Jemele Hill goes after Scott Paterno on twitter, avoids his point

[pandaczar12]

Jive, I don't think you are a bad person but you def'ly have trolling tendencies. Your anger is misplaced. You say that you think Paterno's fault is a lot lower in the hierarchy.. Why is that? To me, Paterno has no fault what so ever in this entire saga! I am not defending him. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. He was a coach.. not an officer or a judge/honor or detective! As a citizen, its his job to pass on the info to his superiors and move the f*ck outta the way. That's it!

Moral obligation? Wtf does that even mean? How do you know what the circumstances were 15 years back? Its easy to slap someone with the moral obligation card these days even for the most minor stuff. With what little info he had, he did exactly what he should have done. Don't act like if you were in his shoes, that you would have gone above and beyond and done more.. Its easy to say YES I WOULD HAVE without knowing the whole situation and the circumstances related to it. So don't try to act all holier than thou and STOP with all the judgment.

Like I mentioned, you anger is misplaced. You would be well served if you channeled your energy to the right people. You would actually do a lot more good than harm.

Q: I think you used the term trolling. Is that the term that you used?

A: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the other posters. It was a troll nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

While legally he doesn't have to, Getmyjive11 has a moral obligation to put the focus on those who we know actually failed those victims, such as TSM, DPW, and CYS. As long as he comes here and continues his moral failings, we will continue to point them out... for the sake of past and future victims.

 

[bjf1991]

Instead of struggling with it they should have just reported it.

Uh......... They did (report it)

That is one of the very few uncontested facts in this entire scenario

Maybe you think they should have "reported it" to someone else.......

But I think that even you, or anyone with an IQ above room temperature would consider The Second Mile as being a very reasonable decision wrt WHOM to direct the "report" to..........given the backgrounds of the folks involved

 

[pandaczar12]

Uh......... They did (report it)

That is one of the very few uncontested facts in this entire scenario

Maybe you think they should have "reported it" to someone else.......

But I think that even you, or anyone with an IQ above room temperature would consider The Second Mile as being a very reasonable decision wrt WHOM to direct the "report" to..........given the backgrounds of the folks involved

If someone thinks that C/S/S/P heard the type of report that they should have reported it to someone else other than TSM... the people who heard before C/S/S/P should have made that report.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

No troll has ever explained what "sexual in nature" means. The term "gender" is sexual in nature.

They also can't handle that since we've not heard his testimony, we can't be sure it's accurate. Joe could have been easily asking a question "it was a sexual nature? I don't know what you'd call it." Lastly and most importantly, Joe's testimony wasn't cross examined. He was asked leading questions that were not able to be clarified.

Nobody can explain what it means and since it was a GJ presentment nobody ever pushed him any further to explain it. I think it was left vague for a reason as MM himself said he watered it down for Joe's virgin ears. Joe was tossed a few softball questions by the prosecution and his vague answers went unchallenged for better or worse. Add to the fact he also said I don't know what you call it...it's one big vague answer. That is why people interpret differently depending upon who you talk to. Nobody can define it and anyone that says they can is a liar.

 

[AvgUser]

Did those people have a witness report suspected CSA like the men at PSU had?

Yes. Reference 1998

 

[BobPSU92]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

STFU Bob and keep your fingers in your own ears. Some people actually prefer discussion instead of only listening to things they like to hear. Maybe you should just leave the site as someone may say something you don't agree with from time to time.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Uh......... They did (report it)

That is one of the very few uncontested facts in this entire scenario

Maybe you think they should have "reported it" to someone else.......

But I think that even you, or anyone with an IQ above room temperature would consider The Second Mile as being a very reasonable decision wrt WHOM to direct the "report" to..........given the backgrounds of the folks involved

And given that The Second Mile had an "Agency Relationship" with DPW as defined under the governing Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Code and is defined as reporting under the Code (not to mention that TSM employees, most especially the CEO, are considered as Mandatory Reporters under the Code).

 

[AvgUser]

Nobody can explain what it means and since it was a GJ presentment nobody ever pushed him any further to explain it. I think it was left vague for a reason as MM himself said he watered it down for Joe's virgin ears. Joe was tossed a few softball questions by the prosecution and his vague answers went unchallenged for better or worse. Add to the fact he also said I don't know what you call it...it's one big vague answer. That is why people interpret differently depending upon who you talk to. Nobody can define it and anyone that says they can is a liar.

EXACTLY. Excellent comment.

 

[getmyjive11]

No you didn't explain it. Nice try troll.

I did explain it, you just don't want to accept it.

