TerraPrime Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Bit much.I disagree. That's the price of being a leader, you know. You take the accolade for the accumulated achievement of those whom you lead, but you also, should at least, take the pillory for the accumulated misdeeds of those whom you lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verboten Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Bit much.Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightsnake Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'm with Verboeten. Fuck Joe Paterno. I'll never actively wish him ill, but I'm not sorry if he suffered. At all. And fuck Penn State's students who think football is more important than child rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res ipsa loquitur Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 MercenaryChef, TerraPrime, you two are 100% correct; this is a public forum and not a jury trial. You have every right to your opinion here, and so do I. I apologize if I came accross as implying you could NOT state your beliefs; that was not my intent and I apologize. I wont judge without knowing what actually happened....and there is no way to know that. Two sides to every story.He really could have been showing inner city kids how to properly bathe...I know from experience that many kids in like situations really have no clue on hygiene and stink horrifically. However, if he was going to demonstrate bathing, he really should have worn a swim suit, and had the kids do the same. That tale shows (from what he said) that he acted totally senseless, and it does cast doubt on his side of events because it does lack credibility...but it doesnt show or proove any rape happened, which is why I espouse the "presumption of innocense" line as strongly as I do. We of the people only get media vomitus, not the actual events that occured.As to the numbers of falsely accused? ONE is too many. And we know that many have been falsely convicted, of many a crime, released years later. Thats been a discussion on otherthreads though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verboten Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 What the fuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightsnake Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Sandusky was teaching them how to bathe. Those filthy inner city kids just don't get hygiene.Give me a FUCKING BREAK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercenaryChef Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 MercenaryChef, TerraPrime, you two are 100% correct; this is a public forum and not a jury trial. You have every right to your opinion here, and so do I. I apologize if I came accross as implying you could NOT state your beliefs; that was not my intent and I apologize. I wont judge without knowing what actually happened....and there is no way to know that. Two sides to every story.He really could have been showing inner city kids how to properly bathe...I know from experience that many kids in like situations really have no clue on hygiene and stink horrifically. However, if he was going to demonstrate bathing, he really should have worn a swim suit, and had the kids do the same. That tale shows (from what he said) that he acted totally senseless, and it does cast doubt on his side of events because it does lack credibility...but it doesnt show or proove any rape happened, which is why I espouse the "presumption of innocense" line as strongly as I do. We of the people only get media vomitus, not the actual events that occured.As to the numbers of falsely accused? ONE is too many. And we know that many have been falsely convicted, of many a crime, released years later. Thats been a discussion on otherthreads though.yeah. he was just showing the boy how to bathe....while fucking him in the ass. for fuck's sake, if that is the defense that his lawyers have lined up they had best hope they can find 12 people as gullible as you to put on the jury.that is some of the stupidest shit i have ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 He really could have been showing inner city kids how to properly bathe...I know from experience that many kids in like situations really have no clue on hygiene and stink horrifically. However, if he was going to demonstrate bathing, he really should have worn a swim suit, and had the kids do the same. That tale shows (from what he said) that he acted totally senseless, and it does cast doubt on his side of events because it does lack credibility...but it doesnt show or proove any rape happened, which is why I espouse the "presumption of innocense" line as strongly as I do. We of the people only get media vomitus, not the actual events that occured.And you discounted the testimony from his assistant who said that he had walked in on them, seeing Sandusky anally raping the boy, because why now? You also seem to not be considering that he was let go as a result of allegations prior to the shower-rape discovery, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tears of Lys Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 @RIL: :o Good lord. Talk about sticking your head in the sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairparavel Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Res Ispa must be a graduate of Syracuse.ETA.And besides the 'media vomitus' to go by, we also have the grand jury testimony. Go ahead, grab a bottle of wine and get into something comfy and give that a read. And then tell us all about presumption of innocence and poor hygiene. But don't come back until