Again, you need to liberally sprinkly the word "alleged" in there if you are to remain intellectually consistent. And you're only reinforcing my point. If McQueery's own testimony is accurate, he failed to intervene and allowed the abuse to continue while he slunked off to call his daddy. Now, I doubt in the strictest sense, he had a legal obligation to intervene, but if you can argue that a grown adult male, fully physically capable of doing so does not have a moral obligation to intervene we needn't continue this conversation because we're on two different planets. That is my contention. McQueary, by his very own testimony, did not intervene. I would argue he had a moral obligation to do so, and by his own words he did not. At least that night, he enabled Sandusky to wrap things up with that child. McQueary enabled the continued abuse of that boy.
"The old guy Paterno was given a report after the fact by McQ and reported to higher ups. Higher ups in the University did NOTHING. All blame Paterno?"
Paterno blamed Paterno!! After his cancelled press conference earlier in the week, Paterno addressed the matter and said he should have done more. That is a very, very direct implication he did not do enough, nor did he do everything within his power. There's really no other way to take it, and again, this is Paterno's very own admission. "Why not let this unravel as to those who were not the abusers, yet perhaps the enablers? Testimony via Grand jury from what I understand from this, fingers Sandusky as the abuser...So why are you against a full hearing in a court of law and INSTEAD seeking to string every person you view as part of this up in the nearest tree?"
It's going to unravel whether I let it or not. And what have I said or even implied that suggests I'm not entirely desirous of seeing this played out in a legal forum? But, above and beyond the criminal charges and trials, I can think of few recent situations in our society that call out for strong moral condemnation, even if not all the players are guilty of having violated the elements of strict criminal charges. Again, I will direct you to my earlier contention that what is legal and what is moral are not always the same things. There are wide ranges of behaviors that are completely legal, but can and should be judged as immoral or unethical. I think in this case, there's going to be plenty of both (illegal and immoral) behavior to go around.
Nice to see you are able to have a mature conversation about this without personal attacks there Joe! I am hardly a liberal in that I do believe in our rights to a trial by jury and not media. Sorry to see you don’t, I thought you were a conservative, sad to see you are just like the lib mad dogs in the media.