Oso planning to go pro
Well, I was pointing out that there was indeed proof (based on his own testimony to the grand jury) of what was going on.I only added the second sentence as a throw in, but yeah I understand the issue.Regardless, PSU didn't simply fire Paterno for PR reasons. It is silly to think so. Not to mention, that you don't need "jury proof" to fire someone.
He knew what McQueary told him and testified as such. That is irrefutable fact.There is also pretty strong conjecture that he knew about previous incidents, kept them quiet, and kept him involved with the program.
If we are basing it off of what we know and evidence, all we have in Paterno is that he was told something of a sexual nature happened. There is no evidence to the contrary. Boeheim was told things went on in 2005, however we don't know what he knew. Hell at the end of the day, ESPN probably had the biggest smoking gun off the whole thing in the audio tape they got in 2003....they didn't do anything with it, not bothering to even turn it into police that we know.The Penn State situation and response has established the standard, at a minimum ESPN has fallen under that standard, and I think Boeheim, especially with his victim attacking has fallen under it as well.And your second paragraph proves my point....the standard is now unless there is evidence proving the negative conjecture is sufficient for dismissal in these types of cases.
Regardless, PSU didn't simply fire Paterno for PR reasons. It is silly to think so. Not to mention, that you don't need "jury proof" to fire someone.
So Paterno being told something of a "sexual nature" occuring between Sandusky and a young boy, and still letting him being involved with the football program, isn't enough? That is is pretty solid reason to fire someone regardless of the PR involved.
It was the worst knee-jerk reaction ever then. Jim should just step down, people have lost their jobs for saying a lot less.
No, but it was PR, because the BOT who did the firing is knee deep in the whole situation. Basically firing Paterno was a way of deflecting the piercing eye of the media away from the Board of Trustees. So while Paterno needed to go, he was fired as cover therefore in my opinion as a PR move.
Boeheim was told the very same thing and via the victim himself and still employed Fine, why does the same standard not apply?
OK, I see where you are heading, but it could also be argued that the BOT finally did something that they should have done years ago - and only their own negligence prevented them from doing so.
Because Syracuse looked into the allegations and came to the conclusion that they were false (mostly because they didn't have the latest piece of evidence.) That is way different than the systematic cover-up at PSU>
You are proving my point....that is enough to fire Paterno. My PR point was that the BOT did not fire him for that reason, they fired him to deflect attention. Boeheim was told the very same thing and via the victim himself and still employed Fine, why does the same standard not apply?
So let me get this straight. If someone accuses a person who works for you of a crime the proper procedure is to fire the accused on the spot. Anything less means you're part of a cover up if the allegations prove truthful - and if the allegations prove to be false what's one guy's life compared to the immediate public relations boost for the institution.Going from a system that does everything to trample the rights of the accuser to one which presumes the guilt of the accused isn't progress, just a different kind of injustice.
I agree with your premise, but we can't pick and choose when we want to presume guilt. I'm saying the situations are much more similar than people want to admit so if we are being honest than our responses should be similar. What we know between the two stories is nearly the same.....what we think we know is vastly different, but thats the point isn't it, we shouldn't be making decisions based on what we think we know.
Going from a system that does everything to trample the rights of the accuser to one which presumes the guilt of the accused isn't progress, just a different kind of injustice.
If a member of my staff supplies me with an eyewitness report of child rape/sexual abuse I think my responsibility to make sure the investigation proceeds is far greater than in a he said/he said situation. That's the crux of the difference regarding Joe Pa vs Boeheim.
I'm with most of you that Boeheim is being railroaded out on the back of JoePa. What I'm arguing is life is not fair and JoePa set a new standard. Your over-analyzing that standard. It is very simple. If you are a head coach and you have a molester on your staff, you're gone. If you thrash a victim of molestation, you cannot stay.
Those two things are completely different. I think that JB should keep his job, I also thing JoePa needed to be fired, 100%.Here is what JoePa did:99 found out his asst. showered with boys.01 asst published a book that talked about his 'special friends' way more than football.02 was told that his now retired asst. was f'ing boys on campus.09 found out that his former asst, who showered and f'd boys was expelled from a high school.99 - 2011 - sent the child rapist to high schools on recruiting trips.How do you continue to send him out on recruiting trips? You should be fired for that. If you think that he did enough in 02, fine, but he was sending him out to meet high school kids this summer...Defending a friend you had for 35 years, in the heat of the moment, is completely different. If he didn't know about it then he's OK in my book.
JB's statements after tonight's game do not exactly jibe with the contrite tenor of Sunday's written statement.
It appears that JB is waiting for the outcome of the investigation. If criminal charges are filed, whether it be a police affidavit or a grand jury indictment against Fine, then things may change in JB's status. He kept stating the "under my watch" terminology and so far no charges have been filed.