<p>“Our police always (as do those in Ann Arbor, etc…) use spray and gas to disperse large crowds.”</p>
<p>Ann Arbor riots? Am I missing something? Are we talking 1969?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s interesting that in Pennsylvania, the complete grand jury report is released. Here in Illinois, the only thing released to the public from grand jury actions are the name, address, and age of the accused; the charge(s) on the indictment; and whether the accused is in custody and the bond amount.</p>
<p>Hunt #734
Your analogous was much flawed.
The scenario you described was definitely not what Paterno was facing when he heard from GA in 2002, because he knew Sandusky was capable of doing such thing to children as he was fired for that reason in 98.</p>
<p>Hunt…paterno himself stated that he wished he’d done more.</p>
<p>I just don’t understand how everyone can so easily state conjecture as fact. People have connected the dots on their own without ever even hearing from those people involved about what they knew and what they did not know AT THE TIME.</p>
<p>People relying on the grand jury report to exonerate St. Paterno the Martyr from all wrongdoing can’t have it both ways and complain when people form a different opinion from reading it. </p>
<p>Hunt, nobody’s convicting anybody, except in the court of public opinion. In which the presumption of innocence has never applied. Nor is there any reason it should. Prejudicing a potential jury? That isn’t an issue with Paterno, is it?</p>
<p>
Well, “skewed” may not be the right word. But the purpose of the report is to support indictments against Sandusky, Schultz, and Curley. To the extent it has information about other people, that information is included to support the indictments. Information that might cut against the indictments is not included. Bringing out that information will ultimately be the job of defense counsel.
But if you’re Paterno, or McQueary, it puts you in an odd position–you’re being judged by accounts of your actions that aren’t really aimed at you. So, for example, the report doesn’t really give details about what happened when McQueary came upon the crime scene. Did he say anything? Did Sandusky say anything? What did Sandusky do? Where did the various people go, and when? Those details aren’t particularly germane to the report, because McQueary isn’t being prosecuted, but their absence has contributed to a lot of assumptions about what McQueary did and even thought. The same is true for Paterno–the only part of his testimony that is included is what he was told in connection with this particular incident. You think that’s all the grand jury asked him about Sandusky? I doubt it.</p>
<p>
I’m sure he does, and I believe him. Will you believe him when he says he wishes he’d known more?</p>
<p>Sopranomom post a great, clear law, now(post 732) of what we might expect now. But Vlines had a terrific question in post 733, and I am waiting on the answer.
Was that law in effect then, Sopranomom?
If not, then that law has no relevance to occurrances in '98, and we go back to the moral issue being debated.</p>
<p>“I’m glad Penn State acted as they did. What will be sad is when they find out there was at least one person on that board who already “knew” about the “sandusky problem.””</p>
<p>You raise a definite possibility.</p>
<p>Every state has reporting laws like PA’s for those who work with children and have for decades.</p>
<p>DonnaL: The grand jury report’s handling of Paterno is a little gem of corruption unto itself. In contrast to the extreme specificity of the discussion of what McQueary said he told Curley and Schultz, and what they say McQueary told them, and the indictment of Curley and Schultz for perjury based on those discrepancies, with Paterno the report says McQueary “told him what he saw”, and does not say anything at all what Paterno said about it, except that it makes clear Paterno did not say anything about anal sex in his communication to Curley. Separately, Paterno has publicly stated that he was not told the specifics of Sandusky’s conduct. Clearly, the grand jury should either have indicted all three men for perjury (except, as you know, I don’t think it would be perjury even if they were lying) or none of them, but not two out of three.</p>
<p>geeps (and others): Pennsylvania’s mandated reporter statute in 2002, like those of most other states, then and now, applied (a) to people who care for children in their professional capacity, and (b) with respect to children in their care. Arguably, Curley, the AD, may have fit the first category (since he regularly dealt with 17 year-old Penn State athletes); I doubt Schultz (a non-teaching administrator dealing mainly with finance and operations) did. And there is no question – the report makes absolutely clear – that the child in question was a private guest of Sandusky’s, not a participant in any activity sponsored by Penn State. Therefore, the mandated reporter statute does not apply here. Teachers are the classic mandated reporters, but even they are not mandated reporters if they witness a child, not their student, being abused at a grocery store. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t report it, but they can’t be charged with a crime for not reporting it.</p>
