Joe Paterno dies?

[sweensdv]

Okay dumb question. Why didn't the eyewitness turn it in instead of telling Paterno? Something seems, well, weird...

This goes to my original point at the begining of the thread, the Assistand Coach reported what he saw to his immediate supervisor, Paterno. Paterno then in turn reported what was told to him by the Assistant Coach to his immediate supervisor.........who it appears did little or nothing. Chain of Command in this case failed miserably. There are obviously plenty of people in this whole situation that failed that child however the blame IMO is not being evenly spread around or reported. The media deserves a big black eye too.

[dbhost]

This goes to my original point at the begining of the thread, the Assistand Coach reported what he saw to his immediate supervisor, Paterno. Paterno then in turn reported what was told to him by the Assistant Coach to his immediate supervisor.........who it appears did little or nothing. Chain of Command in this case failed miserably. There are obviously plenty of people in this whole situation that failed that child however the blame IMO is not being evenly spread around or reported. The media deserves a big black eye too.

I won't argue with you on that point... I can't fathom the assistant coach taking this to authorities. Something about the way this story was reported was entirely goofy... If it is as you say it is, yes it is serious, but it is also at this point, to Paterno anyway, rumor. I.E. one of my guys told me another one of my guys did blah, presumably with no evidence...

I dunno, a tough situation, and no matter our opinions here, Paterno's name got dragged down by this, and sadly, it will remain as part of his legacy...

[All Thumbs]

This goes to my original point at the begining of the thread, the Assistand Coach reported what he saw to his immediate supervisor, Paterno. Paterno then in turn reported what was told to him by the Assistant Coach to his immediate supervisor.........who it appears did little or nothing. Chain of Command in this case failed miserably. There are obviously plenty of people in this whole situation that failed that child however the blame IMO is not being evenly spread around or reported. The media deserves a big black eye too.

People keep saying Peterno reported the incident to "his immediate supervisor" (the athletic director).

A beloved coach of 52-years (when the report occurred) with a winning record? That athletic director was no more Joe Paterno's supervisor than I am my wife's.

In the real world, the athletic director worked for Joe Paterno, not the other way around.

If the guy you're talking to can fire you, he is your supervisor. If he has no power to fire you, you may be his.

And nobody at PS, save for maybe the board of trustees, had the authority to fire Paterno.

He never told his supervisor, because he didn't really have one.

Joe Paterno simply passed the buck.

[Cochese]

Sigh. Not worth it.

[sweensdv]

Sigh. Not worth it.

+1

[leehljp]

I was Wrong on part but . . .

I haven't read the above inputs and probably should before posting this, however, I was wrong in saying it was FEDERAL. It is a Pennsylvania State law and most states have STATE Laws for similar reporting as the Penn law.

The Penn Law is Pennsylvania Code 049 4242. It can be found by Googling: Pennsylvania Mandated Reporting.

My daughter says that in general and for most states, a person (teacher/coach/assistant at an educational institution) knowledgeable of such acts is responsible for reporting it to the law enforcement or Department of Public Welfare. An employed person (teacher/coach) of the institution can report it to the department's counselor if the teacher is tied up with class room responsibilities and the counselor can report it to the Law Enforcement or DOPW. The reporting teacher is responsible for followup. Both will be held accountable if they do not.

In the case of the Penn State incident, the assistant coach, Paterno and the Chancellor none reported it to the DOPW or Law Enforcement and all three can be held accountable more probably in both legal and civil courts.

In sexual misconduct involving children in educational institutions, it is not a matter of actually witnessing it, but simple knowledge of it. Knowledge of this kind of crime requires reporting it to the DOPW or Law Enforcement, or there can be grounds for legal repercussions. Simple knowledge of "certain" criminal acts without reporting it opens one to liability.

There is a huge difference in here-say and direct reporting by a subordinate. What we know is hearsay. What Paterno heard, if it was reported to him by his assistant - was not hearsay, and he (Paterno) was under obligation to report it to the Law or DOPW and or his Supervisor (Chancellor) and then followup to see if the Chancellor did report it.

[All Thumbs]

+1

Okay, for the Paterno supporters:

Would you have done anything differently? Or, would reporting it to your "supervisor" (no follow-up) be it for you?

[Knottscott]

Okay, for the Paterno supporters:

Would you have done anything differently? Or, would reporting it to your "supervisor" (no follow-up) be it for you?

