What about McQueary?
Lots and lots of discussion on the board the past 72 hours over Joe Pa, Penn State's administration and how what people did versus what they should've done. I am troubled frankly, most of all, by what McQueary did NOT do when he witnessed first hand Sandusky assaulting the young boy. I know I'm a father of 4 and hence a bit "kid biased" but can somebody tell me why in the name of God did McQueary not grab a chair and beat the holy hell out of Sandusky when he saw him raping the child???? I honestly believe if I witnessed an old man raping a child in the shower I would stop Sandusky with force enough to hurt him. From what I read in the Grand Jury report that is not even close to what he did and it bothers me.
Please understand I am not excusing Joepa, the AD or the Dean of Finance for their lack of action on what was reported but everything they heard was second or even third hand. But McQueary saw it happening - and I cannot understand for the life of me why he didn't do more. A LOT more.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^
To be doing?
November 7th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^
Unfortunately for the boys raped by Sandusky from 2002 - 2011 Chester everybody DID "shut the fuck up".
November 7th, 2011 at 9:24 PM ^
November 7th, 2011 at 9:32 PM ^
Not arguing. Trying to understand three things:
1. Why didnt McQueary physically stop Sandusky when he witnessed the rape?
2. Why didn't McQueary go to the police when it was clear PSU was doing nothing?
3. Why is the media & public opinion focus not on HIS behavior - why is he seeming getting a free pass here?
November 7th, 2011 at 9:38 PM ^
November 7th, 2011 at 9:53 PM ^
1. I would assume mearly having Sandusky see him stopped the rape. Sandusky knew he saw and probably was terrified that McQueary would do the rational thing and alert the police immediately. Obviously he could of confronted Sandusky there, but just having Sandusky see him was probably enough to stop it for the rest of that night.
November 7th, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
Stop it with the cool-dude attitude. It's a legitimate question to ask about McQueary, and what's wrong with a little bit of righteous anger? It's not a good thing as a parent to be reminded of the sort of freaks that you have to protect your children from, and just the fact that they exist makes you question the heart of humanity. It's a scary thing to think that as a parent others in society might not protect innocents like you would.
It's not like the creation of a new thread is violating the sanctity of MGoBlog.
November 7th, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^
November 7th, 2011 at 9:40 PM ^
That's true; I just feel like this is something that's probably cathartic for some people to discuss.
November 7th, 2011 at 9:31 PM ^
Enough with the relativism. The guy saw a colleague rape a 10-year-old but didn't think it appropriate to press the issue past his own boss. That's sick.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^
that they had all been hearing rumors about this stuff for a while, that this--and encountering one of his "superiors" in the situation--might have interfered with someone down the chain of command from acting in the moment.
Yeah, I'd like to think I'd drive the guy out of there (not sure if savaging him would be great for the kid, frankly). I know I'd have made one hell of a lot of noise, though.
When an institution keeps a scaryass secret like this, it is a frightening thing. To think that Sandusky's program was totally predicated on getting these poor kids access to the PSU progam. . . means he was parading them around for years and years under Paterno and everyone's noses. No one knew?
Edit: new NYTimes piece says Sandusky CONFESSED to campus police in 98, and nothing happened, that he was TWICE seen assaulting kids in showers. PA AG said it was unprecedented in her experience that so many people would become aware of such criminal sexual activity and not report it.
I'd say the U pres and Paterno are done, maybe sooner than later. PSU enrollment is going to take a huge hit.
Comments following Times piece are interesting; one PSU grad and dad says Paterno has regularly thrown personnel out after uncovering wrong-doing (Curt Enis, etc.) Maybe. But I still think they might have felt that Sandusky being outed would kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
November 7th, 2011 at 9:46 PM ^
I'd like to point out that beating the shit out of McQueary with a chair wouldn't do anything to stop him in the future. The guy clearly didn't give a fuck.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:11 PM ^
He couldn't do shit.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:45 PM ^
I can't argue with that.
Oh, and I meant Sandusky in my original post. McQueary doesn't deserve to be beaten with a chair.
November 7th, 2011 at 9:49 PM ^
November 7th, 2011 at 10:22 PM ^
Nobody thinks what he did isn't wrong. You are screaming into an abyss.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^
...you hear him.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^
It's not noble to enact your vision of justice with violence.
You don't even know what happened. McQueary reported that they both saw him when he looked into the shower. I took this to mean that they stopped what they were doing. We just don't have enough detail to judge McQueary.
