Joe Paterno to resign at end of season

[Clodfobble]

Also...

If you know someone is harming a child, and you report it to the police and notice that charges have not been filed in a timely manner... set up a goddamn camera for next time, and give the footage to the press. Out-of-state press, if necessary. We live in a world where hard evidence is easy to procure.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Also...

If you know someone is harming a child, and you report it to the police and notice that charges have not been filed in a timely manner... set up a goddamn camera for next time, and give the footage to the press. Out-of-state press, if necessary. We live in a world where hard evidence is easy to procure.

um... no.

Respectfully, this Nancy Drew approach just means more damage. Letting a child be bait like this ranks as either your worst idea ever or your worst joke ever. I like you Clodfobble, but this one's a dud. If you didn't get the right response you know should happen from other professionals, say, doctors, you wouldn't wait for another meltdown or toxic toilet incident to be captured on camera like you describe.

Just go to the next doctor and hope for a non-idiot. There *are* people who care and who are effective when it comes to child welfare. And if you're one of them, and I know you are, just keep knocking until the right door opens. If you don't see action happening, file again, file with another agency, hell, call the press as you suggest. But don't wait for another crime to be committed against a child.

[Lamplighter]

CyberWolf, thank you... that's extremely well-said and hits all the marks

http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=119

[glatt]

Originally Posted by BigV

Letting a child be bait like this ranks as either your worst idea ever or your worst joke ever.

How about setting up a camera while going around to different officials? Would you approve of that? That way, if it takes a couple months to find someone to take you seriously, and he strikes again, then you have solid proof this time.

[Spexxvet]

I'm still upset that the authorities didn't take care of it in 1998.

[BigV]

Look, I'm not opposed to cameras. Really, I'm all into this YouTube generation and sh*t, yo. But what a waste of effort. What are you going to do with the camera? Pin it to his underwear? How can you do this, logically? Some of the crimes Sandusky was convicted of happened in the shower at the gym facility (I think, I did not follow the specific details very closely, but I remember hearing about "teaching the kids about hygiene, how to shower (wtf)). Are you thinking the camera should be monitoring the shower area? Locker rooms? You can see, I'm sure, that as appealing as video proof of this crime would be as a hammer to motivate the authorities the actual logistical details of doing this effectively are ... impossible.

Clodfobble's original wording might be my problem "If you know someone's harming a child..". I have a problem *right there*. If *I* know, I have an obligation to make it stop. I might not be the judge that pounds the gavel, or the jailer that turns the key, etc, but I have a crucial role in seeing to it that it stops and is taken care of. This USUALLY consists of reporting to the police, or to child protective services, or both. In my case, I have an additional obligation as a scouting leader to inform the leaders of my organization. I've never had to do this, thank god. But informing the parents would also be an option.

I don't think it's a very useful direction for the conversation to go from here into what if it was a parent harming? Or what if it was the scout leadership that was harming? Or what if it was the police officer, etc etc. These are all real, tragic scenarios. Not just possibilities, real examples, sadly. There are tons of others, and all of them could have exception this and counter example that, ad infinitum.

What **I** believe is best is a strategy that involves strengthening the kid's ability to defend themselves and to be comfortable reporting harm. This I believe is the best, not infallible, strategy to reduce the chance of harm and to reduce the harm. This kind of defense will be with the child, even if he's in camera range or not.

Just telling and leaving it at that could have lots of bad consequences. There's a senior church figure in PA (I think) that has just been convicted of doing too little to prevent harm to children. We've heard a lot in this thread about the accessory culpability of those around the perpetrator. Telling, not getting a response, then farting around with a camera seems a bit like that. Be more active. Get something done. If you want to drag your camera around with you while you're finding someone who can and will respond appropriately, by all means, record away. But passively sitting around watching my teddy-bear-cam for another molestation is wrong.

[tw]

Lynn Abraham, Philadelphia's DA, made the problem obvious. She confiscated a list of over 100 known pedophiles only from the Philadelphia Archdiocese files. Had the list published even in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Made it obvious that this was only one of many Archdiocese in the Philly area that openly protected their pedophiles. And still the Pennsylvania Legislature refused to make pedophile prosecution reasonably possible.

Why would anyone report pedophilia? McQuery did. Look what it got him? Condemnation by so many. A large lawyer bill.

