Jerry Sandusky State

[Patrirish]

You are 100% wrong. You can contact, talk to, or file a report to the police about ANYTHING. They can then decide to refer it to further police involvement or detectives.

And if you knew Paterno, he would follow a student on campus that ran a stop sign; or talk to a professor about his players; or talk to the mayor about his opinion on traffic flow; and would run down a ref on the field after the game…..if he thought it would help.

But he couldn’t go beyond reporting to his superior, an allegation about a witnessed assault on a 10 year old (not an adult in one of your whataboutisms), that was confirmed to be reported by an obviously distressed asst coach he knew for 10 years?

Stop with the excuses

You are not required to do so by law which is what Christophero claimed.
Secondly, when the police ask you what proof you have, what’s your answer ?
And are you prepared to be sued for Libel and Defamation of character if your allegation is proven to be untrue ?

I get a kick out of all of you internet heroes claiming that you would rush into the breach !

You’re a joke

The assault was only confirmed subsequent to it being relayed to JP.

The former Attorney General of the United States concluded that JP did NOT attempt to cover up the scandal, and that “RATHER, THAT THE CONTRARY WAS TRUE”. !

What do you say to that ?

 

[Patrirish]

Stop using the argument about vacated wins as a justification for saying Joe was not responsible. The restoring of vacated games does nothing to change the fact that Joe knew of it and did nothing beyond reporting to Curley. Joe was first told about this possibility in the 80’s. Do more reading

The former Attorney General of the United States, after an exhaustive investigation, concluded just the opposite, that JP did NOT cover up the scandal.

How’s that for “more reading”

What’s your response to that ?

 

[Patrirish]

So you aren’t the kind of man that would risk any negative pushback for sharing with the police what you were told about a defenseless child? Figures..

Joe would have been reporting not accusing, a big difference

So you would report an unsubstantiated third party allegation to the police ?

Bullshit, you wouldn’t make that quantum leap and risk the potential negative consequences.

You and the others benefit from 20-20 hindsight, not real time circumstances!

JP reported it to his superior.

Tell us exactly how you would report it to the police

 

[theskibro]

You are not required to do so by law which is what Christophero claimed.
Secondly, when the police ask you what proof you have, what’s your answer ?
And are you prepared to be sued for Libel and Defamation of character if your allegation is proven to be untrue ?
I get a kick out of all of you internet heroes claiming that you would rush into the breach !

You’re a joke

The assault was only confirmed subsequent to it being relayed to JP.

The former Attorney General of the United States concluded that JP did NOT attempt to cover up the scandal, and that “RATHER, THAT THE CONTRARY WAS TRUE”. !

What do you say to that ?

What I say to that is you are a gullible moron who thinks the well documented paterno truthsayers are right and that you are by your admission, a defender of Ped abusers and that I will now wait to see how many perjoratives you can muster to defend your indefensible position.

 

[BGI User 1596]

What I say to that is you are a gullible moron who thinks the well documented paterno truthsayers are right and that you are by your admission, a defender of Ped abusers and that I will now wait to see how many perjoratives you can muster to defend your indefensible position.

Ouch!

 

[theskibro]

What I say to that is you are a gullible moron who thinks the well documented paterno truthsayers are right and that you are by your admission, a defender of Ped abusers and that I will now wait to see how many perjoratives you can muster to defend your indefensible position.

Furthermore, you are a cancer to this board. Show me one person who will defend you and likes you and I will show you someone who is deaf dumb blind. Morons rule this board. Vive l’morons it’s good to be defined by a nobody who thinks he is a somebody

 

[Patrirish]

What I say to that is you are a gullible moron who thinks the well documented paterno truthsayers are right and that you are by your admission, a defender of Ped abusers and that I will now wait to see how many perjoratives you can muster to defend your indefensible position.

You are too stupid to understand that your position is one that benefits from 20-20 hindsight and that given the circumstances, contemporaneously, you would never act as you state without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

I’m far from gullible and I dare say that I’m far more familiar with the legal aspects of this case in a contemporaneous context.

In addition to getting your facts wrong, your logic and conclusions are seriously flawed.

