In a massive shakeup, Penn State football coach Joe Paterno and school president Graham Spanier were fired Wednesday night by the board of trustees amid the growing furor over how the school handled child sex abuse allegations against an assistant coach.
There is still the difficulty of 'Innocent till proven Guilty',
This is not a criminal proceeding. Yet. If and when it becomes one, everyone prosecuted will be entitled to a presumption of innocence.
Quote:
and I don't know who knew what, when, and how much?
No one cares what you don't know.
Quote:
But I'm sure the press and many others will crucify everyone involved.
Yes, how like unto Christ on the cross are those who protect child molesters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Except that we don't know how much or when the 'Board of Trustees' knew before the 'Shit hit the Fan'.
Ah yes, remember that "innocent till proven guilty" thing that you just said? Or is that only for football coaches? In any case, if you have specific allegations to bring against the Board of Trustees or individual trustees, spell them out and contact the authorities.
That is what I would do had I been in Joe Paterno's shoes. I'm curious to know what part of that thedoc would not have done had he been in Joe Paterno's shoes.
That is what I would do had I been in Joe Paterno's shoes. I'm curious to know what part of that thedoc would not have done had he been in Joe Paterno's shoes.
You seem to be making a lot of unwarrented assumptions.
There is still the difficulty of 'Innocent till proven Guilty', and I don't know who knew what, when, and how much? But I'm sure the press and many others will crucify everyone involved.
There is still the difficulty of 'Innocent till proven Guilty', and I don't know who knew what, when, and how much?
The presumption of innocence has no application outside the context of a criminal trial, and those have yet to be scheduled. There are forty separate charges in Sandusky's case, and the pretrial process will likely be long and tortuous.
Thanks to a rather thorough investigation, we do in fact have a reasonably decent grasp of certain who-knew-what-where-and-when components. For instance, we are absolutely sure that by 2002 JoePa knew or had reason to know that Jerry Sandusky, Paterno's long-time defensive coordinator, was taking advantage of the privileges of emeritus status to use university facilities as his own personal fuck chamber for anally raping prepubescent boys.
And then there was the 1998 incident that liv described. Everyone knew about that one, JoePa included.
And then there's the fact that Sandusky indulged his perversions with all the subtlety of a bukkake film. Given the closeness with which they worked, I would be quite surprised if Paterno did not know about or at least strongly suspect Sandusky's pedophilia WAY before 1998. (I suppose it's possible that Sandusky first began molesting little boys in 1994, the year of the first incident referenced in the report, but that's less likely than the advent of Golden Age of Seymour Lessans.)
The whole story is no doubt far larger and more heinous than what's come to light thus far. JoePa is looking to hire criminal defense counsel. Smart move.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
The whole story is no doubt far larger and more heinous than what's come to light thus far. JoePa is looking to hire criminal defense counsel. Smart move.
And that is on his head, not mine.
Are you suggesting that, out of indignation, I should run up there and personally castrate everyone myself? With a rusty knife?
Are you suggesting that, out of indignation, I should run up there and personally castrate everyone myself? With a rusty knife?
A rusty butterknife, thedoc, a rusty butterknife. Jesus, nobody on this forum can fucking read!
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
The presumption of innocence has no application outside the context of a criminal trial, and those have yet to be scheduled.
You are absolutely right, Jurisprudence should not in any way complicate or supersede 'Mob Rule'. I certainly hope your sheets and hoods are washed and clean for the march on State College, and if it's cold you can light the crosses while you carry them.
The presumption of innocence has no application outside the context of a criminal trial, and those have yet to be scheduled.
You are absolutely right, Jurisprudence should not in any way complicate or supersede 'Mob Rule'. I certainly hope your sheets and hoods are washed and clean for the march on State College, and if it's cold you can light the crosses while you carry them.
If that means going all the way to Pennsylvania, fuck that.
There is still the difficulty of 'Innocent till proven Guilty', and I don't know who knew what, when, and how much?
The presumption of innocence has no application outside the context of a criminal trial, and those have yet to be scheduled.
Interesting speculation but if someone is accused of a crime and others refer to this person as if they are guilty before the verdict, it could be construed as 'Liable or Slander' depending on the circumstances. For example in the O.J. Simpson case the father of the victim stated that Simpson had "Butchered his daughter" in a public statement to the press, definately defamation of character since Simpson was found inocent, regardless of anyone's opinion.
There is still the difficulty of 'Innocent till proven Guilty', and I don't know who knew what, when, and how much?
The presumption of innocence has no application outside the context of a criminal trial, and those have yet to be scheduled.
Interesting speculation
That's not even remotely speculative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
but if someone is accused of a crime and others refer to this person as if they are guilty before the verdict, it could be construed as 'Liable or Slander' depending on the circumstances.
Generally speaking, defamation (called libel if in written form, slander if in verbal form) consists of publishing (i.e., making public) a false statement of fact about a person that causes damages. If the statement is about a public official, public figure or a matter of public concern, the plaintiff must also show that at the time of publication the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard as to whether or not the statement was true.
Whether a statement is defamatory depends in the first instance on whether or not the statement is true. Obviously, whether a statement is actually true has nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome of a criminal trial. Thus, an accusation "could be construed as 'Liable or Slander'" any ol' time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
For example in the O.J. Simpson case the father of the victim stated that Simpson had "Butchered his daughter" in a public statement to the press, definately defamation of character since Simpson was found inocent, regardless of anyone's opinion.
O dearie dearie me o my, no. First of all, O.J. wasn't "found innocent." No such finding was even possible. A not-guilty verdict isn't an adjudication innocence; it's the jury saying that the state failed to prove each element of the offense at issue beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm not getting paid enough to go into all the Byzantine details of claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), but what the hell, this is fun. Let's explore this O.J. defamation flotsam with some hypotheticals that might help us see just how deep this rabbit hole of lulz goes.
