The charge Spanier was convicted on has statute of limitations of 2 years

[nafije]

But seriously, the narrative of this board blows. It is all defensiveness of these men that you've never met! Stop defending them, let them defend themselves. Clearly spanier's legal team did an inadequate job of that.

Sir, you are far too logical to deal with those who are hell bent to find every excuse to protect these criminals.

 

[AWS1022]

It was a joke, this whole line of reasoning is intellectually dishonest! Unbelievable.

Intellectually dishonest...hmm, seems about right for you.

 

[maxxedout]

What part don't you understand, have you not been paying attention for the last 5 years? These men, 2 of which I've met on multiple occasions, only did the "minimum" as you state with hindsight bias where you know JS is a serial pedophile.

Also, pretending I insulted your intelligence is a non-starter. Let's not go there, it's a poor attempt to change the subject.

No I don't think hindsight is necessary! Give me a scenario in which it is reported to you that a work associate of yours has been showering with young children at your place of work and you "deal with it humanely." My argument is that the superimposed 2017 knowledge is not necessary to demonstrate wrongdoing here.

 

[maxxedout]

Intellectually dishonest...hmm, seems about right for you.

I know you are but what am I? Seriously?

 

[maxxedout]

Sir, you are far too logical to deal with those who are hell bent to find every excuse to protect these criminals.

I guess they are "criminals" by definition. All I am asking is that this board change its tone lest our university be assumed to defend its own at all costs... including our sense of right and wrong.

 

[dshumbero]

I know you are but what am I? Seriously?

Ahhhhh....another PL cliche right out of the Litany According to Jockstrap.

 

[AWS1022]

Sir, you are far too logical to deal with those who are hell bent to find every excuse to protect these criminals.

And you are far too stupid to figure out what is going on. Intent is the key and if you can't figure that out, then you're beyond hope. We've been trashed, tarnished and raked over the coals for something we fought against for five years and then the trial bears that out...but I guess we're wrong for not getting in line to crucify someone that most feel the state fell short of providing ample evidence to convince a jury that wasn't biased. Sorry we don't fit into your definition of logical.

 

[AWS1022]

I guess they are "criminals" by definition. All I am asking is that this board change its tone lest our university be assumed to defend its own at all costs... including our sense of right and wrong.

Somebody has to defend the university since the university won't do it. What they've done so far has been so helpful. Sanctioned, fined, and dragged through the mud for nothing. By all means let's continue with what we've been doing.

 

[First Last]

No I don't think hindsight is necessary! Give me a scenario in which it is reported to you that a work associate of yours has been showering with young children at your place of work and you "deal with it humanely." My argument is that the superimposed 2017 knowledge is not necessary to demonstrate wrongdoing here.

Good grief, we're talking about a gym here, not an office building workplace. Have you never been to a gym before? As a child I showered naked with men all the time at a gym. Everyone did. It was not considered wrongdoing.

 

[pandaczar12]

No I don't think hindsight is necessary! Give me a scenario in which it is reported to you that a work associate of yours has been showering with young children at your place of work and you "deal with it humanely." My argument is that the superimposed 2017 knowledge is not necessary to demonstrate wrongdoing here.

OK, I guess changing the subject is easier than addressing the content of my post?

This exercise is ridiculous and a complete waste of time, but I will play along to hopefully help you learn something: If I worked in an athletic facility with a local hero, that has been applauded by the POTUS for their work with disadvantaged kids, and have also taken in multiple foster kids, who might have one of those foster kids in the shower with him in a public place… where no one is stupid enough to commit their crimes. Since in your scenario, and the 2001 locker room incident the only thing reported was a guy showering with an unknown kid… All my management training tells me to treat it administratively just like they did. I can’t call the cops to find out that the child who wasn’t in distress was just a foster child… I’d lose my job for not following company policy.

 

[maxxedout]

Good grief, we're talking about a gym here, not an office building workplace. Have you never been to a gym before? As a child I showered naked with men all the time at a gym. Everyone did. It was not considered wrongdoing.

The report was by himself and described "horseplay", at minimum.

 

[psulion2001]

F#ck the law, right?


