ADVERTISEMENT

Penn State begins bystander intervention training program (sexual harassment)

No--pretty standard for this kind of thing. I've had a little training in the area. MM is a different story, of course.
If the policy to which 1969 was referring said that persons who worked for a UNIVERSITY and who get knowledge of a criminal act occurring at the workplace CANNOT on pain of being fired, call the cops, I do not care how standard that is--it is stupid or worse than that, evil. It is a recipe for the flourishing of not just pedophiles, but criminals of all kinds. I suspect to be fired for such a thing is simply illegal. In any event, it is unthinkable that they would have fired Joe Paterno in 2001 for calling the State Police or childline. These rules CREATE coverups.
 
If the policy to which 1969 was referring said that persons who worked for a UNIVERSITY and who get knowledge of a criminal act occurring at the workplace CANNOT on pain of being fired, call the cops, I do not care how standard that is--it is stupid or worse than that, evil. It is a recipe for the flourishing of not just pedophiles, but criminals of all kinds. I suspect to be fired for such a thing is simply illegal. In any event, it is unthinkable that they would have fired Joe Paterno in 2001 for calling the State Police or childline. These rules CREATE coverups.


Bottom line is, Joe had nothing to call the State Police or Childline about.
 
If the policy to which 1969 was referring said that persons who worked for a UNIVERSITY and who get knowledge of a criminal act occurring at the workplace CANNOT on pain of being fired, call the cops, I do not care how standard that is--it is stupid or worse than that, evil. It is a recipe for the flourishing of not just pedophiles, but criminals of all kinds. I suspect to be fired for such a thing is simply illegal. In any event, it is unthinkable that they would have fired Joe Paterno in 2001 for calling the State Police or childline. These rules CREATE coverups.

They fired Joe in 2011 for no reason at all, but it is unthinkable that they would have fired him in 2001?
 
They fired Joe in 2011 for no reason at all, but it is unthinkable that they would have fired him in 2001?
For calling the police after receiving a report of inappropriate contact between JS and a young kid naked in a shower? You forget: that they had a reason to fire joe, it was just a bad one--they wanted to take the focus off themselves. By firing this icon for calling the cops because he did not like what he was hearing they would have pulled a RASH of shit down on their heads. Not how they operate.
 
the policies were stupid.

Great comeback. Not. It's not just university policies. Joe followed state law in 2001, which to my knowledge is unchanged today. Even the ncaa's policy on sexual abuse allegations issued in 2014 state that one should do what Joe did.
 
For calling the police after receiving a report of inappropriate contact between JS and a young kid naked in a shower? You forget: that they had a reason to fire joe, it was just a bad one--they wanted to take the focus off themselves. By firing this icon for calling the cops because he did not like what he was hearing they would have pulled a RASH of shit down on their heads. Not how they operate.

We don't know how things would have gone down in 2001 had Joe acted differently, causing the issue to go public. We had some of the same shits and other shits on the bot back then, plus there already was animosity towards Joe in some circles. Don't sell the shits short.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbahses
We don't know how things would have gone down in 2001 had Joe acted differently, causing the issue to go public. We had some of the same shits and other shits on the bot back then, plus there already was animosity towards Joe in some circles. Don't sell the shits short.
People make confidential reports to the police all the time. JVP had no way of knowing this but JS had promised in 1998 that he was done showering with kids. The BoT could not have sold it that Joe did the right thing and therefore he should be fired. "No cops," is but one of the many things that allowed JS to operate freely for so long. you are going to either change that University "in-house" rule or get ready to see this over and over.
 
Great comeback. Not. It's not just university policies. Joe followed state law in 2001, which to my knowledge is unchanged today. Even the ncaa's policy on sexual abuse allegations issued in 2014 state that one should do what Joe did.

Right-o, and this way the next poor bastard who does what Joe did will get blamed just like Joe did. Just cannot understand why you would have any faith that this is the way to handle it.

I know I have learned from this case that if I want to call the cops I will call them, and make sure I document it to my boss and the cop.

The American corporate culture is to hide bad news. PSU is run by corporation heads. So is PA, apparently. That policy is good for the people in charge, bad for victims, and bad for the poor bastard who follows their sucker rule. They paid 8 mil to have a guy blame HIM for not doing MORE. And it worked, and it would work again. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
 
We use the term "innocent bystander" all the time, but a bystander who witnesses an injustice and does nothing is not innocent, especially if there is physical danger or fear being used.

