-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter mercer_buckeye
- Start date
ORD_Buckeye
Wrong glass, Sir.
I'm picturing a marketing campaign. Bring the statue out of storage to star in the commercials.
He is.................the most interesting statue in the world.
Stay Silent, My Friends!
He is.................the most interesting statue in the world.
Stay Silent, My Friends!
Upvote
0
Zurp
I have misplaced my pants.
Maybe we need some lawyer-folks to answer this kind of thing. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is thrown around all over in the TV courtroom shows. It sounds like if a juror has any doubt whether the defendant is guilty, he's supposed to come back with a "not guilty" vote. I've never been a juror. (I got called for jury duty once but that was cancelled the night before.) So I'd question what "reasonable" means. The reason I'm asking this is for posts like this, from the BWI thread about how Paterno had 2 legacies, etc.:
My understanding is that one of the emails from or to the athletic director says something like, "After talking with Coach, we've decided to do this..." Anyway, maybe that's the only link they have to Paterno. So, since they don't say WHICH coach (Penn State must have 100 coaches in their athletic department, after all), there's reasonable doubt about whether they're referring to Paterno. Am I right with this so far?
If I'm a juror, I can start removing all coaches from consideration: basketball, track, hockey, etc. Unless they're brought up in other emails as "consultants" in this issue, no way would I believe that any of them has any voice in how the school will proceed. Next, does anyone actually think that any of the assistant football coaches have ANY say without Paterno's approval? And that isn't a knock on Penn State or football or anything. If I'm asked to talk to another department or another office within my company, I'm going to talk to my manager first. Maybe that's just because of how I am, but I'd expect a manager to know everything his employees are doing. So, that just leaves Paterno and Sandusky. Do they really think that the school would talk to Sandusky about what to do with Sandusky? If one of your co-workers gets caught embezzling from the company, does the company include that co-worker in how to handle it? I understand having a meeting with him to get his side of the story, but you don't include him in the "what do we do next?" phase.
I'd say that beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe that Joe Paterno had knowledge that Jerry Sandusky was a bad, bad guy, and he (Paterno) did all he could to keep it from becoming public knowledge.
My understanding is that one of the emails from or to the athletic director says something like, "After talking with Coach, we've decided to do this..." Anyway, maybe that's the only link they have to Paterno. So, since they don't say WHICH coach (Penn State must have 100 coaches in their athletic department, after all), there's reasonable doubt about whether they're referring to Paterno. Am I right with this so far?
If I'm a juror, I can start removing all coaches from consideration: basketball, track, hockey, etc. Unless they're brought up in other emails as "consultants" in this issue, no way would I believe that any of them has any voice in how the school will proceed. Next, does anyone actually think that any of the assistant football coaches have ANY say without Paterno's approval? And that isn't a knock on Penn State or football or anything. If I'm asked to talk to another department or another office within my company, I'm going to talk to my manager first. Maybe that's just because of how I am, but I'd expect a manager to know everything his employees are doing. So, that just leaves Paterno and Sandusky. Do they really think that the school would talk to Sandusky about what to do with Sandusky? If one of your co-workers gets caught embezzling from the company, does the company include that co-worker in how to handle it? I understand having a meeting with him to get his side of the story, but you don't include him in the "what do we do next?" phase.
I'd say that beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe that Joe Paterno had knowledge that Jerry Sandusky was a bad, bad guy, and he (Paterno) did all he could to keep it from becoming public knowledge.
Upvote
0
I think their defense is that Sandusky was also a coach, and might have still been called "coach". Of course that's bullshit, but therein lies the cult.
Upvote
0
All you need to know about reasonable doubt with respect to the Freeh report is that reasonable doubt is a standard for criminal trials. The Freeh report was/is not a criminal trial and need not be held to such a standard.
