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 wasn’t exposing them to sordid information they didn’t already know. None of them, however, knew about Mike McQueary’s 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: “I’d rip him apart!” “Of course I’d attack him!” “I’d kick him the balls!” “That’s a really dumb question.”
As the response from these very young people demonstrates, McQueary’s 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 isn’t his young age, ’cause he, at 28, was no youngster. The problem was his old age. He’d been around long enough to be fully indoctrinated. All those liberal pundits who are apologizing for McQueary’s 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 didn’t act because, after a lifetime in America’s 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 it’s always been: who gets to define “reasonable?”
I’m afraid I’ll 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 you’re a rancher within reach of the Mexican border, you’re 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 can’t guard your property or yourself, you’re 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 you’d flush anything else floating in the toilet. Of course it wasn’t. 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 driver’s 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 I’m 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 society’s pale, we invite their opinions on Oprah — because after all, don’t 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 everybody’s shocked when this McQueary kid doesn’t 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 we’d 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 won’t — and don’t — defend our culture and way of life. We won’t — and don’t — defend the fundamental bases on which this nation was founded. You’re surprised McQueary found himself paralyzed? Why? I’m sure he had a nice, politically-correct upbringing — I’m 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...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.