you do, otherwise you won't have extra pertinent information to base your ridiculous stance on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res ipsa loquitur Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Grand jury testimonies are one sided, the prosecutors. Prosecutors have a long history of lies and misconduct, and its not for nothing the expression "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich". Its been called a :"rubber stamp" by people to, and not without reason. So, I take grand jury proceedings with liberal grains of salt.Sanduskys rather implausible version of events does not mean he raped a kid. They do show he acted stupidly, I agree. As for the assistant, what did he see? Rape? Or a naked man and boy in the shower, and presume "that must be rape"? I dont believe the assistant ever said he really saw any actual rape. Nor was he close enough to verify any rape occured; was he really able to see a penis inserted in an anus? If I am wrong, please correct me.No, I did not go to Syracuse; I just dislike people being treated unfairly and unjustly; convicted by media and popular opinion even before a trial. Presumption of innocence is an integral value of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairparavel Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You know who else presumed Sandusky was innocent? Everyone who failed those children. Good luck with seeing all sides in a situation some twenty years in the making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You know, if it somehow fell to me to teach a young inner city boy how to bathe I'd give his stinky ass a scrub brush and a bar of soap and tell him to go stand in some water until the soap and brush begin to make sense.. If he was too damn stupid to figure that out then perhaps I would demonstrate proper techniques with a dry bar of soap and wash cloth while fully clothed. There's just no way. No. Fucking. Way. that I would be caught dead naked in the showers showing a young boy how to bathe through a naked and soapy demonstration. Even if there was no sexual contact that is all kinds of inappropriate. I get the sentiment of not wanting to cast judgement in the event that this guy didn't actually commit rape. But lets be honest here.. that guy was clearly up to no good and and the very least should not have been in the position that he was in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 There may be some sliver of possibility that he is innocent. But having worked with inner city kids, yes some who had poor hygeine due to numerous factors, and taken them to the pool, let me point out that everyone kept their shorts on even post swim.I think anyone working with kids knows not to do anything that can even be misconstrued in the slightest with sexual misconduct.Sandusky being innocent would require so many false witnesses and leaps of faith I am not sure how one can it can be considered. I say that without sarcasm - if someone can come up with a plausible defense I'd be willing to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightsnake Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Grand jury testimonies are one sided, the prosecutors. Prosecutors have a long history of lies and misconduct, and its not for nothing the expression "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich". Its been called a :"rubber stamp" by people to, and not without reason. So, I take grand jury proceedings with liberal grains of salt.Sanduskys rather implausible version of events does not mean he raped a kid. They do show he acted stupidly, I agree. As for the assistant, what did he see? Rape? Or a naked man and boy in the shower, and presume "that must be rape"? I dont believe the assistant ever said he really saw any actual rape. Nor was he close enough to verify any rape occured; was he really able to see a penis inserted in an anus? If I am wrong, please correct me.No, I did not go to Syracuse; I just dislike people being treated unfairly and unjustly; convicted by media and popular opinion even before a trial. Presumption of innocence is an integral value of the US.We're not a jury. This isn't a court.What do we know?McQueary's testimony was that he saw Sandusky in the shower, violating a child.We know a child who Sandusky is accused of molesting came out about this, and his behavior shifted during the period when molestation allegedly occurred.We know Sandusky had children over his house. These children claimed he assaulted him. We know Sandusky had the authority to pull kids from class. We know Sandusky has had multiple accusers come forward, we know his interview with Bob Costas and the fact he showered with children naked.Seriously. When you compile everything...when multiple cases of assaults are alleged and he admits to showering naked with the kids? My good will doesn't extend this far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Grand jury testimonies are one sided, the prosecutors. Prosecutors have a long history of lies and misconduct, and its not for nothing the expression "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich". Its been called a :"rubber stamp" by people to, and not without reason. So, I take grand jury proceedings with liberal grains of salt.That's a bit of character assassination, isn't it, to say that "prosecutors have a long history of lies and misconduct." Even if that were true factually, you still fail to provide any evidence that this prosecutor in this case has lied or has committed misconduct, and yet you are using that as part of your reason to dimiss the validity of the grand jury