As an attorney I would think you’d be more inclined to wait for all the pertinent facts to come in before drawing conclusions about individual culpability.
Heck, forget pertinent facts. Please . . . use your imagination. Create a scenario that justifies the facts in the Grand Jury findings; even Joe Paterno's testimony?
I'll consider them.
Are you wearing a home or away Penn State jersey as you type these things?
For some reason...which I don't know for the life of me...you have seemed to pre-conclude that facts derived from actual testimony made before a Grand Jury aren't "facts."
If you would but bother to look at the Grand Jury Presentment you would only have to skip past a one-paragraph "Introduction" before coming to the section headlined, "Findings of Fact."
A Grand Jury's role includes determining if there is enough individual culpability to move forward toward indicting him or her. Otherwise, why bother having people testify under oath?
Some people, like Joe Paterno, upon testifying -- leave no doubt as to their sins of omission -- their moral and unethical culpability. They may be able to cover their legal butt to avoid jail time...
...all the while provoking a public verdict that wishes there was a greater punishment somewhere between losing-your-job and jail time to inflict upon you...
...as recompense for the pain and degradation these coaches enabled in their community.
How many homosexuals will this generate due to moral lapses from people who have rec'd Penn State paychecks in the past/present?
Joe Paterno was an degradating enabler. Get over it.