 

[getmyjive11]

Really? Alycia Chambers seemed to be able to see what the DPW (now DHS) refused to see DESPITE Alycia Chambers even calling a report into the DPW's Child Hotline identifying herself as a Mandatory Reporter, why she's a Mandatory Reporter and that the local Centre County DPW CYS Office was conflicted given their Agency Relationship with TSM and the fact the child was participating in a TSM Program at time of incident! Gee, go figure, the non-DPW expert was able to diagnose Sandusky as a pedophile but DPW refused to listen to her and brought in their own un-qualified supposed-expert to throw the result.

Did she do that before or after 98?

 

[getmyjive11]

Look, I have no doubt that a man and an unrelated child alone in a shower in a locker room at night would cause me to call social services or the police. No doubt. At best, it's weird and suspicious. But the term "sexual in nature" is an undefined term.
And as closely as you seem to have followed this whole thing, you know that nothing in it is simple.

You yourself said that you would make the call. It's common sense, and that is what is so disturbing about this.

 

[getmyjive11]

Jive, I don't think you are a bad person but you def'ly have trolling tendencies. Your anger is misplaced. You say that you think Paterno's fault is a lot lower in the hierarchy.. Why is that? To me, Paterno has no fault what so ever in this entire saga! I am not defending him. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. He was a coach.. not an officer or a judge/honor or detective! As a citizen, its his job to pass on the info to his superiors and move the f*ck outta the way. That's it!

Moral obligation? Wtf does that even mean? How do you know what the circumstances were 15 years back? Its easy to slap someone with the moral obligation card these days even for the most minor stuff. With what little info he had, he did exactly what he should have done. Don't act like if you were in his shoes, that you would have gone above and beyond and done more.. Its easy to say YES I WOULD HAVE without knowing the whole situation and the circumstances related to it. So don't try to act all holier than thou and STOP with all the judgment.

Like I mentioned, you anger is misplaced. You would be well served if you channeled your energy to the right people. You would actually do a lot more good than harm.

I'm not angry at Paterno, I'm disappointed. My anger is directed to Curley and Schultz.

 

[getmyjive11]

Uh......... They did (report it)

That is one of the very few uncontested facts in this entire scenario

Maybe you think they should have "reported it" to someone else.......

But I think that even you, or anyone with an IQ above room temperature would consider The Second Mile as being a very reasonable decision wrt WHOM to direct the "report" to..........given the backgrounds of the folks involved

He clearly means it should have been reported to the proper authorities, not just TSM.

 

[Mixolydian]

I did explain it, you just don't want to accept it.

You aren't bright enough to explain basic concepts let alone what someone else meant in a vague one way transcribed interview. Typical for you troll.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Nobody can explain what it means and since it was a GJ presentment nobody ever pushed him any further to explain it. I think it was left vague for a reason as MM himself said he watered it down for Joe's virgin ears. Joe was tossed a few softball questions by the prosecution and his vague answers went unchallenged for better or worse. Add to the fact he also said I don't know what you call it...it's one big vague answer. That is why people interpret differently depending upon who you talk to. Nobody can define it and anyone that says they can is a liar.

Actually, he did further elaborate - the remainder of JVP's statement was:

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.​

Eshbach started by asking a leading question, to which Paterno answered basically in the negative (first words out of his mouth were, "Well, I don't know what you would call it."). He then follows it up with, "I'm not sure exactly what it was" and "I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was....". He then finishes by making it clear he never had any idea what it was by explicitly saying, "I didn't go any further than that....I knew Mike was upset.....I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."

Given that the prosecutor was questioning Paterno in regards to their charge against Sandusky of Anal Rape and JVP knew what charges the Prosecution brought and was trying to prove, what cooperating State Witness would describe knowledge of sex act reported to them by the State's supposed "star eyewitness" (who BTW testified under oath in a PA court of law twice, including the 30th Grand Jury, to the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE - that he was NOT an "eyewitness" to the criminal sex acts alleged by the OAG Prosecutors and NEVER told anyone he "saw" such a thing) as an "Inappropriate Action"??? The State is trying to claim that MM told JVP and described to him that he SAW and EYEWITNESSED a sexual assault and a sex act, when MM has testified under oath multiple times that he NEVER "saw" or "eyewitnessed" an actual sex act, let alone anal rape, and NEVER told ANYONE that he had - "anyone" includes not only JVP, but the prosecution asking the questions to which Paterno responded in three different ways in answer to the same question that he DID NOT KNOW exactly what Sandusky and the child were doing in the shower because MM did not tell him precisely what he saw and gave very little detail other than that he thought it was "inappropriate" and was upset about it.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You yourself said that you would make the call. It's common sense, and that is what is so disturbing about this.

