If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   Inmates serenade Jerry Sandusky with Pink Floyd as he enters jail   (deadspin.com) divider line 447
    More: Weird, Jerry Sandusky, Hey, guilty verdicts, jail  
•       •       •

44940 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jun 2012 at 10:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



447 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 11:20:11 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Farkbert: Ok...I'm probably going to get roasted for saying this...but I do feel a little sorry for Sandusky. I mean...what he did to those kids was terrible, but imagine how differently things would have turned out if the people who should have put a stop to it did after the first incident? Not only would we have many fewer victims, but Sandusky himself would have been kept away from children for the rest of his life and wouldn't be in the predicament he is in now.

The guy is not right in the head. It was up to the other adults involved to stop this from happening...and their failure was the biggest crime, and the least punished.

//flame on...

I think raping the children was the biggest crime.


why did the occasion EVEN CUM UP when he was in a SHOWER WITH BOYZ
as a computer programmer i have never had that opportunity
 
2012-06-25 11:22:58 AM  
Inflatable Rhetoric:

Farkbert: The guy is not right in the head. It was up to the other adults involved to stop this from happening...and their failure was the biggest crime, and the least punished.

I think raping the children was the biggest crime.

...exactly. If the other adults had acted, it would have prevented the rape of many innocent children. Their failure to act was the biggest crime.
 
2012-06-25 11:28:15 AM  

Farkbert: Inflatable Rhetoric:

Farkbert: The guy is not right in the head. It was up to the other adults involved to stop this from happening...and their failure was the biggest crime, and the least punished.

I think raping the children was the biggest crime.

...exactly. If the other adults had acted, it would have prevented the rape of many innocent children. Their failure to act was the biggest crime.


No, the rape of the first child was the biggest crime. Even if reported and stopped, a child would still have been raped which is a bigger crime than not reporting it.
 
2012-06-25 11:49:55 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Farkbert: Inflatable Rhetoric:

Farkbert: The guy is not right in the head. It was up to the other adults involved to stop this from happening...and their failure was the biggest crime, and the least punished.

I think raping the children was the biggest crime.

...exactly. If the other adults had acted, it would have prevented the rape of many innocent children. Their failure to act was the biggest crime.

No, the rape of the first child was the biggest crime. Even if reported and stopped, a child would still have been raped which is a bigger crime than not reporting it.


why didn't the child report it?? if it bothered him they have ways to arrest the "rapist".
 
2012-06-25 11:53:12 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: Waldo Pepper: Farkbert: Inflatable Rhetoric:

Farkbert: The guy is not right in the head. It was up to the other adults involved to stop this from happening...and their failure was the biggest crime, and the least punished.

I think raping the children was the biggest crime.

...exactly. If the other adults had acted, it would have prevented the rape of many innocent children. Their failure to act was the biggest crime.

No, the rape of the first child was the biggest crime. Even if reported and stopped, a child would still have been raped which is a bigger crime than not reporting it.

why didn't the child report it?? if it bothered him they have ways to arrest the "rapist".


it was stated in this report why the child didn't report it
Link
 
2012-06-25 12:11:58 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: Waldo Pepper: Farkbert: Inflatable Rhetoric:

Farkbert: The guy is not right in the head. It was up to the other adults involved to stop this from happening...and their failure was the biggest crime, and the least punished.

I think raping the children was the biggest crime.

...exactly. If the other adults had acted, it would have prevented the rape of many innocent children. Their failure to act was the biggest crime.

No, the rape of the first child was the biggest crime. Even if reported and stopped, a child would still have been raped which is a bigger crime than not reporting it.

why didn't the child report it?? if it bothered him they have ways to arrest the "rapist".


This is troubling.... putting this on the victim, who is a child, not a consenting adult. Seriously... you think this is OK simply because the child did not report it? WTF is wrong with you? There is so much wrong with your "question" - starting with the idea that you think it's OK to ask in the first place.

A child can't legally consent. You think there is ANY situation it is OK for an adult to have sex with a 10-year old child? Really?

A child will likely be coerced in a number of ways "not to tell" - threats, or simple psychological control by an authority figure... or perhaps simply embarrassment? Many male-on-male child abuse cases have victims who grow up very unhappy, thinking they are gay, but they are not. Even if they are actually gay, how is that any better? Rape is rape. The stigma of being a victim of rape is far worse for males than females, but even females have issues with reporting rape.

Please take your NAMBLA bulls hit out of Fark. Nobody is buying it.
 