That's a shame because there's a bizarre wrinkle to the case. The statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. The incident that Spanier was convicted of, however, dated back to 2001 -- the infamous shower incident involving a naked Jerry Sandusky and a boy that was witnessed by graduate assistant Mike McQueary.

That means the jury convicted Spanier on a crime that the statute of limitations had already expired on. You may hear more about that on appeal, where Spanier's legal team is confident of winning. Once they got their case out of Dauphin County.

Maybe Spanier's lawyer should have brought that up?

 

[PSU65]

Why wasn't the charge removed before the trial?

It wasn't removed before the trial because he was originally charged with EWOC with a continued course of conduct, which is a felony. What they actually convicted him of was just EWOC, a misdemeanor (because it didn't have the CCOC).

 

[maxxedout]

OK, I guess changing the subject is easier than addressing the content of my post?

This exercise is ridiculous and a complete waste of time, but I will play along to hopefully help you learn something: If I worked in an athletic facility with a local hero, that has been applauded by the POTUS for their work with disadvantaged kids, and have also taken in multiple foster kids, who might have one of those foster kids in the shower with him in a public place… where no one is stupid enough to commit their crimes. Since in your scenario, and the 2001 locker room incident the only thing reported was a guy showering with an unknown kid… All my management training tells me to treat it administratively just like they did. I can’t call the cops to find out that the child who wasn’t in distress was just a foster child… I’d lose my job for not following company policy.

Yes it was reported to the administrative chain. At that point, from a legal and corporate standpoint, my first thought would be... this is now my PERSONAL liability. How do I discharge this? This can be done by calling the police or CPS. But this may be unfair... I am a mandated reporter in my profession. Perhaps I have unfair expectations? I don't know... it has never passed the sniff test for me though.

 

[sluggo72]

Why did they lie about it then?

It's because the "He didn't know any better" card has already been played.

You're dealing with a behavior problem that's no longer an innocent mistake. Sandusky knew all the issues it could cause, but it was worth it to him. That begs the question, why?

You didn't answer the questions

 

[WeR0206]

Yes it was reported to the administrative chain. At that point, from a legal and corporate standpoint, my first thought would be... this is now my PERSONAL liability. How do I discharge this? This can be done by calling the police or CPS. But this may be unfair... I am a mandated reporter in my profession. Perhaps I have unfair expectations? I don't know... it has never passed the sniff test for me though.

Apparently you are unaware that JS was given permission (against Joe's wishes btw) by someone at PSU to workout with TSM youths in lasch as part of TSM's vaunted friend fitness program (a program that encourages 1:1 contact between adults kids which the state applauded and promoted around the state)?

So with that in mind hearing that JS was seen in the shower with a kid wouldn't be considered a 5 alarm fire. It was still inappropriate and it was addressed as such by complaining about it to the person who had JS' leash (JR) as far as his access to kids was concerned.

Ultimately the 2001 shit sandwhich rolled up to TSM where THEY failed.

 

[step.eng69]

You're an idiot.

There you ago again mister nice guy,
Embracing the poster with your affectionate side.

 

[step.eng69]

Perhaps, but the SOL is not always black and white. For example, does the statute in this case run from the date of the alleged EWOC or the date on which the authorities became aware of the alleged EWOC. Undoubtedly, Spanier's legal team raised this issue in pretrial motions and lost, meaning the threshold they would have to meet were they to raise this issue on appeal is likely quite high.

I thought the OAG were made aware of the alleged conspiracy/cover-up/child abuse in 2012?

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

Regarding SOL, this continuation thing is absurd, it is a circular argument. The PA government created the law so that after a period of time the memories of people have faded and therefore the testimony based those old memories would no longer be reliable. This continuation concept is totally counter to the SOL process. The concept of not reporting something that you are not required to report goes from one day to the next day to the next day makes it continuous for your entire life. Why have the SOL at all if it can never be invoked.

So is the state saying that you are supposed to report something and you are a couple of days late that you are guilty even though you report it a week later? And if the report is supposed to be within 2 days, you should be charged with the FTR which becomes EWOC with seven counts, one for each day you were late? Cumulatively that would be 35 years of Jail time? Or in the case of Spanier and CS, 10 years times 365 days/yr times 5 years per occurrence? If you believe in the continuation theory that would be correct.

