Did you read MY links?

Yet again, the defensiveness is disconcerting.

You are entitled to all of your opinions, but please never call me bud again. It pisses me off.

NEVER.

Save that one for someone else.


No one would call me bud that knew me. Perhaps it's generational, but my generation doesn't like it.


That would be a good example of you showing some judgement that might not otherwise be required of others.

Thank you very much.

And everyone just knew that poor stripper had been raped by those Duke boys too.

The whole reason we have innocent until proven guilty is that people lie. The government lies. Police lie. People with axes to grind lie. Hell, innocent people lie! A recent study showed that fully 25% of convicts who were exonerated by DNA evidence had confessed to the crime. If you would so lightly overturn a fundamental freedom simply because the accusations are heinous, I hope to God you never find yourself on that stand wrongly accused. Or at least I hope the court of public opinion would judge you more graciously than you have judged.

By the way, if you read the definition of sexual intercourse, absolutely any sort of contact qualifies. The grand jury report doesn't specify that he buggered the kids. At one point, Sandusky was accused of playing soap-tag with one of the boys. If that bar of soap touched any intimate part of the boy's body in any way whatsoever, it counts as sexual intercourse under the law and the penalty is the same as though he had penetrated the child.

Obviously, the alleged crimes are despicable, but there is no need to color them with excess hyperbole. It's possible he buggered them. It's equally possible he did not. Based on the descriptions I have read, I would guess he did not, at least on campus. Forcible anal rape would result in a child screaming, which should have brought people running. (Then again, by his own admission, McCreary did just walk away, so who knows.) The way these crimes are described sounds more like dirty games and rough housing. (Yes, sexual abuse can feel good for the kid too.) The crimes stand on their own feet without being dressed up.

It really scares me that normal, thinking human beings completely lose their head when it comes to matters like this. That's how tyrants come to power: they whip the masses into a frenzy with wild accusations. Child rape has been a favorite accusation throughout human history from people wanting to target other groups for persecution.

---

You have read everything to date and this is your opinion?

Non?


OK-

I live in a different world, I admit it.

Fine, but if I have to quit calling you Gunny, I'm going to be depressed. When I think about you Dave, I picture Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge. Don't take that away!

---

It's okay for you to call me "some young dumb kid", but I can't use a friendly term like 'bud' when referring to you?

O.K.


Everyone is entitled to their opinions, of course. I stated mine and you seem to be busting a gasket because I don't think someone who did not commit a crime should step down when someone else commits the crime.


Again, my biggest moral beef is with (other than Sandusky, obviously) the person who witnessed the assault and did not go to the police, not those who were subsequently made aware of the assault, such as Joe Paterno as some want to blast him as if he committed the assault.

---

If I had my way, media outlets would be just as reluctant to publish the name of the accused before they are convicted as it is to publish the name of the alleged victims. Too many lives are needlessly destroyed by accusations that are later found to be fabricated, and the accusers usually go unpunished. Someone once said that in our culture, it's worse for an innocent person to be exonerated than to be convicted, because at least if they are convicted, people will say he "paid his debt to society and deserves a second chance," whereas if he is exonerated, a cloud of suspicion hangs over him the rest of his life.

The point is this: The purpose of a grand jury is to determine whether there is enough evidence to put someone on trial. It does not adjudicate guilt. I've read enough grand jury reports (including one that was almost 300 pages of horror ) to know a grand jury report is always one sided. It's designed to be.

Furthermore, the media typically only reports on the incriminating evidence, because that's what sells. No one wants to read about the exculpatory evidence. They're too bloodthirsty at heart. They want their pound of flesh. (Witness the people partying in the streets for hours after the guilty verdict was read against Michael Jackson's doctor.)

I'll wait until the full complement of evidence is put forth, precisely because I hope that if I am ever in that situation, the same is done for me.

If he is guilty, I hope he gets punished in the severest way possible. If it turns out the charges have been fabricated, I hope those who framed him are punished as severely as he would have been.

---

I'll never break your heart on that, bro. I was an LDO for the Marine Corps Infantry.

That pedigree does not suck, imo, lol- Gunny- yes, briefly, but not in your sense... I was in a "effeminate" (PC-now) school when I was a "Gunny".


I do not know what Kev and Rourke are hearing and listening to, I only pray that they click my link to the indictment and read "victim number two"

I know what grand jury reports look like in the "general sense" I also know some people refuse to read them due to generalized pre-conceived notions, regardless of actual context. That is absolutely as dumb as believing all of them in the first place, imo

...get back to me on all this.

I say all guilty. We will see.

An indictment is a statement that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. It is not statement of guilt, much less a conviction.

---

Who gives a fuck what those dumbasses think anyway. They still defend Chmura for Christ sakes. I still need to take those Sconi boys on mule deer hunt. Maybe they'll get smarter after that.

---

In some capacity, to some degree, I agree that all are guilty.

---