McQueary's only acceptable response to witnessing Sanduski's molestation

[flamin lib]

of a child at Penn State:

In a quiet, calm voice say,"Son, go get your clothes on and wait for me."

Then walk over to Sanduski and hit him so hard than both his Dad and Mom feel it.

Take the child to the hospital while calling 911.

[snagglepuss]

dup. self delete

[snagglepuss]

1. That just brought tears to my eyes. It is exactly what should have been done.

What a pathetic joke that footballers are held up as the ideal of manhood.

[peacebird]

39. exactly what SHOULD have been done.... Sad sad sad...

[Tansy_Gold]

2. Violence should never be an acceptable response

Demand that Sandusky stop immediately, yes.

Take the child away, yes.

Call the police, yes.

But deck Sandusky afterward? No. That neither accomplishes nor proves anything except that the decker has no more control over his violent urges than Sandusky.

If it took force to stop Sandusky in the act, that's one thing, and I'm assuming a 28-year-old graduate assistant football coach would be physically able to exert the necessary force. But after the act is stopped and the police have been notified of a crime? No.



TG

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. Oh, please

Your false equivalency between punching a pedophile and raping a 10 year old is disgusting. But I'm glad someone showed up to bleat the "violence is not a solution" canard, since the nonviolent "within the rules" response by the grad assistant was so obviously more effective. :eyes:

[Tansy_Gold]

15. I didn't say what McQueary did was more effective

Obviously it wasn't. So don't accuse me of that.

Nor did I advocate non-violence in regards to stopping the crime while it was being committed, which would be an "Amish" response as someone else suggested.

What Sandusky did was a violent crime. McQueary, the eyewitness, should have made certain first of all that the crime was stopped immediately, which he didn't do. If it had taken force to stop Sandusky, then that would have been acceptable, and apparently McQueary was and is big enough physically to have accomplished it. Punch him out then, if that's what it took to get him off the boy. I have no problem with that. Hell, hit him with a baseball bat if he won't stop.

I'm only saying that punching Sandusky afterward would have been a violent crime as well. But hey, let's all take not only the stopping of crime into our own hands (which we should do) but being judge and jury and executioner as well. So much for the rule of law. :sarcasm:

I understand the outrage, the disgust, the anger and loathing. But none of that justifies returning violence with violence just for the sake of venting our outrage and disgust and anger and loathing.

McQueary was absolutely wrong for not stopping the rape when he saw it happening by whatever means it took to stop it. He was also absolutely wrong for not reporting the crime to the police. But you can call me all the wimpy names you want and I'm still not going to believe in or defend the use of violence in the manner you're suggesting. The use of force -- violence, if you will -- to stop a crime, yes, I'll defend that. But not violence as an outlet for anger.



Tansy Gold

[kestrel91316]

11. The Amish approach just doesn't work for me here.

[TBF]

12. Self defense is acceptable -

but in this case it would be best to take the boy and get out of there. If it were my son though, and I were able, I'd want to hurt the guy for sure. And I have no doubt what my husband would do ...

[TheWraith]

17. Yes, it is.

Pretty much every state in the US respects the use of violence, up to and including instantly lethal force, to protect yourself or another from serious bodily harm. Rape is included in that definition.

[Tansy_Gold]

21. Did you read what I wrote,

or just react to the subject line?

I clearly stated in the first post that force was acceptable to stop the crime.

In my second post (which was posted later) I said that if it took hitting Sandusky with a baseball bat to make him stop, then that was acceptable.

WHAT I OBJECT TO is the notion that it's okay to use violence to vent anger or outrage or inflict punishment or extract revenge after the crime has been stopped.

Duh.



Tansy Gold

[TheWraith]

25. And my point is, Sandusky forfeited the protections of lawful behavior when he raped a child.

Violence committed while resisting a felony is not the same thing as simply deciding to beat someone up because you think they're bad. I do actually understand the distinction that you're making, but you don't see mine. If someone in that position DID use excessive force, or went further than absolutely necessary to stop the crime, our society has by and large decided that they deserve the benefit of the doubt, because the person they're employing violence on has shown that they do not.

[Tansy_Gold]

40. My comment was in response to the OP

In which the OP suggested that McQueary stop the crime, get the boy to safety and then -- THEN -- go back and beat Sandusky up. That's not excessive force used to stop the crime; it's cold-blooded violence for the sake of revenge after the crime has been stopped.

Essentially, the OP did suggest that it was okay "to beat someone up because you think they're bad."