I'll admit to having a long time admiration for what the guy had accomplished and what he stood for, but I don't think my stance here is as simply defined as "supporter" or "detractor"... I won't support anyone at all costs. I'm simply not convinced he needed to be ousted in the manner that he was. With that said, I most definitely would have done more, and think he should have done more. Since I wasn't present, and he had always struck me as a man of wisdom, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt about what his logic was.

[All Thumbs]

I'm simply not convinced he needed to be ousted in the manner that he was.

Do you feel that there should have been any consequences for Mr. Paterno?

[dbhost]

I haven't read the above inputs and probably should before posting this, however, I was wrong in saying it was FEDERAL. It is a Pennsylvania State law and most states have STATE Laws for similar reporting as the Penn law.

The Penn Law is Pennsylvania Code 049 4242. It can be found by Googling: Pennsylvania Mandated Reporting.

My daughter says that in general and for most states, a person (teacher/coach/assistant at an educational institution) knowledgeable of such acts is responsible for reporting it to the law enforcement or Department of Public Welfare. An employed person (teacher/coach) of the institution can report it to the department's counselor if the teacher is tied up with class room responsibilities and the counselor can report it to the Law Enforcement or DOPW. The reporting teacher is responsible for followup. Both will be held accountable if they do not.

In the case of the Penn State incident, the assistant coach, Paterno and the Chancellor none reported it to the DOPW or Law Enforcement and all three can be held accountable more probably in both legal and civil courts.

In sexual misconduct involving children in educational institutions, it is not a matter of actually witnessing it, but simple knowledge of it. Knowledge of this kind of crime requires reporting it to the DOPW or Law Enforcement, or there can be grounds for legal repercussions. Simple knowledge of "certain" criminal acts without reporting it opens one to liability.

There is a huge difference in here-say and direct reporting by a subordinate. What we know is here-say. What Paterno heard, if it was reported to him by his assistant - was not here-say, and he (Paterno) was under obligation to report it to the Law or DOPW and or his Supervisor (Chancellor) and then followup to see if the Chancellor did report it.

Okay, I understand what you are saying about the legal aspects here, and it makes sense. Where my sticking point is, without witnessing an act, or having direct physical evidence of an act, where is the dividing line between rumor and knowledge?

I will give you an example... (entirely fictional, but example to make a point...)

In Jr. High, a particular male teacher was rumored to have had a sexual relationship with a particular female student getting her pregnant.

Only one little problem with that accusation...

This particular teacher was a combat Veteran, and had suffered some disabling injuries during the war, you can guess what was disabled...

To put it bluntly, he was unable to perform the acts he was accused of.

However the accusation itself at least for the duration of the investigation utterly destroyed this man's career, and family, and I am sure he suffered a great deal of persecution within the community...

Long story short, 13 year old girl got pregnant while fooling around with a boy at school (I have to assume they disappeared into the woods during lunch or something) somewhere in her young mind, it was less embarassing to tell her friends it was Mr. XYZ that did the deed, and thus the rumor started...

[Cochese]

Okay, I understand what you are saying about the legal aspects here, and it makes sense. Where my sticking point is, without witnessing an act, or having direct physical evidence of an act, where is the dividing line between rumor and knowledge?

I will give you an example... (entirely fictional, but example to make a point...)

In Jr. High, a particular male teacher was rumored to have had a sexual relationship with a particular female student getting her pregnant.

Only one little problem with that accusation...

This particular teacher was a combat Veteran, and had suffered some disabling injuries during the war, you can guess what was disabled...

To put it bluntly, he was unable to perform the acts he was accused of.

However the accusation itself at least for the duration of the investigation utterly destroyed this man's career, and family, and I am sure he suffered a great deal of persecution within the community...

Long story short, 13 year old girl got pregnant while fooling around with a boy at school (I have to assume they disappeared into the woods during lunch or something) somewhere in her young mind, it was less embarassing to tell her friends it was Mr. XYZ that did the deed, and thus the rumor started...

Unfortunately, not every state has punishment for those who falsely accuse.

I'm not so much a Paterno supporter as a supporter for the truth. I get so much bombast and opinion everywhere I turn I try to boil it down to what is right and wrong so I can form my own opinion.

Paterno did something wrong. You can classify it as not following up, as not going directly to the police, as trusting people should have done something about it. To being ignorant as to what was going on. Maybe all of those things at once. Should he have been punished? Sure. How? Can't say. Not my place to say because it was so difficult to know exactly how he processed that information.

