Jerry Sandusky found GUILTY on 45 of 48 counts...

[arrowheadnation]

NBC News ‏@NBCNews

Jerry #Sandusky has been found guilty on 45 of the 48 charges against him.

Maximum of 442 years in prison. I bet he doesn't make it 3 years.

Burn in hell...

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by luv

Yeah, considering he's on suicide watch, between that and the general population's despise for child molesters, I don't think he'll serve a year of that before he's in a body bag.

Assuming they do the right thing and put him in general population...

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

“As soon as the lights went out at night, Sandusky’s fellow inmates…serenaded him with a chorus from Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”:

“Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!”

[luv]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Assuming they do the right thing and put him in general population...

Which makes me wonder how much money he has. Or will he just be on suicide watch for the rest of his life?

[ChiefRocka]

I'm on the fence here. Sure he didn't do "enough" but a lot of people here claiming they would have are playing Monday morning quarterback. To say you would have done something means squat. The reallity is very few people "would" stop to help at a horrific car accident if they were first on the scene.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Dude, you are whacked in the head.

Perv State is looking for mentally weak and paranoid individuals like you. I hear they have some openings now, might ought to apply.

I'm talking reality. I'm talking about good people turning into nazis because of fear of authority. Im talking about 90+% of employees who choose not to bblow the whistle to report unspeakable acts. I'm talking about psychological studies where people ley a mudervctim die in broad daylight. Or where good people shocked a guy in anothet room with lethal volts of electricity because they were scared of authority.

The problem isn't weak individuals as much as it is a system that weakens individuals to act appropriately. We all act tough but there are numerous studies that show people don't always act in the best way when undet pressure.

[ReynardMuldrake]

Interesting first-hand account of the Sandusky verdict:

The Jerry Sandusky trial was civilized and surprisingly efficient. The trial was overseen by an old-school judge named John M. Cleland.

Cordial, precise, Judge Cleland was the firm hand in control of everything. He tolerated no distractions or chatter. He radiated neutrality and probity. The judge was an outsider, brought into Centre County from a county further north. One sensed that he came from a different era as well. One of the reporters suggested that Cleland had a passing resemblance to the actor Harry Morgan in his Colonel Potter role.

At one point during the trial Cleland had to make a ruling on a tricky issue regarding the admission into evidence of some hearsay, an “excited utterance” by a janitor who had seen Sandusky assaulting a boy in a shower. One of the lawyers, arguing his case, told the judge that “the trend” in legal circles was to think in a certain way about such evidentiary questions. Cleland spread his hands wide, smiled broadly, and said, “You’re talking to the wrong court about trends.”

Cleland’s decorum order, handed down before the trial began, declared that there would be no live coverage of the trial, no electronic transmission from his courtroom, and certainly nothing so gauche and potentially disruptive as the tweeting of the verdict. Only when he adjourned, he said, could the reporters transmit to the world the jury’s decision. A violation of this order would risk a finding of contempt of court.

There was a quickening of activity in the courtroom Friday night around 8:30, though we didn’t know yet if there was a verdict. Then came the word on Twitter that Sandusky had been seen leaving his house as a passenger in a county vehicle. That meant a verdict. At 9:30 p.m. came the official word that a verdict had been reached. It takes 20 minutes to get from Sandusky’s home to the courthouse in Bellefonte.

At about 9:50, Dottie Sandusky, four kids and a daughter-in-law emerged from a back room, and took up positions in the front two rows. As they huddled, they looked isolated — their friends who had attended much of the trial hadn’t made it back to the courtroom in time for the verdict, and the doors were now locked. No one could come in or out.

Jerry Sandusky emerged solo from a rear door, looked at the packed courtroom — for a second he seemed slightly bewildered — and immediately disappeared into a different back room. (His movements remain quick and agile, a reminder that, although he’s 68, he’s always been an athlete and fitness buff.) Then he and his lawyers came out and took their usual positions at the defense table. The judge called in the jury. Sandusky appeared about 9:50. Dottie Sandusky, four kids and a daughter-in-law took up positions in the front two rows. The judge called in the jury.

“I am aware that this is a case of considerable interest to many people,” Cleland said in a typical understatment. “We will tolerate no disruption by any person regardless of what the verdict is. The sheriffs have been directed to arrest anyone who disrupts these proceedings.”

