Posted on 11/12/2011 5:14:37 PM PST by Winged Hussar
Former Pittsburgh Steelers running back and Penn State alum Franco Harris blasted the school's Board of Trustees for its decision to fire Joe Paterno and defended Mike McQueary, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
"I feel that the board made a bad decision in letting Joe Paterno go," Harris told the Tribune-Review's Kevin Gorman. "I'm very disappointed in their decision. I thought they showed no courage, not to back someone who really needed it at the time. They were saying the football program under Joe was at fault.
"They really wouldn't give a reason. They're linking the football program to the scandal and, possibly, the cover-up. That's very disturbing to me.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbssports.com ...
“You don’t know any of those things. . .you are only sitting in front of your glowing box and are enjoying being entertained. You are the one who is confused about what is fake and what is real. Enjoy the show.”
I can read as well as anyone, and what I have read here and in the news media is horrendous, sickening and despicable! Paterno knew about it as evidenced by his admission: “I should have done more”. You are a sick moron if you think I’m enjoying any of this sorry spectacle.
The myth that Paterno constructed about himself, his program and his school has been thoroughly debunked, and I praise the Grand Jury and Board of Trustees that finally started “taking the garbage out”!! Way too many in Happy Valley and also some here apparently like the smell of garbage. One can hope that it’s due to ignorance, but I fear it is much worse than that as many would act exactly the same way if they had an opportunity to do it all over again. You call it a show, but I call it justice being served....finally!
JC
Bingo! (Please keep mentioning this on other threads)
As just one minor point, so small it doesn't even register in this horrific situation, no sane person with any knowledge of Penn State's football program believes that Joe Paterno was unaware of the University Police investigation of Sandusky showering with pre-teen boys in the football showers in 1998. Or the DA's separate investigation of Sandusky showering with and 'hugging" a boy in 1998. Yet Sandusky, the active defensive coordinator, was allowed to bring a boy with him to Penn State's Alamo Bowl trip to San Antonio at the end of that year. If you can't see that Joe Paterno was horribly wrong about that and it is a microcosm of what Paterno knowingly did (or didn't do) to enable Sandusky - and that is nothing compared to everything else - then . . . we have nothing more to discuss.
Scoutmaster, you've mentioned this '99 bowl game on at least one other thread...but at the time, I don't recall you linking it as overtly as you did above to Paterno's knowledge about the '98 "incidents" [oh, how I hate reducing child rape to an "incident"].
Anyway, please keep bringing this up.
Duckln, to further reinforce what Scoutmaster is saying re: Paterno's 1998 knowledge of authorities' interviews with Sandusky about his pedophilia, see: Ron Bracken: Climate of secrecy led to crumbling of Camelot
This was written by the former sports editor in State College, Ron Bracken. In this column, Bracken concedes the following:
He may not have known what happened prior to 1998 when the first incident involving Sandusky and a child are reported to have occurred but from that moment on he should have been on high alert to the possibility of it happening again.
Bracken, knowing Paterno and Penn State football culture as well as anybody in the 1990s, would indeed find it insane [as in not dealing with reality as it is] to ponder a Paterno not knowledgeable of criminal details as applied to his assistant coaches.
I guess this is one of the things that "gets me" about Paterno apologists.
They think Paterno...
...is smart enough to snuff out the smallest of opponents' details to exploit on the field a dozen times a year; but when it comes to Elephant behavior of coaches off the field, they suddenly think he's as dense as possible.
...Or they think Paterno knows about the no-huddle urgency involved on the part of his offense when his team his down late in the game; but when it comes to offenses (as in criminal offenses) late in the night where children are at risk, they suddenly defend a Paterno who takes the time to do all these weekend huddles and who shows no urgency to either report the crime to his superiors (24 hours) or to authorities (never...til subpoenaed).
...or they treat Paterno as if he was some sort of a "god" -- strong enough to withstand a board attempt to dump him as coach in 2005; yet was so limp-minded in 2002 that he couldn't utilize his unique position of influence or considerable power to even encourage authorities to investigate Sandusky for 2002 specific behavior on campus!
Hmmm...Tell you what Penn State fans...if your coaches were to do on the field [ignore scouting details; huddle up during urgent situations and show absolutely NO sense of urgency; and use tucked-away info to influence potential recruits]...you'd have their "butt" in a sling.
And that would be just for violating common-sense on-field football protocol when victories are at stake...
BUT...when it comes to exercising common-sense off-field safety protocol when children's lives are at stake...
...oh...ho-hum...who cares...?
Colofornian, I've let you down.
It's worse than I wrote about, because I was speaking generally. Sandusky was allowed by Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program to take Victim #4 with him to two different bowl games after his showering incidents were known about, and after his taped conversation with the mother of Victim #6.
