This lawyer thinks JoePa acted correctly both morally and ethically
- Thread starter storminspank
- Start date
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
From what I read in the Grand Jury report, it appears to me that Paterno acted correctly within the law, but he didn't act correctly morally or ethically. Reading the linked article didn't change my mind.
I agree that Paterno did what he was expected to do legally, but I don't think that he acted to his full capability in a moral or ethical sense.
I can see where Paterno was fixed in his inability to ask the police, or his inability to go to the media, or to do more once he moved the claims up the ladder, but considering the incredible amount of pull the Paternos have on the entire PSU campus, I'm not convinced he couldn't do anything at all. And I think when a kid is being abused, something has to be better than nothing, no?
I do agree that hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't always make somebody's actions or inactions correct or excusable.
I can see where Paterno was fixed in his inability to ask the police, or his inability to go to the media, or to do more once he moved the claims up the ladder, but considering the incredible amount of pull the Paternos have on the entire PSU campus, I'm not convinced he couldn't do anything at all. And I think when a kid is being abused, something has to be better than nothing, no?
I do agree that hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't always make somebody's actions or inactions correct or excusable.
Last edited:
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
That guy's arguments are terrible. He's the Brian Kaldenberg of lawyers.
I think he has built a reasonable defense for JoePa here.
The GA did not tell JoePa what he actually saw,according to Joe.
And Joe made sure the chief of the PSU police,which has all the powers of any police chief, was made aware of this,by reporting to the AD who assured him that the head of the Police was notified,Schultz,and he was.
The kneejerk reaction of everyone now is from the disgusting description of the incidents,in hindsight, which is a normal reaction. But putting yourself in Joes shoes in 2002, it is different. Joe did not have all this info. He had almost a 40 year relationship with Sandusky. McQueary was not around for more than 5 years with Joe,between his playing career and his year as a GA. Is Joe supposed to automatically believe that this guy he knew for 40 years is guilty of the unthinkable?
He clearly was counting on the police to do their job,and discover the truth.
I think the real focus should be on Sandusky,and Schultz/PSU Police/the AD.
Unless it can be determined that JoePa actively squashed the investigation or demanded that they cover up results of investigaion,he is not the one who should be the focus.
Now, Dinardo on the BTN says from his experience on coaching staffs,he is skeptical that McQueary did not talk to others on the staff about what he witnessed and thinks that probably other members of the staff had to know.
As I have said all along...let the facts come out before letting the lynch mob go crazy.
The GA did not tell JoePa what he actually saw,according to Joe.
And Joe made sure the chief of the PSU police,which has all the powers of any police chief, was made aware of this,by reporting to the AD who assured him that the head of the Police was notified,Schultz,and he was.
The kneejerk reaction of everyone now is from the disgusting description of the incidents,in hindsight, which is a normal reaction. But putting yourself in Joes shoes in 2002, it is different. Joe did not have all this info. He had almost a 40 year relationship with Sandusky. McQueary was not around for more than 5 years with Joe,between his playing career and his year as a GA. Is Joe supposed to automatically believe that this guy he knew for 40 years is guilty of the unthinkable?
He clearly was counting on the police to do their job,and discover the truth.
I think the real focus should be on Sandusky,and Schultz/PSU Police/the AD.
Unless it can be determined that JoePa actively squashed the investigation or demanded that they cover up results of investigaion,he is not the one who should be the focus.
Now, Dinardo on the BTN says from his experience on coaching staffs,he is skeptical that McQueary did not talk to others on the staff about what he witnessed and thinks that probably other members of the staff had to know.
As I have said all along...let the facts come out before letting the lynch mob go crazy.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I love how some of you try to make a case for Paterno, it is almost as if you just want to find some way to take another angle just for the sake of arguing.
If I had a friend who was caught sodomizing a 10 year old boy, the friendship would be over right then and there. If this act was reported to me the first phone call I make would not be to my boss, it would be to the police. If after I reported it to the police this man was still walking around like nothing happened I would follow up on it. He certainly would not be invited to come anywhere near where I work, home, and I would not allow him access to facilities if I had the power to stop it. My next move would be to find out who the victim was to ensure they were taken care of and getting help. Paterno had 9 years to do any of this and waits until his job is on the line before telling his followers they should pray for the victims.
If I had a friend who was caught sodomizing a 10 year old boy, the friendship would be over right then and there. If this act was reported to me the first phone call I make would not be to my boss, it would be to the police. If after I reported it to the police this man was still walking around like nothing happened I would follow up on it. He certainly would not be invited to come anywhere near where I work, home, and I would not allow him access to facilities if I had the power to stop it. My next move would be to find out who the victim was to ensure they were taken care of and getting help. Paterno had 9 years to do any of this and waits until his job is on the line before telling his followers they should pray for the victims.
If you want to be an apologist that is great. I love your empathy, putting yourself in Joe's shoes, and how we are all having these knee jer reactions. Why don't those who have empathy directed to Joe direct it to the victims. Ask yourself this question. If Sandusky's last victim was your 9 year old son, would you still feel the same way about Joe Pa? Do you really believe he did anything to help protect the victims or was he just protecting his program? We are not asking him to go to jail, we are asking him to step down, because his system failed on his watch, and the buck stops at his desk.