2012-06-25 12:19:09 PM  

OscarTamerz: Why not The Who's Tommy particularly Uncle Ernie's Fiddle About which would have been more apropos and accurate.


Well, face it: while apropos, that's not exactly the most "singable" melody in The Who's catalog. A bit much to expect a bunch of cons to pull it off, spur of the moment.

Count me as one who would have expected "Welcome to the Machine", although that's a tough sell, too, a capella. Excerpts from "Another Brick in the Wall" are simpler, east to sing, and fairly on point.
 
2012-06-25 12:27:53 PM  
I know it's incredibly nice to believe this really did happen, but I'm calling bullsh*t. Notice how the only source for this information is some prisoner who refuses to give his last name? On the hierarchy of credible sources, this ranks slightly below a retarded two-year-old. It really speaks to Deadspin's integrity that they would report such crap.
 
2012-06-25 12:28:23 PM  

GAT_00: And it's time once again for people who claim to be human to abandon their humanity for their version of "justice." Justice does not involve death, and it never has. Even God said so. Funny that Christians forget that.


uh... wut?
 
2012-06-25 12:29:57 PM  

evaned: I was merely commenting on the use of the term hearsay -- JoePa's knowledge was hearsay.


So, you're saying that no-one can ever call the police, because what they tell the police that they witnessed would be hearsay?

That's farking nuts, you know.

You're also confusing reporting a crime with presenting evidence at trial. Two very different animals.
 
2012-06-25 12:39:01 PM  

Waldo Pepper: so you mean if your 3 yr old son gets in the shower with you (his dad) that is wrong?


Not according to this guy!

(And by "this guy, I mean "this raving lunatic".)
 
2012-06-25 12:40:24 PM  

Deucednuisance: evaned: I was merely commenting on the use of the term hearsay -- JoePa's knowledge was hearsay.

So, you're saying that no-one can ever call the police, because what they tell the police that they witnessed would be hearsay?

That's farking nuts, you know.

You're also confusing reporting a crime with presenting evidence at trial. Two very different animals.


might be best to reread the comment you are quoting.
 
2012-06-25 12:45:07 PM  

LesserEvil: Jon iz teh kewl: Waldo Pepper: Farkbert: Inflatable Rhetoric:

Farkbert: The guy is not right in the head. It was up to the other adults involved to stop this from happening...and their failure was the biggest crime, and the least punished.

I think raping the children was the biggest crime.

...exactly. If the other adults had acted, it would have prevented the rape of many innocent children. Their failure to act was the biggest crime.

No, the rape of the first child was the biggest crime. Even if reported and stopped, a child would still have been raped which is a bigger crime than not reporting it.

why didn't the child report it?? if it bothered him they have ways to arrest the "rapist".

This is troubling.... putting this on the victim, who is a child, not a consenting adult. Seriously... you think this is OK simply because the child did not report it? WTF is wrong with you? There is so much wrong with your "question" - starting with the idea that you think it's OK to ask in the first place.

A child can't legally consent. You think there is ANY situation it is OK for an adult to have sex with a 10-year old child? Really?

A child will likely be coerced in a number of ways "not to tell" - threats, or simple psychological control by an authority figure... or perhaps simply embarrassment? Many male-on-male child abuse cases have victims who grow up very unhappy, thinking they are gay, but they are not. Even if they are actually gay, how is that any better? Rape is rape. The stigma of being a victim of rape is far worse for males than females, but even females have issues with reporting rape.

Please take your NAMBLA bulls hit out of Fark. Nobody is buying it.


if they aren't gay why are they showering with Jerry Sandusky
 
2012-06-25 12:46:04 PM  

mephisto6: I just hope they sang the whole song. All night. And that Jerry thought, "my god, this is how i'm going to spend the rest of my life."


I was hoping for Talking Heads

This is not my beautiful wife
This is not my beautiful home
My god, what have I done?
 
2012-06-25 12:51:50 PM  

Deucednuisance: evaned: I was merely commenting on the use of the term hearsay -- JoePa's knowledge was hearsay.

So, you're saying that no-one can ever call the police, because what they tell the police that they witnessed would be hearsay?

That's farking nuts, you know.

You're also confusing reporting a crime with presenting evidence at trial. Two very different animals.