In summary, MM is either not innocent because he witnessed an injustice, or witnessed nothing.

You're not answering the question that I asked.

Why is the 20-year old woman responsible for her decision to drive in Case B but not her decision to have sex in Case A?

Because the woman in Case A is a liberal, the woman in case B is a conservative. Liberals have no personal responsibility, it all lies with the government.

Bottom line is, Joe had nothing to call the State Police or Childline about.

+1
Joe didn't have a time machine, so he couldn't know that Jerry turned out to be a monster. All he could do with the untimely watered down hearsay account was follow university policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbahses
If the policy to which 1969 was referring said that persons who worked for a UNIVERSITY and who get knowledge of a criminal act occurring at the workplace CANNOT on pain of being fired, call the cops, I do not care how standard that is--it is stupid or worse than that, evil. It is a recipe for the flourishing of not just pedophiles, but criminals of all kinds. I suspect to be fired for such a thing is simply illegal. In any event, it is unthinkable that they would have fired Joe Paterno in 2001 for calling the State Police or childline. These rules CREATE coverups.

There are reasons for it for this specific crime--one of which is to get the info into the hands of folks trained in this area--and not into anyone else's hands. It's also the one area where a false accusation--or a leak--can destroy a life (and in some cultures get the accused killed). I had training from people experienced in this area. And again, I am not talking about an eyewitness here but a secondary witness, which Joe was. Mike should have done more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbahses
There are reasons for it for this specific crime--one of which is to get the info into the hands of folks trained in this area--and not into anyone else's hands. It's also the one area where a false accusation--or a leak--can destroy a life (and in some cultures get the accused killed). I had training from people experienced in this area. And again, I am not talking about an eyewitness here but a secondary witness, which Joe was. Mike should have done more.
If it takes only specially trained folks, then the cops can ring them in--based on what happened to Joe I would never trust my superiors in an org as large as PSU to do the right thing. It was perfectly reasonable for him to trust them, but I bet he had occasion to wish he hadn't when they fired him. Based on that example, I wouldn't either.
 
If it takes only specially trained folks, then the cops can ring them in--based on what happened to Joe I would never trust my superiors in an org as large as PSU to do the right thing. It was perfectly reasonable for him to trust them, but I bet he had occasion to wish he hadn't when they fired him. Based on that example, I wouldn't either.

So you are quite sure that cops wouldn't leak it? That was one of the points made in the training I got--which to be fair was for an org dealing with multinational situations. In some countries, the mere accusation can be a death sentence--sometimes for the accused and sometimes for the accusee. Again--Mike should have gone to the cops. But a second hand story? There is actually a reason for the protocols being as they are. Let's note that the the NCAA didn't even say "you must call the cops" in their new protocol.
 
So you are quite sure that cops wouldn't leak it? That was one of the points made in the training I got--which to be fair was for an org dealing with multinational situations. In some countries, the mere accusation can be a death sentence--sometimes for the accused and sometimes for the accusee. Again--Mike should have gone to the cops. But a second hand story? There is actually a reason for the protocols being as they are. Let's note that the the NCAA didn't even say "you must call the cops" in their new protocol.

Well it is not the University of Pakistan, is it? And I am sorry but I don't trust the NCAA anymore than I do PSU. Why are you so sure that the people JVP reported to would not leak it? What about Wendell Courtney? What about Graham Spanier or Curley or some clown from CYS? Anyone you tell it to could leak it, right? So the best thing is to say nothing and hope for the best, right? Or report it up the chain in an org run by a dishonest BoT and hope they don't f you later, right? Show me a case where a guy like Joe Paterno got sued OR fired for making a call to the cops about a report he had heard. Seems likely what they would do is talk to MM. And boy oh boy would this have turned out differently for Joe. Maybe no so differently for PSU, but differently for Joe.

Your training is in a system which gives the organization the right to decide whether the safety of this kid is the most important thing, or whether the safety of the org is the most important thing. If they decide not to report and it blows up later, then they blame you, who "should have done more."

I just do not agree. They can have any rule they like, but if it is me I am not allowing them to have the option of screwing me later.
 
I think that you're blissfully unaware of what's going on with this issue. You should read spud's post, because he is arguing exactly this, and he is apparently involved in this kind of training.