That fact that there is a SOL imposed by the state automatically excludes the continuation theory and the Judge knows it. They are rotten to the core and they are protecting the power elite including Corbutt.

Every one of us should be outraged because the corrupt AOG and Judges are taking away our rights as they see fit to cover their own behinds.

 

[step.eng69]

Regarding SOL, this continuation thing is absurd, it is a circular argument. The PA government created the law so that after a period of time the memories of people have faded and therefore the testimony based those old memories would no longer be reliable. This continuation concept is totally counter to the SOL process. The concept of not reporting something that you are not required to report goes from one day to the next day to the next day makes it continuous for your entire life. Why have the SOL at all if it can never be invoked.

So is the state saying that you are supposed to report something and you are a couple of days late that you are guilty even though you report it a week later? And if the report is supposed to be within 2 days, you should be charged with the FTR which becomes EWOC with seven counts, one for each day you were late? Cumulatively that would be 35 years of Jail time? Or in the case of Spanier and CS, 10 years times 365 days/yr times 5 years per occurrence? If you believe in the continuation theory that would be correct.

That fact that there is a SOL imposed by the state automatically excludes the continuation theory and the Judge knows it. They are rotten to the core and they are protecting the power elite including Corbutt.

Every one of us should be outraged because the corrupt AOG and Judges are taking away our rights as they see fit to cover their own behinds.

Thank you, I enjoyed your narrative.

 

[Big Blue12]

More proof about how fixed this horseshit was.....





After the verdict was read, Judge John Boccabella complimented the jury.

"I never had a jury more intelligent," the judge said. He praised the questions the jury asked, which he said got to the heart of the case.

Isn't that why they brought him out of retirement. One can only pray that what goes around comes around.

 

[bdgan]

Because they'd be in jail if they didn't.

Nobody connected Spanier to anything, except maybe knowing about 98, and he was found guilty of something.

Schultz and Curley undeniably knew about 98, talked to MM, and reported a watered down version to TSM. Too much of hurdle to risk prison.

I think they had a good chance of being acquitted buy why take the chance? Which deal would you take?

1. Plea, pay a fine, and get probation or 6 months of home confinement.
2. Go to court with a 75% chance of being acquitted and a 25% chance of being found guilty and serving 3 years in prison.

 

[Ski]

Explain to me why you guys are all defending this on a ****ing technicality...? I'm tempted to never post on this board again. You are such ****ing homers... he was convicted in a court of law. It's going to the court of appeals. Right now, he's guilty of child endangerment. Thats pretty lousy of a former PSU president and it casts a shadow... but more importantly than that, a man who allowed children to be molested through inaction is being found guilty of a crime. If it stands, we should all applaud justice being served rather than line up behind Penn state. I mean, for ****s sake guys.

Congrats, you have joined the rest of the circle jerk crew on ignore. Please feel free to drone on.

 

[crazytoadie]

In fact, I'd be relieved


Wow those are some pretty fireworks you use in lieu of reasonable discourse.

There are emails that demonstrate Spanier, Curley and Shultz had knowledge of the 2001 incident. That a grown man was alone in the shower with a child. I agree that it is a grey area and that we don't know exactly what happened. Horseplay, molestation, rape...? I don't know. You don't know. There has been some question as to whether this happened at all (the validity and consistency of McQueary's statements have been ... uneven). That said, I think that most individuals would agree that the appropriate course of action was bypassed. The main question was whether this constituted a crime. This is being answered in a courtroom... and, at least for now, one has decided that it was a misdemeanor.

In fact, I'd be relieved


Wow those are some pretty fireworks you use in lieu of reasonable discourse.

There are emails that demonstrate Spanier, Curley and Shultz had knowledge of the 2001 incident. That a grown man was alone in the shower with a child. I agree that it is a grey area and that we don't know exactly what happened. Horseplay, molestation, rape...? I don't know. You don't know. There has been some question as to whether this happened at all (the validity and consistency of McQueary's statements have been ... uneven). That said, I think that most individuals would agree that the appropriate course of action was bypassed. The main question was whether this constituted a crime. This is being answered in a courtroom... and, at least for now, one has decided that it was a misdemeanor.