But you’re entitled to your opinions irrespective of how ignorant they are

 

[Patrirish]

Furthermore, you are a cancer to this board. Show me one person who will defend you and likes you and I will show you someone who is deaf dumb blind. Morons rule this board. Vive l’morons it’s good to be defined by a nobody who thinks he is a somebody

I’m not looking to win a popularity contest.

That you can’t withstand vigorous debate and intelligent challenges to your absurd positions speaks volumes to your intellectual limitations.

I never claimed to be a “somebody”, I merely state facts.

I can’t help it if you’re dumb or jealous or both.

I‘m not here to please you or anyone else.

If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen !

 

[theskibro]

I’m not looking to win a popularity contest.

That you can’t withstand vigorous debate and intelligent challenges to your absurd positions speaks volumes to your intellectual limitations.

I never claimed to be a “somebody”, I merely state facts.

I can’t help it if you’re dumb or jealous or both.

I‘m not here to please you or anyone else.

If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen !

By your standards weak responses. Expected more name calling. Maybe you can become a nice guy

 

[Patrirish]

By your standards weak responses. Expected more name calling. Maybe you can become a nice guy

Do you not understand the difference between a contemporaneous analysis of an event and a subsequent analysis of that same event that benefits from 20-20 hindsight ?

 

[BGI User 1596]

Furthermore, you are a cancer to this board. Show me one person who will defend you and likes you and I will show you someone who is deaf dumb blind. Morons rule this board. Vive l’morons it’s good to be defined by a nobody who thinks he is a somebody

Double Ouch!

 

[Golson5]

Patty makes the board worse. He's insufferable. I think everyone has seen it over and over and over again

 

[theskibro]

Do you not understand the difference between a contemporaneous analysis of an event and a subsequent analysis of that same event that benefits from 20-20 hindsight ?

Patti cakes
Morons rule this board and that can be frustrating I know. Take a breath. Yoga?
Watch some of those 1980 cola commercials singing on a hill. Ya know, a coke n a smile
We can get thru this u n me

 

[Patrirish]

Patti cakes
Morons rule this board and that can be frustrating I know. Take a breath. Yoga?
Watch some of those 1980 cola commercials singing on a hill. Ya know, a coke n a smile
We can get thru this u n me

👍

 

[Patrirish]

Patty makes the board worse. He's insufferable. I think everyone has seen it over and over and over again

I’m keenly aware of how telling the truth and putting forth intelligent positions offends you !

 

[Drinking The Green Koolaid]

You are not required to do so by law which is what Christophero claimed.
Secondly, when the police ask you what proof you have, what’s your answer ?
And are you prepared to be sued for Libel and Defamation of character if your allegation is proven to be untrue ?
I get a kick out of all of you internet heroes claiming that you would rush into the breach !

You’re a joke

The assault was only confirmed subsequent to it being relayed to JP.

The former Attorney General of the United States concluded that JP did NOT attempt to cover up the scandal, and that “RATHER, THAT THE CONTRARY WAS TRUE”. !

What do you say to that ?

I hesitate to jump into the breach here, lest I get caught in the crossfire, but I think it is important to set straight what appears to be a misunderstanding of the law of defamation on your part. You have stated at least a couple of times that a false report made to the police or law enforcement will expose the maker of the report to a claim of libel. That is not true. In virtually every state in the country, false reports to law enforcement are protected against defamation claims by a qualified privilege. A qualified privilege exists when a communication is made to law enforcement in good faith about a matter on which the maker of the statement has an interest or owes duty. Members of the public are generally considered to have an interest, if not a duty, in reporting criminal activity to the police.

It is not an absolute immunity, but only a qualified one, meaning the maker of the report must have acted in good faith. Even if you rely on hearsay from a third party, that will not necessarily cause the loss of the privilege if those hearsay statements turn out to be false. Rather, the maker of the report must have acted in bad faith, sometimes referred to as "actual malice," in order for the privilege to be lost. On the other hand, if the maker of the report has some ulterior purpose or motive in play, then perhaps the privilege will not protect the reporting party if the report turns out to be false, and he or she would be exposed to a lawsuit for defamation.