First of all, let us assume that "Innocent" was a possible verdict in the O.J. murder case. Not true, but what the hell.
Now let's check out a couple of criminal trial outcomes and see how they might affect a defamation lawsuit by O.J. against Nicole's father.
1. O.J. is found innocent by the criminal case jury. Soon thereafter Nicole's father goes on teevee (publication) and starts ranting about how O.J. butchered his daughter and got away with it. The next day O.J. sues the father in civil court for money damages on a defamation theory.
Is the criminal case jury's verdict of "innocent" binding on the father in the civil case? in other words, does that verdict relieve O.J. of his burden in the civil case of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the father's statement was false?
Not just no, but fuck no. Due process, a concept enshrined in two -- count 'em ... TWO -- amendments to the U.S. Constitution, requires at a minimum that no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without notice of the claims against him and a fair opportunity to be heard. The father wasn't a party to the criminal trial. His legal interests were not at stake and he had no opportunity to present evidence. Accordingly, he cannot be bound by the verdict in the criminal trial. Thus, in the civil case O.J. is obliged to prove (among other things) that the father's statement was false.
2. Same as #1, except that the jury in the criminal case finds O.J. guilty.
Can the father take advantage of the criminal case verdict in defending the civil lawsuit? In other words, does the guilty verdict preclude O.J. from proving defamation?
In the vast majority of states, you betcha. O.J. was a party to the criminal case. He had a full, fair opportunity to present his evidence, and got a decision from a duly impaneled jury. Except in the small number of states that still require strict identity of parties for issue preclusion/collateral estoppel purposes, O.J. is stuck with the criminal jury's guilty verdict in any case where the issue of whether he killed his wife comes up. The fact that O.J. is bound in all subsequent litigation means that, as a matter of law, he cannot establish in the civil lawsuit that the father's statement was false. Case dismissed.
There are hundreds of lovely and fascinating nuances here, but the for present purposes all we need know is that the presumption of innocence in criminal cases has precisely dick to do with defamation.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Last edited by Stephen Maturin; 12-16-2011 at 04:51 AM.
There is still the difficulty of 'Innocent till proven Guilty', and I don't know who knew what, when, and how much? But I'm sure the press and many others will crucify everyone involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by livius drusus
Here's the grand jury report (pdf). It's sick-making, of course.
I'm curious, thedoc. If someone came to you and told you he had seen one of your underlings sodomizing a ten year old, what would you do?
Report what I knew to the authorities, and do what I could to seperate that person from young people, Remembering that everyone has legal limits to what they can and cannot do. Or do you prefer something simple, like a lynch mob?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlokd
But take heart thedoc, you are not alone in your outrage.
For the record, I really don't care that Joe-pa got fired, I do care that young boys were molested, and I hope that those responsable are held accountable. But I prefer that proper legal procedures are followed, so that they are put away, and do not get off because of some technicality. Those students who are rioting are probably good recrutement material for the KKK, extremely narrow minded and stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iacchus
That I think would be closer to the truth ... although I don't know if he actually lied about it or not? You'd think so if there was some sort of cover up involved.
There was definately a 'cover up' the question is by who?
And for all you magots in the gang, I had a grandson in the program, so you can go FUCK your selves.
Yesterday you were all about innocent until proven guilty and JoePa having to act within the limits of the law and how the press was crucifying everyone involved. You wouldn't even answer when I asked if you would have reported the incident to the police rather than just to your superiors.
Now all of the sudden you say there was "definitely" a cover-up, that you don't care that Paterno was fired and everyone should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and rot in jail. Why the change?
There is still the difficulty of 'Innocent till proven Guilty', and I don't know who knew what, when, and how much? But I'm sure the press and many others will crucify everyone involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by livius drusus
Here's the grand jury report (pdf). It's sick-making, of course.
I'm curious, thedoc. If someone came to you and told you he had seen one of your underlings sodomizing a ten year old, what would you do?
Report what I knew to the authorities, and do what I could to seperate that person from young people, Remembering that everyone has legal limits to what they can and cannot do. Or do you prefer something simple, like a lynch mob?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlokd
But take heart thedoc, you are not alone in your outrage.
For the record, I really don't care that Joe-pa got fired, I do care that young boys were molested, and I hope that those responsable are held accountable. But I prefer that proper legal procedures are followed, so that they are put away, and do not get off because of some technicality. Those students who are rioting are probably good recrutement material for the KKK, extremely narrow minded and stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iacchus
That I think would be closer to the truth ... although I don't know if he actually lied about it or not? You'd think so if there was some sort of cover up involved.
There was definately a 'cover up' the question is by who?
And for all you magots in the gang, I had a grandson in the program, so you can go FUCK your selves.
Yesterday you were all about innocent until proven guilty and JoePa having to act within the limits of the law and how the press was crucifying everyone involved. You wouldn't even answer when I asked if you would have reported the incident to the police rather than just to your superiors.
Now all of the sudden you say there was "definitely" a cover-up, that you don't care that Paterno was fired and everyone should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and rot in jail. Why the change?
No change, you're just too stupid to read what is written. Perhaps that should include biased as well.
Here's the grand jury report (pdf). It's sick-making, of course.
I'm curious, thedoc. If someone came to you and told you he had seen one of your underlings sodomizing a ten year old, what would you do?
Report what I knew to the authorities, and do what I could to seperate that person from young people, Remembering that everyone has legal limits to what they can and cannot do. Or do you prefer something simple, like a lynch mob?
the end of an era.
Hybrid Mode