I support your instinct to stop the old man from raping the child, but beyond that your pride in your desire to hurt him is not admirable. We can hold a perpetrator like Sandusky accountable without resorting to revenge-driven violence. Your rage is not really much better of a reason to do something than his sexual desire is -- they are both irrational drives.
Protect the child by whatever means necessary. Leave the trial and punishment of Sandusky to our justice system.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^
Unfashionable? Un-pc? Is that your way of dismissing viewpoints that are different than yours?
It's easy to say that you would react in a certain way in a certain situation but the kid was shocked. Seeing that kind of thing can seriously mess you up. Which is not to say that seeing it in any way compares to experiencing it, but the point is that watching a mentor rape a 10 year old child is probably not conducive to rational thought in the few second that follow. Everyone thinks he should have done something to stop it, but some of us are capable of understanding that it's not a situation that can be prepared for by posting on the internet about how you would beat someone up.
November 7th, 2011 at 9:56 PM ^
Take away the rationalizations, what "i would do" or what "he should have done" or "maybe he was not wired that way" blah blah blah.
The issue is that a man witnessed a much older man butt raping a child, and he did nothing about it other than to inform his supervisor the next day.... the life for him went on for 9 more years as he kept getting promoted.
Those are the facts... now was that man right or wrong to not do anything to the pedophile rapist or report him to the police?
I say wrong. It is black and white wrong.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:15 PM ^
NOBODY IS SAYING WHAT HE DID IS NOT WRONG.
Offering an explanation does not excuse it.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^
November 7th, 2011 at 10:40 PM ^
Saying it is understandable is not saying it is not wrong. You ask a question, then get upset when people answer it. You ask for explanations, and dismiss them as rationalizations. You've created the thread to argue with everyone over nothing , and you have succeeded.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:53 PM ^
November 7th, 2011 at 11:07 PM ^
This thread exists for you to flout your outrage, nothing more. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that I think what McQueary did was ok. I don't.
And, for the love - don't pray for me.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:08 PM ^
Man it's so hard not to go into the religion/politics difference between your posts and your signature.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:09 PM ^
This thread exists for you to flout your outrage, nothing more. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that I think what McQueary did was ok. I don't.
And, for the love - don't pray for me.
When I say your outrage is "over nothing", I am saying that you are arguing with nobody over nothing of substance. You are preaching to the choir, and yelling at them for not being loud enough.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^
Whatever the state of mind of the child in the shower, I can't imagine it would be improved by having a crazed, pissed-off individual come screaming in out of absolutely nowhere with a folding chair or his fists or whatever and start beating the shit out of the old guy. You are talking about what you would like to see done out of vengeance, not prudence. Talk about making a bad situation worse. A simple "what the hell are you doing?" followed by a call to the police would probably suffice.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:41 PM ^
November 7th, 2011 at 10:57 PM ^
I'm not McQueary so I have no idea. We can't all win the "who can be most pissed off about statutory rape" contest you seem to be holding. You've talked up the "imagine you're a father" angle...well, McQueary, at the time, was not, and probably wasn't in any condition to imagine he was. But try this: imagine you're a son. You're talking about a guy that McQueary probably held in almost as much esteem as JoePa himself. When north and south on your moral compass turn out to be the same person, I'm sorry to tell you that not everyone is going to react exactly the same way, or know exactly what to do the instant they find that out. They're just not.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^
BECAUSE HE WAS FREAKED THE FUCK OUT
You keep analysing his decision making with the benefit of 9 years of hindsight, hundreds of miles of distance and no personal relation to anyone involved. McQuery didn't have that luxury. That doesn't excuse his actions but it explains them.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:06 PM ^
Calling the cops would have been a very good idea.
Let's all agree that intervening, getting Sandusky to stop, getting the kid the hell away from the situation and then immediately calling the damn cops is the way to go here.
Let me add one legal tidbit here. A person is allowed to assult another to prevent harm to him/herself and others. However, once you have removed the threat, your ability to commit an assault goes away. In other words - as soon as Sandusky stops and backs away you can no longer legally club him a chair, kick his ass, etc. If you do, then you have committed a crime. You may not get prosecuted given the circumstances, but you are certainly subject to it. This aint the movies.
Wahoo - you and I disagreed about Paterno and PSU officials having to call the cops on another post. I am glad to see that we do agree that McQueary should have called them.