Everything went according to script, which is to say, tradition, legal custom, the rules of criminal procedure, all the way down to the direction by the judge for the accused to stand to hear his fate.

Juror No. 4, the jury foreman, read the verdict. When he said, for the first time, “Guilty,” there was nothing but silence in the room. Forty-five times the foreman said “guilty.” (“The verdict ended the fallacy that this was an area too devoted to Penn State football to render a fair and proper judgment,” Dan Wetzel wrote at Yahoo Sports.)

The prosecution had won the case on the very first day of testimony, when “Victim 4” took the stand and told his story. He was devastatingly credible. He spoke frankly, graphically. It was a brave performance, prefiguring the courage of the other seven victims who came forward later. When Victim 4 was at his most vulnerable as a boy, lacking a father figure, Sandusky had swooped in like a guardian angel, only to reveal himself, gradually, as a fiend. The testimony from Victim 4 was accompanied by “creepy love letters” that Sandusky had written to him. Any reasonable juror could see, from these letters, that Sandusky had an abnormal fixation on the boy not yet in high school. The defense later presented an ineffectual expert witness saying that Sandusky suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder, but to jury it surely sounded like a junk diagnosis characterized by squishy symptoms (for example, a need for attention and intimacy, which describes almost all human beings), and the judge pointedly told the jury that it didn’t matter in any case since such an alleged disorder was not an excuse for criminal activity.

Victim 4 described how he and Sandusky would never discuss the abuse. It would happen, and then they’d act like it didn’t happen. One time in a hotel room the boy woke to find that he was being groped by Sandusky as Sandusky lay crammed in a narrow space between the bed and the wall. Sandusky didn’t need to be in that space to do what he wanted to do. But it was as if he was hiding from the world, putting his pedophile self in a compartment of sorts, to make it easier to pretend later that the crime wasn’t real, or that it never happened.at all.

Sandusky was acquitted on only three of the counts, charges that were fairly narrowly defined. Reporters and legal experts had expected some kind of “mixed” verdict, but this hardly fit that definition. The jury found that Sandusky molested all the boys, all 10, including the two never identified. It was a thunderous, unambiguous verdict that Sandusky was a predatory pedophile. This jury squashed him like a bug.

Cleland turned to Sandusky and addressed him. To my recollection (I could be mistaken here) Cleland had never addressed Sandusky directly in open court. He had always spoken to Sandusky’s attorneys. His voice suddenly struck me as louder than I’d heard before – a tone of justice being implemented, of the society speaking through this one veteran, gray-haired, bespectacled judge. “Mr Sandusky you have been found guilty by a jury of your peers,” he said.

Prosecutor Joe McGettigan asked the judge to vacate the bail; defense attorney Joe Amendola countered that Sandusky should be permitted to stay under house arrest until sentencing, Cleland denied the motion and ordered Sandusky remanded to the custody of the Centre County Sheriff, to be taken to the Centre County Correctional Facility. A young, strapping officer suddenly walked out of a door behind and to the left of the judge. He gently approached Sandusky. I wondered if he would be handcuffed right there, but no, the choreography had been worked out in advance, and perhaps the judge felt, in his old-school way, that there was no need for further dramatics in his courtroom. So Sandusky simply turned away from his lawyers and followed the young sheriff’s deputy out of the room.

The judge declared the trial adjourned. Every reporter hit transmit, except for a few who dashed for the door and down the stairs. (I saw a clip on CNN later in which you could see Sara Ganim, who won the Pulitzer after she broke the Sandusky story, running down the courthouse steps with a cellphone to one ear and her laptop open in her opposite hand – transmitting two ways while running toward the cameras. Kids, don’t try this at home.)

In the courtroom, we suddenly heard it: The cheer. The roar. I had not known that so large a throng had formed during the roughly 90 minutes we’d been in the courtroom anticipating a possible verdict. The sound was unmistakably that of many hundreds of people learning the verdict and cheering with joy. The analogy is impossible to avoid: It was the cheer you hear at a football game when a team scores the winning touchdown.

Outside, no decorum order applied.

The Sandusky trial was, taken on the whole, a triumph of the legal system, even as the many decades of Sandusky’s predation on pre-pubescent boys represented a catastrophic failure of oversight and perception by the institutions surrounding him.