I would think twice about making a report to police based upon a hearsay statement, but if the crime were serious enough (and sexual assault of a minor would certainly meet that test) that would be something that you would have to wrestle with. Do you believe the maker of the hearsay statement? Was he or she in a position to observe the alleged crime? Why hasn't he or she reported it to police himself or herself? Those are all questions that would have to be answered first.

When we talk about legal principles and doctrines, I think it is important to be accurate.

 

[christophero]

Repeatedly calling people unintelligent morons who disagree with you is not intelligent challenges or vigorous debate.

 

[Patrirish]

I hesitate to jump into the breach here, lest I get caught in the crossfire, but I think it is important to set straight what appears to be a misunderstanding of the law of defamation on your part. You have stated at least a couple of times that a false report made to the police or law enforcement will expose the maker of the report to a claim of libel. That is not true. In virtually every state in the country, false reports to law enforcement are protected against defamation claims by a qualified privilege. A qualified privilege exists when a communication is made to law enforcement in good faith about a matter on which the maker of the statement has an interest or owes duty. Members of the public are generally considered to have an interest, if not a duty, in reporting criminal activity to the police.

It is not an absolute immunity, but only a qualified one, meaning the maker of the report must have acted in good faith. Even if you rely on hearsay from a third party, that will not necessarily cause the loss of the privilege if those hearsay statements turn out to be false. Rather, the maker of the report must have acted in bad faith, sometimes referred to as "actual malice," in order for the privilege to be lost. On the other hand, if the maker of the report has some ulterior purpose or motive in play, then perhaps the privilege will not protect the reporting party if the report turns out to be false, and he or she would be exposed to a lawsuit for defamation.

I would think twice about making a report to police based upon a hearsay statement, but if the crime were serious enough (and sexual assault of a minor would certainly meet that test) that would be something that you would have to wrestle with. Do you believe the maker of the hearsay statement? Was he or she in a position to observe the alleged crime? Why hasn't he or she reported it to police himself or herself? Those are all questions that would have to be answered first.

When we talk about legal principles and doctrines, I think it is important to be accurate.

I think the flaw in your above post is the presumption that the offended party won‘t file suit, the outcome of which won’t be determined until the verdict is rendered.

Being sued has serious financial consequences irrespective of the verdict

Because the allegation was relayed to you by a third party are you in a position and are you qualified to render an accurate judgement as to the degree of the alleged offense ?

What everyone seems to forget is that in a corporate or institutional environment the proper course of action regarding potentially inappropriate conduct is to report the allegation to your superior, with the understanding that the corporation or institution will exercise due diligence and pursue the matter until it is adjudicated.

it is NOT the employee’s responsibility to act like a vigilante !

 

[Patrirish]

Repeatedly calling people unintelligent morons who disagree with you is not intelligent challenges or vigorous debate.

I don’t call moronic posters morons because they disagree with me, I call moronic posters morons because their posts lack facts, logic or both.

if someone disagrees with me and presents a cogent argument, we’ll engage in a reasonable debate, but if someone posts something incredibly moronic, like stating that you have to report unsubstantiated allegations from third parties to the police, well then I’m going to call you a moron. So in that instance, when you made that post, you were an uninformed ignorant moron. Take ownership and responsibility for what you post and if you make a moronic post, I’m going to call you a moron.

That’s reasonable, isn’t it ?

 

[Drinking The Green Koolaid]

I think the flaw in your above post is the presumption that the offended party won‘t file suit, the outcome of which won’t be determined until the verdict is rendered.

Being sued has serious financial consequences irrespective of the verdict

Because the allegation was relayed to you by a third party are you in a position and are you qualified to render an accurate judgement as to the degree of the alleged offense ?

What everyone seems to forget is that in a corporate or institutional environment the proper course of action regarding potentially inappropriate conduct is to report the allegation to your superior, with the understanding that the corporation or institution will exercise due diligence and pursue the matter until it is adjudicated.

it is NOT the employee’s responsibility to act like a vigilante !

