CNN Headline on Paterno
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
In 2001 it would be none of the above. You should have listed Tom Harmon. Today that person is Keith Morris.
A point that people love to beat into the ground. I never said he was police. He was responsible for the oversight of the campus police department.
Of course not in your mind. You have pre-determined that everything Joe did related to this situation was wrong and had malicious intent. I am not trying to change your opinion. You have established it and will not change it. I'm just pointing out the mistakes in your logic.
You don't understand his role. He was responsible for the fiscal administration of the office.
Did you not read where I said that I thought this was simply a case of Joe kicking the can down the road??? It is very recent in this thread, go find it.
Again you use language to disparage what Joe did. Joe did exactly what he should have in his role. Exactly. I am telling you this from a position of one who deals with this sort of thing, not a Paterno apologist.
That point certainly makes an intelligent person without an agenda wonder why thevwurness didn't do so.
Funny...sometimes you say "call the police" and when asked who are the police, you say "call the authorities". Schultz was "the authorities". Paterno, and the MM family, knew that at least seven very accomplished people knew and that included the guy incharge of the police.
Why else would Schultz be included in that group if not for the reason he was the "authority" over the police?
It needs to be corrected. It was November 23, 2010. The article got it wrong.
A better course of action would have been to contact police in addition to notifying Curley. I don't know why anyone would dispute that.
I use the authorities because a call to the pa childline is appropriate as well. Telling the fiscal administrator of a crime is pretty worthless.
They did that....Schults was the "authorities" or "Police" or whatever you want to call it. You change your "they should have" like CNN has been changing their hurricane predictions.
wait....so they should have called the AD (per NCAA guidelines), Schultz (per NCAA guidelines), the police (is that 9-1-1?) and ow the pa hotline too? Should they have flagged down a meter maid and Dick Tracey too?
With the benefit of hindsight, sure. That applies to all the people that had knowledge of the situation. But looking at the actions of everybody that had knowledge of the situation, not one of them reacted in a way that made it appear that they knew they were dealing with a sexual assault.
Joe should have rented a plane with a banner, bought some billboards, and even took the microphone at football games to address the crowd. There is nothing he could have done that would satisfy the trolls, it would never be enough... until the point they could start saying that he did too much, and should have just reported per policy and moved on.
Especially since Joe received a watered down version of "horseplay". The only one that could suspect CSA was MM, to everyone else it's just untimely hearsay. 1 day later, 1 year later, 1 decade later... it doesn't matter, the time to act was in the moment or shortly thereafter. None of those people who were immediatly involved acted like it was CSA, or testified to CSA, hence it was not CSA.
Ten years later, correct.
I'm talking about actions at the time. He was at least the fourth person with knowledge of the incident (Mike, his father, Dranov) and all of them- including the witness- reacted in a way that doesn't indicate the urgency that would be expected of a sexual assault being enacted upon a child.
You are changing the rules and trying to deflect. That is on MM, not Joe Paterno. Joe didn't see anything. Joe had an employee report that HE had seen something. Joe did, as I've stated 100 times and that the NCAA concluded was the right thing to do; report it to the AD and to someone outside the vertical sports reporting structure.
Moreover, we have recent testimony from Dranov and Sr McQ stating that they did not think that the police needed to be called based upon what they were told. Curley stated much the same. Yet, GMJ wants to hang his (or her if it is Ganim) on the fact that Mike awoke that Saturday morning and decided to tell Paterno and only Paterno a completely different story than everyone else. Even Mike said that he told Paterno a watered down version of whatever he heard/witnessed.
Yes, we know they failed. You still have Dranov saying that Mike referred to sexual sounds yet he still believes that does not necessitate a call to police. As a mandatory reporter, you know that is wrong.
Paterno knew that this incident was sexual. The lack of action is not because they didn't understand what was going on. They collectively failed.
he was more than the "financial administrator" and you know it. He was over campus security and had all of those resources at his fingertips.
If you don't believe that, you have to ask yourself why was Schultz brought in at all? Why anybody else? And, if you brought another person in, why Schultz? Why not the attorney or anyone else? Schultz was brought in because he was in charge of campus security. Anything else is a lie.
When was Paterno told this information? Was it 2001 when EVERYBODY"S actions clearly indicated otherwise?
Or was it during the refresher course that Mike gave to him prior to Paterno's GJ appearance in 2011? At that point in time, MCQ was already in over his head trying to keep his stories straight.
Doesn't matter. Paterno did what Paterno should have done. Two years of study by the NCAA....and they come up with a policy stating a coach should do EXACTLY as Paterno did.
They have different levels of responsibility. Could Joe have called the police? Sure. Would he have been within his rights to do so? Sure. But I think what he did was reasonable considering he was getting the information a day after the incident occurred. He got the information to the people at the university that were responsible for such matters. I have no idea why they didn't do more with the report.
Also, I have no idea why a 27 year old man would see what he claims was a sexual assault on a minor and not report it to the police. I have no idea why the 2nd Mike leadership did not take the situation more seriously.
can someone who isn't a relentless, idiotic turd answer this question?
It was in 2001 per his testimony. If you don't agree with Joe himself, there's not much you can do now.
You must have missed this post~> https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/cnn-headline-on-paterno.183210/page-8#post-2969601
I'll repost it below for your convenience.
They have a profile on a weightlifting forum...maybe it's IronDoc?
Simply not true....his job description and the office description clearly said he was in charge of campus security.
I think so, yes. But again, I don't know exactly what was said. The reactions of all at the time seem to indicate that Mike saw a weird situation but not a sexual assault.
Would you agree with that?
Jive, I think there is probably a lot of common ground here between you and me. The impression I get is that you are cemented into a position of "Joe is to blame" and I don't agree with that.
Would you agree with that?
Jive, I think there is probably a lot of common ground here between you and me. The impression I get is that you are cemented into a position of "Joe is to blame" and I don't agree with that.
Similar threads
