Disgusting: Former PSU players donating $$$ to Sandusky for his defense | Syracusefan.com

Disgusting: Former PSU players donating $$$ to Sandusky for his defense

iommi

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
12,658
Like
27,306
There's an ESPn.com that says that former Penn State players are sending sandusky money to aid in his defense... From the article:

Sam Stellatella, a three-position player in the 1950s, has donated money to Sandusky's defense and urged other former players to do the same.
"I told him he's going to need a million dollars to defend himself," the 73-year-old Stellatella said. "He called me back and said, 'What am I going to do with this money?' I said, 'Use it for your lawyer because you're going to need it.' "
Stellatella sent Sandusky $100. He wrote personal letters to other members of the 1959 Liberty Bowl team that defeated a Bear Bryant-coached Alabama team and asked they also donate. He does not know how much money was raised.
"I know some of the guys sent money," Stellatella told The Associated Press. "Here's the thing, these are horrendous charges against him. But he's still entitled to his day in court. Everybody's prejudged him. He's done horrendous damage to Paterno and (athletic director Tim) Curley and the football program. I don't listen to the news and I don't read the reports of what he did because I would get too upset.
"But he's still entitled to his day in court."
 
Aiding a child rapist. that should literally be illegal.
 
young_boy_1.jpg
Hey Sam ...
 
There's an ESPn.com that says that former Penn State players are sending sandusky money to aid in his defense... From the article:

"But he's still entitled to his day in court."

He certainly is, and I guess people are entitled to support child molesters. Nice work, Sir. Maybe your money could be spent more wisely helping, ummmm, I don't know - the victims possibly.
 
Doesn't this tool think Sandusky has enough of his own money to mount a competent defense? Nice excuse / rationalization, lowlife.
 
There's an ESPn.com that says that former Penn State players are sending sandusky money to aid in his defense... From the article:

Sam Stellatella, a three-position player in the 1950s, has donated money to Sandusky's defense and urged other former players to do the same.
"I told him he's going to need a million dollars to defend himself," the 73-year-old Stellatella said. "He called me back and said, 'What am I going to do with this money?' I said, 'Use it for your lawyer because you're going to need it.' "
Stellatella sent Sandusky $100. He wrote personal letters to other members of the 1959 Liberty Bowl team that defeated a Bear Bryant-coached Alabama team and asked they also donate. He does not know how much money was raised.
"I know some of the guys sent money," Stellatella told The Associated Press. "Here's the thing, these are horrendous charges against him. But he's still entitled to his day in court. Everybody's prejudged him. He's done horrendous damage to Paterno and (athletic director Tim) Curley and the football program. I don't listen to the news and I don't read the reports of what he did because I would get too upset.
"But he's still entitled to his day in court."
I dont know why you would promote donations to him, but he is right...everyone is entitled to their day(s) in court.
 
NAMBLA will fund his defense.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk
 
Misleading title.

This obviously very senile man sent Sandusky 100 bucks.

And he's the only weirdo to send Sandusky anything.

"I don't listen to the news and I don't read the reports of what he did because I would get too upset."

This guy sounds like he suffered too many concussions during his playing days.
 
It's not misleading...he even said he knew other players sent money too... "others" usually indicates more than one person.
 
Misleading title.

This obviously very senile man sent Sandusky 100 bucks.

And he's the only weirdo to send Sandusky anything.

"I don't listen to the news and I don't read the reports of what he did because I would get too upset."

This guy sounds like he suffered too many concussions during his playing days.
He sounds like Ashton Kutcher.
 
I dont know why you would promote donations to him, but he is right...everyone is entitled to their day(s) in court.

Exactly. Everyone is entitled to their day in court. But that doesn't mean people have to financially support that right. He's going to get that right to appear in court whether anyone gives a dime or not. What that PSU alum is saying, is that we not only what you to have your day in court, we want to help you beat the charges.
 
Let's say there was a PSU graduate that was now a high profile defense attorney that offered to defend Sandusky pro bono or at a significantly reduced rate - would that also be problematic?

John Adams - who was opposed to British occupation - successfully defended British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre. I'm not sure what the difference is between that and a lawyer offering to defend Sandusky today, and I'm not sure what the difference is between offering to defend and funding a better defense. I wouldn't fund a child molester's defense myself, but am having a hard time working up any outrage over someone else choosing to do so.
 
Let's say there was a PSU graduate that was now a high profile defense attorney that offered to defend Sandusky pro bono or at a significantly reduced rate - would that also be problematic?

John Adams - who was opposed to British occupation - successfully defended British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre. I'm not sure what the difference is between that and a lawyer offering to defend Sandusky today, and I'm not sure what the difference is between offering to defend and funding a better defense. I wouldn't fund a child molester's defense myself, but am having a hard time working up any outrage over someone else choosing to do so.
There is probably nothing more important in a democracy than the right to a fair trial.
 
