bosses would themselves jump at the chance to be the "Good Samaritan" in every circumstance. Reality check, it not true.
Do you stop to help a person along the highway broken down?
Do you step in to stop a robbery or a fight?
Are any of you accountable for your neighbors, or only your neighbor's wife?
Save your indignation, it seems to be self-serving at best.
posted by quizman at 12:11 PM on November 10
"Heaven forbid we hold anyone accountable for looking the other way while a child molester continues to harm kid after kid. That would make us judgmental."
If you are going to make statements about this issue, wouldn't it be a good thing to get your facts straight?
Paterno reported this to his superiors as is the policy and procedures of the University. Whether or not he should have done more is what has him in the fix he is in, not that he did nothing.
posted by quizman at 11:52 AM on November 10
I've watched multiple reports and interviews of lawyers and educators. Everyone has their own opinion regarding how or what Joe Paterno did or didn't do. Some say he didn't do enough and others say that what he did was correct for the circumstances.
It seems that those who are adamant Joe did wrong are advocating for the "Moral Police" to be on patrol. Not interested in that rule of law.
Paterno lost his job due to the fear of what it would look like to the rest of the world if the Board didn't let him go. That is politics not morals.
The question was raised about other coaches and how they might respond to this same kind of issue. I think its clear that now, if they want to continue coaching, they will report to the police as well as to their superiors. Fear is a great motivator.
Lastly as I have stated previously, for me this has nothing to do with being a fan or supporter of Joe Paterno, I am not.
posted by quizman at 10:54 AM on November 10
"He knew a crime was being committed, he knew the criminal was in his employ, he was supposedly a great leader ... but he refused to take any responsibility."
Everything I've read say that Joe Paterno did take responsibility, HE REPORTED IT!
If this turns out to be false then you have a point.
posted by quizman at 01:39 AM on November 10
"Quizman: If a coworker told you he saw a child being ass-raped by an adult at your workplace, would you call the cops if no one else did?"
My answer is to enroll the eyewitness to report the incident. I can only say what I was told, on the other hand, the eyewitness is the only one to say what they saw.
The fact that Joe reported this horrible crime to his superiors speaks to his moral compass and tells us that he did attempt the right thing. To hold him to some other standard is wrong in the opposite direction.
"I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that thing where you think you're smarter than the average bear? It might be true. But you're surely a lot dumber than the average person. STFU."
So the way this works is that if someone, me/I, disagrees with you on a subject that isn't about either one of us, its good form to make personal attacks. That's mature. Thanks for playing, you're dismissed. "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you."
posted by quizman at 01:28 AM on November 10
"Which is to say, "I like Joe Pa, so it can't be his fault." Everyone involved is at fault here. No one gets free pass. Reference Salem if you want, but these people are all floaters, in the sense of a toilet bowl."
Personally, I have no like or dislike for Joe Paterno. He is a well known coach. That being said, all of my comments are aimed at those who rush to judgement and stir the pot for their own purposes.
It was never Paterno's job to investigate or confront the accused. His responsibility was to report the information to the proper people. He did that. Since the allegation was delivered to Joe in a hearsay manner, all he could do was to inform his superiors of that which had been reported to him. At that point he met his obligation. Could he have done more? Certainly, however that doesn't make him at fault. His superiors are the ones who let this situation fall through the cracks.
The bulk of the detractors in this thread seem to want to project their own personal moral judgement on to Joe. Not Joe's to own.
Think what you will, The Salem Witch Hunt was replete with thinkers just like these.
posted by quizman at 09:26 PM on November 09
Yes I posted my first entry in this thread when I felt moved to do so.
My first reaction was to listen and read-gather info before making wild accusations as others seem to here.
This isn't my first priority and my feelings about this seem to be in the minority.
If Joe was involved in any part of a cover-up then he gets what he deserves. If he acted in the manner he was supposed to then leave him alone.
Chain of command does mean something, even in this kind of situation.
posted by quizman at 05:12 PM on November 09
Interesting that Joe did report the issue and the people he reported it to had the responsibility to take it to the police, they did not. That is where the anger and attitude should be focused, rather than at a person who took action. Paterno heard this whole thing secondhand. He witnessed nothing in person, that's why what he did was correct. Wake up to what is real or is this Salem all over again?
posted by quizman at 04:59 PM on November 09
Didn't Paterno report this to his superiors and wasn't that what he was supposed to do? How is it that a man does what he was supposed to do and he still gets nailed for wrongdoing?
His legal and moral obligation was to report what he was told and that is what he did, where is his wrongdoing in this?
What his superiors did or didn't do is not Paterno's liability, nor should it be.
Sounds like another witch hunt to me.
posted by quizman at 02:45 PM on November 09
Ok good for Clemens. Time for the feds to stop the witch hunt. Way to much money wasted on conjecture and circumstantial non sense. Just because I tell my wife something that I believe is true does not make it so. Hard to see why the prosecution was using that info to bolster their case.
This is like the Bonds case, looking for a technicality to trip up on. Barry's conviction should be overturned on appeal since he did answer the questions asked more than once. Rambling or not.
If the state or the feds can lie in trying to catch someone then where is the level playing field?
posted by quizman at 01:09 PM on July 15
Question, Did Neal turn and watch the ball exit the park too?
posted by quizman at 05:35 PM on June 07
Oh you're right Harper showed Neal up with his at bat not his manner of watching or how he dropped his bat. An unwritten rule is simply that unwritten which means its not a rule. Egos on the rise create all sorts of trouble.
posted by quizman at 05:34 PM on June 07
The trot may have started slow since Harper watched his HOME RUN. I find no issue with his doing so and think its time to get back to playing ball instead of finding something to over focus on.
posted by quizman at 05:13 PM on June 07
It seems that the most obvious issue has been missed. I watched the at bat and Harper only watched the ball leave the park. Then he ran the bases in a trot, which seems normal to me. It was only after the pitcher Neal made his comment that Harper sent him a kiss. Where are the same people pointing fingers of shame at Harper on Neal's bad form comment? Not until Neal opened his mouth did Harper do anything in Neal's direction. Maybe Neal deserves a lesson or two in sportsman like conduct.
posted by quizman at 05:02 PM on June 07
Copyright © 2013 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.