Is it stealing pens from the office, or doing the absolute bare minimum when it comes to reporting a ghastly crime perpetrated in your workplace?

Sorry, but Paterno (and a LOT of other people) had certain information in their heads for a decade. None of them had the stones to do something, and the only possible explanation is self-preservation, and the desire to uphold the clean reputation of Penn State football.

I am not here to defend Joe Vincent Paterno. I know that many of you are outraged by what has happened at my beloved university. I understand the visceral response but the man was more than a coach to us. We are responsible for making him a god when he was just a man like all of us. I hope that his legacy will be based on his remarkable contributions to humanity. We all are not without regret or sin. God bless JP and his family.

I don't know the jurisdictional ins and outs, but it seems to me that Paterno did, in fact, report the incident to police. Or, at a minimum, arrange to have the witness who say the incident report what he saw to the PSU official who was responsible for the operation of the campus police department.

I realize that it's possible the PSU PD isn't an actual police force. (I think LSU's police officers are commissioned by the state and are a true police force, but I'm not sure. Red, any insight?) But if PSU PD is an actual police force with territorial jurisdiction over the campus, it seems Paterno satisfied his legal obligation.

I don't believe Paterno got the initial report while the incident was still happening, but, rather, a day or so later. If he had gotten the initial report while the incident was on-going then, yes, I believe he would have had an obligation to get in touch with first-responders.

I think many people are under the impression that Paterno received the initial report, told McQueary it would be taken care of and then took no other action. That would have been reprehensible. But instead, if I understand correctly, he received the information, thought about it overnight then contacted his supervisor and set up a meeting between his assistant, the AD and the university's vice president in charge of the police department.

In terms of his initial action -- not later seeing Sandusky on the campus with other boys, that's a separate issue and one where he may have been more liable -- it seems he at least took proper steps.

I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something.

The Penn State Child Abuse Scandal: A Guide And Timeline : NPR

Red, I"m not so sure that he had that authority.

It's of note, the 1998 charge was dropped by the Centre Country District Attorney. Yes .. The STATE was in the know on Sandusky's alleged behaviors.

Schultz is the real azz4ole on this story. Schultz was the Senior Vice President of the University with oversight of the Campus Police Department. ... and Schultz .. met with McQueary. Schultz is being charged in a coverup of the child abuse story.

For JoPa to go off and ban Sandusky would have been a defamation of character in light of the fact that the 1998 charges had been dropped by the Criminal Justice Department, and that another previous charge reported in 2000 apparently was not proven.

You just don't go out and charge a man as a child predator without proof. If he is innocent, you will ruin his life, and you and the University will be liable. For JoPa to ban Sandusky he would have had to given reason .. and sharper minds would have gone digging for the real answer, because you just don't ban a guy is in line to take over the program. [according to some here he was, anyway]. The charge of child predator would have come out, and you can't make that charge until it has been proven to a point that indictment is pending.

Yes ..we are talking about kids ..yes it is disgusting .. yes it's not fair, yes, JoPa "in hindsight" should have done what ever he could to facilitate getting to the bottom of the charge .... but there is rule of law and procedure that must be followed. JoPa did what was required, and it is why he is not up on charges. JoPa put McQueary in front of the SVP with oversight for the Campus Police. From there, the University could have given JoPa the ammunition he needed to ban Sandusky without wading into the murky waters of character assassination without cause.

JoPa is simply the victim of having the big name, and the disgust we as people hold for the nature of the crime involved. ... but it is Schultz who is the villin in this story .. .not JoPa.

Yeah, I think you're right.

If I were defined by the worst thing I have ever done it still wouldn't come close to turning a blind eye to child molestation, to save the face of my job. I run a business for the owner of said business. If one of my employees is doing something like stealing, I would run it up the chain of command, unless the stealing was in the hundreds of dollars or more. Something like child molestation, I'm going to the police first. And even if it is just a rumor, I'm letting them know that it could be just a rumor, but the subject is so horrendous that it needs to be looked into regardless.

I'm not so sure on that one! Sure, he reported what he heard, but after that? Did he never, ever, wonder about the matter for all the many years he saw Sandusky in and about the PS Athletic Dept.--a free man? Please!

I know he was a great coach, yada yada, but on the matter of his 'pass thru' of a man accused of heinous sex crimes, Joe Pa gets a failing grade!

And yes! It does counterbalance his body of work at Penn State, because he appears to have been in a position to end a criminal activity who's victims were children.