View Single Post
Old 07-12-2012   #542
GlassHalfFull 
Subscribed Contributor
 
GlassHalfFull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Section 353
Posts: 7,174
Rep Power: 53440 GlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respectedGlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respectedGlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respectedGlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respectedGlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respectedGlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respectedGlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respectedGlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respectedGlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respectedGlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respectedGlassHalfFull is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: Penn State Child Molestation Case

From the SI Link

Quote:
Freeh said officials had opportunities in 1998 and 2001 to step in.

Sexual abuse might have been prevented if university officials had banned Sandusky from bringing children onto campus after a 1998 inquiry, the report said. Despite their knowledge of the police probe into Sandusky showering with a boy in a football locker room, Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz took no action to limit his access to campus, the report said.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz20QrMiHV9
The bolded statement bugs me for some reason. Banning Sandusky from bringing children onto campus wouldn't have stopped the abuse. Turning him into the authorities was the only way to do that. He would have just found another venue.

It seems to me that some people still aren't getting it.
__________________
GlassHalfFull is offline   Reply With Quote