Skip to comments.Mike McQueary — poster child for moral relativism?
Posted on 11/17/2011 12:00:46 PM PST by servo1969
I had in my car two fourteen year olds and one thirteen year old. All were familiar with the Sandusky case, so I wasnt exposing them to sordid information they didnt already know. None of them, however, knew about Mike McQuearys involvement, or lack thereof. I gave them a simple multiple choice question:
You walk into a room and see a 50 year old man raping a 10 year old boy. Do you (a) attack the man and try to drag him off the boy or (b) sneak away and, hours later, ask your parents what you should do?
The roar from the back of the car shook the windows: Id rip him apart! Of course Id attack him! Id kick him the balls! Thats a really dumb question.
As the response from these very young people demonstrates, McQuearys young age (28) is no defense to his action. Young people can and do know right from wrong, and child rape is wrong.
How to explain McQueary then? I think the problem isnt his young age, cause he, at 28, was no youngster. The problem was his old age. Hed been around long enough to be fully indoctrinated. All those liberal pundits who are apologizing for McQuearys behavior by pointing to his youth, his tribal loyalties, and his lukewarm, delayed response are hiding the ball. For liberals, the uncomfortable truth is that McQueary probably didnt act because, after a lifetime in Americas public education system, his moral relativism training had completely erased any absolute moral standards that might once have populated his pre-academic brain.
(Excerpt) Read more at bookwormroom.com ...
"The reasonable man standard? The trouble with that particular fairy-tale is simple, obvious, and the same as its always been: who gets to define reasonable?
Im afraid Ill need to take a little issue with that. Since the discovery of political correctness which in my life first reared its head in the 1950s the law not only expects us to conform to entirely unreasonable behavior, it requires us to, all day every day.
If youre a rancher within reach of the Mexican border, youre not allowed to defend your property or, come to that, yourself. You can, however, be arrested for trying to do so. Reasonable? You not only cant guard your property or yourself, youre supposed to stand quietly by and watch your country be overrun, your way of life be buried and lost, and all that you believe defecated on. Reasonable?
Snookie, or Pookie, or Moochie or whatever the hell his name was Williams was a murderer and founder of a collection of organized offal who have spread everywhere, cost society millions, and murdered a good many people. Flushing him should have been a routine, reflexive act requiring no thought whatever, carried out with the same alacrity youd flush anything else floating in the toilet. Of course it wasnt. We or I should properly say you, California went into full coronary angst mode to spare his worthless life. This was reasonable?
In Scotland not long ago the cops pulled over a speeding car. The drivers defense was that he was a Muslim, running late getting from wife #1 to wife #2. The bewigged and ball gown-equipped jackass on the bench (and if he was a High Court jackass, he gets to wear a red ball-gown, woo-woo!) decided that this made it an excusable offense and dismissed him without a stain on his character, or even a speeding ticket thereby putting paid to a thousand years of Anglo-Scottish law and custom. Reasonable? Even for a judge?
We are wound about with laws and enmeshed in requirements that are antithetical to our customs, beliefs, way of life, and the way this country was set up to be that Im afraid I have to find the reasonable man standard laughable. We have our own ball-gowned jackasses making it up as they go along, and referencing Bulgarian law, or Ukrainian law, or maybe Martian law to decide what our Constitution means when it suits them Ginsberg outstandingly and this is reasonable?
Instead of shunning NAMBLA spokesmen and placing them firmly beyond societys pale, we invite their opinions on Oprah because after all, dont they have a right to be heard? Dr. Phil engages them earnestly for his (large) audience of the brain-damaged, and sadly regrets that while he cannot agree, he does understand. Reasonable?
So here we are, scrupulously multicultural, transnational, non-judgmental, standing for nothing and everybodys shocked when this McQueary kid doesnt know what the hell to do when confronted by the situation that confronted him. Everybody here turns into a militant ass-kicker, in no doubt of what we all would have done in the same situation. (And if wed done it, Sandusky would have lodged a suit for assault against us, and, win or lose, would have f***ed up our lives forever.) Reasonable?
We wont and dont defend our culture and way of life. We wont and dont defend the fundamental bases on which this nation was founded. Youre surprised McQueary found himself paralyzed? Why? Im sure he had a nice, politically-correct upbringing Im surprised he even reported it. Who the hell knows what constitutes reasonable any more?""
McQuery could be making the incident up. He has changed his story and he has something to gain. Doesn’t mean Sandusky isn’t guilty of something, maybe just not this one thing.
Did McQueary secretly enjoy the sight? This seems to go beyond “not wanting to get involved.” If he saw a sexual molestation in progress (we’re not talking about this ambiguous locker room towel snapping “horse play” that’s been so bantered about, but something unmistakable) then he would have to wonder about the welfare of the boy and the reputation of the school, even if he didn’t give a hoot about Sandusky.
McQuery has said from the beginning that when he saw them in the shower, both Sandusky and the victim saw him. I assumed that being discovered in the act caused the assault to cease. That is essentially what McQuery is clarifying with his most recent statement. He did not just flee the scene. The activity stopped and then he left.
As for telling the police, he did tell the school VP who is in charge of the campus police department. I’m not totally defending McQuery but neither do I believe he is changing his story.
Nope not buying it. This incident was in the evidence presented to the grand jury. Also, sandusky admitted on natl. Tv that he showered with boys in the penn st lockeroom. The guy failed to act to save his professional coching career. He could have saved countless boys from sexual abuse but instead tried to save his job.
He ended up losing the respect of a nation and has the rape of children on his soul. Jesus save me from making a mistake like this!
Taking a shower in the presence of boys is not rape.
Of itself, no. Stuff that might be done along with the shower could be, some of which is not suitable to describe on this family friendly forum.