Why would janitors not report what they saw? The Board of Trustees would have never protected whistle blowers. Why would anyone in PA in 1998 report such crimes? The PA government would not fix the laws even after is was proven - without doubt and a decade ago - that the Catholic Church was a major racketeering operation that protected pedophiles.

Again, just down the street from the Cellar is a Catholic home for boys called St Gabriel’s. Only two years ago, Sister Strange reported a known pedophile priest was still practicing sexual perversions there. What did the Church and the 'powers that be' do? Well the Church fired Sister Strange. And the local authorities did nothing.

This was only two years ago. How much greater was the contempt for such whistle blowers twelve years ago - in 1998? Come on folks. Why are the Board of Trustees rushing through condemnation of the lesser people (including one who is dead and cannot defend himself)? Otherwise you might learn what the attitude was among Penn State's trustees and clearly in the State Legislature. They rushed into an agreement with the NCAA that hurts everyone except the trustees and Mrs Sandusky.

If pedophilia was really a problem, then PA would have long ago prosecuted hundreds of Catholic priests for Pedophilia. Monsignor Lynn, who virtually made pedophilia possible and safe only in Philadelphia (that’s at least many hundreds of kids), only got three to six years. (PA has seven more archdioceses. Just across the river are another six in New Jersey.) Why such little sentence? PA made prosecution difficult. Maximum sentence is that little. Six years maximum for protecting hundreds of pedophiles even ten years after Lynn Abraham demonstrated the size of the problem?

Double standards. If the punishment of Penn State is that severe, the entire American Catholic Church, at minimum, should be under court supervised probation. Even the mafia does not protect pedophiles. But the Church did - with all but the blessing of the State Legislature.

[classicman]

Take it to your church thread.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by BigV

I don't think it's a very useful direction for the conversation to go from here into what if it was a parent harming? Or what if it was the scout leadership that was harming? Or what if it was the police officer, etc etc. These are all real, tragic scenarios.

But that's the thing... if you know it's been reported to every university authority available, and also the police, and the police have clearly engaged in the coverup... What can you do when you know the police are involved? That becomes some scary shit right there. You need the evidence to protect yourself, at that point.

Sure, you could maybe hang around the field until you see the kid you recognize, and follow them to their car to tell the parent what you saw going on. But you also have to consider the fact that the child obviously hasn't told the parent--or maybe they have, and the parent, sickeningly, brushed off the child's complaints. More than one parent still let their kids sleep over at Michael Jackson's place, after all. So say you tell the parent what you saw, and they say, "Is this true Jimmy?!" and Jimmy, embarrassed, or scared that the abuser is going to punish them, says, "Jeez, Mom! Of course not!"

And now you are labeled an offender yourself, for making up sick stories about kids and harassing their families. You are probably removed from your job, and have no chance at all of helping the kids who are still being hurt.

Originally Posted by BigV

If you didn't get the right response you know should happen from other professionals, say, doctors, you wouldn't wait for another meltdown or toxic toilet incident to be captured on camera like you describe.

Have done, actually. More than once. Because there are situations where, without proof, it is just a fact that no one is going to believe you. I had some idiot doctors actually challenge me to take video, because they were so certain I couldn't do so. I admit, I probably jump to the camera solution faster than normal people, precisely because of my experience with this sort of situation.

Of course you would want to continue working on other avenues, every avenue available to you, while you wait to catch something on footage. And realistically, putting a camera in the lockerroom showers is a very dangerous thing to do, for obvious reasons. You might have to, instead, keep your camera on your person, and when you see it happening again, whip it out then and start recording. Of course this all happened in the days before cameraphones, so options would have been different then, maybe even impossible. My point was, once you know the police are involved in covering up child abuse, you must proceed in a drastic and yet completely irrefutable manner.

[Lamplighter]

Now, Paterno is being damned for putting football ahead of the well-being of minors.

In another thread, Griff made a remark about the Olympics I did not quite understood,
but regardless, it set of an emotion in me that brought me back to this thread.

In a previous Olympic event (Atlanta, 1996), the same kind of thing happened.
The Women's Gymnastics coach, Bela Karolyi, sacrificed the well-being of
one of his athletes in hopes of winning the gold medal,
by having her continue in her event while injured.
The situation was "critical"... only by this one young girl achieving a higher score
could the US team win the Women's Team Gymnastics gold medal.