That's the thing that gets me about JoePa. I get it. He went to Curley & Schulze. Contrary to what some have said, Schulze did not just buy post-its for the police. The chief was his direct report. That clears him legally. But regardless, all Joe had to do was pick up the phone. He makes the call to CPS or the police, then at least he can honestly say he made the effort to get this reported above and beyond his minimum legal obligation. Sure, the "authorities" would have swept it under the rug (I have NO doubt they would have), but at least he'd have had a clear conscience. As it is, I think he was a good enough guy that farked up BAD. It's too bad this is how he'll be remembered, but it's the bed he made.

Regarding the rest of the university, I'm an alum, so while I really don't want to see the shuttering of the institution, I'd be pleased to see everyone involved in this coverup to burn just as I was happy to see Sandusky get his. I'm anxious to see what comes out in the Curley/Schulze trials. I would not be surprised if this goes all the way to Harrisburg and ends up with Corbett in hot water himself.
 
2012-06-25 12:56:46 PM  

Waldo Pepper: gunther_bumpass: Waldo Pepper: Two16: Waldo Pepper: Two16: IlGreven: Waldo Pepper: lets be honest in today's media, if this wasn't true and it got out everyone is ruined.

It didn't matter if it was true or not. JoePa was ruined, despite having the least guilt of everyone involved.

The world's smallest violin plays for him. No... really.

i would think it would play for Sandusky. Joe is dead he can't hear it

[i47.tinypic.com image 285x301]

And/or you're just plain stupid/a troll.

Yawns

/takes advantage of the opportunity to shove a wrinkly old dick in your mouth

and the only difference between you and Sandusky is what, age of who you take advantage of and sodomize?



Whatever, molester.
 
2012-06-25 12:57:13 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I know it's incredibly nice to believe this really did happen, but I'm calling bullsh*t. Notice how the only source for this information is some prisoner who refuses to give his last name? On the hierarchy of credible sources, this ranks slightly below a retarded two-year-old. It really speaks to Deadspin's integrity that they would report such crap.


If it was you, would you give your last name? I'm sure the prison administration would not look upon that sort of thing favorably.
 
HBK
2012-06-25 12:57:29 PM  

COMALite J: What exactly did Paterno know? Note: What McCreary allegedly told him is not Paterno's own knowledge. It's hearsay. If your next-door neighbor tells you that he saw the neighbor across the street molest a child, but you yourself never saw any such thing, is the onus on you or your next-door neighbor to report it to the authorities?


You may want to get a refund on your law GED. McCreary's retelling of the discussion would be admissible evidence in most courts because it would offered to prove Paterno had notice of the act, and not offered for the proof of the matter asserted.
 
2012-06-25 12:57:47 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: if they aren't gay why are they showering with Jerry Sandusky


I see. So, you've never seen the inside of a locker room before, ya limp-wrist.

Or trolling.
 
2012-06-25 12:58:50 PM  

Deucednuisance: So, you're saying that no-one can ever call the police, because what they tell the police that they witnessed would be hearsay?


Nooooo, that's not what I said.

Deucednuisance: You're also confusing reporting a crime with presenting evidence at trial. Two very different animals.


And you're confusing arguing about what something is vs whether it's actionable. I merely said what something was: that JoePa's "knowledge" of the 2002 offense was hearsay. And that's true. You're the one who made the leap to thinking that I think that shouldn't have been actionable.

----

Anyway, I mostly came back to post these two gems from this Fox News article (yeah yeah):

"Former Penn State coach and convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky's defense lawyer says he will not represent Sandusky in his appeal process, as he intends to testify as witness to ineffective counsel appeal."

"Hours after the football coach's conviction on 45 counts of child sexual abuse, Amendola [Sandusky's lawyer] praised the prosecution for handling the case in an "exemplary manner" and said he didn't "have any problem with the jury's verdict.""

I presume the testimony he expects to give is either "I'm a bumbling moron" or else "my client was a bumbling moron who repeatedly torpedoed his own case against my advice."
 
2012-06-25 01:00:08 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Waldo Pepper: gunther_bumpass: Waldo Pepper: Two16: Waldo Pepper: Two16: IlGreven: Waldo Pepper: lets be honest in today's media, if this wasn't true and it got out everyone is ruined.

It didn't matter if it was true or not. JoePa was ruined, despite having the least guilt of everyone involved.

The world's smallest violin plays for him. No... really.

i would think it would play for Sandusky. Joe is dead he can't hear it

[i47.tinypic.com image 285x301]

And/or you're just plain stupid/a troll.

Yawns

/takes advantage of the opportunity to shove a wrinkly old dick in your mouth

and the only difference between you and Sandusky is what, age of who you take advantage of and sodomize?


Whatever, molester.