<p>Furthermore, although I haven’t looked up the statute of limitations for the 2002 mandated reporting summary offense, I would bet a fair amount that it isn’t as long as 8 years (unlike the abuse statute, which is really, really long).</p>
<p>There was a long article in the legal papers here yesterday about this. It’s completely clear that this charge is massively pushing the envelope of what the mandated reporter statute says, even in its current, broader form since 2006. Some people applaud that, some don’t. But the reporting offense indictment – punishable only by a small fine, with no jail time, even if they are found guilty – was completely a political act, not a legal one.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean I think Curley and Schultz did the right thing. They didn’t. They failed all sorts of ways. But violating the Pennsylvania mandated reporting law happened not to be one of them.</p>
<p>Those of you who think the law is clear–do you think it applies, or doesn’t apply to the PSU officials in this case? I think it clearly doesn’t apply, and that the charges based on that law will have to be dismissed. I’m not so sure about the perjury charges, though, because I think the argument will be that the lies were relevant to the prosecution of Sandusky.</p>
<p>The Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law (23 PA. C.S.A. § 6301 et seq.) was amended by the Legislature on December 16, 1994. The new law went into effect progressively, with it fully being enacted in July 1997.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>he knew at the very least of fondling of a 10 year old boy by a naked sandusky in a shower…isn’t that enough?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree; it’s obvious. Which is why I indicated above that I think that if Joe Paterno were Joe Shmo, they would have indicted him too.</p>
<p>I meant skewed in that they presented only the facts that supported their position.</p>
<p>I want to know exactly what McQueary told Paterno. “what he saw” is not helpful as what he saw could be described in many different ways. Was it a graphic description or was it in general terms of something sexual.</p>
<p>crosspost with the last 7 posters</p>
<p>The timing is odd that the grand jury has been investigating for 3 years and they waited till Paterno broke the winning record to announce this.
Similar to Ohio State waited after bowl game to suspend those players. except in this case every day you wait, more kids are exposed to danger.
PSU should get the harshest punishment by NCAA and Big10.</p>
<p>"Required reporters— </p>
<pre><code> (i) Persons who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession come into contact with children and have reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of their medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse."
</code></pre>
<p>A child is defined in Pennsylvania as anyone under the age of 18.</p>
<p>Required reporters include school administrators and school teachers.</p>
<p>Looks like they all had legal responsiiblity to report this immediately.</p>
<p>As the Grand Jury report says, Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law “provides that when a staff member reports abuse, pursuant to statute, the person in charge of the school or institution has the responsibility and legal obligation to report or cause such a report to be made by telephone and in writing within 48 hours to the Department of Public Welfare of the Comnonwealth of Pennsylvania…The failure to report is a violation of the law which was graded a summary offense in 2002…”</p>
<p>tigerdad14, ziggi brought this up in post 516:</p>
<p>“A few more days will not make much difference in a case that is decades overdue. On the other hand, the “wait a day” is also what allowed one to reach numbers that include 409.” </p>
<p>Yes, the 409th game. Timing is strange, to say the least.</p>
<p>Apparently the local media sees it as one.</p>
<p>[Joe</a> Paterno’s firing and riot aftermath | Photo Galleries | CentreDaily.com](<a href=“http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/10/2980759/joe-paternos-firing-and-riot-aftermath.html]Joe”>http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/10/2980759/joe-paternos-firing-and-riot-aftermath.html)</p>
<p>dadinator, That is correct. My post #51:</p>
<p>“Teachers and administrators are obligated by law to report any suspicions of sexual abuse of a minor. He had no excuse, friend or not.”</p>