While it is true that anyone can file suit irrespective of the merits of the claim, a lawyer that is considering taking on such a case will surely investigate the facts and advise the client of the prospects of winning. If that case is a loser right out of the gate, most responsible lawyers wouldn't take it on. (And yes, there are responsible lawyers in this country.) Because of this country's long-rooted historical protection of speech under the First Amendment, many libel cases are dismissed by summary judgment and the case never goes to verdict. But yes, getting sued can still have financial consequences. I don't deny that, nor did my previous post imply that. I am simply pointing out that reporting a hearsay statement to law enforcement won't necessarily result in liability if that statement proves to be false, which is what you asserted, or at least implied, in your previous posts. Of course, being legally correct can also be costly. That is also true.

As for an employee's duty to report wrongdoing up the chain of command, that is certainly true as a general rule, but there are many exceptions to that general rule, such as whistleblower statutes. But that is a topic for another day.

 

[Patrirish]

While it is true that anyone can file suit irrespective of the merits of the claim, a lawyer that is considering taking on such a case will surely investigate the facts and advise the client of the prospects of winning. If that case is a loser right out of the gate, most responsible lawyers wouldn't take it on. (And yes, there are responsible lawyers in this country.) Because of this country's long-rooted historical protection of speech under the First Amendment, many libel cases are dismissed by summary judgment and the case never goes to verdict. But yes, getting sued can still have financial consequences. I don't deny that, nor did my previous post imply that. I am simply pointing out that reporting a hearsay statement to law enforcement won't necessarily result in liability if that statement proves to be false, which is what you asserted, or at least implied, in your previous posts. Of course, being legally correct can also be costly. That is also true.

As for an employee's duty to report wrongdoing up the chain of command, that is certainly true as a general rule, but there are many exceptions to that general rule, such as whistleblower statutes. But that is a topic for another day.

I think a distinction in the “whistleblower” statutes is that the “whistleblower“ is an eye witness and not a distantly removed third party.

 

[irishalice]

I don’t call moronic posters morons because they disagree with me, I call moronic posters morons because their posts lack facts, logic or both.

if someone disagrees with me and presents a cogent argument, we’ll engage in a reasonable debate, but if someone posts something incredibly moronic, like stating that you have to report unsubstantiated allegations from third parties to the police, well then I’m going to call you a moron. So in that instance, when you made that post, you were an uninformed ignorant moron. Take ownership and responsibility for what you post and if you make a moronic post, I’m going to call you a moron.

That’s reasonable, isn’t it ?

No. it's not reasonable. Your opinion of moronic is just your opinion and folks can disagree about issues without calling names.
As a young teacher I was supposed to follow chain of command when reporting any type of abuse. Now that has changed to report immediately.
There is usually a school liason officer in the building.
All Hoosiers are mandated reporters and expected to report abuse.

 

[christophero]

I was quite clear that you do have to report to an agency
if it involves a child or a vulnerable adult. The agency decides if it worth investigating even if it's something you heard. But you seem to be living on your own planet where you always think you are right despite the entire board disagreeing with you. I'm done responding to you.

 

[Patrirish]

No. it's not reasonable. Your opinion of moronic is just your opinion and folks can disagree about issues without calling names.
As a young teacher I was supposed to follow chain of command when reporting any type of abuse. Now that has changed to report immediately.
There is usually a school liason officer in the building.
All Hoosiers are mandated reporters and expected to report abuse.

My opinions tend to be based in fact and my logic is ….. geometric like in nature.

What year are we in ? 2023

So if you report a false allegation, based on third party hearsay,
what consequences befall you ?

How do you atone for the irreparable damage you might have caused

You and others keep making the same mistake, you keep substituting factual events for unsubstantiated third party hearsay.

 

[Patrirish]

I was quite clear that you do have to report to an agency
if it involves a child or a vulnerable adult. But you seem to be living on your own planet where you always think you are right despite the entire board disagreeing with you. I'm done responding to you.

You continue to double down on your moronic statement that the law requires you to go to the police upon the receipt of third party hearsay.

And now you’ve transitioned from being a moron to a liar.

Here’s what you stated with regard to reporting unsubstantiated third party allegations.

“christophero​

Irish Guard​

• Yesterday at 9:43 PM
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #70

Dude it is required by law. If the agency investigates and finds nothing wrong, then nothing is done. It's not 1920. It is the very reason these agencies exist.”