Saying you would make the call is easy online a decade+ after the fact now knowing he is a pedophile. It's too easy to say I would make the call in 2017, but you don't take into account the personal relationships and Jerry's grooming which was real if you really think he is a pedophile. You don't take into account he was running a childrens charity and was known to be around children all of the time. People take a vague situation with very vague testimony from 10 year old memories and act as if they had all of that data on that night when MM himself was never really completely clear. I get people saying they would do something, but that is so disingenuous that it's not even funny. The statistics almost completely refute this claim of citizens reporting this and this whole situation was somewhat vague. Opinions aren't facts and saying you would have called isn't a fact...it's a more of a blind hope considering the odds of it really happening just like it did to MM on that night. Nothing worse that the I am superman posts when no you aren't as you were never in that situation. Of course we all think we would call if we saw a child being molested...most would too. The thing is to this day nobody really knows what happened in there, but we do know 8 other real life victims said Jerry touched them. None of which had anything to do with MM.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Actually, he did further elaborate - the remainder of JVP's statement was:

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.​

Eshbach started by asking a leading question, to which Paterno answered basically in the negative (first words out of his mouth were, "Well, I don't know what you would call it."). He then follows it up with, "I'm not sure exactly what it was" and "I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was....". He then finishes by making it clear he never had any idea what it was by explicitly saying, "I didn't go any further than that....I knew Mike was upset.....I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."

Given that the prosecutor was questioning Paterno in regards to their charge against Sandusky of Anal Rape and JVP knew what charges the Prosecution brought and was trying to prove, what cooperating State Witness would describe knowledge of sex act reported to them by the State's supposed "star eyewitness" (who BTW testified under oath in a PA court of law twice, including the 30th Grand Jury, to the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE - that he was NOT an "eyewitness" to the criminal sex acts alleged by the OAG Prosecutors and NEVER told anyone he "saw" such a thing) as an "Inappropriate Action"??? The State is trying to claim that MM told JVP and described to him that he SAW and EYEWITNESSED a sexual assault and a sex act, when MM has testified under oath multiple times that he NEVER "saw" or "eyewitnessed" an actual sex act, let alone anal rape, and NEVER told ANYONE that he had - "anyone" includes not only JVP, but the prosecution asking the questions to which Paterno responded in three different ways in answer to the same question that he DID NOT KNOW exactly what Sandusky and the child were doing in the shower because MM did not tell him precisely what he saw and gave very little detail other than that he thought it was "inappropriate" and was upset about it.

Sometimes I think you honestly don't read what people type and just reply with what you think they meant so you can talk about the OAG for the millionth time.

 

[Connorpozlee]

You yourself said that you would make the call. It's common sense, and that is what is so disturbing about this.

I would make the call if I was the witness.
If I was the witness, I wouldn't wait a day to share the information. If I was the witness and what I saw was disturbing to me I would be very clear and explicit with those I was sharing the information with so that it was clearly understood.
Again, I don't know what Schultz was told and why he handled t the way he did.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

He clearly means it should have been reported to the proper authorities, not just TSM.

Reporting to TSM is the same as reporting to "The Authorities" (the governing "authority" - i.e., "Agency" was DPW) under the governing law - PA CPSL - via TSM's "Agency Relationship with DPW you freaking dolt! Try not to make statements which are unequivocally FACTUALLY WRONG under the law @sshole.

 

[getmyjive11]

Reporting to TSM is the same as reporting to "The Authorities" (the governing "authority" - i.e., "Agency" was DPW) under the governing law - PA CPSL - via TSM's "Agency Relationship with DPW you freaking dolt! Try not to make statements which are unequivocally FACTUALLY WRONG under the law @sshole.

No it's not. It is ridiculous to say that reporting the incident to TSM is the same as to the authorities.

 

[aalion]

No it's not. It is ridiculous to say that reporting the incident to TSM is the same as to the authorities.

well, according to the state, Gary Schultz was a Law Enforcement authority. So at least Paterno did exactly what he was supposed to do, even according to you.

 

[getmyjive11]

well, according to the state, Gary Schultz was a Law Enforcement authority. So at least Paterno did exactly what he was supposed to do, even according to you.

We both know that Schultz was not a law enforcement authority.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

No it's not. It is ridiculous to say that reporting the incident to TSM is the same as to the authorities.

Your full of $hit as per usual in your declarative statement! Reporting to TSM ABSOLUTELY IS considered a "Report" to the GOVERNING AUTHORITY, DPW, under the applicable LAW - the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law! HIT THE LINK jack@ss.