testimony. It seems highly illogical.Further, the witnesses on grand jury are sworn under oath. You can argue that the prosecutors are unethical, but the content of the witness' accounts are given under oath. For your dismissal to work, you'd have to argue that those people who gave an account of the event were all perjuring themselves. Why would there be such a concerted effort to paint Sandusky as a child rapist? Are they all on the payroll of the corrupt prosecutor somehow?As for the assistant, what did he see? Rape? Or a naked man and boy in the shower, and presume "that must be rape"? I dont believe the assistant ever said he really saw any actual rape. Nor was he close enough to verify any rape occured; was he really able to see a penis inserted in an anus? If I am wrong, please correct me.He did not give a specific description of anal rape, no, but he said that he saw Sandusky doing something to the boy that was highly inappropriate, and the victim later testified that it was anal rape. So its more than just one naked man and one naked boy standing in the shower, having a shower. There were actions done by Sandusky to the boy, and which McQueary witnessed, that led McQueary to formally contact his supervisors at the Athletic Department.I just dislike people being treated unfairly and unjustly; convicted by media and popular opinion even before a trial. Presumption of innocence is an integral value of the US.And I dislike disadvantaged youth being sexually victimized by a person who preys on their vulnerability while masquerading as someone who can help them, all the while enjoying implicit endorsement of powerful individuals in the community because this sexual predator happens to be a favorite disciple of a legendary sports icon. Viva la difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmail Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 MercenaryChef, TerraPrime, you two are 100% correct; this is a public forum and not a jury trial. You have every right to your opinion here, and so do I. I apologize if I came accross as implying you could NOT state your beliefs; that was not my intent and I apologize. I wont judge without knowing what actually happened....and there is no way to know that. Two sides to every story.He really could have been showing inner city kids how to properly bathe...I know from experience that many kids in like situations really have no clue on hygiene and stink horrifically. However, if he was going to demonstrate bathing, he really should have worn a swim suit, and had the kids do the same. That tale shows (from what he said) that he acted totally senseless, and it does cast doubt on his side of events because it does lack credibility...but it doesnt show or proove any rape happened, which is why I espouse the "presumption of innocense" line as strongly as I do. We of the people only get media vomitus, not the actual events that occured.As to the numbers of falsely accused? ONE is too many. And we know that many have been falsely convicted, of many a crime, released years later. Thats been a discussion on otherthreads though.Holy shit. All of you who mocked me for mocking him for an earlier rant in another thread, pound fucking sand.Why?I don't know really. The vehemency at the time seemed ill placed, but coming back to it...i've got nothing to say. I retract my previous statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Grand jury testimonies are one sided, the prosecutors. Prosecutors have a long history of lies and misconduct, and its not for nothing the expression "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich". Its been called a :"rubber stamp" by people to, and not without reason. So, I take grand jury proceedings with liberal grains of salt.No, I did not go to Syracuse; I just dislike people being treated unfairly and unjustly; convicted by media and popular opinion even before a trial. Presumption of innocence is an integral value of the US.Wow. Really? Try actaully reading the Grand Jury report. There's a whole other side there: The victims. And presumption of innocence might be intergral, but it's long been shown that Sandusky, and yes Paterno for his inactions, were anything but. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Sanduskys rather implausible version of events does not mean he raped a kid. They do show he acted stupidly, I agree. As for the assistant, what did he see? Rape? Or a naked man and boy in the shower, and presume "that must be rape"? I dont believe the assistant ever said he really saw any actual rape. Nor was he close enough to verify any rape occured; was he really able to see a penis inserted in an anus? If I am wrong, please correct me.Since the testimony said that McQuery witnessed a kid being analy raped and heard the sounds of flesh slapping against flesh, and then looked both the boy and Sandusky in the eyes, I am going to say that you are either willfully ignorant, knowledgably defending a child rapist, or just not informmed enough to start spouting opinions.If it is the later, then I understand. I say things that I know nothing about all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Wow. Really? Try actaully reading the Grand Jury report. There's a whole other side there: The victims.Let me predict for you the most likely responses to that:1. "Victims" lie, all the time. Do you not see, for instance, how many men are falsely accused of rape because some women woke up with morning-after regrets? 2. These boys are coached by the corrupt and unethical prosecutors into saying those things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.