Unsure about the Sandusky ruling

Post Reply New Topic

The topic is fine for PPR but the snippy comments are not acceptable.

I hope those personal attacks - from all sides - being thrown around earlier are the last to be seen in this thread.
If it's not possible to debate an issue without it becoming a personal attack then it's time to walk away.

It really shouldn't be necessary to link this because everyone here ought to know better:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt204613.html

WTF?
How would this scenario possibly make any difference?

Number six wanted to go to "the next level"?
What were the two of them doing at the level they were at in the first place?

You speculate that the kid has inappropriate physical contact with his coach. Thinks he is in love with the coach and assumes the coach reciprocates and because of that -the kid doesnt rat on the coach about the relationship. But when the kid learns that the coach is not in love with him afterall- then the kid get angry and rats on him out of revenge?


What difference would THAT make. The coach still violated boundries and had an inappropriate relationship with a student.

WilliamWDelaney@
I can practically feel your anger radiating from your very posts! I mean this as respectful advice: Take a breather and get a hold of yourself before hitting the keyboard again, or else I think this whole thread might end up getting locked, or a moderator might even bid you adieu.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It doesn't. Victim blaming doesn't change the crimes committed, only how some people might perceive them.

I've been wondering that myself.

Suppose, for instance, you had a situation in which a 14 yo boy actually does seduce a female high school teacher. After he gets done bragging to his other guy friends about doing the teacher, it gets back to his parents what happened. Now, all of a sudden, he's no longer a normal horny teenager; he's somehow "emotionally damaged," needs counseling and antidepressants. The teacher, on the other hand, gets a few years of prison time, a permanently ruined career, and a scarlet letter for being a registered sex offender, maybe even a civil lawsuit.

It doesn't matter if the student initiated contact and manipulated the teacher. All that's going to matter to anyone is that the teacher was in a position of authority, was expected to maintain enough control over herself and her students to prevent that from happening, and betrayed the trust of an entire school district and community in falling for a student's advances. Oh, and there's the tiny little matter of BREAKING THE LAW.

Now, sure, that's an imaginary scenario. But you also have the rare Mary Kay Fualaau out there when the relationship actually works out.

And what about James Hooker and Jordan Powers? Here's a guy that goes ahead and quits his job and goes public about his relationship with his 18 yo girlfriend. Here's a guy trying to do everything he can to get around the law, which he succeeds in doing. And what happens? Jordan's people dig up dirt on him to bust him for having sex with someone a decade ago.

I'm not saying any of this to validate what Mary Kay, James Hooker, or even Debra Lafave did. I do want to point out that regardless of circumstances, their actions are held to be so evil that parents will do anything to put these people away. James Hooker tried to do everything he could possibly think of to keep out of legal trouble, and Jordan's mother made sure that legal trouble found him.

People in positions of power, authority, and trust over minors don't get to carry on like other adults. Minors have sex with adults all the time and nothing happens--many time parents don't know or don't want to know. When this happens to more sensitive, suburban, affluent middle-class parents, the rules change, and above-reproach teachers have extra rules to follow--breaking so much as one of those can end a career.

And this is where we find Mr. Sandusky. Even if the child were "asking for it" so to speak, he's still a child incapable of consenting in any legal, meaningful way. Sandusky betrayed the trust of those kids and their parents. Even if the kid wanted this, it's still against the law. Period. End of story.

Agreed, 100%.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

But it wouldn't amount to rape. It would definitely affect the degree of the appropriate charge against Sandusky.

Also, what I am speculating is that victim 6 might have formed the false impression that he and Sandusky were in an intimate relationship. For example, Sandusky seemed to have the habit of using "I love you" as a valediction at the end of his voicemails. Although it's a common valediction between friends, a youth who was otherwise lonely and without an emotional outlet could easily form the impression that it's intended as a serious profession of romantic feeling.

Although I acknowledge that the defense has their work cut out for them, I think that they do have an extremely tenuous chance...but a chance...of winning the appeal. It would be extremely difficult to overturn the testimony of victim 9, though.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 29 Jul 2012, 7:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

Kraichgauer, I WAS trying to use the old ignore feature to resolve the issue. It just doesn't seem to be available. They were both trolling here from the get-go because they don't like the content of the thread, and you know it as well as I do.

Alright, and now picture the scenario where the student tries to seduce the teacher, the teacher rejects him, and the student makes allegations of having been molested out of spite because he feels that the teacher had "led him on." Now, assume that the teacher isn't a woman, but we're dealing instead with a figure that it is a lot easier to color as sinister in front of a grand jury.