So you concede that you don't know what happened nor do others, yet somehow believe the appropriate course was bypassed? Please rethink your intentions of going into leadership positions, regardless of whether at PSU or your PTO if are going to make judgements or decisions based on a feeling or by what you think the public mood is.

What is known is that MM didn't think it enough of a crime to call 911 .... nor was his description enough to cause Dranov or MM Sr. to advise him to call 911 or make a police report or a call to childline...had MM told them it was sexual, Dranov has testified that he would have directed him to call the police. Nor did MM tell Paterno it was sexual, by his own admission. So the three immediate people he told either didn't feel it was criminal as evidenced by what they recommended or weren't told enough to make an informed judgement. Yet the AD and Schultz restricted Sandusky from bringing children to campus and inform his employer. That's more than CC CYS, DPW, the DA and police did in 1998, more than what MM did by "slamming his locker door", more than Dranov, MM SR., Paterno. More than Dr. jack Raykovitz did as he simply directed Sandusky to wear swim trunks rather than restrict access or to report as mandated. Certainly more than Heim, who gave Sandusky access to his hotel because PSU has restricted him and JS had no where else to go. Neither the direct witnesses or those with immediate second hand knowledge sprung into action nor those responsible in allowing Sandusky access to kids, but those in the middle that did something, but apparently didn't go far enough are the only ones we hold responsible for not doing more?

If we want to hold Spanier accountable, then let's go back and hold Lauro, Gricar, Raykovitz, or MM, accountable...all had more info and either failed at what they were trained to do or passed it off hoping someone else would take the action they didn't.

 

[WeR0206]

So you concede that you don't know what happened nor do others, yet somehow believe the appropriate course was bypassed? Please rethink your intentions of going into leadership positions, regardless of whether at PSU or your PTO if are going to make judgements or decisions based on a feeling or by what you think the public mood is.

What is known is that MM didn't think it enough of a crime to call 911 .... nor was his description enough to cause Dranov or MM Sr. to advise him to call 911 or make a police report or a call to childline...had MM told them it was sexual, Dranov has testified that he would have directed him to call the police. Nor did MM tell Paterno it was sexual, by his own admission. So the three immediate people he told either didn't feel it was criminal as evidenced by what they recommended or weren't told enough to make an informed judgement. Yet the AD and Schultz restricted Sandusky from bringing children to campus and inform his employer. That's more than CC CYS, DPW, the DA and police did in 1998, more than what MM did by "slamming his locker door", more than Dranov, MM SR., Paterno. More than Dr. jack Raykovitz did as he simply directed Sandusky to wear swim trunks rather than restrict access or to report as mandated. Certainly more than Heim, who gave Sandusky access to his hotel because PSU has restricted him and JS had no where else to go. Neither the direct witnesses or those with immediate second hand knowledge sprung into action nor those responsible in allowing Sandusky access to kids, but those in the middle that did something, but apparently didn't go far enough are the only ones we hold responsible for not doing more?

If we want to hold Spanier accountable, then let's go back and hold Lauro, Gricar, Raykovitz, or MM, accountable...all had more info and either failed at what they were trained to do or passed it off hoping someone else would take the action they didn't.

We also know from MM's email to Eschbach right after the GJP leak that he described the 2001 incident as "way over the line, whatever it was" which shows MM wasn't certain about a damned thing in 2001 which makes everyones actions and testimony make perfect sense....except for MM's.

It seems he was more truthful in his private emails to prosecutors than he was in his written statement in 2010 where he said he was certain sodomy was occurring and reported it as such. His GJ testimony was a little less definitive by saying "it looked like" some sort of sex was occurring or something along those lines.

Sigh. What a tangled web.

 

[sluggo72]

So you concede that you don't know what happened nor do others, yet somehow believe the appropriate course was bypassed? Please rethink your intentions of going into leadership positions, regardless of whether at PSU or your PTO if are going to make judgements or decisions based on a feeling or by what you think the public mood is.

