Why hasn't McQueary been fired?

[MadHound]

Seriously, Paternor gets fired, and justifiably so, for not taking more action in regards to Sandusky affair, yet McQueary remains?

I'm sorry, but he bears as much blame as Paterno does, more so in my eyes, since he saw an actual crime being committed and turned his back on the victim

Forget excuses about his age, he was a grown man, or his size, he was a big guy. McQueary had a moral and legal obligation to intervene, yet he didn't. He turned away, and then only later called Daddy for advice.

There is no excuse for McQueary's lack of action, none. He needs to be fired at the very least.

[opihimoimoi]

1. +1000 I agree....he let down everyone including the boy...how shameful

[spanone]

2. k&r...

[pnwmom]

3. He has been key to the Grand Jury investigation. It might look like retaliation.

And, in fact, such an action -- if taken -- could have been retaliatory. The student wouldn't have known about the 1998 investigation, unlike all the others. He's the least culpable of everyone who knew.

The student followed the law when he told Paterno. Paterno -- and then Schulz, Curley, or Spanier --should have called the police. PA law doesn't mandate that the low level employee go to the police -- but the top leaders are required to.

[former9thward]

4. The police have said Paterno was not required to report under the law.

Which is why he was not charged. The real question is whether the student got a job as a defensive coach as part of a cover up.

[KamaAina]

6. He didn't

he got a job as an offensive coach (wide receivers) as part of a cover up. :P

[former9thward]

13. He probably did.

But I am sure the grand jury looked at this yet there was no indictment on anything relating to a cover up.

[MadHound]

5. He was a graduate assistant, a man grown

Why didn't he intervene when he saw what what was going on? He was morally obligated, and depending upon PA state laws, legally obligated to intervene.

But hey, keep on making excuses for pedo enablers, all across this board. Such actions say a lot, none of it good.

[pnwmom]

16. What part of this don't you understand? He's cooperating with the prosecution

and his information has been very helpful to the Grand Jury.

If Penn State were to fire him now -- even though he carried out his legal obligation AND has been helping the prosecution -- the action would be seen as retaliation.

That's why they wouldn't do that.

This has nothing to do with his degree of responsibility or moral culpability but yes, I do think that the higher-ups, who had access to the information about the 1998 incident -- have the greater blame.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. He will be replaced when they get a new head coach

The staffers almost always are. Under those circumstances it would not be considered retaliation.

He is also done for life at this point. He will not be able to get a job as a coach anywhere, and that is his career field. Not suggesting sympathy, but that is what is going to happen.

[MadHound]

31. Yet what is your excuse for him not acting at the time?

Why did he not intervene when he saw a crime being committed?

He is cooperating now, big whoop. Due to his inaction an innocent child was victimized. Yet he walks away scott free.

No excuse, none whatsoever.

[jeff47]

36. There's plenty of time to beat the hell out of him after he's done putting worse people in jail. nt

[jmg257]

8. He did nothing for 8 yrs, after doing the bare minimum that day...screw him.

He's been a coach at Penn State since 2003, and had done nothing more since other then tell his boss after seeing a 10yr old raped?

What a dick.

[rocktivity]

12. McQueary may have "heard" things about Sandusky's previous "incidents"

which would explain why he went to his father instead of Paterno first -- he must have realized that politically speaking, he was "playing with fire."

:headbang:
rocktivity

[pnwmom]

19. He probably went to his father because he trusted his father more than anyone.

Unfortunately, his father trusted Paterno and his judgment -- as did practically everyone at Penn State.

[shraby]

15. Why do you keep defending him on this and other threads?

He saw a CRIME being committed and did NOTHING to help or protect the victim even though because of his size and age should have been able to intervene.

Piss on his job and relationship with the university. For all he knew, the perp might have wanted to kill the child and dispose of the body after he was finished to eliminate any evidence. After all, weren't they already "disposable" children?

More than one child has disappeared for this reason..disposal of evidence.

[pnwmom]

18. The question was why he hadn't been fired. That's the question I was answering.

The answer is that that could have been seen as an act of retaliation on Penn State's part.

I haven't been defending him except to say that I condemn him less than I do the higher-ups, who knew about the earlier investigation and deliberately decided to cover everything up.

I think the 28 year old was less to blame. He was wrong to trust Paterno, and he should have stopped the rape. But he was still less to blame than everyone above him who failed to take this to the police.

[shraby]

21. He had an obligation to try to stop what was going on, AND

an obligation to report it to the police. If not a legal obligation, there was a moral obligation as a human being.

[pnwmom]

24. I agree that he failed. But I'm a little skeptical about all the armchair heroes around here.

No one knows how they're going to respond in an emergency until they're actually in one.

And I still think the higher-ups were the most culpable.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Nobility, risk taking, and self sacrifice is most often found in those typing on a keyboard

and not those facing risky matters in real life.