I'm not positing YOUR scenario at all. What I am positing here is the possibility that the witness is telling a big, fat lie either for attention or out of outright spite or possibly even for financial gain.

And the reason I feel justified in this position is that it would fit with Sandusky's self-admitted pattern of behavior. Sandusky had, by his own admission, put himself repeatedly in situations in which a young person with pre-existing inclinations could get mixed signals. A person in Sandusky's Second Mile program could very easily form the belief that Sandusky has feelings for him, entirely without Sandusky violating the law.

It's a longshot, but it is a viable theory. It fits with Sandusky's side of the story, and it fits with the concrete evidence presented by the prosecution.

Hey, where I have been referring to "victim 6" I've meant to say "victim 9." Somehow, my brain has been flipping the number.

On the other hand, I don't think it would be necessary to overturn the testimony of victim 7 to support my case, here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... -14-years/

Although Sandusky could still do time for a lower degree of child molestation if victim 7 is to be believed, charges of outright sexual assault would not be warranted if the prosecution could not prove any instance of rape actually occurred. Furthermore, I don't think that Victim 7's testimony is mutually exclusive with Sandusky's side of the story: by his own admission, he has unusual feelings about young people, and victim 7's testimony would match up perfectly well with Sandusky's self-admitted touchy-feely behavior with young people.

What I am angling at here is the scenario where Jerry Sandusky had formed the mistaken impression that it was acceptable for him to hold and touch young men in ways that could be perceived as sexually intimate. I want to be clear that I am not arguing for the scenario in which Sandusky was not engaging in any inappropriate behavior at all. I would only question charges of outright sexual assault. It's on this basis that I feel skeptical of the verdict.

That may very well be, but Sandusky still crossed the line. That student wouldn't even have a leg to stand on if Sandusky hadn't done anything.

I'll go out on a limb here and relate a little of my own experience... As a private piano instructor, part of what I do involves being in a room alone with a student. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors, but the people who let me teach there take it for granted that I'm not going to do anything improper with the children who come to me. The difficulty I face is I can't necessarily pick and choose my students and be fair about it, so I pretty much have to take anybody and everybody. That means I have male and female students, normal students and disturbed students, students with both parents living at home and students from broken homes. I have students who love working with me, I have students who are only there because their parents are making them, and students who are just trying it out for a year. I'm not JUST a piano teacher--I'm also a therapist/counselor, mentor, spiritual advisor, and maybe even the father they never had.

I have children of my own, and before I had children I was a strictly hands-off kind of teacher. There is a fine line between touching a child as a form of communication and molestation. I've learned to be more touchy-feely, and I've also learned not all kids respond the same way. If a kid cringes from just a pat on the back, then it's hands off.

But most importantly, I've learned that kids, particularly emotionally or mentally erratic ones which may be amplified by hormones, don't always respond in predictable or appropriate ways. So if I can survive a school year with this kid, I might just have a chat with the parent at the end of the school year and say, "ya know, I just don't think piano is working for your child, or it might just be me. I know another piano teacher that I'd like to refer you to, and maybe you'll have better luck with her if you want to continue." Certain students you don't even have to lay a hand on; but without witnesses, a child can say anything she wants about me. And who do you think a judge is going to believe--me or the student?

Even if your hypothesis holds, you have to understand that Sandusky set himself up. As someone who spends a lot of time alone with individual students, I have to be extremely sensitive to this reality. While an intimate approach works best with most students, even in a large classroom with multiple students at a time, there are a few who need rigid boundaries. You don't even have to cross any lines for a problem student to try to challenge those boundaries. But you DO anything you can to prevent that kind of student from running his or her mouth, and that means making sure there's nothing that might even remotely be interpreted harmfully going on in the first place.

Even if you reject the testimony of that kid, and even with your hypothesis it still indicates Sandusky is at fault, then there is still plenty of evidence that something improper happened.

Alright, Angel, I've made my case, and my opinion is that it's a fairly strong one. Thank you and some others here for making it possible for me to have a serious discussion on this because it's given me some valuable insights. I have definitely morphed considerably from my original position.

I maintain one simple thing: when Sandusky professes his innocence, I get a strong sense that he is actually being perfectly sincere. I think he actually believes himself to be innocent of wrongdoing. Therefore, although I think that my case stands well enough on its own, what really carries it for me is my own instinct. I'm not adopting this position just for the sake of going against the grain, but I actually get a feeling in my gut that there is more to the real story than the prosecution would have us believe.

