See, I've been reading it over (I'm most of the way through it now, past the point that references Paterno's involvement) and I still don't see how he "knew" it was happening. He had allegations it was happening. I understand how you are using the word but when we talk about legal things there is a different between knowing something and having allegations to something.
He knew of the allegations, he didn't know the event took place. Just that someone said it did. That's different then 100% knowing it happened. Innocent until proven guilty (which the scum responsible now have been). It's through hindsight we can say he knew it, but only because the allegations (unfortunately) were proven true.
Who could know about this sort of thing and not report it?
He did report it though. I know you mean to immediately go to the police but the policy was that it was the top brass that were responsible and legally obliged to call the authorities. So in accordance with that he did exactly what he was supposed to as per the rules. Similar to how your company tells you to report to the police, his told him to report to the higher ups.
That's where the whole thing about legal vs moral obligations come in. The other guys argument was that it was just horseplay and the higher ups basically covered it up and treated it like it was just horseplay as if they had looked into it. In my head Paterno's only really guilty of trusting people who, in hind-sight, he shouldn't have been trusted.
I look at it this way. If the higher ups had acted as they were legally responsible to then this wouldn't have become a problem for Paterno. It's only because they lied and tried to cover up that this situation occured. That's why I can have more sympathy for him because he got caught up in a lie that was placed on the crime.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-11-11 02:23 am (UTC)He knew of the allegations, he didn't know the event took place. Just that someone said it did. That's different then 100% knowing it happened. Innocent until proven guilty (which the scum responsible now have been). It's through hindsight we can say he knew it, but only because the allegations (unfortunately) were proven true.
Who could know about this sort of thing and not report it?
He did report it though. I know you mean to immediately go to the police but the policy was that it was the top brass that were responsible and legally obliged to call the authorities. So in accordance with that he did exactly what he was supposed to as per the rules. Similar to how your company tells you to report to the police, his told him to report to the higher ups.
That's where the whole thing about legal vs moral obligations come in. The other guys argument was that it was just horseplay and the higher ups basically covered it up and treated it like it was just horseplay as if they had looked into it. In my head Paterno's only really guilty of trusting people who, in hind-sight, he shouldn't have been trusted.
I look at it this way. If the higher ups had acted as they were legally responsible to then this wouldn't have become a problem for Paterno. It's only because they lied and tried to cover up that this situation occured. That's why I can have more sympathy for him because he got caught up in a lie that was placed on the crime.