Stay away from tobacco.

Yep, tobacco sure did a lot of harm.  Funny in a way though.  There he was ready to finish his year and fight this thing or give up.  All of a sudden he went down hill fast.  It happens.  Stress has a lot to do with it.  Wonder what did the most to cause the death right now, tobacco?, or the guilt from having not followed through and thus allowing more boys to be brutalized by his buddy, you know mr. charity.

Sorry, I just can't have peace to you feelings for child rape enablers.

I don't judge a man to be good because he always did what was legal.  Sometimes the most moral thing to do is also illegal. A child was raped.  A person reported to him a child was at the very least molested.  He did what he was legally obligated to do.  The man who alledgedly did it still worked for him and still was alone with little boys.  No problem with that?  Not his place to question his superiors?  When a little boy was reportedly raped and more were possibly vulnerable to the same man?  There was no reason for a person to want to make sure it was reported to the police and investigated?  Even Paterno says he should have.  Some people think kids are important enough to make them question their superiors just to make sure the kids were indeed protected.  By everyone just doing the legal thing, the rapist was enabled.  No one cared about the kids, hey "I did what I was legally oligated to do".  Paterno is not much better than the guy who saw a child being raped and did nothing to help the kid.  As I said, I can have no peace to you feelings for a child rape enabler.  I tell you what, I wish as much peace to him as those boys had when they were being raped by his buddy. 

If you know there's a possibility that children are being hurt by someone or something, in my opinion, it is your obligation to do everything in your power to make sure it stops or is not a danger.  I don't give a damn what you are legally obligated to do.

I don't think he was outraged at all and that was the problem.  He reported it and didn't want to be bothered with it.

Lots of men (especially men of his era) seem to be very uncomfortable with the very concept of sexual abuse.   Especially with little boys.  I don't understand it, but it is.  

I have a patient in the hospital who is very mentally ill, and his wife has a restraining order against him.   He stated that if he gets released from the hospital to a motel he is going to her house and go to jail and that will be that.

Tarasoff versus the regents of California mandate that I must report that.  Harm to self or others.  He also didn't overtly say he'd hurt her, just that he'd go to her house.  I reported it through my assigned channels at the hospital.    I am not going to his wife's house and stand guard.   I want her to be safe, but I do not feel it's my personal responsibility to do anything beyond reporting through channels. 

I don't feel morally or ethically failed. 

Kathy, I didn't realize we were so far apart on moral issues.  Or perhaps you don't see it as a moral issue.  I do, so that could be the biggest difference.

So, the University says things have to be reported based on harm to oneself or another?  I'd have to check into that.  I think that's a social services thing and is not the basis used at Universities.  I could be wrong but then I am not really concerned with the legalities.  I consider children to be the responsibilty of all of us.  I think we have a huge moral responsibility to protect them.  The wife in your story has a restraining order.  She is more able to take care of herself.  The authorities know about the guy and can watch him.

Sanduski worked with Paterno.  The people around Sanduski knew that this guy has the "charity" which makes young boys easily available to him.  They knew he took these boys to different states etc for games, rooms shared, showers shared.  They knew he showered with the kids at the university.  A guy who also works with Paterno tells Paterno he saw Sanduski raping a boy in the shower.  The details vary but, Sanduski was behind and the kid's face was smashed up against the shower wall to stifle his screams, etc.  Now, of course a thought should go to it may not be true.  However, the what if it is true is way too great to not act and act quickly.  It's not just what Sanduski may have done to this boy but the fact that there are all these other little boys that are available to him and vulberable to him.  Shouldn't a red flag pop up in your mind if you hear of this possibility?  Wouldn't a a caring human want to make sure Sanduski couldn't hurt another kid while it's being investigated.  Wouldn't you want to make sure it is being investigated?  The charge is horrible so wouldn't you want the one who told you fired if it turned out he lied?  None of this happened, Sanduski still there, still with the kids, the guy who told still there.  Wouldn't you want to know, so, are the little kids safe or not? 

Second Mile "business"?  Raping little boys is business?  What about Pen State "business"?  The rape was there.  I am really having trouble believing that the rape of a child means so little, is of so little importance that it can just be tossed away as "business".  Didn't Sanduski work for Paterno?  So, him having an assistant who rapes little boys is fine with Paterno because it's not the football "business"?  Paterno didn't care about the little boy?  That's what you're saying?  Because it wasn't about football "business"?  And that's ok?  He did the telling now it's done?  Who cares what happens to the boy? 

I am not discussing this issue with you.  I found your opening statement insulting and I do not want to go down that road.  Child abuse is wrong.  So is old lady domestic battery. 

I deal daily with victims of child sexual abuse and truthfully in many cases the results are very ugly.