The highest level person it was reported to, though not an LEO, had oversight responsibility for the campus police.

None of the coaches had a legal "duty to report". I think that needs to change. But it that is how it was at the time.

[MadHound]

32. You agree that he failed, and yet

You excuse him from any sort of punishment. Despite the fact that he turned his back on a victim.

How heroic do you have to be to confront an unarmed man, who is naked in a shower, and prevent him from raping a child?

I have been in real life or death emergencies, and have not turned my back on a crime, or refused to do the right thing. I know how I would react to the situation that McQueary was in. Sadly, your very word, your excuse after excuse for the moral failure of McQueary tells all of us how you would react as well. Perhaps that is why you are defending McQueary so vehemently.

Shame.

[Township75]

7. same reason none of the janitors that saw the rapes were fired.

.

[MadHound]

9. Well, they should be gone as well,

You don't turn your back on a victim, especially a child.

[trumad]

10. It was one Janitor

and he has a sever case of Dementia.

[Rebubula]

11. Enlighten us...

...on why you think that they were not fired....

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. It isn't that easy to fire someone with a union contract

[Kingofalldems]

30. Good try.

Using this to go after unions. Fail.

[benld74]

14. He will dissappear into the night,,,

[Bennyboy]

20. IF he stays The University can control the message (Contract)

By contract, any and all communication has to be okay'd by the University when taking to the press (Standard for all coaches). And he is the one that has yet to tell his story. EVERYONE ELSE has been telling his story for him, in a well crafted press releases. And the University has made him the scapegoat. he is probably more villified than Sandusky now.

If tehy fire him, then he is no longer under contract and will then tell his sotry. And I have a feeling that it will be quite explosive. And different from the one you hear now.

[Ter]

22. He's a wus wimp of the worst kind

What 28 year old walks in on a 60-something year old man having anal sex with a 10 year old and does give him the beating of his life, then call police? No balls whatsoever, a total wimp failure.

[pnwmom]

25. No, there is a worse kind -- the older, more experienced adults

who -- knowing about the 1998 incident -- all colluded to cover this up.

[Ter]

26. Fine, there are worse

Nazis are worse, what's your point? Why didn't this pansy tackle him? I'm no internet tough guy, but I'm not gonna lose to that particular then-60-something year old man, who was naked no less (fighting naked alone is a huge disadvantage, and fighting while having sex is a mega-disadvantage). The point? I estimate there's a 97% chance the dressed 28 year old wins the fight, easily. He didn't try, he turned around and left. Eff him.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Moral yes, legal maybe not so much

according to other posters here his position and JoePA's were not mandatory reporters.

[riderinthestorm]

29. Have you ever considered that maybe he was sexually abused as a boy?

This isn't my own idea, I read it elsewhere but the only rational explanation I can think of is that McQueary was sexually assaulted himself. Perhaps even by Sandusky as a child. McQueary grew up in that community, it's very possible as a promising football star he was paired up in youth programs.

It would explain the 'freeze", it would explain why he sought out his dad first. It would explain why the grand jury finds him extremely credible (and not criminal). It would also explain why Penn State kept him on (and maybe even gave him the coaching job).

[NutmegYankee]

33. The Penn. whistleblower protection laws likely prevent them from doing so. nt

[FourScore]

35. That's why. It's an odd stroke of fate. Otherwise, he should be fired. n/t

[rainbow4321]

34. A sports related talking head was asked that on cable news

He was reporting live from there and the anchor asked that same question. His gave a few possible reasons:

1) Is the guy protected by whistleblower law? Thoughts are that the univ doesn't want to find out if he is or not...lawsuit risk.

2) He knows too much and that scares the univ officials...worried he may start spilling more info that has not been made public



The anchor asked if the program was at risk of being shut down, like SMU's program was for a bit...the sports guy said he didnt see that happening since that would just be punishing the players/students who had nothing to do with this...they were in high school and middle school when this all happened. And the program itself brings in $75 million in revenue, making the program "too big to fail" for the local economy.

[justiceischeap]

37. "He knows too much and that scares the univ officials."

There's really something wrong with that statement. And it's even more wrong if it isn't followed up on by the media. I mean, basically, the news folks are implying that McQueary could be extorting Penn State. If he has more info to spill, he should spill it and not use it as a tool to keep or better his job.

[Patiod]

38. Occam's Razor says it's probably the whistleblower laws

But who knows. I hope questions like these get cleared up before this is all over.

[TBF]

39. Like others in this thread I'm thinking whistleblower laws -

he has been there awhile and who knows how many others he can point to. He may know more about Sandusky's organization and the "pimping" for example ... he may have been telling the truth when he told the players he is in "protective custody". Wouldn't they do that for a witness who is willing to give substantive information?