FREE JERRY!!!Stupidest fuc#ing post in the thread! Congratulations!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
FREE JERRY!!!Stupidest fuc#ing post in the thread! Congratulations!
Weak!FREE JERRY!!!
According to a jury, something did happen that night.
But why go with a jury when you have a licensing board?
Dude...
The President of the University, and the Police chief were notified of "suspected" child abuse. Are you insinuating those two had no idea of calling child welfare services?
Even the Email suggests they discussed it.
THE failure lies there. They aren't criminals. They fvcked up. Joe, too.
This whole fiasco never happens if Old Main reaches out to professionals instead of acting like the Catholic Church or the Chicago PD and deal with it "internally".
Dude...
The President of the University, and the Police chief were notified of "suspected" child abuse. Are you insinuating those two had no idea of calling child welfare services?
Even the Email suggests they discussed it.
THE failure lies there. They aren't criminals. They fvcked up. Joe, too.
This whole fiasco never happens if Old Main reaches out to professionals instead of acting like the Catholic Church or the Chicago PD and deal with it "internally".
Dude...
The President of the University, and the Police chief were notified of "suspected" child abuse. Are you insinuating those two had no idea of calling child welfare services?
Even the Email suggests they discussed it.
THE failure lies there. They aren't criminals. They fvcked up. Joe, too.
This whole fiasco never happens if Old Main reaches out to professionals instead of acting like the Catholic Church or the Chicago PD and deal with it "internally".
I think the problem here is our use of the word "proper".
Proper authorities would have been child welfare services and the like. Doctor John is a lateral move. Why? Because he ran the 2nd Mile.
If Spanked, Schultz and Curley (and, Joe) simply would have deferred the investigation to people trained in child abuse and do that job 40+ hours per week for years, we wouldn't be here.
Regardless of their motive (or even if they lacked a motive), THE - and I do mean THE - failure was that they took it upon themselves to investigate.
One, he had no reason to. Two, he wasn't required to. Go back to Dranov.The problem with reporting to child welfare services is that there is no child that you are reposting as abused. If they don’t know the child, they can’t investigate his abuse. The proper authorities in this instance was probably the police, which Schultz should have been able to kick into action.
One, he had no reason to. Two, he wasn't required to. Go back to Dranov.
Schultz nor anyone else at PSU was required to call the police. If Dranov was not told of any attack or notified of one neither was anyone at State.I’m not sure what your response is regarding. Are you talking about Schultz?
Schultz nor anyone else at PSU was required to call the police. If Dranov was not told of any attack or notified of one neither was anyone at State.
What is so hard for some of you boneheads to understand?
He wasn't required to, and was told no more than was Dranov.But the man was in charge of the campus police department. He could have asked them to talk with Sandusky about it. That move would have saved a lot of the trouble that occurred in the aftermath.
He wasn't required to, and was told no more than was Dranov.
Are you aware of the fact the Joe followed up with McQueary after the decision was made and he voiced no objection to how Curley and Schultz chose to handle the incident?
Let's break it down then. Did Mike ever express to Tim, Gary or Joe that he was unhappy with how the "incident" was handled?Here's another example of McQueary's testimony being twisted to serve the objectives of the story teller.
You are insinuating that the interchange with Paterno and McQueary went something like this:
Joe: "Are you OK with the way that Curley and Schultz handled the Sandusky matter?"
Mike: "I'm okay with it".
According to McQueary's testimony, the actual conversation was much more along the lines of:
Joe: "How are you holding up regarding the Sandusky matter?"
Mike: "I'm doing okay".
That's two very different conversations.
Here's another example of McQueary's testimony being twisted to serve the objectives of the story teller.
You are insinuating that the interchange with Paterno and McQueary went something like this:
Joe: "Are you OK with the way that Curley and Schultz handled the Sandusky matter?"
Mike: "I'm okay with it".
According to McQueary's testimony, the actual conversation was much more along the lines of:
Joe: "How are you holding up regarding the Sandusky matter?"
Mike: "I'm doing okay".
That's two very different conversations.
For those that think they are one and the same, let me ask you this. When you are consoling someone whose mother just passed away and you ask them how they are doing and they respond "I'm okay", do you really think they mean that they are okay that their mother died?
Let's break it down then. Did Mike ever express to Tim, Gary or Joe that he was unhappy with how the "incident" was handled?
Next question. If Mike, Dad or Dranov, felt more should be done, could they not have made an anonymous phone call in an effort to move things along?
That’s a bad analogy.
In the case of the man who lost his mother. The mother was dead and there wasn’t anything that could be done to bring her back. The man has no choice but to just move on.
If someone is upset because they witnessed child sexual abuse, and the perpetrator was still at large, the child has not been checked on, and the police didn’t even investigate yet. Something could certainly be done to change that situation!
Have it your way,Fine. Make that your case then. Just don't put words that he never said into McQueary's mouth.
Let's break it down then. Did Mike ever express to Tim, Gary or Joe that he was unhappy with how the "incident" was handled?
Next question. If Mike, Dad or Dranov, felt more should be done, could they not have made an anonymous phone call in an effort to move things along?
I'm assuming you mean what McQueary said under oath.I have no problem with people framing their argument that way. What I do have an issue with is people who change McQueary's actual testimony to reflect something that he never said.
Have it your way,
What is 100%, unequivocally and unquestionably clear is that Michael McQueary had zero issues, zero problems and zero concerns over how Jerry Sandusky was dealt with in 2001.
By not saying a single word, by not pressing the issue, by not coming forward to CYS, the police rt any other concerned body, he demonstrated that he was 100% content and happy with his life and how the noises he heard in Lasch had been dealt with.
Without question he was content to work in the athletic program under JVP and Tim Curley. Its hard to argue he has the high ground on this one.Or he made a decision to not fight city hall. Now all the keyboard heroes on BWI might have chosen a different path but you cannot draw any conclusions about how content or uncontent he was with Penn State's course of action.
You exhibit troll-like behavior.Or he made a decision to not fight city hall. Now all the keyboard heroes on BWI might have chosen a different path but you cannot draw any conclusions about how content or uncontent he was with Penn State's course of action.