I see you're having trouble might I suggest you try a few of these Link
 
2012-06-25 01:04:34 PM  

you are a puppet: cloud_van_dame: He's dead. Prisoners killed Jeffrey Dahmer, also a molester of boys.

I suspect a few too many of the inmates were abused in some way when young, so they have a special feeling about child molesters.

The prisoner (singular) who killed Dahmer was schizophrenic and he also killed the other inmate in the room, a guy who had murdered his wife. I doubt his motive was avenging the molestation of boys.


Maybe so, but don't forget the RC priest Geoghan.
 
2012-06-25 01:05:45 PM  

Farkbert: Inflatable Rhetoric:

Farkbert: The guy is not right in the head. It was up to the other adults involved to stop this from happening...and their failure was the biggest crime, and the least punished.

I think raping the children was the biggest crime.

...exactly. If the other adults had acted, it would have prevented the rape of many innocent children. Their failure to act was the biggest crime.


Their failure to act should be criminal. The biggest crime was still raping the boys.
 
2012-06-25 01:13:19 PM  

gimmegimme: GoldSpider: gimmegimme: Was the all-powerful Paterno too old to understand what was happening?

The only people portraying Paterno as "all-powerful" are the ones deriving pleasure from his disgrace.

To be fair, I am not pleased about Paterno's disgrace. I am hoping that, in the future, what Paterno is suffering will lead people to call the cops.

I just have a lot of trouble listening to people make excuses for very powerful people who turn a blind eye to child rape. (I'm looking at you, Cardinal Law. And the guy in Milwaukee who literally paid bonuses to pedophile priests.)


Don't forget the pope. And god.
 
2012-06-25 01:20:37 PM  

sseye: herrDrFarkenstein: A capella music? Those farking animals.

Good point. But it could have been worse: banjos.


I have a buddy who plays banjo. Parked on the street in North Hollywood one day and left the banjo in plain sight on the back seat. He came out just a few minutes later and saw that his back window was busted out. Fearing the worst, he looked inside and saw two banjos sitting there.
 
2012-06-25 01:37:16 PM  
Cigarettes for life for the inmate who shanks Sandusky to death. Extra points if first shank is to his dick.
 
2012-06-25 01:56:25 PM  
True punishment for Sandusky would be offering him consensual, heterosexual sex. Then he will really committ suicide.
 
2012-06-25 01:58:25 PM  

dickfreckle: Do you feel the same way about track and swim stars representing you in the Olympics? Is the incrediblly hard work of those kids worthy of nothing but your derision, or is it just football you hate?


1) Olympic athletes aren't representing me. They're representing themselves. The nationalistic, jingoistic bullshiat that gets thrown on top of it is just that - bullshiat.

2) Except for a lucky few superstars who land corporate sponsorships, members of the US Olympic team are paying for their own training, equipment, etc. They aren't getting a 4 year free ride with an (often unearned and undeserved) college degree thrown in.
 
2012-06-25 02:14:23 PM  

evaned: Deucednuisance: So, you're saying that no-one can ever call the police, because what they tell the police that they witnessed would be hearsay?

Nooooo, that's not what I said.


But it's the same interaction! According to you, Person A witnesses something and tells person B, it's hearsay:

If "McQueary sees shower incident, tells Paterno" = Hearsay, then why doesn't

"Witness sees illegal act, tells Police" = Hearsay as well?

And once again, your distinction of "what is" and "what is actionable" is not relevant.

If it's not presented as evidence it cannot be Hearsay. It's just something someone heard.

Just like "lying" isn't "perjury". It's a necessary element of perjury, but it ain't perjury by itself.
 
2012-06-25 03:10:13 PM  

GAT_00: And it's time once again for people who claim to be human to abandon their humanity for their version of "justice." Justice does not involve death, and it never has. Even God said so. Funny that Christians forget that.



God has killed many people so.....

http://www.religico.com/2009/12/17/who-killed-more-people-in-the-bibl e -god-or-satan/

http://www.evilbible.com/July.htm#July 9


And he killed all the dinosaurs
 
2012-06-25 03:12:09 PM  

Deucednuisance: According to you, Person A witnesses something and tells person B, it's hearsay:


No, that's not what I said either. Let's be specific.

If person A witnesses something and tells person B, then B's knowledge of it is hearsay, and if person B then goes and tells the police what he heard*, he is conveying hearsay.

(* To assert the truth of the matter.)

A's statement to B is not hearsay, nor would A's statement to the police be hearsay.

