JoePa Statue coming down...

[bobarian]

Originally Posted by kelmac07

.... the blame cannot be layed on Paterno for the actions of a troubled man.

Excuse me????

[kelmac07]

Originally Posted by bobarian

Excuse me????

Sandusky was the troubled man...not Paterno.

[King James]

Originally Posted by kelmac07

Sandusky was the troubled man...not Paterno.

But could you also consider someone troubled for covering up what Sandusky did? Less troubled than Sandusky, sure, but troubled nonetheless.

[kelmac07]

Originally Posted by King James

But could you also consider someone troubled for covering up what Sandusky did? Less troubled than Sandusky, sure, but troubled nonetheless.

If he did in fact "cover it up"...I say yes, troubled for sure.

As stated in a previous post, the Freeh report is extremely biased. Paterno reported the action to his boss (athletic director) and the action taken after that was out of his hands (as far as decision making). Agreed, again above, that once he saw the administrators weren't taking action...he should have went to the authorities. Paterno didn't run Penn State University...those decisions should have been made by the Board of Trustees/President. Why are there names not being drug through the mud like Paternos is?

[King James]

Originally Posted by kelmac07

If he did in fact "cover it up"...I say yes, troubled for sure.

As stated in a previous post, the Freeh report is extremely biased. Paterno reported the action to his boss (athletic director) and the action taken after that was out of his hands (as far as decision making). Agreed, again above, that once he saw the administrators weren't taking action...he should have went to the authorities. Paterno didn't run Penn State University...those decisions should have been made by the Board of Trustees/President. Why are there names not being drug through the mud like Paternos is?

The others will be eventually, I'd guess, but probably not to the same extent as Paterno simply because Paterno is so well known. I disagree to some extent to the report being biased, but do agree that it won't be until after the civil trial that Paterno's name can really be damned or cleared. But, taking down the statue, at least for the mean time, is arguably a wise decision.

[oooo35980]

Originally Posted by kelmac07

If he did in fact "cover it up"...I say yes, troubled for sure.

As stated in a previous post, the Freeh report is extremely biased. Paterno reported the action to his boss (athletic director) and the action taken after that was out of his hands (as far as decision making). Agreed, again above, that once he saw the administrators weren't taking action...he should have went to the authorities. Paterno didn't run Penn State University...those decisions should have been made by the Board of Trustees/President. Why are there names not being drug through the mud like Paternos is?

The board of trustees aren't worshipped as Football Messiahs and there are no statues to take down.

The fact that he should have gone to the authorities and didn't I guess we agree on, I'm not sure if you feel this lack of reporting warrants his statue being removed, but I certainly do.

The bottom line that is important to me: He knew children were being raped and did not tirelessly work to put a stop to it using any and all means at his disposal but instead allowed it to continue. Whether he actively tried to cover it up is, once again, unimportant.

He knew about it, could have stopped it, and didn't even attempt to do so beyond some pass it off to someone else CYA bullcrap. Unless more evidence comes to light indicating he was on his way to the cops but was hit on the head and developed amnesia causing him to forget Sandusky was a child molester I really know all I need to be happy his statue is coming down.

[kelmac07]

Originally Posted by oooo35980

The board of trustees aren't worshipped as Football Messiahs and there are no statues to take down.

The fact that he should have gone to the authorities and didn't I guess we agree on, I'm not sure if you feel this lack of reporting warrants his statue being removed, but I certainly do.

The bottom line that is important to me: He knew children were being raped and did not tirelessly work to put a stop to it using any and all means at his disposal but instead allowed it to continue. Whether he actively tried to cover it up is, once again, unimportant.

He knew about it, could have stopped it, and didn't even attempt to do so beyond some pass it off to someone else CYA bullcrap. Unless more evidence comes to light indicating he was on his way to the cops but was hit on the head and developed amnesia causing him to forget Sandusky was a child molester I really know all I need to be happy his statue is coming down.

And the great thing...we are all entitled to our own opinions.

[proguy747]

Originally Posted by kelmac07

Sandusky was the troubled man...not Paterno.

So if one of my employees comes to me and informs me that another employee is molesting your son kelmac. Don't you think it is a crime if I do not report that your son was being molested?

[kelmac07]

Originally Posted by proguy747

So if one of my employees comes to me and informs me that another employee is molesting your son kelmac. Don't you think it is a crime if I do not report that your son was being molested?

But Marc...Paterno did report the action to his boss (athletic director). If in fact he didn't report it to anyone, then yes he is guilty of a crime.

[proguy747]

Originally Posted by kelmac07

But Marc...Paterno did report the action to his boss (athletic director). If in fact he didn't report it to anyone, then yes he is guilty of a crime.

So if I reported a crime to my dad but did not call the police its OK? Shifting blame on such a terrible crime is bullshit. Then to allow sanduche to continue to run a children's charity. Give me a break!
,

[kelmac07]

Originally Posted by proguy747

So if I reported a crime but did not call the police its OK?

I didn't say it was ok..I said it wasn't a crime.