The taped conversations between Sandusky and Victim #6 took place in May 1998, which after the University Police investigation of incidents of Sandusky showering with boys in the football locker room showers, but before the 1998 football season.
In May 1999, a year later, Paterno told Sandusky that he would not be his successor, and in July 1999 Sandusky announced his retirement at the end of the 1999 season.
In other words, both the University Police investigations, and the separate State College police department/Centre County District Attorney investigations took place before the 1998 football season.
Sandusky took Victim #4 with him, traveling as part of the Penn State football team and staff, to both the 1998 Outback Bowl in Tampa and the 1999 Alamo Bowl in San Antonio, after the two separate showering investigations. The 1999 Alamo Bowl trip was already after Sandusky had been told he wouldn't succeed Paterno and had announced his retirement at the end of the season.
Now . . . if that's not bad enough, the night before home games, the Penn State team would stay at Toftrees Golf Resort and Conference Center. During the 1998 and 1999 season, after these investigations, after the University Police showering reports, and with respect to 1999, after Sandusky had "announced his retirement, Sanduksy was allowed to bring Victim #4 with him to spend the night before the home game. Victim #4 was abused in the shower and hotel room at Toftrees. The first time Victim #4 was abused by Sandusky was at one of these official "night before the game" Penn State sleepovers in 1998 when Sandusky, after the investigations and report, was an acting coach and was allowed to bring Victim #4 as an overnight guest.
I stand by my statement last Sunday or Monday that Penn State gave Sandusky the 'candy' to lure children for molestation.
Ping to 250 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2807012/postsshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachWe have Sodom and Gomorrah coming soon.
Along with war in the middle east,
baruch HaShem
So it appears.
May God have mercy on all of good heart who truly love Him.
Amen ! Brother.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
The trustees cannot send a message that everyone at Penn State who reports instances of sexual abuse to their supervisor (even if they didn't go further) or testifies about it in court will be fired. Right now everyone is asking why McQueary didn't do more. The instant he is fired the story will be about how Penn State deals with people who report bad news.
In addition, it sounds like there are additional details that will be coming out that will explain more about the reasons for McQueary's actions (or non-actions) and his non-firing.
Re: “The trustees cannot send a message that everyone at Penn State who reports instances of sexual abuse to their supervisor (even if they didn’t go further) or testifies about it in court will be fired.”
Doesn’t work. Paterno also reported it to his supervisor. He, unlike McQueary, was not in a position to report a crime in progress either.
“Right now everyone is asking why McQueary didn’t do more. The instant he is fired the story will be about how Penn State deals with people who report bad news.”
Trustees should have thought about that before they fired Paterno, then. If they fire McQueary, it’s not for reporting bad news but rather for failing to intervene DIRECTLY to save the child.
Fortunately, he may have to resign because I doubt the team wants him around. I even question whether he really got death threats, or just knew he would be booed off the field Saturday. How can somebody like that get young men or anybody else to respect him? I doubt he could ever succeed as an Army officer just because of his reputation.
Re: “But Gary Schulz isn’t an officer of the law himself - he was just the nominal supervisor of the campus police in his capacity as university VP. And he didn’t tell any police officer.”
Which was Schultz’s shortcoming and not Paterno’s. Also note that Schultz was indicted for perjury and also failure to report to child welfare authorities, which Paterno was NOT because it was apparently Schultz’s and not Paterno’s responsibility to do this.
“How hard is it to dial 911 at Penn State?”
Pretty hard for McQueary when the boy was actually (allegedly) being assaulted.
McQueary hasn’t been fired because he is protected under the Whistleblower law. He may resign, though.
I wonder what other university would ever want him?
i wasn’t the one who claimed that Paterno would be sued for slander, just the opposite. I was stating that he could NOT be sued for slander.
Oh you read it in the news media. . .I see. . .well why didn't you say so. . .that's it, then. . CASE CLOSED!!
The fact is that if Paterno had made the call to the police, it would not necessarily have become known to Sandusky, and even if it was, Paterno would not have been liable for slander.
Sadly, people are prone to conjecture, exaggeration and jumping to illogical conclusions. Throw in a penchant for self-righteousness and what you have is the clear reason the media has so much power in society. It is also why conservatives have such a tough row to hoe to get their message to the general public.
Enjoy the meme
It's a media driven rush to judgement, pure and simple. Hey. . but it's a free country, so people are free to sit behind their TV screens and feel self-righteous in between commercials.
Enjoy the meme
I'm sorry, I should have made myself clear. I pinged you, too, so that you knew I was agreeing with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