Sandusky may have forfeited those protections while he was committing the crime, but once the crime was stopped, he once again had the protection of the law. And the law says you can't just beat up people you don't like or who have done a bad thing.

Would McQueary have been acquitted, either in a court of law or the court of public opinion if he'd beat up Sandusky at the time? Probably. That's not the issue. The issue, as posed by the OP, is whether or not McQueary should have beaten up Sandusky AFTER stopping the crime and seeing the victim to safety.

I don't think so.



TG

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Let me think about this. Hmm...

Yes. Yes, sometimes it is.

[WinkyDink]

31. OFGS.

[H2O Man]

32. Respectfully disagree.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. Yes, that should have been done.

It's inconceivable to me that someone could walk in on a situation like this and not do anything to stop it. I just keep thinking about my little grandsons and how horrified I would be if anything like this happened to them. I'd be ready to kill someone.

[Atman]

4. McQuery is a big man. He wouldn't have had any problem taking Sandusky down.

Tweety showed lots of pics of him on air tonight, while his guests told people to watch for him on the sidelines this weekend, "look for the big guy with the red hair." McQuery should be be afraid. He should be begging to be locked up for his own protection.

Now, for the horribly cynical angle...the game this weekend is going to score HUGE ratings. People will tune in just to see if McQuery get pelted with beer cups and trash, or booed off the field. $$$$$.

[Happyhippychick]

5. He was told not to come to the game. Another DUer posted the article earlier.

[WinkyDink]

33. Irony = Worry about McQ's safety.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. There is no way in hell McQueary can or will be on that sideline on Saturday

It simply will not happen.

[calimary]

38. I'm sorry. There should be NO game this weekend. This is not about any FUCKING DAMN GAME!!!!

Oh the game! The game! The almighty FUCKING football game! Ooooooh!!! For God's Sake! We CAN'T do without the FUCKING FOOTBALL GAME!!!!!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

I have never worshipped at the altar of professional sports. Particularly football. I see football as organized brutality and it Just. Does. NOT. Work. For. Me.

Never has.

All I can say is these bastards better be on their criminal, mercenary knees thanking God that calimary is not the president of Penn State.

[malaise]

6. Yep n/t

[arcane1]

7. And doesn't he still have a job there??

Forgive me if I'm incorrect about that.

[AmericaIsGreat]

8. I still don't get how he is still employed

According to PA law, he was under obligation to report the incident to police. JoePa, as he was not a direct witness of the abuse, was not. Now, I still think PSU made the right move firing JoePa, but how the hell does it make sense to fire him and not McQueary? He was the one who actually did something illegal. The statute of limitations for charges of failing to report child abuse is a measly two years, so McQueary will not face jail time, but the point remains that he did something illegal and still coaches at Penn State. I do not get it.

[pnwmom]

14. PA law requires the leaders of organizations to report, but not everyone.

McQueary was a graduate assistant, so he was not a required reporter. But the administrators he reported to were required to take this to the police and CPS.

[WinkyDink]

34. This is not about mere legal responsibility. Paterno wasn't fired because he failed THERE.

[kestrel91316]

10. I would have left him crippled for life.

[Poll_Blind]

16. It boils down to: If you see a child being anally raped, RESCUE THEM.

If only to show them that they are worth rescuing, and that they have value. Do you realize what that child saw was another adult peeking in and then moving on, giving up on them.

Does everyone realize just how much that memory scars a victim, psychologically?

Here on Earth, we rescue children being harmed like this.

There is absolutely no reason for a human being to be born, if not to rescue the weakest from the most predatory.

Would McQueary have ducked out had he chanced upon a child lost in the forest and surrounded by wolves?

What's the difference?

PB

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. Before anyone challenges you on this most excellent point, yes, the child saw McQueary

That factoid was in the GJ report. Both Sandusky and the victim made eye contact with McQueary when he happened upon the scene.

That is the part that I hope haunts McQ until his dying day. How that child must have looked to him to help him and he walked away.

[TheWraith]

18. Unfortunately, people often fail to react rationally when they're in shock.

In that context, I would say that McQuary's failure to eventually contact the police is a much more serious failure than not immediately interrupting the rape.