From what I saw of Pennsylvania law, he didn't break the law. The Grand Jury seemed to agree. Should he have been open to civil suits? Absolutely. If the victims thought he contributed to the atmosphere or let it continue by his actions, then let the civil suits come forth. Or not, now that he's dead. Same thing for McQuery (BTW, for sake of accuracy, he was a Graduate Assistant at the time). As I understand it, the only illegality committed was by the AD, the President, and the scumbag who did the deed. We may not like how the laws are constructed, but unfortunately he have to be bound by them until or unless they get changed.

Should he have been allowed to finish the season? At first I thought yes, but now I'm beginning to understand what kind of message that would have sent to the victims and PSU's detractors. In reality, it was probably the only thing to have been done. I think other things (discussions about removing statues, names from buildings, etc) should have waited until the entire process was done. I think that portion of it was only fair to someone who did give a lot of his wealth and his time to help the lives in his school and community outside of sport.

I do reserve the right to change my opinion based on facts that are unknown to me at this point, as I always do. But I try to keep an open mind at the beginning of things because it's very hard to take back a judgment once it's been given.

[leehljp]

Okay, I understand what you are saying about the legal aspects here, and it makes sense. Where my sticking point is, without witnessing an act, or having direct physical evidence of an act, where is the dividing line between rumor and knowledge?

We have a training that we go through that helps divide the truth from the fact in situations like this.

There are two parts to this.

1. Teachers in Educational institutions are supposed take all sexual abuse (and in some cases physical abuse) suggestions and talk seriously just like using the word "bomb" on and airplane. I am sure that we all know that there is that one word that you don't use when flying on a commercial airline. Similarly, suggestions and outright accusations (true or not) are taken seriously.

2. Then the next stop is figuring out fact from fantasy/untrue accusations. DOPW personnel and most or many counselors are "trained" in separating fact from fantasy/untrue accusations.


What is NOT done - is to put off acting on the immediate suggestions or accusations in these situations.

IN "Bombs" on an airplane or Sexual Abuse (and suspected overt physical abuse on kids) It is not a matter of being considered "innocent until proven guilty - or WHO did it" but immediately determining if there IS an abuse on the kids, or a Bomb on the plane.

This is the part of the intent and purpose of laws that are in place in most States. Immediacy is a very important part of these actions.


Unfortunately, there are trained people that still do not fully understand, and as a result ask leading questions that often have devastating results. I have been through the training and I DO KNOW that I am not good enough at asking the right questions without "leading" the supposed victim. My daughter is very good with this. Recently, in a fairly good size mid-west city, she was called in to interview a child along with a senior police officer. The police officer complimented her on how well she asked the questions without leading the child and getting difficult but correct information. It turns out the child's "supposed" physical abuse was not as suspected - Just anger at a parent. But the DOPW and Police had to ACT on the suggestion.

The question you asked about how to separate fact from fiction is at times VERY difficult. Some years ago, an adult friend was accused by a teen age girl of having a sex. The accusations came about some months later after the supposed event. Some very good counselors listened to the girl and believed her, even though they did NOT ask leading questions. The fellow was married, had a family and this was devastating to them. The only thing that "saved" him (and his family) was the fact that the girl described the day and date as a specific holiday. The man's mother and father were visiting from across country that week and the whole family were away in another city several hundred miles over that weekend and had video of the entire weekend.

It is a very tenuous situation in learning to divide fact from fantasy, and it does not always work right. It is almost like a court room in knowing HOW to ask a question and not be "leading" on it.

[sweensdv]

..........
Would you have done anything differently? Or, would reporting it to your "supervisor" (no follow-up) be it for you?

OK, I'll play your game even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I have been trying to make throughout this thread. Yes, I would have done something differently. Satisfied?

[mineengineer]

"Didn't want to ruin the weekend" speaks volumes about character/priorities

also read the grandjury report that is linked in the middle of the first page of the article:


http://abcnews.go.com/US/joe-paterno...ry?id=15169824

If anyone here is ever in a simialr situation please step up and try to ensure the safety/well being of the child.........remember they are more important than football or money or school pride

[All Thumbs]

OK, I'll play your game even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I have been trying to make throughout this thread. Yes, I would have done something differently. Satisfied?

Oh I understand your point.

You feel Paterno's fame and celebrity resulted in him being burdened with most of the blame and negative publicity.

I think Paterno's name was certainly dragged through the mud more than (for example) the AD.

That is how it ALWAYS works, though.

Society expects more from the famous. They are held to a higher standard.

They (the celebrities) know it.

They can walk away any time.

They stay.

So they consent.

Just MHO.