Deucednuisance: If it's not presented as evidence it cannot be Hearsay.


No, that's incorrect. (Or, at least, it's incorrect to say that that's the only definition.) A statement doesn't become hearsay just because it's presented under oath to a court; it's hearsay no matter who it's presented to under what circumstances. It's just that in court, it's usually disallowed present hearsay.

Again, I quote Wikipedia: "Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed."

I also checked some "Dictionary of Law" (the only one my university has marked as being available electronically; I'm not going to go tromping down to the law library just to look up Black's). It didn't even have an entry for "hearsay", just "hearsay evidence." I'd say that lawyers may use "hearsay" in the more restricted sense of "hearsay evidence", but it's more jargon/an abbreviation than its "actual" meaning.
 
2012-06-25 03:14:24 PM  

evaned: It's just that in court, it's usually disallowed present hearsay.


Just ignore that last "present hearsay". That was the victim of rewording a sentence and not doing it completely.

Also, I should have added the standard IANAL disclaimer. But I have read quite a bit about the topic, and consider myself to be reasonably competent by armchair lawyer standards. :-)
 
2012-06-25 03:15:08 PM  

mephisto6: I just hope they sang the whole song. All night. And that Jerry thought, "my god, this is how i'm going to spend the rest of my life."


Sadly, all he thought of was the young boys in the music video... =P
 
2012-06-25 03:38:49 PM  
Wow...who let all that riffraff into the room?

/put him up against the wall...
 
2012-06-25 03:58:28 PM  

evaned: If person A witnesses something and tells person B, then B's knowledge of it is hearsay,


College lectures leave only hearsay knowledge?

I see the distinction you're trying to draw, and it seems utterly pointless. Everything not personally experienced would be hearsay. Maybe it is, and I say it's not, but even if it is, what's the point of taking note of that? It only matters in the legal sense. It's certainly not an impediment to giving a police report.

Person A comes up to me and says "I know where the body is buried". I go to Police and say "Person A told me he knows where the body is buried", they will not say "Sorry, we can't act on that tip, because your telling it to us rendered it hearsay". No, they say "we'll check it out". The only time it matters is in the evidential phase at trial, and its admissibility has nothing to do with whether or not it is in fact, true.

Why is it useful to make the distinction?

(And as long as we're talking bona fides, here: J.D. SUNY @ Buffalo, 1987)
 
2012-06-25 04:00:06 PM  

Fark Me To Tears: Yeah, and don't forget about the self-important pseudointellectuals who put themselves up above all that by making fun of them...


Hey, thanks for thinking of me!
 
2012-06-25 05:12:52 PM  

clyph: dickfreckle: Do you feel the same way about track and swim stars representing you in the Olympics? Is the incrediblly hard work of those kids worthy of nothing but your derision, or is it just football you hate?

1) Olympic athletes aren't representing me. They're representing themselves. The nationalistic, jingoistic bullshiat that gets thrown on top of it is just that - bullshiat.

2) Except for a lucky few superstars who land corporate sponsorships, members of the US Olympic team are paying for their own training, equipment, etc. They aren't getting a 4 year free ride with an (often unearned and undeserved) college degree thrown in.


No kidding. What sort of moran thinks Olympic athletes "represent me?" Give me a break. They don't represent me anymore than Sandusky represents me. Just because some good athlete lives in the same damn nation of hundreds of millions people that I do, doesn't mean a damn thing about me or my country.

Wow, people are pretty stupid. YAY TEAM
 
2012-06-25 05:27:38 PM  

evaned: I presume the testimony he expects to give is either "I'm a bumbling moron" or else "my client was a bumbling moron who repeatedly torpedoed his own case against my advice."


My money is on #2.

Sandusky is a defense attorney's worst-case scenerio: guilty as fark, completely convinced that his actions were completely justified, and unwilling to STFU. Seriously, what can a lawyer do when his client insists on sabotaging their own case?

I'm sure the lawyer advised him to take a plea deal and not let this go to trial, or failing that go with an insanity defense.
 
2012-06-25 05:31:54 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: GAT_00: And it's time once again for people who claim to be human to abandon their humanity for their version of "justice." Justice does not involve death, and it never has. Even God said so. Funny that Christians forget that.

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck."


GAT_00 must be one of those Fark AthiestsTM who have never actually read the Bible.

Words of Jesus right there, makes good sense to me.
 
2012-06-25 06:13:13 PM  

douchebag/hater: Dahmer picked up other men in bars so he wasn't a child molester.