He says, "Males (and females for that matter) who have sex with an intoxicated person are taking a BIG risk because if they are too drunk to give consent, even if they willing put themselves in that situation, they very possibly have a legitimate claim of being assaulted."

Ask him what he considers "too drunk to give consent." I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean falling-down, unconscious drunk. He means that if your son has sex with a girl who's had four beers, he can be called a rapist (even if he is equally drunk and she is just as keen to have sex).

And there have indeed been a number of lawsuits over this issue.

This is a tragedy in the making on a number of fronts:
  • Reinforces the sexist notion that men are always the "sexual aggressors"
  • Infantilizes women by saying they are not responsible for their own actions/decisions
  • By calling "regretted sex" "rape" (which is what we are doing, notwithstanding spud's protestations) we undermine true rape victims

Please don't speak for me, because you are WAY off. The question of "too drunk to give consent" is a subjective question, i.e. not one that that has a clearly defined answer. Thus, it is a question for the legal system to sort out if and when such a case sees the inside of a court room. THAT is what I was suggesting when I said it was risky. It may or may not be a legitimate claim depending on a number of factors specific to each case, but again, that is for a jury to decide post hoc. I am absolutely, positively, not saying what you think I'm saying. The question comes down to level of intoxication.

As for your bulleted points.... where to begin:

- It's only sexist if people make assumptions about it. The actual statistics show that men, overwhelmingly are the aggressors in the vast majority of cases. Female on female sexual assault and female on male sexual assault happens, but it's extremely rare in comparison. Stating those facts is not sexist, only actions taken based on those statistics can be sexist.

- No one is saying women are not responsible for their actions. What you can't understand is that when it comes to sex (not driving a car or any other azzbackwards comparison you are trying to make) people are REQUIRED to obtain consent from a person ABLE TO PROVIDE CONSENT. If they do not get consent or the person is too intoxicated to provide consent, it may constitute an assault. That is the fact and that is the reason these trainings are taking place... you seem like you could certainly benefit from attending one.

- NO ONE who is educated on these issues is calling regretted sex rape. In fact, I specifically stated that regretted sex is not rape in a previous post. No one with a sound understanding of these issues is saying that. I'm not sure what you mean by "true" rape victims either. If someone was touched in a sexual manner without providing consent or while in a state where they could not give consent, it is "true rape". A very small percentage of rape is committed by a stranger, with force, like you see on TV. I'll say it again... you are EXACTLY The type of person these trainings are intended for because your mind is overflowing with misunderstandings, false assumptions, and basic lack of knowledge on the issue.
 
"Almost never" is going to become more and more frequent as this "training" becomes the norm. We're already seeing it.

The focus should be on preventing real rape, and not on turning "oopsie, I got drunk and had sex with someone I didn't mean to" into rape.

My God are you off base here. The training is to educate people on how to safely and respectfully engage in consensual sex without putting yourself or your partner at risk. It's pretty twisted that you are conceptualizing it as "how-to" for claiming rape. Your ignorance is astounding.....
 
This training isn't about criminal law. It's about Title IX and campus discipline. And it's a mess because they are calling actions that would not be considered "rape" under the law (ie drunk consensual sex) "rape" for the purposes of expelling students. The fundamental problem is that the Department of Education is redefining "sexual assault" and "rape" and it's also forcing universities to set up kangaroo courts to handle matters that ought to be handled through the criminal justice system. I have always been a huge fan of Title IX but things are really going off the rails.

Truly, you ought to read up on this issue if you want to have a discussion about it.

Where in the world are you getting this stuff??? That's not even close... For you to call someone out for a lack of knowledge is mind blowing. The training freaking DEFINES the different levels of sexual assault per the law as part of the training for crying out loud.

What you are talking about is the student code of conduct that doesn't even use the terminology "rape" so I have no idea where you are coming up with this stuff.... codes of conduct have various subjective clauses about behavior that is separate from the legal process. There are issues with that process for sure and in many cases, the OJA is a kangaroo court. Why you think this training is aimed to push more cases of "not-real-rape" (whatever the **** that means) through that system is beyond me. You clearly have ZERO experience with these trainings and fail to understand that they are about keeping students safe and teaching them how to protect themselves as well as their partners. You have some serious issues if you think people are creating these trainings to deputize groups of people on campus to start pointing out rape every time someone gets drunk and has sex.