Karolyi urged Karri Shuggs to take her second (last) run on the vault,
even though it was obvious she had been injured on her first run.
Bela Karolyi went on to be hailed as a great coach, but for me his was a betrayal of his first responsibility.

Since then, these memories come back to me when I see pictures of him at the Olympics.
I don't think Karolyi ever did "get it".

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

In another thread, Griff made a remark about the Olympics I did not quite understood,
but regardless, it set of an emotion in me that brought me back to this thread.

Which thread/comment?

I hadn't realized Karolyi used her that way.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Griff

Which thread/comment?

I hadn't realized Karolyi used her that way.

http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p=821986&postcount=9

This was the post I did not understand
... it was just my stream-of-consciousness thinking... maybe not at all connected

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Karolyi urged Karri Shuggs to take her second (last) run on the vault, even though it was obvious she had been injured on her first run.
Bela Karolyi went on to be hailed as a great coach, but for me his was a betrayal of his first responsibility.

Did you read an interview with either the coach or Kerri that actually indicated this? Because my guess is, a horde of coaches, parents, and teammates could not have stopped Kerri from doing her second run. You don't get to be an athlete of that caliber by quitting when you've hurt yourself. (Not necessarily saying that's a good thing, it's just a true thing.)

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Did you read an interview with either the coach or Kerri that actually indicated this?
Because my guess is, a horde of coaches, parents, and teammates
could not have stopped Kerri from doing her second run.
You don't get to be an athlete of that caliber by quitting when you've hurt yourself.
(Not necessarily saying that's a good thing, it's just a true thing.)

Yes, I personally remember a video of Kerri telling Karoyli she was hurt,
and asking Karoyli what to do. He told her to go ahead.

Here are two text accounts I found just by a simple Google search
based on "Karoyli tells Kerri Shrug"


ESPN

There is chaos on the sidelines. Strug's ankle is throbbing badly.
Her head is aching. Her teammates encourage her. The U.S. coaches look up at the scoreboard,
then over at the Russians doing the floor exercises.
The coaches can't compute quickly enough whether Strug even has to vault a second time,
on a sprained ankle, in order to guarantee the American women the gold medal.

Questions abound. Should the U.S. coaches hold Strug back from doing the second vault?
But what if she doesn't vault a second time and the Russians wind up winning?
U.S. Coach Bela Karolyi walks over to the ailing Strug,
puts his arm around her and says softly, "Kerri, we need you to go one more time.
We need you one more time for the gold."

Strug rises from the floor, removes the ice pack from her ankle and says a prayer:
"Please, God, help me make this vault." She's performed this vault more than a thousand times.
"I know I can do it one more time, injured ankle or not," she thinks to herself.

Karolyi helps Strug rise to her feet and helps her to the runway.
"This is the Olympics," she would say later the media.
"This is what you dream about from when you're 5 years old.
I wasn't going to stop."

NY Daily News
Mike Lupica
7/25/96

Bela's The Bully Boy Karolyi Mines Gold At Girls' Expense

ATLANTA The face of the Olympics, the face of women's gymnastics,
was not Kerri Strug running fiercely and bravely toward the vault,
running as if her life depended on these next moments, running on an ankle
ruined with pain at the Georgia Dome, running straight for the gold medal
for which she had traded away being a teenager.

The real face of the Olympics, of this sad sport, was Strug's personal coach,
Bela Karolyi, watching her. Karolyi did not care about the pain shooting up
from Strug's left ankle when she landed. He just cared that she landed.

The medal was more important to Karolyi than Kerri Strug.
It was there in the Georgia Dome and on all the replays.
Karolyi is looking right through her, already looking to the top of the medal stand.
<snip>.

There is much more to the Daily News article, most all of it damning Karyoli.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

There is much more to the Daily News article, most all of it damning Karyoli.

Depends on your point of view.

These are Olympians, and making sacrifices for their sport is what they do.

It paid off for her. I'm sure she would do it again. Sure he pushed her, but she needed pushing to reach her goal.

You can argue about parents who push their little kids into gymnastics in the first place. But once you choose that path, you need to stay focused on it. Especially when you are so close to your goal.