Replies

By your own standards, that's an extremely illogical and intellectually inconsistent statement since Sandusky hasn't yet been tried in a court of law. No "abuser" has been convicted of any "abuse." Right now Sandusky hasn't been found guilty of anything. He's out on bail, by the way, so you're free to call him up to watch your kids this weekend. Why wouldn't you? After all, he hasn't been vetted by a court of law. If you wouldn't be willing to do that, is it possible you may have formed an opinion of him based on the information available? If that's the case, I've done no more than the same thing in the case of McQueary and Paterno...except that the information I have available as the basis of my judgment came from each of their own respective admissions and testimony!

Bingo! Home run! Grand slam!

No wonder antceecee turned tail after this post of yours and started in on the ad hominens! Before he did though, he tried to rely on this argument:

The cover up needs to be vetted in a court of law. [antceecee, post #41]

I do believe in our rights to a trial by jury and not media [antceecee, post #50]

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? [antceecee #46]

ALL: You hear this rapidly-becoming tired ole call for "due process" from Paterno defenders.

We already know that with Sandusky, Schultz, Curley -- and possibly Spanier as well if he is charged -- due process thru a trial awaits them.

But what about Paterno? He (and Spanier as of yet) have not been charged? Neither has McQueary, who will probably turn state's evidence vs. them all.

Shouldn't Paterno have rec'd "due process" like antceecee is repetitively calling for?

Well, the answer is, of course...IF Paterno is ever charged with anything!

But he hasn't been charged; and I don't think he will.

Therefore, it's been a matter of weighing...
...was he derelict in duty?
...did he violate NCAA ethical violations (like 2.4 -- that focuses on the need to exercise "responsibility" even off of the playing field)?
...did he fail to use basic moral and ethical common sense?

So if sweeping away JoePa's job has nothing to do with a court of law or a trial by jury, why do Paterno supporters keep appealing to that?

For that allow me to cite an apt response by columnist Scott Ostler:

Several e-mailers demand, "Have you ever heard of due process?" The due process I've heard of involves a justice system and a legal trial. Paterno faces no legal action or charge. Legally, his rear end is covered. But there was no trial when Paterno was sainted, no jury declared him one of the noblest and finest college coaches of all time. The public decided. It's the same deal on the flip side. We'll take the facts and form them into our personal legacy of Joe Paterno.

Yup, Joe 6-pack, you are right! As Ostler says, "We'll take the facts and form them into our personal legacy of Joe Paterno!" Source: Penn State's Joe Paterno gets what he deserves]

Oh, and btw, have you noticed that those who most vociferously defend Paterno in using a "due process" type of argument are the ones who tend to NEVER reference McQueary in that same way?

Why, if Paterno needs "due process," then why is it that when FREEPER Lancey Howard heard the Penn State fans post-firing they were out to lynch McQueary? Why not call for a fair drawn-out "due process" dimension with him?

Why was McQueary then getting death threats?

antceecee uses the word "lynch" on this thread as if anybody has threatened to "lynch" Paterno or the Penn State paycheck gang. [Well, perhaps they have toward Sandusky...who knows?]

Yet, the one person who some Penn Staters have literally threatened to kill is the one they tend to not accord "due process" to...McQueary...