November 8th, 2011 at 12:00 AM ^
I'm not saying that it would be healhty for the kid to see Sandusky killed. But it would be *very healhty* for him to see another adult, particularly male, to forcefully stopped Sandusky, even with a chair if need be. That kid's mind would be healed - if even very slightly only - by seeing another adult male punish the bad man, and by doing so, confirm that what was happening was not the kids fualt but the adult's fault; that what was happening was wrong; that other adult can protect you and care for you.
That is SO FAR BETTER an outcome for the child.
(I've worked with abused kids and their families for many years - I'm writing this post just so ideas like the one above don't spread. You stop what you see. It's good for the kid. You report suspicious behavior no matter what - no less but no more than what you heard / saw / redflags you felt. You will not ruin an innocent person's life by one report (they don't run out and arrest him). Most abuse follows the same pattern as in this case. Some people know, others see red flags, other people hear rumors. If we act more, the police can better connect the dots.)
November 8th, 2011 at 12:31 AM ^
Sorry, but I absolutely cannot bring myself to believe that a traumatized kid will be less traumatized by the sudden appearance of a wild-eyed maniac with a weapon. The OP is talking about running in all gangbusters and whaling away. "Stopping what you see" doesn't have to involve going crazy and making a huge scene which might very well attract a whole bunch of onlookers. You think a kid in that situation wants onlookers? There's probably nothing in the world he wants less.
November 8th, 2011 at 1:32 AM ^
Maybe I didn't wod this well enough.
If it were possible to measure the amount of trauma vs. the amount of healing, then you could justifiably say that the child will move closer towards healing to know that an adult was looking our for him and that the bad man was in fact bad, and that the abuse would stop.
Of course this often would not happen immediately. Psychologically, it is way complicated for the child. But he will either live his life in denial and/or repression which will lead to very bad places, or he will deal with his trauma, which will lead to bad places.
But one is better than the other, and one will lead to it sooner. And knowing that he is not alone and others do want to help him are incredibly important for that healing.
Again, I'm speaking as a counselor to children and families of abuse. Even still, no two cases are the same and what is good for one might not always be good for all. But as a general rule, the above is very true.
November 8th, 2011 at 1:40 AM ^
YOU ARE PROBABLY CORRECT - but absolutely wrong.
He *doesn't* want onlookers. He wants to remain hidden. Eventually, for many youth, he'll want onlookers, but that doesn't always happen and sometimes it just takes a long time for the child to realize he really wants and needs someone else to stop this.
But what does he need? He needs fucking onlookers. An onlooker weilding a chair all crazy eyed if FAR BETTER than no onlooker. An onlooker who can stop the abuse and is also trained in working with abused children is preferable. But in this situation, you take what you can get. You stop the abuse.
Why do you think abuse often continues - why do you tink Sandusky chose this child? B/c he wouldn't tell. He had no one he could tell and/or no one he felt he could tell and/or he felt no one would believe him and/or he felt he needed Sandusky because Sandusky provided him with other opportunities that he otherwise couldn't have and/or he had been abused and was familiar and less likely to report. Etc. People who abuse usually pick children who *do not want others to know*
Please, don't further that misconception. What they immediately want very well might not be what's in their best interest. They are a child - McQueary / you / I am the adult. We should know what is best.
November 8th, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^
You're right: the kid probably wouldn't tell. Maybe not right away....or he might never tell. He might prefer to keep it entirely within like some victims do because he'd rather simply never, ever deal with it than see the perpetrator punished. So you'd do a fat lot of fucking good running in there and beating the holy hell out of the guy. It'd look real spiffy that you created a scene by running in there and beating up poor surprised Jerry Sandusky completely unprovoked while he took a shower (I mean, if JoePa is God at PSU, Sandusky is the archangel Michael.) Sure, you've got some cock-and-bull story about a sexual assault, but the kid is swearing it didn't happen just to make everyone and everything go away, so there you are doing 10-to-15 for aggravated felony assault and battery, and a sexual predator is now an innocent victim and free to move on to another target. Congratulations: you've stopped exactly nothing from happening and made things worse with both a victim and yourself.
I really cannot see what "misconception" I'm furthering by suggesting that a grown man should act like a grown man and not a crazed, vengeful maniac.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:49 PM ^
You have no idea what the situation looked like. Just because the child was being raped doesn't mean that the child was resisting. This is "rape" because of the age(likely). And I don't say this lightly, I work with at-risk youth who have been sexually abused and some who have sexually abused others. I have heard hundreds of stories, none of them are the same. The fact that Sandusky was doing this with at-risk youth makes it even more likely that the kids had abusive pasts, possibly making them easily manipulated.
