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 ...
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.
Not sure.
No, he saw what he saw, he is just making up parts to make himself better.
No, he saw what he saw, he is just making up parts to make himself look better.
But he did see what Sandusky was doing and Sandusky stopped.
It took another complaint to bring this to light.
There are others who said they have been abused by Sandusky and not ‘just’ showering with him.
Exactly!
...and that’s precisely why Sandusky sought families with no father present.
Yes, and he is too dumb to realize that nothing short of getting the boy out of there is going to help him-he admits he didn’t do that, ran and called his father and then the next day told Paterno and for the next 10 years acted like nothing happened when he saw Sandusky roaming around free.
Yea right!
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.