What is a reasonable doubt is essentially up to each individual juror. Suppose you had two people fire a gun at the same time and kill a victim. It is undisputed that only one of the shooters hit the victim and is the true murderer. Suppose both shooters were essentially standing in the same place, with the same sight-lines, etc. It would be reasonable to doubt that shooter A fired the kill shot, as it would also be reasonable to doubt person B did. If, on the other hand, we learn that shooter A was standing 5 feet from the victim and pointed his weapon directly at the victims head and fired, where person B was observed firing his weapon in the opposite direction of the victim, it would not be reasonable to believe person B may have killed the victim and not person A
Of course, that's a pretty obvious example. In real life, again, an individual juror would make his or her own determination of doubt. Essentially, though, that juror has to be certain that the accused committed the crime. Philosophical discussions of "can we ever be certain of anything" notwithstanding
What is a reasonable doubt is essentially up to each individual juror. Suppose you had two people fire a gun at the same time and kill a victim. It is undisputed that only one of the shooters hit the victim and is the true murderer. Suppose both shooters were essentially standing in the same place, with the same sight-lines, etc. It would be reasonable to doubt that shooter A fired the kill shot, as it would also be reasonable to doubt person B did. If, on the other hand, we learn that shooter A was standing 5 feet from the victim and pointed his weapon directly at the victims head and fired, where person B was observed firing his weapon in the opposite direction of the victim, it would not be reasonable to believe person B may have killed the victim and not person A
Of course, that's a pretty obvious example. In real life, again, an individual juror would make his or her own determination of doubt. Essentially, though, that juror has to be certain that the accused committed the crime. Philosophical discussions of "can we ever be certain of anything" notwithstanding
Upvote
0
ORD_Buckeye
Wrong glass, Sir.
During the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, Freeh found an email that said "coach is anxious for any news on this." Paterno also cut his vacation short during the investigation. The cult not only refuses to believe that "coach" was Paterno, they have now determined that he cut his vacation short because the waters off North Carolina were murky that week and Paterno couldn't go scuba diving. There's no reasoning with these people, and they'll never open their eyes to what he was. He and his success with honor bullshit were the only thing in these people's lives.
Upvote
0
It's (kind of) fun to make fun of these people, but nobody should lose sight of ORD's last sentence. That is 100% factual. These people wrapped their lives around Paterno and his success and his ideas. Not Penn State, because for a time saying Joe Paterno was the same thing as saying Penn State University. But now that the 2 are separated, it's clear who they all followed all along, with scary devotion.
Upvote
0
ORD_Buckeye
Wrong glass, Sir.
I always thought the most telling thing about the cult was how they rallied around the number 409 instead of the larger number of Penn State's total wins. Like I've said, most of them would burn Penn State to the ground if it meant that statue could go back up in the ashes.
Upvote
0
I remember encountering one of the teachers when I was in Middle School (and wearing an Ohio State sweatshirt) in 1994. Basically he was shit-talking a 14 year old. I mostly ignored him, but then I noticed he got into a car that had a bumper sticker that had the "words" JoePA - then the Lion symbol - terno on the back. If you had no idea what it was about, you wouldn't know if it was Penn State.
Upvote
0
Zurp
I have misplaced my pants.
So is this similar to if millions of fans in Cleveland suddenly became fans of the Miami Heat, just because LeBron James went there? Not actually fans of the Cavs at all, but of LBJ. Or how about people who fight for Art Schlichter's innocence, and bitch at Ohio State for not supporting him? Yeah - because there's a lot of people who represent those examples...
Upvote
0
There's hero worship and there there's cult followings.
Ped State falls firmly on the latter. Literally JoePed was the 2nd coming of Jesus to these mutants.
Upvote
0
ORD_Buckeye
Wrong glass, Sir.
The better analogy would be Tressel or Woody. How many riots were there when they were fired? How many rogue trustees suing the university? How many petitions by former players? Rallies for Reinstatement? Lunatic ex-players barging into board meetings?
Upvote
0