The truth is you have no idea how it looked. McQueary is probably the last person that deserves to be judged in this situation.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^
I'm pretty sure a 10 year old kid wasn't begging an old man to make him take it in the butt. So, I'm pretty sure he was resisting.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:04 PM ^
I'm pretty sure you totally missed the point. The point being that there are a lot of things between "begging an old man to make him take it in the butt" and actively resisting.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:08 PM ^
You can't say that at all. A guy like Sandusky knows how to convince his victims just to let it happen. Almost like it's their duty to let him do what he wants. The grand jury report is full of incidents where the victims didn't like what was going on and didn't do a thing to resist anyway. There's a lot more possible reactions in between "fuck me please" and physically struggling; just because he wasn't struggling and resisting doesn't mean he was begging for it.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:19 PM ^
Sorry, TMS but I need some help understanding your post.
Given your background, I respect that you have insight into this situation that I do not. Here's the problem I'm having with your post - I can't imagine any situation where I see a grown man having sex with a 10 year old where I don't stop the situation and call the cops.
Your post seems to say that the kid may have been ok with it. I allow that this is tragically possible given how messed up some childern's backgrounds are. But are you really suggesting that McQueary was legally and morally OK with not doing anything if the 10 year old was OK with Sandusky's actions? To me how the kid's participation in the act "looked" is entirely irrelevant since it is clear that McQueary knew he was a minor.
Am I missing your point?
November 8th, 2011 at 12:06 AM ^
Are you nuts? I object to your post mostly b/c you say you've worked with at-risk youth and those that have been abuse and have abused.
I have too, and I don't know anyone who has that shares your opinion.
VERY TRUE that the kid was likely not resisting - Sadusky had picked his targets based on these things. This DOES NOT mean the child wanted it, of course.
If you see a grandpa raping a 10 y/o, you don't just tell your boss and leave it at that when no action is taken. While his immediate reaction is far more common that many people probably would like to believe, it is still the WRONG ACTION and one that many people would never do - leave a helpless child to be further abused by a monster. That is what he did.
How the hell can you say he is the last person that deserves to be judged? He is not the first... but he challenges for the next spot depending upon all the facts that we don't know yet.
November 8th, 2011 at 12:50 AM ^
TMS ACE...your post is fucking insane. Id suggest that you get help if you truly can marginalize pedophile rape so easily in your mind.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:33 PM ^
My point was more a response to the OP. Obviously, if a kid is screaming and resisting any decent human being would step in immediately and help the child. But if the child is not resisting then a responder can be very conflicted.
I'm not saying that the kid is ok with it necessarily, but it's normalized. I'm sure Sandusky is very careful about the kids he tried this with. Sexual Offenders are the most manipulating, observant, planful and cunning individuals. That's why the majority of the time they don't get caught after the first time, unfortunately. It's likely that most of Sandusky's victims were used to being abused by adult figures in their lives. It's a terrible thing, but that is usually the case.
McQueary absolutely should have reported this to authorities, but at least he took action. That should have been enough to stop it there.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:50 PM ^
Thanks for the explanation. I am still not sure that I agree with you, but I appreciate your response.
BTW - thanks for doing your job working with the kids. I don't think I could do it.
November 7th, 2011 at 11:41 PM ^
- you don't need to be a dad to be enraged and have a feeling that you would have reacted immediately to stop what was happening.... However, you only know the feeling of being a dad if you are a dad, and believe me, you see the world differently, you cry at emotional movies about kids, and when you see a kid getting raped, I predict nothing comes to your mind expect protecting that kid.
- McQueary's dad told him to flee the building - it sounds like they were very fearful of Sandusky's immediate retaliation. I find this interesting.
- Whether true or not, everyone including JoePa states they didn't know the exact charges of what happenedin the showers that night. One person did. No way is he off the hook. His coaching career at PSU is finished. It has to be. I empathize with his feelings at the time that he couldn't go above JoePa, which his dream future, but still, you *see it* but know that nothing is done? Come on McQueary. You must by drowning in quilt knownig all the kids that got abused after that night becuase you were too chickenshit.
- Fuck you too, JoePa.
November 8th, 2011 at 1:24 AM ^
Fuck you JoePa. Every official should be raped with a broom stick. Sandusky took advantage of a child and nobody did a fucking thing about it. No more rationalizing with these pedophiles.