I wouldn't fund a child molester's defense myself, but am having a hard time working up any outrage over someone else choosing to do so.
Why? You aren't disputing that the guy can get his day in court. Beyond that, in the realm of social stigma, you can express your disagreement with another's actions however you want.
 
Why? You aren't disputing that the guy can get his day in court. Beyond that, in the realm of social stigma, you can express your disagreement with another's actions however you want.

Mostly because of the logic that I used that you chose not to quote. If you want to debate my train of thought there, please feel free to do so.
 
Mostly because of the logic that I used that you chose not to quote. If you want to debate my train of thought there, please feel free to do so.
I would indeed have a problem with a Penn State alum, or anyone for that matter, offering to represent the guy with concessions (pro bono, anything outside one's S.O.P. that constitutes an extra benefit). I don't have a problem with high-powered lawyers defending him at their going market rate, nor with his being able to purchase such defense.

I don't recall enough about the Adams case to know whether I would be outraged over that defense.
 
The man has a right to a fair trial, & no matter how misguided, this a$$hole has a right to send him financial support.
Serial killers are allowed to get married & the women stupid enough to marry them?? Well, thats their issue.
He is still innocent until proven guilty, regardless of the presumed evidence or public opinion. Stupidity, like morality, is almost impossible to legislate- so let the pathetic old coot(s) do what they want with their money.
 
I don't recall enough about the Adams case to know whether I would be outraged over that defense.

Adams was a Patriot that believed in the right to a fair trial strongly, and was willing to defend British soldiers in spite of the high probability it would damage his career. Plenty of Patriots were outraged at the time that Adams was defending the British soldiers, but he did it because he believed it was the right thing. We have far too few politicians and people in general today that are willing to withstand public outrage to do what is right, but that's getting outside the scope of this discussion about the defense of Joe Sandusky.

Let's presume Sandusky doesn't have enough money to pay a private defense attorney. He would have to use a public defender. I'm arguing that the use of a public defender in a high profile case will not result in a fair trial, and therefore a private lawyer would be required for a fair trial to proceed. Therefore someone choosing to support Sandusky's legal effort is, in fact, supporting the right to a fair trial - which as a commenter above noted is one of the most important thing in a democracy. So in a way by getting so outraged about someone contributing to Sandusky's defense, you're fighting against democracy...

OK, that's reaching pretty far - but my bottom line is I still am not even a little bit bothered by someone contributing to Sandusky's defense, there's just far too many other things in the world to get outraged over. If the facts bear out what we believe (and based on the grand jury I'm feeling pretty confident they will), Sandusky is going to be found guilty.
 
Let's presume Sandusky doesn't have enough money...
Fair enough, there we disagree. If a public defender doesn't provide a fair trial, then the whole system is bollixed. Who would be trying Sandusky? The local DA, right? Who says that person is a powerhouse lawyer? In any event, I am 100% comfortable with a legal case of any magnitude being handled by a PD.

Why wouldn't you donate to Sandusky's fund?
 
Adams was a Patriot that believed in the right to a fair trial strongly, and was willing to defend British soldiers in spite of the high probability it would damage his career. Plenty of Patriots were outraged at the time that Adams was defending the British soldiers, but he did it because he believed it was the right thing. We have far too few politicians and people in general today that are willing to withstand public outrage to do what is right, but that's getting outside the scope of this discussion about the defense of Joe Sandusky.

Let's presume Sandusky doesn't have enough money to pay a private defense attorney. He would have to use a public defender. I'm arguing that the use of a public defender in a high profile case will not result in a fair trial, and therefore a private lawyer would be required for a fair trial to proceed. Therefore someone choosing to support Sandusky's legal effort is, in fact, supporting the right to a fair trial - which as a commenter above noted is one of the most important thing in a democracy. So in a way by getting so outraged about someone contributing to Sandusky's defense, you're fighting against democracy...

OK, that's reaching pretty far - but my bottom line is I still am not even a little bit bothered by someone contributing to Sandusky's defense, there's just far too many other things in the world to get outraged over. If the facts bear out what we believe (and based on the grand jury I'm feeling pretty confident they will), Sandusky is going to be found guilty.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

otter.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYb_anBMus&feature=related
 
Why wouldn't you donate to Sandusky's fund?

Because I don't believe in democracy I guess, I really haven't left myself any other out.

I gotta admit, there's a part of me that is hoping somebody uncovers a link between Second Mile and PSU, such that money from the prostitution of young boys was then funneled into the football program at PSU. So I'll admit that I have no soul.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,350
Messages
4,767,710
Members
5,949
Latest member
Laxmom2317

Online statistics

Members online
34
Guests online
1,076
Total visitors
1,110


Top Bottom