I want everyone else reading this to understand how messed up this guy's view is on these trainings. He is clearly completely clueless about their intent, their content, and their impact.
 
I am certainly alert to your concerns in this, especially given that the leadership at our University is so poor. However, Bystander Intervention is the ONLY way out of societal problems like bullying, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, etc. In NYC, they say, "if you see something, say something." Often people take the term Intervention to mean physical intervention, and that is not the only way you can intervene. This training will focus on situations you might encounter and what you should do SHORT OF PHYSICAL intervention. If it is a good program it will simultaneously focus on how to protect yourself as a University employee by documenting your interactions if you are reporting something that could result in embarrassment to your employer and therefore threaten your job somehow.

Whether people get abused or harassed on the PSU campus is the business of every person on that campus, PSU employee, student, or not. It is our flagship University. If you tolerate abuse or harassment because you think it is none of your business, you will get more of it. If your workplace or your school or your town becomes know thereafter as a place where abuse is tolerated, you should not complain. You tolerated it.

We use the term "innocent bystander" all the time, but a bystander who witnesses an injustice and does nothing is not innocent, especially if there is physical danger or fear being used.

Politically Correct crap. Just try to intervene when a PSU female athlete is beating on her boyfriend.
 
Where in the world are you getting this stuff??? That's not even close... For you to call someone out for a lack of knowledge is mind blowing. The training freaking DEFINES the different levels of sexual assault per the law as part of the training for crying out loud.

What you are talking about is the student code of conduct that doesn't even use the terminology "rape" so I have no idea where you are coming up with this stuff.... codes of conduct have various subjective clauses about behavior that is separate from the legal process. There are issues with that process for sure and in many cases, the OJA is a kangaroo court. Why you think this training is aimed to push more cases of "not-real-rape" (whatever the **** that means) through that system is beyond me. You clearly have ZERO experience with these trainings and fail to understand that they are about keeping students safe and teaching them how to protect themselves as well as their partners. You have some serious issues if you think people are creating these trainings to deputize groups of people on campus to start pointing out rape every time someone gets drunk and has sex.

I want everyone else reading this to understand how messed up this guy's view is on these trainings. He is clearly completely clueless about their intent, their content, and their impact.

Man, are you messed up. Your ignorance is astonishing. For openers, this policy has nothing to do with the criminal justice system. It's simply a PSU administrative policy. And anyone who is trained in the policy would be well advised to stay clear lest they have criminal or civil charges filed against them. Fer sure any student expelled under this anti-male policy will sue and win. Reminds me of the aptly-named Tailhook convention where 21 pilots were censured for "conduct unbecoming", but none of the two dozen female officers who drunkenly danced naked on tabletops was punished.
 
Well it is not the University of Pakistan, is it? And I am sorry but I don't trust the NCAA anymore than I do PSU. Why are you so sure that the people JVP reported to would not leak it? What about Wendell Courtney? What about Graham Spanier or Curley or some clown from CYS? Anyone you tell it to could leak it, right? So the best thing is to say nothing and hope for the best, right? Or report it up the chain in an org run by a dishonest BoT and hope they don't f you later, right? Show me a case where a guy like Joe Paterno got sued OR fired for making a call to the cops about a report he had heard. Seems likely what they would do is talk to MM. And boy oh boy would this have turned out differently for Joe. Maybe no so differently for PSU, but differently for Joe.

Your training is in a system which gives the organization the right to decide whether the safety of this kid is the most important thing, or whether the safety of the org is the most important thing. If they decide not to report and it blows up later, then they blame you, who "should have done more."

I just do not agree. They can have any rule they like, but if it is me I am not allowing them to have the option of screwing me later.

Don't get me wrong. I see your point. But expect to get fired in that case.

I am not sure, however, that you see my point--in that this is the recommendation of experts in the area. It's why a lot of orgs have this policy. It wasn't and isn't just Penn State. Just because the "experts" at PSU may have screwed it up does not mean that the protocol is wrong.

And we do know one reason why Joe did follow protocol. He was concerned that due to his reputation he might influence the case in an unfair manner. It was well known he didn't like Sandusky.
 
