Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Crime’ Category

This CBS report highlights the fact that Keith Lamont-Scott was a violent man. In fact, the report hints that the world is a better place without him. That isn’t a statement on whether Scott was carrying a gun when he was shot. It’s just a statement that he had a history of being a violent man.

The article opens with a statement that says “The black man killed by Charlotte police had a restraining order filed against him a year ago when he threatened to kill his wife and her son with a gun, according to court documents obtained Tuesday. Keith Scott’s wife filed the order on Oct. 5, saying that law enforcement officers who encounter him should be aware that he ‘carries a 9mm black’ gun.”

A man that’s threatened to murder his wife and son isn’t to be trusted.

Later in the article, it said “In the restraining order last fall, Rakeyia Scott sought to keep her husband away because ‘he hit my 8-year-old in the head a total of three times with his fist,’ she said in the restraining order document.” Still later in the report, it said this:

“He kicked me and threaten to kill us last night with his gun,” she said in the order filed in Gaston County, where the couple then lived. “He said he is a ‘killer’ and we should know that.”

Whenever the Democrats talk about African-Americans getting shot, the portray them as innocent victims who wouldn’t hurt a fly. Then they portray the officer as being a trigger-happy racist.

Consider this video of Hillary talking about the Lamont Scott shooting:

After unenthusiastically praising the police, Hillary went into the heart of her rant, saying “This much is certain. Too many people have lost their lives who shouldn’t have. Sabrina Fulton has become a friend of mine. Her son, Trayvon Martin, was killed not far from where we are today. Sabrina says that this is about saving our children and she’s absolutely right. We need to come together, work together, white, black, Latino, Asian, all of us, to turn the tide, stop the violence, build the trust.”

Mrs. Clinton just missed her Sister Soldjah moment. Time after time, the outrage over Ferguson, Baltimore and other places was built on fictions like ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’, only to have the myth demolished by verifiable forensic evidence.

This time, it’s likely that the black police officer who shot Keith Lamont Scott will be exonerated:

Homicide Unit Detectives interviewed multiple independent civilian witnesses at the scene and at police headquarters. Those witnesses confirmed that officers gave numerous loud verbal commands for Mr. Scott to drop the weapon and also confirmed that at no time did Mr. Scott comply with their commands.

A lab analysis conducted of the gun crime scene investigators recovered at the scene revealed the presence of Mr. Scott’s DNA and his fingerprints on the gun. It was also determined that the gun Mr. Scott possessed was loaded at the time of the encounter with the officers. The investigation also revealed that Mr. Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of the event.

Then there’s this:

It’s heartless for Democratic politicians to stoke racial tensions for political gain. What’s worse is those same Democratic politicians not speaking out against black-on-black violence.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Saying that Hillary Clinton will want to change the subject of this article is understatement. Let’s start by saying that articles like this virtually guarantee that she’ll announce her VP pick this afternoon. The bad news for Mrs. Clinton is that this ties into the case that Donald Trump emphasized during last night’s acceptance speech.

According to the article, “John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5” in Philadelphia, criticized Hillary for “inviting relatives of victims of police shootings to speak at the Democratic National Convention next week, but failing to include relatives of slain police officers.” It’s still possible for Mrs. Clinton to invite some police officers to speak time-wise, though I don’t think it would go over well with Democrats in the hall. Think of how Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panther Party would react to police officers talking about what they face while protecting the public.

President McNesby read from a prepared statement while expressing his disgust with Mrs. Clinton:

The Fraternal Order of Police is insulted and will not soon forget that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton are excluding the widows and other family members of police officers killed in the line of duty who were victims of explicit and not implied racism.

Then he said this:

He said it’s “sad that to win an election Mrs. Clinton must pander to the interests of people who do not know all the facts, while the men and women they seek to destroy are outside protecting the political institutions of this country.

“Mrs. Clinton, you should be ashamed of yourself, if that is possible.”

I’d expect the Trump campaign to jump all over this unforced mistake. This fits perfectly into Trump’s narrative that he’s the law and order candidate. Further complicating this situation is that these officers are stationed in Philadelphia, the site of the Democratic National Convention. If these officers wanted to cause trouble, they could invite Mr. Trump to a quickly-organized rally right outside the Democrats’ convention hall.