Not all. He molested at least one 13 yo boy and later murdered/raped that victims 14 yo brother.
 
2012-06-25 06:57:41 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: Uchiha_Cycliste: jake_lex: I was hoping the song would be "Run Like Hell."

Run, run, run, run [repeat line four times]
You better run all day
And run all night
And keep your dirty feelings
Deep inside. And if your
Takin' your foster child
Out tonight
You better park the car
Well out of sight
'Cos if they catch you in the back seat
Trying to pick his locks
They're gonna send you back to mother
In a cardboard box
You better run



came for this left when the tigers broke free :)
 
2012-06-25 07:20:10 PM  

Deucednuisance: College lectures leave only hearsay knowledge?


Sure, much is. Not everything... e.g. in math you can prove stuff firsthand and whatnot. I mean, take a look at primary vs secondary sources, and how primary sources are preferred when you can find them.

Deucednuisance: I see the distinction you're trying to draw, and it seems utterly pointless. Everything not personally experienced would be hearsay. Maybe it is, and I say it's not,


And you'd be wrong. (BTW, now that I'm at home, Barron's law dictionary also doesn't directly define hearsay, only talking about the hearsay rule, which basically says that hearsay isn't usually admissable evidence.)

but even if it is, what's the point of taking note of that?

Because the meaning of words matter and people should use the right ones?

It's certainly not an impediment to giving a police report.

No, it's not, and JoePa should have gone to the police with what he knew.

But, there's still an enormous difference between going to the police with "I saw Sandusky in the shower raping a kid" and "McQueary saw Sandusky in the shower raping a kid then told me about it." In the first case, the police can ask questions, in the second kind most questions will be met with "I dunno, ask McQuery." The police still have to talk to McQueary to get details. I wouldn't be surprised if you would find it incredibly difficult to even get a warrant based on Paterno's account, though I'm not versed in what you go through for that. I at least hope it would be.

Or said another way: yes, Paterno should have gone to the police after McQuery didn't, but he never should have had to.
 
2012-06-26 12:11:14 PM  

Farkbert: Ok...I'm probably going to get roasted for saying this...but I do feel a little sorry for Sandusky. I mean...what he did to those kids was terrible, but imagine how differently things would have turned out if the people who should have put a stop to it did after the first incident? Not only would we have many fewer victims, but Sandusky himself would have been kept away from children for the rest of his life and wouldn't be in the predicament he is in now.

The guy is not right in the head. It was up to the other adults involved to stop this from happening...and their failure was the biggest crime, and the least punished.

//flame on...


No, it's Sandusky's responsibility as a grown-ass man to NOT F*CKING RAPE CHILDREN. That includes taking care of whatever mental defect made him attracted to them in the first place.
 
2012-06-26 12:14:43 PM  

Farkbert: Inflatable Rhetoric:

Farkbert: The guy is not right in the head. It was up to the other adults involved to stop this from happening...and their failure was the biggest crime, and the least punished.

I think raping the children was the biggest crime.

...exactly. If the other adults had acted, it would have prevented the rape of many innocent children. Their failure to act was the biggest crime.


No, the raping of the children was the bigger crime. He shouldn't have been doing it, full stop.

/stop acting as an apologist for the monster
 
2012-06-26 05:53:34 PM  
child sex trafficking is a huge business in america and makes me wonder was it just sandusky or did he have a little business going on.

interesting movie made to alert Atlanta area to their huge child sex trafficking issue

Link
 
2012-06-27 11:18:15 AM  
How on earth can you say this:

evaned: Because the meaning of words matter and people should use the right ones?


immediately after saying this:

evaned: Barron's law dictionary also doesn't directly define hearsay, only talking about the hearsay rule, which basically says that hearsay isn't usually admissable evidence.)


In other words, the concept only has meaning in the trial context, exactly what I've been saying all along.

And don't kid yourself about admissibility. There's a cartload of exceptions to the hearsay rule, and a decent prosecutor can usually shoehorn any given bit of testimony into one or another.
 
2012-06-27 09:40:37 PM  

Deucednuisance: In other words, the concept only has meaning in the trial context, exactly what I've been saying all along.


Barron's also doesn't have a definition of "pigments." Does that mean it's not a word?

No, what it means is that there's no special legal meaning of "pigments."

The absence of hearsay just means (or suggests) that even in the lexicon of formal legalese, it doesn't have a separate meaning from the popular one, which doesn't say anything about trials or admissabliity or whatever.
 
Displayed 47 of 447 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report