 

[getmyjive11]

Your full of $hit as per usual in your declarative statement! Reporting to TSM ABSOLUTELY IS considered a "Report" to the GOVERNING AUTHORITY, DPW, under the applicable LAW - the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law! HIT THE LINK jack@ss.

It's not.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

We both know that Schultz was not a law enforcement authority.

Wrong again moron - Gary Schultz was unequivocally the named DIRECTOR and HEAD (i.e., the defacto "police commissioner") of a duly-authorized and commissioned Pennsylvania Municipal Police Force, the University Park PA Police Department. You are full of more $hit than a cesspool.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

It's not.

All except that It is under PA Child Protective Services Law - the governing Code and "authority" on the topic (i.e., you aren't the determinant on this @sshole, PA Law is, and you are definitively WRONG as per usual douche-bag troll-boy!).

 

[aalion]

We both know that Schultz was not a law enforcement authority.

The STATE, in their complaints in charging Schultz, are accusing him of failing in his duty as a law enforcement official. That is a FACT,

 

[getmyjive11]

Wrong again moron - Gary Schultz was unequivocally the named DIRECTOR and HEAD (i.e., the defacto "police commissioner") of a duly-authorized and commissioned Pennsylvania Municipal Police Force, the University Park PA Police Department. You are full of more $hit than a cesspool.

Could Gary Schultz make an arrest? Could be preform any law enforcement duties?

You clearly don't understand his duties as the administrative head of the department. He wasn't the police.

 

[getmyjive11]

The STATE, in their complaints in charging Schultz, are accusing him of failing in his duty as a law enforcement official. That is a FACT,

And the state would be wrong because he had no law enforcement duties.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Paterno did what he was supposed to. I have very little doubt in that. I think Curley probably did what he was supposed to, though I am not certain. I'm not really sure what Spanier did. My inclination is that he did not do anything wrong. Schultz seems like a whole different situation to me. As the head of the police force, the information was brought to him. For whatever reason, there was not a full incestigation opened. I think that is his responsibility. Of all things at the upcoming trial, I am most intrigued to hear his reasoning for handling it the way he did.

 

[Connorpozlee]

And the state would be wrong because he had no law enforcement duties.

He was the head of the department. Didn't he have to power to initiate an investigation?

 

[getmyjive11]

He was the head of the department. Didn't he have to power to initiate an investigation?

No. That would be TH.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Uh......... They did (report it)

That is one of the very few uncontested facts in this entire scenario

Maybe you think they should have "reported it" to someone else.......

But I think that even you, or anyone with an IQ above room temperature would consider The Second Mile as being a very reasonable decision wrt WHOM to direct the "report" to..........given the backgrounds of the folks involved

Reporting it to the Second Mile is not the same as reporting it to social services or the police. Now, if there was not a clear report from McQueary regarding what he saw or heard (which certainly is not out of the question) and they only took his report to mean an odd situation, I could see telling the Second Mile.

 

[Connorpozlee]

No. That would be TH.

Right. He would have the power to bring him into the equation, wouldn't he?

 

[getmyjive11]

Right. He would have the power to bring him into the equation, wouldn't he?

Anyone has the power to reports the incident to TH. Yes, he would certainly have an easier time getting the ball rolling because of his administrative position, but to call him law enforcement isnt accurate.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Right. He would have the power to bring him into the equation, wouldn't he?

Hence all of Harmon's e-mails to Schultz giving detailed reporting on the topic of "investigations" and Harmon referring to Schultz as his boss, and that he directly reported to him, multiple times at trial.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Anyone has the power to reports the incident to TH. Yes, he would certainly have an easier time getting the ball rolling because of his administrative position, but to call him law enforcement isnt accurate.

You are such a moron - yea, Harmon referred to "everyone" as his direct boss and sent highly detailed explanations of investigations like those sent to Schultz AT SCHULTZ's SPECIFIC REQUEST..... Right whatever you say twit.

 

[getmyjive11]

You are such a moron - yea, Harmon referred to "everyone" as his direct boss and sent highly detailed explanations of investigations like those sent to Schultz AT SCHULTZ's SPECIFIC REQUEST..... Right whatever you say twit.

Please name one law enforcement duty that Schultz could perform.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Please name one law enforcement duty that Schultz could perform.

He ran the University Park PA Police Department as the named "police commissioner" of that duly-authorized Pennsylvania Municipal Police Force -- IOW, he had the power to hire or fire not only Harmon, but any other officer on the squad whenever he saw fit. He also had the power to instruct Harmon to initiate any, and all, investigations he saw fit bozo!