McNesby wasn’t too happy in this clip:

Suffice it to say that this isn’t the last time Mrs. Clinton will find herself defending the decision to invite the mothers of Michael Brown and Eric Garner to speak at the Democratic National Convention. I’d bet the proverbial ranch that Mr. Trump will emphasize this as proof that Hillary Clinton is soft on crime and that she’ll to the Democrats’ special interest groups in order to win votes. Let’s see if that works.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Donald Trump’s acceptance speech last night has been characterized as being scary or dark by Democrats. Mo Elleithee, a former Hillary campaign spokesman, said that this was a dreadful week for the GOP. That’s spin but not very good spin.

Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s pollster, said that she expects Trump and Hillary to be tied in all of the major swing states when the swing state polls start coming out. While it’s wise to take anything from a candidate’s pollster with a grain of salt, I’ve watched Mrs. Conway since she was Ms. Fitzpatrick. She isn’t a spinner. She’s earned the benefit of the doubt with me.

As for Trump’s speech, it was different in important and profound ways. He stripped away the façade that the Obama administration has hidden behind for 8 years. It started when Mr. Trump said “It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation. I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore. So if you want to hear the corporate spin, the carefully-crafted lies, and the media myths, the Democrats are holding their convention next week. Go there.”

Think of that as Trump’s way of telling the elitists in the media and in the Democratic Party (pardon the repetition) that America would hear the truth. Here’s an example of that truthfulness:

These are the facts:

Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60 percent in nearby Baltimore.

In the president’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And almost 4,000 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office. The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year.

Democrats say that the speech was dark. Let’s ask this question: Are those the type of statistics that should make us feel happy? Or are they the type of statistics that make your heart ache? If that wasn’t enough information to make a decision on, this will help thoughtful people make the right decision:

One such border-crosser was released and made his way to Nebraska. There, he ended the life of an innocent young girl named Sarah Root. She was 21 years old and was killed the day after graduating from college with a 4.0 grade point average. Her killer was then released a second time, and he is now a fugitive from the law. I’ve met Sarah’s beautiful family. But to this administration, their amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.

There’s no spinning that story. If I were to put it in tennis language, that story would be “Game. Set. Match. Championship.” Thoughtful people can’t hear that story and think we need to continue this administration’s immigration policies.

This is a powerful indictment of Hillary’s incompetence:

In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map. Libya was stable. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq had seen a big reduction in violence. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Syria was somewhat under control.

After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region and the entire world. Libya is in ruins, and our ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos. Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. After 15 years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.

This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: Death, destruction and terrorism and weakness.

That’s a devastating and accurate before and after portrait of Hillary’s incompetence. Think of it as the indictment the Justice Department didn’t attempt to get.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I intentionally gave this post that inflammatory title. Other than a few left fringers that I could count on my fingers, nobody is pro-terrorist. It isn’t difficult to make a case that there are lots of lefties that hate America or that think that they need to apologize for America, with our current president at the top of that list.

After reading Chris Stirewalt’s article, though, I thought it was important to highlight how the Democrats’ passivity or indifference towards terrorism and their pandering towards #BlackLivesMatter, Hands up, don’t shoot and Al Sharpton have created the situation we’re currently facing.

Shortly after starting in office, President Obama said that he didn’t know the facts surrounding the Cambridge Police Department arresting Henry Gates but that he knew that “the cops acted stupidly.” Later, he sent then-US Attorney General Eric Holder to Ferguson to conduct a civil rights review and investigation. President Obama even bought into the ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ storyline. President Obama didn’t speak out against Black Lives Matter, either, because he wanted them stirred up for the midterm elections.

Couple that with Bill DeBlasio’s shameful statement that he worries about his son and Gov. Dayton’s statement that he thinks that Philando Castile would still be alive if he wasn’t black and Mrs. Clinton’s statement that systemic racism is putting African-Americans in danger.

It isn’t a stretch to say that the Democrats’ default position is to question law enforcement authorities. It’s simply happened too many times to argue otherwise.