[Poll_Blind]

19. That's an interesting and arguable point. I would counter that the kind of shock we're...

...talking about would not have had time to set in. If the child was on fire or on the ground bleeding and missing one of their legs the kind of shock you're talking about would certainly be present and I concede certain psychologies will go into shock more quickly than others. But before the shock can even set in there is an initial reaction which, I would argue, occurs well before any such shock sets in. I think the "shock" you're describing probably set in a minute or two after they were walking away. The reason why some people respond heroically in violent situations involving a helpless victim is not because they've worked through the shock, it's that the magnitude of what is happening has not fully set in and there is only their immediate response.

I think the burden of McQueary's immediate response to such a situation cannot be removed from his shoulders in a situation as specific and explicit as this. I believe he chose not to stop it, probably because of the status of the individual committing the crime.

But that aside, your point about it being a more telling/damning thing that he didn't not contact the police still holds, I think.

PB

[TheWraith]

20. Actually, I'd say this is more shocking than what you describe.

Physical emergencies like injuries are something people think about and are therefore more prepared for. Nobody thinks on a regular basis about child rape as something you might happen across. Who would be expecting to find someone who stood as a pillar of the community sodomizing a little boy in the shower? It would be something that a person would have a hard time even comprehending the consequences at first. I think any first reaction is hard to be attributed to rational thought in that case. That no longer applies later on, after having a day or a week or a month to integrate what you've seen.

[Tansy_Gold]

22. McQueary was in the business of teaching people how to react

with split-second timing.

He was not someone who never had physical encounters with people; McQueary was no doubt familiar even comfortable with physical responses to crises.

I have no sympathy for McQueary at all. I think he did what he did -- in terms of NOT stopping Sandusky and in terms of NOT following up on his report to Paterno when nothing much happened -- out of self interest in which he put his integrity, his morals, his ethics all second to his desire to work for a winner like Joe Paterno.

It's O.K. if you're a Republican, and it's O.K. if you're a winner. That justifies everything. Uh, no it doesn't.


TG

[Ruby the Liberal]

24. Ok then - how about his first call? His dad is Dr McQueary, a State College PA peditrician.

That wasn't months or weeks - it was while the rape was being committed and the advice from Dr Daddy was to leave the gym and come to his house to talk about it. Nothing was reported about attempting to find/help/rescue the child FIRST.

Thank heavens there was a pediatrician whose number McQ had access to for help, right?

[TheWraith]

26. As I understand it, the call to the father was after, not during.

That said, his father's thinking probably ran to the line that his son would have a better chance of getting it dealt with if he had someone with more of a reputation backing him up, i.e. reporting the incident to Paterno. Obviously wrong in hindsight, but you can see how someone might have thought that way at the time, particularly if they assume Paterno was a decent human being and not planning to cover the whole thing up.

The point where it really becomes inarguable that McQuary should have called the police was after the failure of Paterno or the administrators to do so.

[Ruby the Liberal]

27. GJ testimony states he saw the rape, turned, and went straight to the phone.

I will leave it to you to debate the definition of "after" and whether Sandusky finished, got himself and child dressed and left the building im that split second of time. One thing that IS clear from testimony, McQ never checked on the child. He hung up the phone and went to his Dad's house. Sandusky could have been there all night for all anyone knew.

[WinkyDink]

36. True enough. But McQ "recovered" enough to drive. Oh, who's kidding whom, here? McQ saw his CAREER

flash before his eyes.

[Brickbat]

29. I have to say I think it's possible to see that happening and convince yourself you didn't see it.

I think it would be the first instinct of many people, if they saw someone they respected to the core doing that. Recoiling and retreating, and then thinking about it very hard for 10 minutes. "The kid wasn't crying or struggling, and maybe he was actually closer to 15? Or 16? And the perp wasn't, you know, beating him up or anything?" People rationalize all sorts of things; I can think of many scenarios where a person can convince himself he didn't see what he actually did see.

As we see time and again, people are actually very likely to do nothing when faced with a shocking, terrible event.

[WinkyDink]

37. Not even McQ is proffering this lame-o excuse.

[TorchTheWitch]

30. Oh BULL

We all like to think that in a crisis we'll naturally react as heroes. Shock OFTEN paralyzes a person into inaction for which the beat themselves up about later. His not physically getting involved is NORMAL human behavior.

Do you know what likely would have happened if he had done what you suggest? Sandusky would have brought him up on assault charges, the kid probably in terror of Sandusky would have gone along with any lie he came up with if not run away altogether, and nobody would have believed a word McQueary said about what he saw.

[flamin lib]

35. Maybe, but I'd feel good about myself. nt

[Odin2005]

41. Amen! K&R