<p>And they would have no jurisdiction on the Penn St campus</p>
<p>[LA</a> Times - Conflicting reports of Penn State witness](<a href=“http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?a=rp&m=b&postId=1188225&curAbsIndex=6&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w]LA”>http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?a=rp&m=b&postId=1188225&curAbsIndex=6&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w)</p>
<p>Tom and hops are correct</p>
<p>State College Police Chief Tom King said his department never received a report from McQueary. Then again, they wouldn’t: Penn State’s university police department is fully accredited and would have jurisdiction over the alleged incident.</p>
<p>“There’d be no reason to come to us,” he said. “Any time we do get a call, we immediately refer it to Penn State police.”</p>
<p>You cannot go back in time and change the laws on jurisdiction, folks. </p>
<p>Good Grief…</p>
<p>The question is: did he report it at all. If he did and it was to the Penn State police, then where is the report? I asked this pages ago. If he reported it and there is no record of it, then that certainly suggests a cover-up.</p>
<p>To me “regular” police would be those that are not paid directly and answer to the entity that they are policing. They would be cops with no obvious conflict of interest when a highly regarded “citizen” is implicated in a crime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot shed light on that assertion, but there is an unfortunate legacy of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the PSU athletic department. </p>
<p>A very good basketball player was dismissed from the women’s team based on her perceived sexual orientation. She sued and the complaint began as follows: </p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/psupride/articles/Filed%2012212005.pdf[/url]”>http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/psupride/articles/Filed%2012212005.pdf</a></p>
<p>The case was ultimately settled and the coach eventually resigned. Ironically, John Amaechi, who played at Penn State, was the first (former) NBA player to come out.</p>
<p><strong>Without him even being charged you think it was reasonable to label him a dangerous predator back in 1998?</strong></p>
<p>My god! He WAS a dangerous predator, as we now know. So, yes, someone should have labelled him as such back then, and PSU wouldn’t be in the mess it’s now in. That’s the whole freakin’ problem…no one stepped up. Everyone said, ‘Well, I don’t know for sure, so I’ll wait and see.’ And they said it again in 2002. Until finally someone did step up, and made sure the SOB got arrested. Or was that a rush to judgement, too?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep.</p>
<p>Nobody is protected by this set up, even if they “think” they are. In the long run, both Paterno and McQ would have been better off if they could have reported to outside authorities. They just end up looking like they “only” told higher ups at the University and were complicit in a cover up.</p>
<p>Everyone, and especially students, will be better served when Universities are policed by outside policing bodies.</p>
<p>I found it odd that McQueary waited as long as he did to assert that he had “stopped” the rape, (albeit not physically), and that he had also “discussed it with the police”. </p>
<p>If you had in fact taken those measures wouldn’t you have immediately stated so once the story broke? and to put if in an email asking that it not be repeated, when it would appear he would benefit from this version if it was true. another odd element here…I imagine they are all furiously trying to create a scenario to reduce their own consequences. </p>
<p>I also find it hard to believe none of them went to PSU counsel with this at any point, if just to figure out how to handle.</p>
<p>Thoughtful column… written by a Jesuit priest…on the parallels of the Penn State scandal and the Catholic church’s abuse scandal…</p>
<p>[A</a> priest’s view of Penn State - Guest Voices - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/a-priests-view-of-penn-state/2011/11/13/gIQAcevnHN_blog.html?wprss=guest-voices]A”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/a-priests-view-of-penn-state/2011/11/13/gIQAcevnHN_blog.html?wprss=guest-voices)</p>
<p>That was an excellent article gosmom. Thanks for posting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hindsight is 20/20 afterall…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because only university police officers have the possibility of being corrupt…</p>
<p><strong>Hindsight is 20/20 afterall…</strong></p>
<p>I think this is where lies the major divide between how I see this and how some others do. The man is a dangerous predator. He was accused of it in 1998. He was accused of it in 2002. Saying, “well, we know that now, so it doesn’t count to say something should have been done in 1998, because we didn’t know it then” is absolutely absurd to me. It has nothing to do with 20/20. It has to do with the failure to stop a man from abusing young children. Again and again and again. </p>
<p>He wasn’t stopped when he was accused AGAIN in 2002. That doesn’t sound downright pathetic to you? You think it’s only 20/20, so all should be excused? I truly cannot understand that.</p>
<p>Just because someone isn’t charged doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous</p>
<p>How many drunk drivers drive without getting caught,doesn’t make them innocent</p>
<p>How many rapes don’t go reported, doesn’t make that rapist innocent</p>
<p>Not being charged is not being charged. In this case, it was obvious Sandusky handsome problems, if nothing else the safety of children in his care. Most adults would tell little boys running around a locker room sliding in a shower that it wasn’t safe, and in fact dangerous, but nope he runs around with them snapping towels, shampooing their hair, etc.</p>