The board of directors of Sabdusky's foundation is another issue, an equal issue to Joe's, perhaps even worse. If they knew of the initial charge, they are an abhorrent group.
Last edited:
Cover3
Well-Known Member
"The Courts have consistently held that: it is a 'fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)."
I agree with him insofar as the University Police are a valid police force and they may have conducted a cursory investigation, but basing Joe Pa's supposed perception of their relative inaction upon such a broad statement as quoted above from the article seems dangerous. I find it odd that the best authority this guy could find for this "fundamental principle of [U.S.] law" comes from the D.C. Court of Appeals and not the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, since the issue is moral correctness, and not legal obligation, I would say it is irrelevant whether or not the campus police had full discretion over the depth of the investigation. If Joe Pa felt it wasn't being looked into by them, he should have notified state or municipal law enforcement. However, only Joe Pa knows what he saw or believed about the campus police investigation.
I agree with him insofar as the University Police are a valid police force and they may have conducted a cursory investigation, but basing Joe Pa's supposed perception of their relative inaction upon such a broad statement as quoted above from the article seems dangerous. I find it odd that the best authority this guy could find for this "fundamental principle of [U.S.] law" comes from the D.C. Court of Appeals and not the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, since the issue is moral correctness, and not legal obligation, I would say it is irrelevant whether or not the campus police had full discretion over the depth of the investigation. If Joe Pa felt it wasn't being looked into by them, he should have notified state or municipal law enforcement. However, only Joe Pa knows what he saw or believed about the campus police investigation.
TheeHawkeye
Banned
This guy ruined Joe's name. I feel bad for JoePa.
Lawyers do not have an up on the rest of us on morality and ethics.
His opinion means nothing.
Perhaps you should send him a "Thinking of You" card.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
You can't have it both ways. If JoPa is this bigger-than-life presence, this living icon that represents the best of strong moral character and leadership... you don't hide behind technicalities and pass the buck. You take a stand. You do the right thing. You lead.
If he's going to go with this guy's line, then he's just another football coach. One that's stayed on the job a bit too long, but just another football coach.
If there's anything that Paterno has supposedly stood for...it's integrity. You can't have it both ways.
If he's going to go with this guy's line, then he's just another football coach. One that's stayed on the job a bit too long, but just another football coach.
If there's anything that Paterno has supposedly stood for...it's integrity. You can't have it both ways.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
He ruined his own name by not picking up the phone and calling the police. That is all he had to do. Instead he chose to follow his leaders decision and that taking away his keys was enough.
tweeterhawk
Well-Known Member
If the 10-year-old boy getting raped in the shower had been Joe's grandson, I wonder what he feels another man should have done upon being informed of it. I know what I would have wanted. And expected.
People who defend or excuse his failure to go directly to the police are being too cute by half.
People who defend or excuse his failure to go directly to the police are being too cute by half.
Last edited:
This. If the Board of Directors allow him to continue it will forever be a black eye on the University. I wonder what JoePa would have done if it were his grandson in that shower?
Last edited:
roetbombaaa
Well-Known Member
He does raise one valid point. Why didnt McQueary go to the police himself? Why did he tell JoPa? Why didn't he tell JoPa and the police? Did Paterno tell him not to go to the authorities? Hmm..
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
I'm glad someone posted this. I understand as a society we have a need to cast blame. Hell we see it after every loss here when we see dozens of threads pop up blaming the coaches, the qb, the offense, or the defense, and sometimes you get all the ones listed after the same game. In addition these crimes were reprehensible and the emotims they spark are strong.
That all said looking at what Joe Pa did makes sense. He went to the commissioner of campus police, he made sure they spoke to to the person who brought this to his attention, and he essentially canned the coach involved. Beyond that what could he have done? Those suggesting he should have somehow used his power and influence to further the investigation are off base. I seem to recall significant outrage at the involvement KF had in the investigation of sexual assault here and all that amounted to was being present at (against his will) at a round table discussion about the situation.
I guess at the bottom of it all the facts are JoePa is a football coach, not a crime fighter. When a crime involving one of his assistants was brought to his attention he did the only thing he really could. He made sure the campus police knew of the incident and he cut ties with the alleged perpetrator.
At most he's guilty of being naive in thinking they would do their jobs, and I'm not willing to crucify the man for that.
That all said looking at what Joe Pa did makes sense. He went to the commissioner of campus police, he made sure they spoke to to the person who brought this to his attention, and he essentially canned the coach involved. Beyond that what could he have done? Those suggesting he should have somehow used his power and influence to further the investigation are off base. I seem to recall significant outrage at the involvement KF had in the investigation of sexual assault here and all that amounted to was being present at (against his will) at a round table discussion about the situation.
I guess at the bottom of it all the facts are JoePa is a football coach, not a crime fighter. When a crime involving one of his assistants was brought to his attention he did the only thing he really could. He made sure the campus police knew of the incident and he cut ties with the alleged perpetrator.
At most he's guilty of being naive in thinking they would do their jobs, and I'm not willing to crucify the man for that.