What is known is that MM didn't think it enough of a crime to call 911 .... nor was his description enough to cause Dranov or MM Sr. to advise him to call 911 or make a police report or a call to childline...had MM told them it was sexual, Dranov has testified that he would have directed him to call the police. Nor did MM tell Paterno it was sexual, by his own admission. So the three immediate people he told either didn't feel it was criminal as evidenced by what they recommended or weren't told enough to make an informed judgement. Yet the AD and Schultz restricted Sandusky from bringing children to campus and inform his employer. That's more than CC CYS, DPW, the DA and police did in 1998, more than what MM did by "slamming his locker door", more than Dranov, MM SR., Paterno. More than Dr. jack Raykovitz did as he simply directed Sandusky to wear swim trunks rather than restrict access or to report as mandated. Certainly more than Heim, who gave Sandusky access to his hotel because PSU has restricted him and JS had no where else to go. Neither the direct witnesses or those with immediate second hand knowledge sprung into action nor those responsible in allowing Sandusky access to kids, but those in the middle that did something, but apparently didn't go far enough are the only ones we hold responsible for not doing more?

If we want to hold Spanier accountable, then let's go back and hold Lauro, Gricar, Raykovitz, or MM, accountable...all had more info and either failed at what they were trained to do or passed it off hoping someone else would take the action they didn't.

What he said

 

[L.T. Young]

You didn't answer the questions

Yes I did.

Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern of behavior you have to willfully ignore. Sandusky got away with his grooming in 98 by pleading ignorance. Had another shower incident been reported in 2001 he would have been done.

They all lied about 98 for a reason.

 

[L.T. Young]

I think they had a good chance of being acquitted buy why take the chance? Which deal would you take?

1. Plea, pay a fine, and get probation or 6 months of home confinement.
2. Go to court with a 75% chance of being acquitted and a 25% chance of being found guilty and serving 3 years in prison.

I personally think it was more like 50/50 all things considered. That definitely includes a jury looking for someone to blame.

Spanier shouldn't have been convicted of anything with the case the prosecution put on.

 

[Nittany1997]

Explain to me why you guys are all defending this on a ****ing technicality...? I'm tempted to never post on this board again. You are such ****ing homers... he was convicted in a court of law. It's going to the court of appeals. Right now, he's guilty of child endangerment. Thats pretty lousy of a former PSU president and it casts a shadow... but more importantly than that, a man who allowed children to be molested through inaction is being found guilty of a crime. If it stands, we should all applaud justice being served rather than line up behind Penn state. I mean, for ****s sake guys.

What evs, I was convicted of more after the 2003 Preakness!

 

[maxxedout]

Seriously, screw yourselves. Im a veteran, a physician, and I work too damn hard every day to sustain these ad hom attacks. If you guys can't stand to hear what the prevailing winds are, then by all means bury your head in the sand. I have more integrity than you can strike down with some online anonymous bullshit. Done on here until football starts up again.

 

[Nittany1997]

You are no better than anybody else..

 

[demlion]

One man's "technicality" is another man's fundamental constitutional right. Sorry that due process of law thing irritates you so much, doc, but you are in way over your head here.

This isn't a situation in which your superior knowledge of the diagnosis codes and billing nuances can ring up some extra $$ for your practice group. This is only the foundation of our national government we are talking about. The first rule I learned about this stuff is that when the government makes a rule, like a STATUTE of LIMITATIONS, the government has to FOLLOW that rule.

PA's government rarely does that. In fact you may get lucky, and these corrupt sonsabitches may not follow it here.

Funny thing, in my practice as a personal injury attorney, I have seen some self-proclaimed solid citizens who call themselves Doctor (not unlike yourself) be pretty persnickety about statutes of limitations in med mal cases. I am sure you routinely invite your patients to sue you after the statutes have run, right? Just a technicality, right? LOL.

 

[Legion of Lions]

Yes I did.

Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern of behavior you have to willfully ignore. Sandusky got away with his grooming in 98 by pleading ignorance. Had another shower incident been reported in 2001 he would have been done.

They all lied about 98 for a reason.

Lied??? Is a full investigation and no charges made from the same situation (a shower with kids) inconsistent with Sandusky handling in 2001??? HE WAS JUDGED LEGALLY INNOCENT of what you call a "pattern".