However, as much as I would like to continue this discussion, it's taken too much time from my personal life to pursue it. I acknowledge that many of you have made very strong points, including Ruveyn. I acknowledge that the position I have taken on this issue goes beyond just being controversial but is, from most people's point-of-view, extremely peculiar and outlandish. I do not make any pretense of having fully disproved and disqualified all criticism of my position, but I merely hold that I feel strongly that I have made a reasonably good case for my position. As much as I would love to continue pursuing this, I am simply going to have to call it quits.

I rescind and apologize for all inflammatory remarks I might have made here except for those targeted at JanuaryMan and MightyMorphin, both of whom I believe were trying to sabotage the discussion. If they had, this would have been unfortunate because I believe that it is valuable unto itself to explore unusual or controversial points-of-view. I don't feel that there is room in any setting for people who think they have a right to shoot down other people's right to discuss ideas they disagree with, and I see those who attempt to do so as immoral. I am glad that the rest of us could have an intelligent and productive discussion on this in spite of them, and I again thank all other contributors.

A FALSE impression is what Im talking about.

Ok..lessee if we are on the same page.

Do you mean a student who just fantasizes about the coach from afar?

Or do you mean a student that actually had a Lewinsky-clinton type relationship (with physical contact) with the coach( im sorry I have to translate this into hetereosexual terms to conceptualize it)? And then was angered that it didnt lead to marriage or something?

I understood you to mean the latter.
If it was the latter than strictly speaking it would indeed theoritically be "consensual" sex (although he would be the authority figure so you're opening up more cans of worms than your closing by trying to prove how 'consensual' it mightve been). And since its college and the student would presumably be over 18 it would not be statutory rape.

So theoritically it might not be actual rape.

So with just ONE of his many vicims he mightve been slightly less of a vicimizer than we think.
Wow! BFD!

While you're on this crusade why dont you join forces with the Marion Barry apologizers! Those people who point out that our disgraced former DC mayor "went to that hotel room for sex, not for drugs! He wouldnt have touched that crack pipe if she hadnt pressured him with the promise of a sexual favor first!"

He is slightly less of a sleazeball than he is made out to be!

Wow!

What an inspiring banner for a crusade!

ROLF!

I have some terms you might want to look up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

I apologize if you feel my points (while sometimes snippy) were sabotaging the argument. If anything I believe they damaged the ego behind it or highlighted some of the same fundamental flaws that other people here already did and so you used defence mechanisms in order to cope.

I didn't mean to come across offensive at any point but a lot of what your defence stands for is rather offensive by nature. There is an ever slight possibility you may be correct in a couple of your assumptions, and I grant that, but it makes the sensitivity of the case and reality of it no different.

Some of my earlier questions remain unanswered, though: What is your vested interest in this case? Are you a college football or NFL fan in general? Who is your team? I know of the Sandusky case because I read a lot of American news, and occasionally like to watch a game on the UK version of ESPN. I was hoping when I saw this thread there would be some substantial reasoning for your viewpoint because it would have made for an interesting discussion but instead I am greeted with some of the above terms and a whole bag of others.

Did this thread really take a lot of your real life time up? I mean, in reality all we are doing are typing posts back and forth and the information for debate is freely available. It shouldn't be that time consuming or life involving to discuss the almost inevitable outcome of a soon to be registered sex offender, right?

Oh, and let me also explain my impetus for starting the thread, by the way.

I opened up an article on Sandusky's wife trying to defend her husband, and I saw a bunch of comments in the comments section condemning and ridiculing her. I thought, "you pigs. If the verdict really is wrong, as she maintains, what she is doing is really quite noble."

Ultimately, it means a lot to me that someone has a right to defend himself in court and to maintain his innocence, even when found guilty by a grand jury. I might or might not believe him, but it's his prerogative to maintain his innocence under all circumstances, no matter what the evidence is.

I don't think that this is something that ought to be discussed because I think that anyone who would challenge this particular point-of-view is a fool, plain and simple.

JanuaryMan, the only thing that keeps you off ignore is the fact that the feature doesn't seem to be available. Again, I am glad that there are people around here who are willing to discuss unpopular ideas seriously, even those they disagree with. I think that it is a wonderful thing that we can have free and open debate, and I am only sorry that trolls like yourself, who are enemies of free and open debate, cannot be called more easily into check. You are far more damaging to open discussion than someone who merely has a bad attitude, like our friend NaturalPlastic. You are the antithesis of what environments for open debate are meant for. You are not welcome or respected in any discussion as far as I am concerned, for I find your conduct thoroughly and irreparably shameful.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 29 Jul 2012, 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

I ask you again: what kind of evidence or degree of evidence would lead you to favor conviction in cases like this?

How about a straight forward answer?

ruveyn