If the policy to which 1969 was referring said that persons who worked for a UNIVERSITY and who get knowledge of a criminal act occurring at the workplace CANNOT on pain of being fired, call the cops, I do not care how standard that is--it is stupid or worse than that, evil. It is a recipe for the flourishing of not just pedophiles, but criminals of all kinds. I suspect to be fired for such a thing is simply illegal. In any event, it is unthinkable that they would have fired Joe Paterno in 2001 for calling the State Police or childline. These rules CREATE coverups.

Every medium to large organization in the country has the sort of policy on record that Joe followed. I know the company I work for certainly does. There are people in the organization designated to deal directly with the police, and the media as well, and in the particular case of the 2001 incident that was neither Joe nor McQueary. Typical policies such as the one Joe followed provide allowances for personnel to dial the police or fire dept. directly via 911 in the case of the risk of immediate harm to personnel or damage to property, and that probably describes the situation while McQueary was still in the Lasch Building on that Friday night....but ten hours later?....absolutely not. In my company, unless there is risk of immediate harm to personnel or damage to property I am not to call the police. I am to report the incident to HR or my supervisor. If there is some incident and some stranger is milling around asking questions, regardless if that person identified herself as a reporter or not, I am not answer even one single question not even what my name is, I am to refer that person to HR or my supervisor. If Mike didn't think the situation he witnessed in the Lasch Building warranted any action greater than to report it to his superior the following morning, then both Mike and Joe did exactly what they should have.....kick it up the ladder to the administrator designated specifically to deal with the issue. These sorts of policies are common in every medium to large organization and are neither stupid nor evil. They are designed to protect the organization from all kinds of different harm that might possibly befall it as a result of the rash, ill-conceived, and possibly disastrous decisions made by a loose canon such as yourself. That's when the REAL evil breaks out, when the message gets out of the company's control as the result of some imbecile who feels he or she knows better than all the people around him/her and starts haphazardly shooting of his/her mouth. Had you been in Joe's shoes and did what you are ranting in this thread that you feel he should have done, shirking the university policy all the while, you'd likely have been fired with cause for insubordination and breaking of university policy and the university would be much better protected from harm through your absence. Had some ex-employee who had done as you insist Joe should have and been fired and come to you in your law practice looking for amends there is absolutely nothing you could do for that ex-employee. The firing would have been done with cause. No one needs a loose canon like you rolling around the deck.
 
Every medium to large organization in the country has the sort of policy on record that Joe followed. I know the company I work for certainly does. There are people in the organization designated to deal directly with the police, and the media as well, and in the particular case of the 2001 incident that was neither Joe nor McQueary. Typical policies such as the one Joe followed provide allowances for personnel to dial the police or fire dept. directly via 911 in the case of the risk of immediate harm to personnel or damage to property, and that probably describes the situation while McQueary was still in the Lasch Building on that Friday night....but ten hours later?....absolutely not. In my company, unless there is risk of immediate harm to personnel or damage to property I am not to call the police. I am to report the incident to HR or my supervisor. If there is some incident and some stranger is milling around asking questions, regardless if that person identified herself as a reporter or not, I am not answer even one single question not even what my name is, I am to refer that person to HR or my supervisor. If Mike didn't think the situation he witnessed in the Lasch Building warranted any action greater than to report it to his superior the following morning, then both Mike and Joe did exactly what they should have.....kick it up the ladder to the administrator designated specifically to deal with the issue. These sorts of policies are common in every medium to large organization and are neither stupid nor evil. They are designed to protect the organization from all kinds of different harm that might possibly befall it as a result of the rash, ill-conceived, and possibly disastrous decisions made by a loose canon such as yourself. That's when the REAL evil breaks out, when the message gets out of the company's control as the result of some imbecile who feels he or she knows better than all the people around him/her and starts haphazardly shooting of his/her mouth. Had you been in Joe's shoes and did what you are ranting in this thread that you feel he should have done, shirking the university policy all the while, you'd likely have been fired with cause for insubordination and breaking of university policy and the university would be much better protected from harm through your absence. Had some ex-employee who had done as you insist Joe should have and been fired and come to you in your law practice looking for amends there is absolutely nothing you could do for that ex-employee. The firing would have been done with cause. No one needs a loose canon like you rolling around the deck.

