[Opinionated Blowhard]

I really don’t like the way Sandusky is being characterized as “creepy” as if all he did was leer at a young boy or touch him inappropriately. Sandusky is a horrible criminal if he did what is alleged. You don’t call John Wayne Gacy “creepy”, you don’t call OJ Simpson “creepy”, you don’t call a rapist “creepy” either and you certainly don’t call a child rapist creepy. There is way too much sanitizing of what Sandusky did. “Inappropriate conduct” — this was rape (allegedly). Not “inappropriate” or “creepy.”

[Colofornian]

I really don’t like the way Sandusky is being characterized as “creepy” as if all he did was leer at a young boy or touch him inappropriately. Sandusky is a horrible criminal if he did what is alleged. You don’t call John Wayne Gacy “creepy”, you don’t call OJ Simpson “creepy”, you don’t call a rapist “creepy” either and you certainly don’t call a child rapist creepy. There is way too much sanitizing of what Sandusky did. “Inappropriate conduct” — this was rape (allegedly). Not “inappropriate” or “creepy.”

Good catch.

"Creepy" is the unknown reputation of a taco-muncher on a cell phone service commercial. "Criminal" and habitual sex offender and child rapist is the face of Penn State.

He hasn't provoked a nation by being "creepy" and wandering about deserted shower stalls at night.

[Nonstatist]

You don’t call John Wayne Gacy “creepy”,

Umm, Gacy and Sandusky are creepty. It starts with creepy and it ends with malevolently evil. But yes, those freaks, with their goofy grins and their needy whining and shameless begging were certainly creepy.