Nothing could be further from the truth, it is NOT required by law.

You’re a moron, take it like a man !

 

[christophero]

I didn't say to the police. I said an outside agency. Life's too short I'm going for a walk. Enjoy your Sunday people.

 

[irishalice]

My opinions tend to be based in fact and my logic is ….. geometric like in nature.

What year are we in ? 2023

So if you report a false allegation, based on third party hearsay,
what consequences befall you ?

How do you atone for the irreparable damage you might have caused

You and others keep making the same mistake, you keep substituting factual events for unsubstantiated third party hearsay.

I didn't mention reporting hearsay at all. So much for your fact and logic, huh? Hearsay should be documented and the party that has first hand knowledge needs to report it. If it is a life threatening situation I would report it with the witness, or tell the witness I would name them in the call as having first hand knowledge.

 

[sjb75]

This thread requires Advil.

 

[theskibro]

I didn't mention reporting hearsay at all. So much for your fact and logic, huh? Hearsay should be documented and the party that has first hand knowledge needs to report it. If it is a life threatening situation I would report it with the witness, or tell the witness I would name them in the call as having first hand knowledge.

“There was another person who swore to the Grand Jury he knew nothing of the 1998 incident involving Sandusky inappropriately showering and touching a boy: Joe Paterno. E-mails from 1998 show that Paterno was very much aware of the investigation and was following it closely.”

Even Ped state knows he is guilty
Is there still a statue of Joe Paterno at Penn State?

Then in July 2012, the university removed the statue from its location outside of Beaver Stadium because it had become a “source of division and obstacle to healing” after the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal. According to Rep. Bernstine, the statue has since been moved to an unnamed secure location.Jun 22, 202

 

[Patrirish]

I didn't mention reporting hearsay at all. So much for your fact and logic, huh? Hearsay should be documented and the party that has first hand knowledge needs to report it. If it is a life threatening situation I would report it with the witness, or tell the witness I would name them in the call as having first hand knowledge.

You didn’t mention reporting ”hearsay” ?

What in the hell do you think that we’ve been debating for the last three pages ?

That’s become the primary focus of this thread !

What do you teach, how to recapture memory loss ?
How to improve reading comprehension ?

Get with the program !

You too are making the same mistake, you’re equating hearsay from a third party with being factually correct absent any evidence to corroborate the incident.

So someone, Mary Jones, comes to you on a Friday afternoon after school and tells you that she just witnessed John Doe assaulting a woman with a knife and you go to the police and report John Doe.
As a result, the police issue an arrest warrant and arrest John Doe at his home where he’s having dinner with his wife and three daughters, 8, 10 and 12.

John Doe is brought to the Police Station, fingerprinted, photoed, booked and jailed, awaiting his court hearing on Monday morning

Turns out that the media assigned to the Police Station hear your story and it makes the night’s local TV news along with the morning papers.

His boss, hearing the story on TV fires him.
His wife, thinking that he was the cheating party now intends to divorce him

But it turns out that the woman was drunk and was going to stab her boyfriend, Jim Smith, a friend of John Doe’s, with a large hunting knife, because she had just found out that Jim was cheating on her and just in the nick of time, John Doe jumped in and wrestled the knife away from her, preventing her from fatally stabbing Jim Smith, resulting in her suffering some bruises and minor cuts that produced blood stains on the woman’s clothes.

What now genius ?

For a teacher you sure have a lot to learn !

 

[irishalice]

You didn’t mention reporting ”hearsay” ?

What in the hell do you think that we’ve been debating for the last three pages ?

That’s become the primary focus of this thread !

What do you teach, how to recapture memory loss ?
How to improve reading comprehension ?

Get with the program !

You too are making the same mistake, you’re equating hearsay from a third party with being factually correct absent any evidence to corroborate the incident.

So someone, Mary Jones, comes to you on a Friday afternoon after school and tells you that she just witnessed John Doe assaulting a woman with a knife and you go to the police and report John Doe.
As a result, the police issue an arrest warrant and arrest John Doe at his home where he’s having dinner with his wife and three daughters, 8, 10 and 12.