Nobody at the company you mean. Nobody at the company wants that done, because it might embarrass the company. But what about the victim? Do you suppose that if an employee were raping someone or about to rape someone or giving a 10 year old not related to him naked bear hugs in the shower, that the victim might want somebody to do something? Of course if you kick it upstairs and nothing is done, then the evidence vanishes and the victim has nobody to back them up or serve as witnesses, then a lot of the disastrous things that might happen to the company, like a serial ped in their midst abusing children and the associated liability, those things would not happen to the company? Right. They company could avoid all that if they can just come up with a way to keep the employees from calling the cops.

Of course that allows the serial ped to keep abusing kids for another 6-7 years until he is finally caught somewhere else, and THEN when you can find an employee who did know about it and just reported it up the chain, you can hire Louie to come in and say he should have done more and fire him then after destroying HIS reputation. I can see why they have those policies, from their point of view. So, naked bear hugs in a shower from a 60 year old man behind a 10 yo boy? Immediate harm to personnel? Call the cops or not? Since MM did not call the cops, should Joe? Isn't a ped pretty much dangerous and potentially harmful to any kid he has a predator relationship with?

Sorry man. I don't care how many companies have this policy. Given what they did to Joe, I would report it to someone in LE I could PROVE I reported it to.

BTW, funny that you mention reporters in the same policy, because that is what it is all about--how does the corporation LOOK in the media. Not about the safety of kids or stopping criminals, but how do we look. I bet they all do have such a policy. They are looking out for themselves, not for what's right or just or honorable, but for themselves.
 
Don't get me wrong. I see your point. But expect to get fired in that case.

I am not sure, however, that you see my point--in that this is the recommendation of experts in the area. It's why a lot of orgs have this policy. It wasn't and isn't just Penn State. Just because the "experts" at PSU may have screwed it up does not mean that the protocol is wrong.

And we do know one reason why Joe did follow protocol. He was concerned that due to his reputation he might influence the case in an unfair manner. It was well known he didn't like Sandusky.
Experts in the area of protecting corporate assets. Is it also the recommendation of experts in stopping child sex abuse? Is it the recommendation of victims who were abused on corporate property and nobody did anything for years?
 
Please don't speak for me, because you are WAY off. The question of "too drunk to give consent" is a subjective question, i.e. not one that that has a clearly defined answer.

It seems to me that's a very big problem. If I steal money from someone, I know that I've committed a crime. If I hit someone over the head with a brick, I know that I've committed a crime. But you're saying that if I have sex with someone, there's no OBJECTIVE way for me to know whether that act was a crime. Like I said, we've created a mess.

The question comes down to level of intoxication.

OK. So what is that level? As a specific example, if a person is considered legally too drunk to drive a motor vehicle, is that person too drunk to give consent? Yes or no?

- It's only sexist if people make assumptions about it. The actual statistics show that men, overwhelmingly are the aggressors in the vast majority of cases. Female on female sexual assault and female on male sexual assault happens, but it's extremely rare in comparison. Stating those facts is not sexist, only actions taken based on those statistics can be sexist.

It's absolutely sexist to assume that the male is the one who has to ask for consent and the female is the one to grant consent. Which is exactly what university administrators are doing.

- No one is saying women are not responsible for their actions. What you can't understand is that when it comes to sex (not driving a car or any other azzbackwards comparison you are trying to make) people are REQUIRED to obtain consent from a person ABLE TO PROVIDE CONSENT. If they do not get consent or the person is too intoxicated to provide consent, it may constitute an assault. That is the fact and that is the reason these trainings are taking place... you seem like you could certainly benefit from attending one.

I understand full well that's the standard that you're trying to impose. But I'm saying it's bullshit. You are absolutely absolving women of the responsibility for their decisions, and it is infantilizing them. And when they get out into the big wide world and they try to say that they're not responsible for something stupid they did when they were drunk --- well, good luck with that.

- NO ONE who is educated on these issues is calling regretted sex rape. In fact, I specifically stated that regretted sex is not rape in a previous post. No one with a sound understanding of these issues is saying that. I'm not sure what you mean by "true" rape victims either. If someone was touched in a sexual manner without providing consent or while in a state where they could not give consent, it is "true rape". A very small percentage of rape is committed by a stranger, with force, like you see on TV. I'll say it again... you are EXACTLY The type of person these trainings are intended for because your mind is overflowing with misunderstandings, false assumptions, and basic lack of knowledge on the issue.

