"Jerry lost his rights when he messed with little kids."
Did you really just write that? That wasn't a typo of some sort?
I think it's burned on a disc so he can spam it at will.
"Jerry lost his rights when he messed with little kids."
Did you really just write that? That wasn't a typo of some sort?
just a few thoughts. . . .
the child protection system in PA clearly failed these kids, is clearly still broken, yet was never held accountable for its failures in regards to the victims of Sandusky. exploring the "gray area" as opposed to accepting his "sentence" and moving on allows us to reexamine these failures.
I also think I am intelligent enough to question WHY, if Sandusky was such an overwhelming monster, the prosecutors and investigators had to resort to so many unethical acts to convict him. I find it weird that people who are so convinced of his guilt want to just ignore the travesty of justice that went into his conviction, to the point they do not even want to question why it was even necessary to resort to such bush league legal tactics.
it indicates to me 2 things: the real villains are still at large, and there is a systematic effort to protect them
the "who cares? Jerry is guilty crowd!" appear (to me at least) to want the system to stay broken, and for the corruption to stay in place. this serves past and future victims HOW??
funny . . . the people who feel the need to constantly speak "for the kids" seem to be doing them the most harm . . .
Yes Mr. Simons, you are so correct. You are in the same universe as me concerning the child protection agencies & the protection the real problems.