John Doe is brought to the Police Station, fingerprinted, photoed, booked and jailed, awaiting his court hearing on Monday morning

Turns out that the media assigned to the Police Station hear your story and it makes the night’s local TV news along with the morning papers.

His boss, hearing the story on TV fires him.
His wife, thinking that he was the cheating party now intends to divorce him

But it turns out that the woman was drunk and was going to stab her boyfriend, Jim Smith, a friend of John Doe’s, with a large hunting knife, because she had just found out that Jim was cheating on her and just in the nick of time, John Doe jumped in and wrestled the knife away from her, preventing her from fatally stabbing Jim Smith, resulting in her suffering some bruises and minor cuts that produced blood stains on the woman’s clothes.

What now genius ?

For a teacher you sure have a lot to learn !

Yeah, and you need to be less asinine.
I was only posting about the reporting that I have done not about any of the PSU scandal. Trying to clarify the reporting issues.
I have testified in custody issues, and unfortunately have made abuse reports, plus been interviewed by CPS. I have walked a child out to a police car due to a threat of his dad coming to get him packing a loaded gun. Can you say lockdown? I know my protocol. I also know the laws of Indiana involving reporting. A person coming to me with an accusation of abuse is second hand information and by Indiana law...they need to report. I would support and encourage them to report, but if they would refuse and a person could be.in GRAVE danger...you betcha I would call and give them the the name of the witness and allegation. Plus, I would document, document, document.
My Pops that I dearly loved passed away a year ago on Mother's Day. He was 99 years old. The last couple of years he could be quite grumpy to folks outside of the family, but at 99 years old and in pain most of the time...I understood. What is your excuse for being a grumpy old man?

 

[Patrirish]

Yeah, and you need to be less asinine.
I was only posting about the reporting that I have done not about any of the PSU scandal. Trying to clarify the reporting issues.
I have testified in custody issues, and unfortunately have made abuse reports, plus been interviewed by CPS. I have walked a child out to a police car due to a threat of his dad coming to get him packing a loaded gun. Can you say lockdown? I know my protocol. I also know the laws of Indiana involving reporting. A person coming to me with an accusation of abuse is second hand information and by Indiana law...they need to report. I would support and encourage them to report, but if they would refuse and a person could be.in GRAVE danger...you betcha I would call and give them the the name of the witness and allegation. Plus, I would document, document, document.
My Pops that I dearly loved passed away a year ago on Mother's Day. He was 99 years old. The last couple of years he could be quite grumpy to folks outside of the family, but at 99 years old and in pain most of the time...I understood. What is your excuse for being a grumpy old man?

MORONS ON THIS SITE ! 😜

 

[Patrirish]

.

 

[Golson5]

MORONS ON THIS SITE ! 😜

Yeah, you

 

[Patrirish]

Yeah, and you need to be less asinine.
I was only posting about the reporting that I have done not about any of the PSU scandal. Trying to clarify the reporting issues.
I have testified in custody issues, and unfortunately have made abuse reports, plus been interviewed by CPS. I have walked a child out to a police car due to a threat of his dad coming to get him packing a loaded gun. Can you say lockdown? I know my protocol. I also know the laws of Indiana involving reporting. A person coming to me with an accusation of abuse is second hand information and by Indiana law...they need to report. I would support and encourage them to report, but if they would refuse and a person could be.in GRAVE danger...you betcha I would call and give them the the name of the witness and allegation. Plus, I would document, document, document.
My Pops that I dearly loved passed away a year ago on Mother's Day. He was 99 years old. The last couple of years he could be quite grumpy to folks outside of the family, but at 99 years old and in pain most of the time...I understood. What is your excuse for being a grumpy old man?

Alice,

You were truly blessed to have had your dad in your life for so long.
My mom passed away in her early 50’s and my dad at 82.
What I would have given for 99 !

You should know that I wake up happy 363 days a year.

What happens on the other two or three days ?
Well, maybe I had a bad dream or a severe pain and that doesn’t start the day off on a happy note.

Now I don‘t go to bed happy 363 days as each day brings its own challenges.
But I can assure you, I’m far from grumpy.
Now I may be old, but I’ve been blessed in so many ways and I’m beyond thankful for my blessings despite more than a few serious bumps along the way.