You are not labeling it "regretted sex" but that's exactly what it is. Again, the Peter Yu case is a clear example. Two kids got drunk, had sex, and a year later the female decided to call it rape. No one asked, by the way, if Yu gave HIS affirmative consent.
 
Experts in the area of protecting corporate assets. Is it also the recommendation of experts in stopping child sex abuse? Is it the recommendation of victims who were abused on corporate property and nobody did anything for years?

This was *NOT* corporate training that I had (though I am not at liberty, for security reasons, to be more specific about the org. And I think Clemente said the same thing (though I could be mistaken about that--it's been a while since I read the Thornburgh/Paterno report).

It is in place to protect the accuser as well as the accused. Or so we were told. By folks who did have the background. It is in place to make sure the situation is handled by the right people who have the training to handle it. Doesn't mean Old Main didn't screw it up of course.
 
This was *NOT* corporate training that I had (though I am not at liberty, for security reasons, to be more specific about the org. And I think Clemente said the same thing (though I could be mistaken about that--it's been a while since I read the Thornburgh/Paterno report).

It is in place to protect the accuser as well as the accused. Or so we were told. By folks who did have the background. It is in place to make sure the situation is handled by the right people who have the training to handle it. Doesn't mean Old Main didn't screw it up of course.
What do your experts say about this? http://triblive.com/neighborhoods/y...ore/6216271-74/abuse-child-laws#axzz3crPUizLt
 

We'll see how well that actually works. After all it was the state agencies that stopped the Sandusky investigation in 1998.

But I appreciate that this law is designed to define who is and is not required to report and how. Takes a lot of ambiguity out of the situation, which was part of the problem in the first place. And you'll note even here that the first call is supposed to be to the state hotline--not the cops.

This law also does not change what was standard and legal practice at the time Paterno had to deal with it. Unless you are saying that in hindsight he should have done something else.
 
We'll see how well that actually works. After all it was the state agencies that stopped the Sandusky investigation in 1998.

But I appreciate that this law is designed to define who is and is not required to report and how. Takes a lot of ambiguity out of the situation, which was part of the problem in the first place. And you'll note even here that the first call is supposed to be to the state hotline--not the cops.

This law also does not change what was standard and legal practice at the time Paterno had to deal with it. Unless you are saying that in hindsight he should have done something else.

Of course, you know if you read my posts that I am not criticizing JVP, just saying that I would not follow such a procedure now given how he got screwed. Reporting up the chain means giving the org a chance to cover it up. Not gonna happen with me, because then they blame you at the end.

BTW, the new law I linked is not about who reports and when so much as it is about who you must report to. BTW, I think the US Navy requires reporting both up the chain AND to the Family Advocacy Program, which is like the state agencies here only hopefully more competent. That the state agencies here were incompetent and perhaps even corrupt is of no importance regarding how the system should be set up. If you cannot fix that it will not matter who calls them.

I think a private org or a public university might be hard-pressed under the body of law regarding whistleblowers to fire someone who refused to report up the chain, or called the cops then reported up the chain.
 
Of course, you know if you read my posts that I am not criticizing JVP, just saying that I would not follow such a procedure now given how he got screwed. Reporting up the chain means giving the org a chance to cover it up. Not gonna happen with me, because then they blame you at the end.

BTW, the new law I linked is not about who reports and when so much as it is about who you must report to. BTW, I think the US Navy requires reporting both up the chain AND to the Family Advocacy Program, which is like the state agencies here only hopefully more competent. That the state agencies here were incompetent and perhaps even corrupt is of no importance regarding how the system should be set up. If you cannot fix that it will not matter who calls them.

I think a private org or a public university might be hard-pressed under the body of law regarding whistleblowers to fire someone who refused to report up the chain, or called the cops then reported up the chain.

Of course, I do realize your position on JVP. You've always been consistent (and we've always been in fair agreement on the point). Still hindsight sure does affect our view on what to do now, doesn't it. The trick is that folks use that hindsight to really hammer JVP--unfairly.

I do agree that I hope the law makes a difference. I expect the Navy to be more competent too (perhaps due to watching NCIS all the time), but they've had their problems from time to time. What I hope we don't get from this is witchhunts--which have happened from time to time in dealing with this issue.
 
ADVERTISEMENT