[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Although I disagree with the tone of this article…whoever is letting Paterno talk to the media with civil suits still inevitable, should maybe re-think that strategy.
you’re reaching pretty deep when you have to grasp to some random blog to support your sentiment. anyway, Paterno had the consultation and presence of one of the best DC lawfirms during the interview. and as someone who handled these types of civil suits, I can tell you he did not say anything problematic.
and the tide is slowly turning from the initial lynch mob mentality as it concerns paterno. there was yet another local article in the philly paper today softening its position on his “culpability” and clearly referencing HINDSIGHT. [/quote]
I would think that with litigation pending that he should probably say nothing on the chance that he would say something to sway a jury.
Also, Deadspin is a top 10 sports website in terms of hits…not exactly random…And Drew Magary writes for Deadspin, NBC, Maxim, Kissing Suzy Kolber, GQ and Penthouse. He also wrote a novel that made the New York Times bestseller list.
Again, I was merely pointing out that he only makes himself vulnerable to saying the wrong thing in ANY interview…you chose to degrade the messenger…in a very snotty way I might add.
[/quote]
whoa there. I didn’t “degrade” you in any manner. if you took offense, i apologize. anyway, I don’t care who he writes for; this crap is not “journalism”.
as for Paterno exposing himself, he was guided by counsel. and he owes PSU nothing at this point, even though he’s choosing to be loyal - speaks to his TRUE CHARACTER. absent criminal or gross negligence on his part (and it’s clear there is none) i don’t believe he has personal exposure in this matter at all. PSU will be funding the civil litigation.
[/quote]
No offense taken.
You wrote -
“speaks to his TRUE CHARACTER. absent criminal or gross negligence on his part (and it’s clear there is none) i don’t believe he has personal exposure in this matter at all. PSU will be funding the civil litigation.”
This is all your personal opinion about Paterno…the one thing that you have been railing on folks in this thread is they dared to have a personal opinion that WAS DIFFERENT THAN YOURS.
And thusly they were fools who did not understand anything.
Just pointing out that we both have our OPINIONS and nothing more.
I know that he has retained counsel…but were they present at this interview advising him? When the gal (interviewer) was interviewed by ESPN…she never mentioned him having a lawyer present…I would think that would be a pertinent detail.
Have you read the transcript of his interview, I don’t know how you can say there is nothing damaging in there…a jury would have to form some opinion of Paterno from that (a dottering old codger comes to mind)…and that is good, how?
Also, if Paterno is named in the civil suit…why would Penn State fund it? Just curious.
I also would like to reiterate that I never, at any time said or believed that there was a cover up at Penn State.[/quote]
PSU would fund the defense (and likely any settlement or verdict) b/c Paterno was an employee of the University at the time of any of his alleged negligence, and he was in the course and scope of his employment when any alleged negligence occurred. He did not act criminally (he was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing), and he did not act intentionally, wantonly, etc., e.g., “gross negligence” (to allege any such conduct is not supported by the Grand Jury proceedings). Short and simple - he’s an employee and it’s a work related matter. At all times he’s acting within the course and scope of his employment on behalf of the University.
I don’t know if counsel was or wasn’t present at the interview. He retained counsel, so I’d find it hard to believe they were not present but that’s neither here nor there. I’ve read most of the interview but probably not all of it. I didn’t see anything problematic and even if there were, it would be problematic for the University and its insurers - not Paterno. And since they unceremoniously cut him loose, he owes them nothing and since he’s no longer an employee, they cannot control him. That’s the chance they took when they cut him loose the way they did. Even still, he has not spit any venom in their direction.
As for opinions, fair enough. However, the concepts of “judgement with the benefit of hindsight” and not having the full factual record were DEFINITELY lost on a few that posted here. My “opinion” is gaining traction. The new University President is already talking about honoring Paterno at an appropriate time and there are whispers about sweetening his retirement.
My opinion is pretty simple (and we now have more information than when this started).
It is undisputed that:
McQueary did not give him the full story or details of what he ALLEGES (still contested) he saw;
Paterno took action on this information within 48 hours reporting it to his superiors;
Paterno absolutely had a reasonable expectation that his superiors would handle it appropriately, absent any indication otherwise;
There is no allegation that Paterno was informed or in the loop after he reported the incident;
There is no allegation that Paterno was ever later made aware that Sandusky was fucking little boys in the shower; and,
There is no allegation or indication that Paterno engaged in any “cover-up” or otherwise consulted with the other administrators relative to their alleged inaction.
Oh, and he certainly did not “run the place”.