Word out today boys raped by Sandusky in the 70s and 80s are coming forward.
McQueery admitted on an online board about what he saw. That broke the case.
Paterno and Sandusky were noted to have an icy relationship with each other.
Before this scandal came out, it was always thought that Paterno didn't like Sandusky getting much of the credit for the team being so consistently good.
Now, since the scandal came out, people are wondering if the real reason their relationship was strained was because JoePa knew about Sandusky abusing children.
If indeed McQueary got the ball rolling, then he does deserve some redemption.
besided this story goes along with all the other reported "incidences"....
Looks like there are still defenders out there.
But it's the smoke of a raging fire.
If you are an adult male, try taking a shower with my ten-year old son and see what happens to you...
Just compare and contrast to what a lot of us were doing in the military before we were 28.
“I was just a youngster” ain’t gonna cut it, McQ.
If he did lie or exaggerate it will make prosecution harder. If he isn’t lying he should also be prosecuted for failure to act.
So what happened to the ten year old boy after they were seen?
McQ left it to the rapist to clean up the scene and take the boy home?
This stinks beyond hell.
If that's the case, just having one meeting with his AD about a single incident doesn't say much for Joe's character.
that's why rape is so frequently dismissed by many men....why sexual harrasment is dismissed..( I'm 100% for Hermain Cain)
I can imagine a scenario where sexual "horseplay" on sports teams is considered just "fun"...
so a great big guy is banging away at a little 10 yro?...was this like the lions and the gladiators at the Coliseum?...taking pleasure at the devastation?
I can tell you as a smaller statured woman in my upper 50's...if I happened to come across such a scene, there is no way I wouldn't be screaming at the top of my lungs and fighting this guy with all my power...
Plain and simple, he's (now) trying to cover his own ass, so to speak...
You got that right. Be looking for that perp in the Everglades. And won’t find him.
McQueary faced one of those moments that defines character, which is am I going to do the right thing or the right thing for me. He came up short.
the coverup started then....and according to reports, the ONLY reason McQ came forward was because there were postings somewhere on a blog and the cops tracked down McQ...
Umm... happens all the time at the local YMCA.
And it's hurting the prosecution's case. If he's the main witness, he's not helping his credibility.
At least now I am no longer surprised at your defense of a child-rapist and his enablers.
yeah...my dad was in the Navy at age 17 in WW2....back then we had boys that were MEN...
Not defending anyone.
He also went to the supervisor of the campus police.
But, yes, if that was the reason for Paterno and Sandusky’s icy relationship, that does not reflect well on Paterno.
I wouldn’t expect him to run out under fire and grab a wounded comrade, that’s for sure.
Or dive into the river for the drowning kid.
I completely mis-read which of mine you were responding to.
Please see Post #34.
You have my sincere apologies.
I don’t think McQ saw anything close to rape, just a man and and a boy showering together. That is bad enough — no need for Bookworm to exaggerate what was seen.
“I am sorry about this post!!
I completely mis-read which of mine you were responding to.”
No worries, Mate. I didn’t help by not quoting.
My concern here is that McQueary could be hurting the case - - and I cannot find a positive thing to say about him whether he is lying or evolving his truth.
What makes this so puzzling is that he once broke up a knife fight between football players and his dad was also a special ops guy.
WE do not know what his testimony was before the Grand Jury. The only thing that has been published is the grand jury SUMMARY. The fact that he was placed on leave and not fired outright is important. What he saw, and is willing to testify to is critical to the case. Until others start to come forward, which is what is happening now, he was/is their most important witness.
Maybe swords intimidate him, but knives do not?
...I’m sorry, that was tasteless and immature...
If what he meant is he met with the University V.P. who is over the campus police, that's not good enough for me. According to this article, McQueary was very aware nothing had been done about this when he spoke with the A.G. investigators.
I do neither one. I call 9-1-1 and say there is a rape in progress and then I use the cell phone to snap a picture or two as "evidence" while being as discreet as possible.
Confronting the attacker could lead to assault charges and it is very possible that the attacker and/or the victim leaves the scene before help arrives.
You must understand that with pedophiles, it's very possible that a) this isn't his first time and b) this isn't his first victim so the emphasis is to catch him in the act, get the police there ASAP and then you'll have both the attacker and the victim ID'd so as to better prosecute the man and put him behind bars where he belongs. To do that, you need evidence in case the child is intimidated into not pressing charges.
It appears from the way his statement is worded that McQueary claims that he went to both the supervisor of the police and the campus police themselves.
Campus police claims that they have no record of him going to them. I give more credence to the statement of the campus police, but I have heard from a few sources that campus police forces tend to be very corrupt and often bury incidents.
I have read that McQueary’s father and Sundusky went to Penn State together and have been life long friends. McQueary’s come from State College as well and McQueary played for Penn State. I have wondered if McQueary himself was abused by Sundusky as a child?
McQueary was not a hero, but it's not true that he "did nothing." He was a person with no clout and authority and much to lose, yet he made a report which is now the key piece of evidence. Unfortunately, it seems that the actual victim has either been intimidated, seduced, or recruited into the gay lifestyle, such that his testimony against Sandusky is not available.
Had McQueary claimed to have gone to the campus police, however, wouldn't that have been in his grand jury testimony and the report?
It's a certainty.
I have read of cases where campus cops suppressed prosecution of conventional (heterosexual) rapes and other crimes on campus. Read The Five Year Party and learn about just how corrupt the higher education racket is today.
Sandusky said that he didn't seek sexual satisfaction from ALL the kids he “helped”.
The guy is a pedophile with an all too typical pedophile M.O..
All the evidence so far points to his guilt. But it is his own words that condemn him.