After all, he was in a State Supervised Child Care business that constantly saw many kids and situations. If you look ONLY at 2001 and how everybody MM spoke to saw no reason to report what MM said AT THE TIME he saw - then why is this SECOND TIME the smoking gun?

If TSM - a State reviewed and professionally monitored (at least that's what they were SUPPOSED to be) agency - had no problems with Sandusky - why should Penn State be expected to immediately link 1998 to 2001 and get a "CRIMINAL ACTIONS" result.

In 1998 he was JUDGED INNOCENT - this makes 2001 look like another potential over-reaction if reported.

What is missed consistently - it WAS REPORTED. The report went to TSM (mandated reporter) and they were primarily responsible for Jerry's actions. If there was a "pattern" being established, only TSM had access to the full range of information necessary to evaluate Sandusky and it was their PRIMARY LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to report/take action on Jerry's inappropriate (or worse) child contacts.

For Penn State, a vague recount of MM's sighting (one with no "victim" to verify what actually happened) handcuffed their evaluation of what really happened. A reasonable review was conducted and, based upon 1998, BOUNDARY ISSUES - doing things in a manner that are necessarily wrong....but they "look bad" - seemed to fit what was the real issue for the 2001 shower incident. That is a reasonable response based upon his 2001 image and information.

The whole "showering with a child is obviously sexual" comes AFTER 2001 when there are several OTHER complaints which causes the analysis base to change DRAMATICALLY.

FINALLY.....If it takes so little to know a child is being abuse - then why take 3 years to charge Sandusky? Based on your logic the state should have charged Sandusky in 2009. The State has TONS of experience professionals in this area of behavior - they did nothing! Are you admitting that the State of PA is guilty of Child Sex Crime enabling??

We have to stop this Penn State is EXCLUSIVELY responsible for child welfare by holding PSU to standards based upon an expanded 2017 book of information on Sandusky. And yet, we are satisfied to hold all other entities and agencies to MUCH lower standards of action and responsibility REGARDLESS . WHY???

 

[bplionfan]

Lied??? Is a full investigation and no charges made from the same situation (a shower with kids) inconsistent with Sandusky handling in 2001??? HE WAS JUDGED LEGALLY INNOCENT of what you call a "pattern".

After all, he was in a State Supervised Child Care business that constantly saw many kids and situations. If you look ONLY at 2001 and how everybody MM spoke to saw no reason to report what MM said AT THE TIME he saw - then why is this SECOND TIME the smoking gun?

If TSM - a State reviewed and professionally monitored (at least that's what they were SUPPOSED to be) agency - had no problems with Sandusky - why should Penn State be expected to immediately link 1998 to 2001 and get a "CRIMINAL ACTIONS" result.

In 1998 he was JUDGED INNOCENT - this makes 2001 look like another potential over-reaction if reported.

What is missed consistently - it WAS REPORTED. The report went to TSM (mandated reporter) and they were primarily responsible for Jerry's actions. If there was a "pattern" being established, only TSM had access to the full range of information necessary to evaluate Sandusky and it was their PRIMARY LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to report/take action on Jerry's inappropriate (or worse) child contacts.

For Penn State, a vague recount of MM's sighting (one with no "victim" to verify what actually happened) handcuffed their evaluation of what really happened. A reasonable review was conducted and, based upon 1998, BOUNDARY ISSUES - doing things in a manner that are necessarily wrong....but they "look bad" - seemed to fit what was the real issue for the 2001 shower incident. That is a reasonable response based upon his 2001 image and information.

The whole "showering with a child is obviously sexual" comes AFTER 2001 when there are several OTHER complaints which causes the analysis base to change DRAMATICALLY.

FINALLY.....If it takes so little to know a child is being abuse - then why take 3 years to charge Sandusky? Based on your logic the state should have charged Sandusky in 2009. The State has TONS of experience professionals in this area of behavior - they did nothing! Are you admitting that the State of PA is guilty of Child Sex Crime enabling??