<p>And he admits he did a bad thing and begged for forgiveness. Sounds exactly like the kind of guy people would love to have their kids around</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think maybe you have reached the point where you feel like you need to fight with everyone in the room. But, I will agree that all situations have their downsides.</p>
<p>However, self-policing creates many situations which cause even those who might desire to “do the right thing” not to be able to do the right thing. The ethical ambiguities of self-policing are varied and put everyone involved at risk in a way which policng by outside entities do not. I cannot see Paterno entering into a “deal” with a corrupt cop unaffiliated with his football program. But, a man who believes in integrity and honor is frequently a man who believes it is honorable to protect his “nation” or “school” at all costs.</p>
<p>It’s not effective, imho.</p>
<p>But, you are entitled to your opinion, obviously, if you disagree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re the one that said universities shouldn’t have police departments. Those officers, in many states, are certified through the state just like any other police officer.</p>
<p>Let me repprase the question then, knowing the facts at the time in 1998, if your son came home and described to you the shower escapades with coach Sandusky, all of which he has admitted to, btw, would you have allowed your child to continue seeing Sandusky, naked hugs and all.</p>
<p>And, let’s say, you didn’t hear this from your son, but later someone told you, what would your reaction be?</p>
<p>Would you want more facts? Or would that be enough for you to question sanduskys behavior</p>
<p>No words in your mouth, just asking if this wasnyour child, your nephew, yournlittle brother, would you in fact wait for more facts. And if no charges were pressed would you still allow and in fact enoucrage the relationship with your little brother or son?</p>
<p>Don’t want to answer, I understand.</p>
<p>I don’t know one adult who would say, well, the cops didn’t do anything, so heck, I’ll let my baby play naked tag in a shower with some adult male.</p>
<p>hopsscout,</p>
<p>because the nature of the Penn State situation is one in which the head of the police department was informed by Paterno and McQ and chose not to investigate, partially due, one must assume, by a desire to protect Penn State, one can only conclude that this situation has turned out unfortunately for everyone involved, and this is partially, if not wholly, because the “police” in these circumstances were beholden to the university and not to the wider community, as would be the case with community based police.</p>
<p>If you think this was handled well, then you are willfully ignoring the fact that at some point in time someone chose not to do anything about this. My take on this is that this decision occured incrementally at all levels, starting with McQ and proceeding upwards. The final choice, however, not to investigate the rape in the shower occured with the “head of campus police.” nuff said.</p>
<p>Are you saying that you would find it acceptable for an organization to publically label someone as a sex offender who was never charged with a crime and obviously never had a trial. The mere accusation is enough?</p>
<p>poet- police not investigating criminal activity by friends of cops or politically conected people is not limited to campus polce.</p>
<p>I do agree with you that organizations should be subject to oversight but there is no reason campus police oversight has to be different than the same oversight that State College police face.</p>
<p>Ok. Time out.
Those who are now fighting each other here need to take a break.
We all benefit from an open forum, so let us show some self-restraint.
The whole situation re Sandusky bears monitoring for further developments, analysis, commentary.
Let us all agree that we will not necessarily agree.</p>
<p>Fir those who feel that this thread is 100% inflammatory rushed judgment against JoPa, PSU, its students: please take a deep breath. Have confidence that time will bring some of this to rest.
People are going to have their opinions, as you have yours.
To be heard, we have to listen to others; the atmosphere of respect is necessary.
Let’s keep it impersonal.</p>
<p>I am sorry it has to be so sad and shocking and hurtful for so many, so very many: the abuse victims are the most hurt, but PSU, its football program and its students are victims, too. Having an institution and people you have trusted for years go through this before your eyes is very hard. Really, it is like finding out parents (parallel to S and JoPa) whom you adored and respected are crooks- it calls into questions so many things at our core. Being fooled, being manipulated, being forsaken, being tarnished- absolutely difficult.</p>
<p>Take care, all as we grieve.
Let us reserve our anger to those who really deserve it, when we know they do.</p>
<p>But WHY was he never charged with a crime? That’s the point. WHY wasn’t he charged, if not in 1998, then in 2002? WHY, when at least 2 different men (as testified under oath in the GJP) saw him a$$-raping a 10 year old boy? </p>
<p>That’s what has me outraged – that he was never charged, and was free to repeat those acts, and ruin the lives of other young boys. </p>
<p>The focus shouldn’t be on the fact that he wasn’t charged, so it was OK to let him go about his business. The focus should be on the fact that he SHOULD have been charged. This 20/20 business is just clouding the real issue.</p>
<p>OK, I will breathe now. :)</p>