Jopa: fired
 

Sad.

Whatever the facts prove out, this is an ugly black mark on the end of a storied career.

After reporting it and testifying before a grand jury, what more did they expect of him?

Call the cops?

Are the news reports wrong? I have been under the opinion that he covered it up. Please enlighten me.

Yup. Thanks to Paterno's inaction, dating back to 1998 at the very least, more boys were raped and exploited. And apparently right on the Penn State campus. The fact that the university banned Sandusky from bringing boys onto the campus speaks volumes as does Sandusky's retirement in 1999, after being groomed to take over the program, while still in his 50's.

I'm afraid there's more to this sad story. I don't see how anyone can defend him in this case. He enabled a pedophile.

Primary and secondary teachers, administrators and coaches are required by law to notify the police or child protective services if they think abuse is taking place. There's no such requirement at the post-secondary level?

Anyone who works with children in any capacity in my church is required to take a training course that we put together to comply with state ( MD) regulations. While taking that course, I was surprised that anyone with ANY suspicion of child abuse has no discretion; they MUST report it to the police. Its not enough to report it to superiors in the organization. The report must be made to the police. My guess is that the law is the same in PA.

I can not fathom how that might not be the case. And I'm just guessing that it is since it's been mentioned a number of times that Paterno met his legal requirements (but obviously failed miserably on the moral or decency end).

Now it looks like the situation in Happy Valley might very well get a lot worse.

Jerry Sandusky Rumored to Have Been Pimping Out Young Boys to Rich Donors, Says Mark Madden

While I suppose it is still in rumor stage, keep in mind that Madden wrote an article back in April about the situation as it sits right now but got little to no coverage. 6 months later, that April article looks to be dead-on.

I was awaiting further clarification and an answer to my question to make sure that I do not opine while missing some of the facts.

If I understand correctly, Paterno KNEW about the activity and did not go past the President of the University.

IF this being my understanding of the issue, is correct, I believe that he should not only have lost his job, but also be prosecuted as an accessory. Had he done the right thing, at least some of these boys would have escaped this activity.

My opinions regarding gay activity are widely known by those frequenting this forum. Does anyone want to come and swack me down for wanting to protect these kids? This is a good example of some of the results of letting gay behavior be expanded in our society.

Kevlar on and ready.

Agreed. What a sad way to end a career. He should have notified the police.

So in your book homosexuality and pedophilia are the same? Very scary

Seems like he's already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

But I'm not trying to defend him, and certainly not child molesters; there is nothing even neutral that can be said for such creatures.

My point, which seems to be lost in the rhetoric, is that we don't know all the facts. No one really does. And the real issue, at least to me, is what did Paterno KNOW and when did he know it?

The established facts are that he heard about the allegations second-hand. That is called "hearsay" and in our country it's not admissible in a court of law (for all sorts of good reasons designed to protect the process of a fair trial; basically, we want to hear from people with actual knowledge, not rumors repeated).

He relayed this information to his superiors, likely with the understanding that they would conduct a full and fair investigation. He later testified before a grand jury.

That's all a decade ago.

There is no state law that would require him to call the police; we're not talking about people working with children, we're talking about a subordinate of his alleged to have committed serious, ugly crimes. Legally, Paterno's clear. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing beyond that, what he *should* have done. And to me the first question in that realm comes right back to what did he ACTUALLY KNOW??

Kick it back the other way. There's someone you've known for years, worked with, good guy, never been an issue one way or the other, you'd probably consider him a friend. A third party comes to you with a story, ugly, horrific allegations of conduct that, if true, will destroy his career and family, and rightly so. But those SAME allegations will have much the same effect, even if they are NOT true. So you follow the chain and report what you have heard.

And if nothing comes of it, what is the proper course? To go ahead and call the cops? Remember, you don't have ANY actual knowledge, just something someone else said. Maybe they hate him, maybe they have a grudge...you don't know, right? So if you call the cops, you may destroy his career without any basis.


The point being...I don't know all of the facts, and neither does anyone else here. But it strikes me that there are too many ready and willing to kick him to the curb based on what they are assuming about what he knew, including the university, which now seems to be engaged more in a CYA witch hunt than any real interest in finding the truth.

Certainly, if Paterno had a meaningful reason to know what was going on (at least something more than the blind allegations of a third party), then everyone is right, he failed miserably. But even that has not been demonstrated, at least not in the reports blasting around the 'net.

And if Jopa actually did have a reason to know what Sandusky was up to, nothing in his history would suggest that he would have kept quiet. It just seems completely out of character to imagine him scheming in a back room to hush up over such horrible crimes just to protect the football program.


All I'm saying is, can't we just wait and see how the facts prove out before we tie him to a tree, disembowel him and let the birds peck out his eyes?

Come on TBO! You are WAAAaaaay smarter than this. If gay behavior had not expanded so much in the last few decades, there would be fewer people practicing it. With fewer practicing it, there are fewer to molest these innocent young boys.

You are correct about "us" knowing all the facts, but someone inside the University evidently knows them. This is why I was hesitant to say anything in my first post of this thread and why I predicated in my second.

And if we stopped sex altogether, there would be fewer men preying on innocent young girls if we go along with that vein. :rolleyes: Or do you have an explanation for men who go for underage girls?

X2 It's patently obvious that heterosexuals never rape so outlawing homosexuality is a simple solution to sexual coercion.

OTOH, we never heard about our friend Mike M. Why is that? Why did Mike not go report it himself since he saw the incident and let the cards fall where they may?