We have to stop this Penn State is EXCLUSIVELY responsible for child welfare by holding PSU to standards based upon an expanded 2017 book of information on Sandusky. And yet, we are satisfied to hold all other entities and agencies to MUCH lower standards of action and responsibility REGARDLESS . WHY???

Mic Drop...

 

[maxxedout]

One man's "technicality" is another man's fundamental constitutional right. Sorry that due process of law thing irritates you so much, doc, but you are in way over your head here.

This isn't a situation in which your superior knowledge of the diagnosis codes and billing nuances can ring up some extra $$ for your practice group. This is only the foundation of our national government we are talking about. The first rule I learned about this stuff is that when the government makes a rule, like a STATUTE of LIMITATIONS, the government has to FOLLOW that rule.

PA's government rarely does that. In fact you may get lucky, and these corrupt sonsabitches may not follow it here.

Funny thing, in my practice as a personal injury attorney, I have seen some self-proclaimed solid citizens who call themselves Doctor (not unlike yourself) be pretty persnickety about statutes of limitations in med mal cases. I am sure you routinely invite your patients to sue you after the statutes have run, right? Just a technicality, right? LOL.

Jesus, don't get sleepy from standing up straw men.

 

[maxxedout]

One man's "technicality" is another man's fundamental constitutional right. Sorry that due process of law thing irritates you so much, doc, but you are in way over your head here.

This isn't a situation in which your superior knowledge of the diagnosis codes and billing nuances can ring up some extra $$ for your practice group. This is only the foundation of our national government we are talking about. The first rule I learned about this stuff is that when the government makes a rule, like a STATUTE of LIMITATIONS, the government has to FOLLOW that rule.

PA's government rarely does that. In fact you may get lucky, and these corrupt sonsabitches may not follow it here.

Funny thing, in my practice as a personal injury attorney, I have seen some self-proclaimed solid citizens who call themselves Doctor (not unlike yourself) be pretty persnickety about statutes of limitations in med mal cases. I am sure you routinely invite your patients to sue you after the statutes have run, right? Just a technicality, right? LOL.

I am out for the first time in four weeks and shouldn't be letting myself get pissed. I am sorry to everyone on this board that I engaged in this conversation. SOME of you are not in touch with reality. It is impossible to argue with delusion. I love Penn State, and I hope we can all be friendly when the season starts again. I had not engaged these conversations previously and I think it is best that I keep my involvement to PSU football only.

All the best, sincerely.

 

[Nittany1997]

I am out for the first time in four weeks and shouldn't be letting myself get pissed. I am sorry to everyone on this board that I engaged in this conversation. SOME of you are not in touch with reality. It is impossible to argue with delusion. I love Penn State, and I hope we can all be friendly when the season starts again. I had not engaged these conversations previously and I think it is best that I keep my involvement to PSU football only.

All the best, sincerely.

Glad you didn't lose your patience/patients!

 

[maxxedout]

Lol witty

 

[kgilbert78]

1) I recognize that a court of law is more impartial than this board of lifetime PSU fans.

2) I love Penn State and have since I was a child. I have future plans of rejoining the community both educationally and, and maybe one day, in a leadership capacity. I am only saying this to demonstrate I have zero interest in these guys being guilty. It damages the institution and the "brand".

3) I have been that guy for the past 5 years that has lived outside the state and has had to constantly answer inane questions about what happened. In all instances, I said how much BS was involved with the Freeh Report(which I've unfortunately read twice). But I always have said that if these guys were found guilty of crimes, I would concede their personal (not institutional) guilt.

There is no institution or program at Penn State that facilitated Sandusky's child rape. But we need to accept that there may be moments at which most individuals would have acted more aggressively. It may be that these guys failed to act in a reasonable capacity. If that is the case, we need to accept and not shun the truth.

Making a bad judgement call does not equal being guilty of a crime. It did and should have cost Spanier his job. That's it.

 

[sluggo72]

Seriously, screw yourselves. Im a veteran, a physician, and I work too damn hard every day to sustain these ad hom attacks. If you guys can't stand to hear what the prevailing winds are, then by all means bury your head in the sand. I have more integrity than you can strike down with some online anonymous bullshit. Done on here until football starts up again.

does this mean you won't be going out for recess?