I’m at peace with myself and I’ve accepted my mortality, I’m just trying to postpone it for as long as i can.

So please don’t fret about my disposition or my quality of life, I’m fine and I’m very happy, especially since this morning was 1 of 363 😜

 

[Patrirish]

.

 

[tbonesays]

I hesitate to jump into the breach here, lest I get caught in the crossfire, but I think it is important to set straight what appears to be a misunderstanding of the law of defamation on your part. You have stated at least a couple of times that a false report made to the police or law enforcement will expose the maker of the report to a claim of libel. That is not true. In virtually every state in the country, false reports to law enforcement are protected against defamation claims by a qualified privilege. A qualified privilege exists when a communication is made to law enforcement in good faith about a matter on which the maker of the statement has an interest or owes duty. Members of the public are generally considered to have an interest, if not a duty, in reporting criminal activity to the police.

It is not an absolute immunity, but only a qualified one, meaning the maker of the report must have acted in good faith. Even if you rely on hearsay from a third party, that will not necessarily cause the loss of the privilege if those hearsay statements turn out to be false. Rather, the maker of the report must have acted in bad faith, sometimes referred to as "actual malice," in order for the privilege to be lost. On the other hand, if the maker of the report has some ulterior purpose or motive in play, then perhaps the privilege will not protect the reporting party if the report turns out to be false, and he or she would be exposed to a lawsuit for defamation.

I would think twice about making a report to police based upon a hearsay statement, but if the crime were serious enough (and sexual assault of a minor would certainly meet that test) that would be something that you would have to wrestle with. Do you believe the maker of the hearsay statement? Was he or she in a position to observe the alleged crime? Why hasn't he or she reported it to police himself or herself? Those are all questions that would have to be answered first.

When we talk about legal principles and doctrines, I think it is important to be accurate.

A lawyer worth his salt would plead all of the exceptions. In this case Sandusky would not have to win a jury verdict. The mere threat of filing a lawsuit and keeping it in the press a few weeks is enough to deter PSU from going public with what they knew and suspected.

 

[Drinking The Green Koolaid]

A lawyer worth his salt would plead all of the exceptions. In this case Sandusky would not have to win a jury verdict. The mere threat of filing a lawsuit and keeping it in the press a few weeks is enough to deter PSU from going public with what they knew and suspected.

We can only speculate, but I don't think so. Look at Mel Tucker and MSU. The threat of being sued by Tucker didn't deter someone at MSU from leaking the story to the media. And now Tucker's coaching career is likely finished.

 

[tbonesays]

We can only speculate, but I don't think so. Look at Mel Tucker and MSU. The threat of being sued by Tucker didn't deter someone at MSU from leaking the story to the media. And now Tucker's coaching career is likely finished.

There's too many differences to list but we only need one; Mel Tucker did not commit a crime.

 

[BGI User 756]

You are not required to do so by law which is what Christophero claimed.
Secondly, when the police ask you what proof you have, what’s your answer ?
And are you prepared to be sued for Libel and Defamation of character if your allegation is proven to be untrue ?

I get a kick out of all of you internet heroes claiming that you would rush into the breach !

You’re a joke

The assault was only confirmed subsequent to it being relayed to JP.

The former Attorney General of the United States concluded that JP did NOT attempt to cover up the scandal, and that “RATHER, THAT THE CONTRARY WAS TRUE”. !

What do you say to that ?

Stop with your straw man arguments and with all the what-ifs. I’ll say the same thing I already said. Joe should have done more. And at the many times he was told, or heard, or was asked. He was never shy about exerting his influence over any issue he seemed worthy. I listed 4 that made it into the news media.

Joe chose not to do anything meaningful beyond reporting to Curley (though he did take personal actions to limit Sandusky’s access, and he did have Jerry suddenly resign in 1999). Clearly Joe was trying to bury the story rather than fully investigate it. I don’t get confused about simple right/wrong/appropriate for this situation involving kids.

And lastly, you know Jack shit about me and other posters, so stop making un-informed statements about them, especially when you continue to specifically berate others about such