There was one scene I didn’t see, because it happened at the rear of the courthouse: The perp walk. Sandusky emerged handcuffed, flanked by sheriffs. He shook his head slightly as, jeered by onlookers, he walked toward the cameras and was stuffed into a sheriff’s car. Later that night CNN ran the perp walk on a continuous loop.

What happened in the courtroom itself was never seen or heard by the general public. But it was burned, forever, into the memories of those who were there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...Qj1V_blog.html

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by ChiefRocka

I'm on the fence here. Sure he didn't do "enough" but a lot of people here claiming they would have are playing Monday morning quarterback. To say you would have done something means squat. The reallity is very few people "would" stop to help at a horrific car accident if they were first on the scene.

You are comparing a car wreck to some dude ass raping little boys? Really?

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I'm talking reality. I'm talking about good people turning into nazis because of fear of authority. Im talking about 90+% of employees who choose not to bblow the whistle to report unspeakable acts. I'm talking about psychological studies where people ley a mudervctim die in broad daylight. Or where good people shocked a guy in anothet room with lethal volts of electricity because they were scared of authority.

The problem isn't weak individuals as much as it is a system that weakens individuals to act appropriately. We all act tough but there are numerous studies that show people don't always act in the best way when undet pressure.

Yea this thread is funny. Writing about how courageous you would be in a message board is alot different than everything in your life and the lives of every person you know being dependent on how you move forward on something.

[ChiefRocka]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

You are comparing a car wreck to some dude ass raping little boys? Really?

Yes both grotesque and horrific incidents requiring a moral responsibility...what's your point?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by ChiefRocka

I'm on the fence here. Sure he didn't do "enough" but a lot of people here claiming they would have are playing Monday morning quarterback. To say you would have done something means squat. The reallity is very few people "would" stop to help at a horrific car accident if they were first on the scene.

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I'm talking reality. I'm talking about good people turning into nazis because of fear of authority. Im talking about 90+% of employees who choose not to bblow the whistle to report unspeakable acts. I'm talking about psychological studies where people ley a mudervctim die in broad daylight. Or where good people shocked a guy in anothet room with lethal volts of electricity because they were scared of authority.

The problem isn't weak individuals as much as it is a system that weakens individuals to act appropriately. We all act tough but there are numerous studies that show people don't always act in the best way when undet pressure.

JFC, will this "everyone is a victim" mentality ever quit plaguing our society? It is in no small way destroying us.

There are right decisions and wrong decisions. Individuals strong of character or going to make the right decisions more often than not. But especially so in this case. This isn't a tough one. Scared of losing your job at place that condones and covers this kind of crap up? Why be scared, one would think that you would want to work some where with a little higher moral standards. McQueary didn't. He loved his preciaous Penn State too much to stop a little boy from a traumatization that will effect him for the rest of his days. McQueary was scared all right, but probably less so for himself than his school. When it comes right down to it his in-action was due to the fact that he was a member of the same sick cult that was running the show.

[luv]

Originally Posted by ChiefRocka

Yes both grotesque and horrific...what's your point?

With a car wreck, even if you don't call for help, chances are pretty great that someone has or will. You walk into a locker room where a grown man is raping a child, and you just keep on walking when you could have stopped it. There's really no comparison other than "grotesque and horrific".

Imagine you know the driver of the car that caused the accident has gotten off the hook several times, and is continued to be allowed to drive. You see him drinking and getting into the car, knowing his history. You don't try to stop him?

[ChiefRocka]

Originally Posted by Brock

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

You are comparing a car wreck to some dude ass raping little boys? Really?

There are a bunch of studies saying the spread of nazism was likely driven by the same thing. Look up kitty genovese and you'll find an interesting case of people wqtching a girl get murdered in broad daylight.

Two things that frequently show up in psychology. People make bad decisions when influenced by an authority figure. And people aren't always motivated to act even when they should.

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by ChiefRocka

Yes both grotesque and horrific incidents requiring a moral responsibility...what's your point?

Walking on by some dirty old man running his dick up some little boy's ass in the showers is the same as driving by a car wreck?

Not that one should not stop and help in both situations but, my point is your and idiot.