Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Scotswife

You’re an idiot! You think you know the whole story? Why not wait for the investigation to find out if Coach Paterno followed protocol.

No brain, just knee jerk reactions.


22 posted on 11/12/2011 5:31:41 PM PST by DLfromthedesert ( Honkies for Herman 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: DLfromthedesert; Winged Hussar; Scoutmaster

I hope scoutmaster doesn’t mind when I cut and paste his words from another thread where the hearsay issue has already been discussed....

“First, calling the police has nothing to do with hearsay. Hearsay is a rule of evidence.

Second, unless something said out of court is offered to prove the truth of the utterance, it’s not hearsay. I can testify that I heard Bob tell me he saw John rape Mary. If that testimony is offered as evidence that I heard John say that, then it’s not hearsay. If that testimony is offered as evidence that John raped Mary, then it’s hearsay.

For Paterno to report that somebody told him that Sandusky abused somebody isn’t hearsay if it’s offered to prove that somebody told Joe about Sandusky. It’s only hearsay if it’s offered as proof of the rape.

Third, you would be surprised. There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that in Evidence class your professor will joke that the rule is actually an exception to the exceptions to the rule.

Fourth, most state’s child abuse laws mandate reporting in school and similar situations by people in authority who hear a creditable claim of abuse. Yeah. So does Pennsylvania. The only question is who has the obligation to report that abuse that he or she didn’t see.

I’ve actually posted the link to Pennsylvania’s reporting statute on a couple of your posts about hearsay. Have you missed it?”


26 posted on 11/12/2011 5:38:26 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: DLfromthedesert

No question Joe followed the law - protocol. He was not indicted. He did not lie to the Grand Jury trying to cover up what happened and what he knew.

The question is whether he had an ethical responsibility to act to rescue the abused kids when he saw the perv continuing to operate his sex abuse scheme. He did have an ethical responsiblity to put a stop to it by reporting him to the police and telling other key people (donors) to the charity that McQueary saw Sandusky anally raping a 10 year old boy on campus.


59 posted on 11/12/2011 6:01:00 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: DLfromthedesert
Protocol isn't the issue, morality is.

The ones without a brains are those who are defending someone who allowed a sex pervert to walk around on the campus 9 years after he was told he was in the shower with a young boy.

114 posted on 11/12/2011 6:46:24 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: DLfromthedesert

AND you a fool!! Sure, Paterno did the minimum necessary to cover his sorry arse by “following protocol” and allowed more young kids to be raped in the interim. He enabled a serial homosexual pedophile rapist for years and now you’re sticking up for him???? WTF

JC


214 posted on 11/12/2011 11:25:42 PM PST by cracker45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson