Penn State pedophilia

[SeattleUte]

Of course not. Everybody deserves a fair trial.



That really surprises me, SU. Why do you like his article? It seemed cowardly and very poorly reasoned to me.

First of all, to compare listening to a sexist comment to witnessing a child rape is so absurd as to be offensive. And as others have mentioned, most of the bystanders cases involve multiple people and a threat of violence. How can you compare this to witnessing a child rape in a shower?

Furthermore, short of witnessing the imminent murder of a child, can you please provide me with a situation that would be more demanding of immediate intervention than child rape?

Then let's suppose just for the sake of argument that we are somehow unable to intervene upon witnessing such an event. After the event has occurred, why not report the event at a later time after carefully pondering the implications of what has happened? Why not stop this monster from abusing more children?

If we can't make a moral judgment about a situation like this, God help us.

I said the comparisons to genocide were inapt, that it would have taken relatively little courage for McQuery et al. to do the right thing.. I was making the point that if you allow mob rule, eventually you will be confronted with a moral choice that even you will chicken out of making. Ironically, it's the requirement that Sandusky receive a fair trial that enables us to make moral decisions with relative safety in this free country. Hell, qui tam laws even protect people from getting fired.

[CJF]

Of course not. Everybody deserves a fair trial.



That really surprises me, SU. Why do you like his article? It seemed cowardly and very poorly reasoned to me.

First of all, to compare listening to a sexist comment to witnessing a child rape is so absurd as to be offensive. And as others have mentioned, most of the bystanders cases involve multiple people and a threat of violence. How can you compare this to witnessing a child rape in a shower?

Furthermore, short of witnessing the imminent murder of a child, can you please provide me with a situation that would be more demanding of immediate intervention than child rape?

Then let's suppose just for the sake of argument that we are somehow unable to intervene upon witnessing such an event. After the event has occurred, why not report the event at a later time after carefully pondering the implications of what has happened? Why not stop this monster from abusing more children?

If we can't make a moral judgment about a situation like this, God help us.

Exactly. Very poorly argued logic all the way around in that article.

[Jacob]

Exactly. Very poorly argued logic all the way around in that article.

I don't know. I think you guys are making logical extensions that he didn't make in the article.

[Jacob]

That really surprises me, SU. Why do you like his article? It seemed cowardly and very poorly reasoned to me.

How is the article cowardly? Brooks committed no cowardly act and he didn't advocate for anybody's acting cowardly. It was a comment on human nature and mob mentality, not a defense of the accused. If anything, the article is contrary to the currently prevailing attitude of the media and the public in general. It would have been more cowardly to have not written it, believing as he does.

And yes, there is a lot to agree with in the article.

[Viking]

fair trial is important but there are far more important things than him getting 100% fair trial.

Like what? What would be more important than a fair trial, if he didn't do it?

[TripletDaddy]

Will I get stoned if I point out that even Jerry Sandusky is entitled to an effective defense? Please don't stone me.

I think those of you condemning his lawyer's anticipated tactics at trial are really confused. There is no more important priciple at stake here that that Jerry Sandusky receive an effective defense and a fair trial. NONE. To paraphrase yesterday's favorite columnist, and add a new twist, if Jerry Sandusky does not receiver an effective defense and a fair trial nothing else matters.

Please don't beat me. Please don't lynch me.

I like Brooks' article a lot. However, it would have taken a lot less courage--physical courage at least--for McQuery, Paterno et al. to stop and/or report child abuse in this free society than for citizens to stand up to murderous Nazis, for example, during Hitler's reign.

You are conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other.

Sandusky is an American citizen. He deserves and should get his day in court. Why would anybody stone you for suggesting that?

I was questioning his decision to go on TV and do press. It is obvious that such a junket can only be a disaster. Any wise counselor would be able to read the tea leaves of public opinion and know when to lay low. Doing interviews in which the only thing you can possibly do is deny or rationalize will wind up hurting Sandusky, not helping him. People have already thrown bricks through his window at home (burn in hell? this says burn in hell!). What do you think might happen if he insists on doing more TV shows, explaining how he showered with boys? Next time it might not be a brick.

Contrast with that insane woman that murdered her baby. She disappears after the trial and now everyone has moved on. She is yesterday's news. Had she insisted on doing a round of talk shows and interviews protesting her innocence, she would still be Public Enemy #1 right now, or #2 behind Sandusky, I suppose.

[CJF]

I don't know. I think you guys are making logical extensions that he didn't make in the article.

He says people can't process horrible events. That is not the case. McQueary spoke to two people within 24 hours. He has told teammates that he stopped the act. So that argument doesn't apply to this case. He clearly processed the situation he came upon.

Second, seeing a child be raped by a naked 55 year old man with no weapon is quite a bit different from staying quite as armies acting out genocide on humanity.

McQueary may have had motivational blindness, but it wasn't until later when he became the recruiting coordinator and used Sandusky to help him succeed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How is the article cowardly? Brooks committed no cowardly act and he didn't advocate for anybody's acting cowardly. It was a comment on human nature and mob mentality, not a defense of the accused. If anything, the article is contrary to the currently prevailing attitude of the media and the public in general. It would have been more cowardly to have not written it, believing as he does.

And yes, there is a lot to agree with in the article.

Cowardly in the sense that I suspect his motivation for the op-ed piece is to stir things up by being provocative.

But by focusing on that word in light of my explanation shows that you are nitpicking and ignoring my main point.

By the way, does this mean that didn't really change your mind after all? First of all, you wondered why everyone was upset with Paterno because he was not guilty of a criminal act according to the letter of the law since he had kicked it up the chain and satisfied the minimum administrative requirements. Then you mentioned that you had changed your mind because Sandusky was still associated with PSU (as if breaking PSU policy were the main problem here). Now today it appears you are pointing at this op-ed piece as some kind of vindication. What exactly is your point?

[woot]

The more people around the more likely it is to happen. I don't have time to wade through that supporting study and related evidence, but I bet it doesn't focus on rape of children. I bet it includes things like property crimes, assaults (like bar fights) and other dissimilar crimes.

I saw a video of a child in Asia getting run over by a car, and then lying on the ground bleeding while one by one, various people walked past, sometimes stepping over the child, without stopping. The child survived, but it was a good reminder that the urge to mind one's own business is often overpowering.

This isn't a defense of McQueary, but only an acknowledgment that it's simply not possible to know how you're going to act until you experience it. Given McQueary's testimony that Sandusky became aware that McQueary saw him and therefore stopped, I don't think this line of inquiry will prove fruitful. The much greater concern, to me at least, is why McQueary wasn't more persistent about making sure the authorities were contacted. Even then, we don't know who threatened him with what regarding keeping his mouth shut. So McQueary is one case where I think a presumption of innocence is prudent, even in the court of public opinion. The admins, including Paterno, seem much more culpable to me.

[woot]

Cowardly in the sense that I suspect his motivation for the op-ed piece is to stir things up by being provocative.

That seems like the opposite of cowardly. I'm reminded of the rhetoric in which anti-war protesters were called cowards, apparently because it takes so much bravery to support sending other people to die for your beliefs.

It seems important to not conflate the options that McQueary had with the arguments for and against them. There is absolutely no danger in arguing that he should have been more active in stopping it, and at least right now, it seems that there is likely to be backlash against anyone suggesting otherwise.

[creekster]

I saw a video of a child in Asia getting run over by a car, and then lying on the ground bleeding while one by one, various people walked past, sometimes stepping over the child, without stopping. The child survived, but it was a good reminder that the urge to mind one's own business is often overpowering.

This isn't a defense of McQueary, but only an acknowledgment that it's simply not possible to know how you're going to act until you experience it. Given McQueary's testimony that Sandusky became aware that McQueary saw him and therefore stopped, I don't think this line of inquiry will prove fruitful. The much greater concern, to me at least, is why McQueary wasn't more persistent about making sure the authorities were contacted. Even then, we don't know who threatened him with what regarding keeping his mouth shut. So McQueary is one case where I think a presumption of innocence is prudent, even in the court of public opinion. The admins, including Paterno, seem much more culpable to me.

A man that failed to protect a child from being raped will never persuade me his inaction was acceptable on the basis that many or even most other people would have also failed to act. Such inaction is worthy of condemnation. I can easily extend the condemnation to a failure to warn the authorities.

[Jacob]

Cowardly in the sense that I suspect his motivation for the op-ed piece is to stir things up by being provocative.

But by focusing on that word in light of my explanation shows that you are nitpicking and ignoring my main point.

By the way, does this mean that didn't really change your mind after all? First of all, you wondered why everyone was upset with Paterno because he was not guilty of a criminal act according to the letter of the law since he had kicked it up the chain and satisfied the minimum administrative requirements. Then you mentioned that you had changed your mind because Sandusky was still associated with PSU (as if breaking PSU policy were the main problem here). Now today it appears you are pointing at this op-ed piece as some kind of vindication. What exactly is your point?

I haven't changed my mind about what I've said. I partially changed my mind based on new facts, but don't think we have a complete picture as to Paterno's culpability or McQs. I haven't seen a good argument that either is guilty of a crime (the grand jury apparently agrees with me). But I think Penn St acted prudently in dismissing all involved, immediately. I still think that there has been a rush to judgement of some of the people not named Sandusky and would like to learn more of the facts. I dislike the mob mentality and the media firestorm. But that isn't just specific to this case. I agree with Brooks that everybody who knows exactly how they'd handle being in the situation of a witness or hearing a 3rd party account probably has no clue what they are talking about. Acting so superior is off-putting to me. I agree with him that we are a more complicated species and don't always react in ways that may seem obvious to us when we are not being confronted with a real choice.

And why is being provocative cowardly? You are yet again rushing to judgement and name calling because he writes a fairly innocuous op-ed about human nature? You think I'm morally bankrupt, I get it. Brooks too. But your responses here seem to show that you are being more reactionary than reasonable about this. Just in my opinion. I don't begrudge your disagreeing, only your being so disagreeable. My posting the article was not seeking vindication. I just found it thoughtful and worth posting in this discussion. He was able to make some of the points that I had tried to make much less effectively. Worthy of reflection.

[woot]

A man that failed to protect a child from being raped will never persuade me his inaction was acceptable on the basis that many or even most other people would have also failed to act. Such inaction is worthy of condemnation. I can easily extend the condemnation to a failure to warn the authorities.

Fair enough. It's not a good thing about the human condition. It's quite horrific, actually, how heartless the average person seems to be in these sorts of situations. I just don't think it hurts to have a little perspective on the issue, lest we get too high and mighty in our condemnation. You or I very well may have done the same thing in his position.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I will stipulate that cowardly was a poor choice of words, so you can let that one go. But I still think it was a very poorly reasoned op-ed piece.

[SeattleUte]

You are conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other.

Sandusky is an American citizen. He deserves and should get his day in court. Why would anybody stone you for suggesting that?

I was questioning his decision to go on TV and do press. It is obvious that such a junket can only be a disaster. Any wise counselor would be able to read the tea leaves of public opinion and know when to lay low. Doing interviews in which the only thing you can possibly do is deny or rationalize will wind up hurting Sandusky, not helping him. People have already thrown bricks through his window at home (burn in hell? this says burn in hell!). What do you think might happen if he insists on doing more TV shows, explaining how he showered with boys? Next time it might not be a brick.

Contrast with that insane woman that murdered her baby. She disappears after the trial and now everyone has moved on. She is yesterday's news. Had she insisted on doing a round of talk shows and interviews protesting her innocence, she would still be Public Enemy #1 right now, or #2 behind Sandusky, I suppose.

It's not always about you, counselor. I understand the difference between PR and trial, and I thought you made a fair point. I was addressing, for example, Dabrockster's post. I also think some of the coulmnists have come perilously close to a mob mentality, and they are professionals.