As for terrorism, it’s painfully obvious that this administration hasn’t done all it could in fighting ISIS. John Kerry admitted that attacks against Syria and ISIS would be “unbelievably small”:

In Afghanistan, generals recommended to President Obama that they use a troop surge to destroy the Taliban. Rather than immediately accepting their recommendation, the administration dithered and dithered until the opportunity had passed and the Taliban had escaped. After all that time waiting, President Obama ordered a troop surge, then stated in the very next sentence when he’d pull our the surge troops.

Hillary isn’t much better. She’s more ‘hawkish’, if you can call it that. She’s more willing to use the military but she’s only willing to do that in a photo op way. Look at Libya. She insisted that we get rid of Qaddafi. Eventually, that happened. Then she ignored all of Christopher Stevens’ urgent requests for additional security. After ignoring those urgent cables, the result was Christopher Stevens getting killed in a terrorist attack.

There’s no proof that she’s learned from that lesson.

Simply put, the Democratic Party hasn’t shown that they have the inclination to consistently support police officers or to fight terrorists wherever they are. If we want to make America safe again, then voting for Hillary isn’t an option. She has tons of national security experience with virtually no serious accomplishments. Think Benghazi, the Arab Spring, the Russian Reset Button and insisting that Bashar al-Assad was a reformer we could work with.

That isn’t the type of experience that I’d vote for.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I wrote this article to highlight how untalented Donald Trump’s spokespeople are. The article also highlighted how dishonest Trump’s allies are. As deceptive as Barry Bennett, Katrina Pierson, David Wohl and Ed Brookover are, though, they’re amateurs compared with Roger Stone.

If you’ve been hiding under a rock, Stone is Trump’s thug. He’s Trump’s chief intimidator. (I initially wrote about Stone’s thuggishness in this article.)

Apparently, Stone realizes that he’s in big trouble if something happens to the delegates for the Republican National Convention. Appearing on Stefan Molyneux’s program, Stone issued a threat, saying ” I have warned the public, I have warned Trump supporters, of what I believe is ‘The Big Steal’. One of two things will happen here, Stefan. Either Trump will have 1,237 votes, in which case the Party will try to throw out some of those delegates in a naked attempt to steal this from Donald Trump or he will be just short of 1,237, in which case many of his own delegates, or I should say people in his delegates’ seats, will abandon him on the second ballot. So the fix is in.”

That’s definitely intended to tell Trump’s supporters that the Republican National Committee, aka the RNC, working in concert with the “GOP Establishment,” will attempt to “steal” Trump’s nomination away from him. Then Stone added this:

Join us in the Forest City. We’re going to have protests, demonstrations. We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal. If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them.

It’s pretty apparent that Stone wrote this article to insist that his statements weren’t advocating violence. In fact, he’s blaming CNN for deceptively editing out something exculpatory. I’d love hearing the podcast for Mr. Molyneux’s show that day. I want to know whether that would exonerate Stone or whether it would show that he’s trying to weasel out of threatening delegates. I’m betting it’s the latter.

Less than a month ago, Mr. Trump was talking trash, saying that he’d pay the legal fees for his supporters who laid a beating on protesters at his events. It was clear that Trump was a full-fledged thug, albeit a rich thug. Stone was his consigliere for the better part of twenty years. I won’t buy it that Trump kept that parasite around for his charming personality. Trump kept him on Trump’s payroll to have him do his dirty work.

Trump’s schtick is getting old. Trump’s thuggishness is preventing him from closing the deal with the American people. That’s why Trump won’t be the GOP presidential nominee.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jazz Shaw’s post about the murder of a Utah police officer is heartbreaking but important within the context of criminal justice reform. Far too frequently, we’ve heard stories about “non-violent offenders” being incarcerated after being convicted for a felony.

Jazz’s post is about how Cory Lee Henderson murdered a police officer Sunday. Henderson allegedly murdered “Scott Barney, an 18-year veteran of the Unified and Taylorsville police departments and a father of three who worked in the Holladay Precinct.” Since then, lots of disturbing information has come out about Henderson. In his post, Shaw wrote that “Henderson was indicted by a federal grand jury on felon in possession of a firearm, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense” on Nov. 24, 2015.

That’s just the most recent incarceration for Mr. Henderson. After being indicted, things take a bizarre twist. On “Dec. 4, 2015, Henderson is arraigned in federal court, pleads not guilty. On Dec. 8, 2015, Henderson is paroled to the Fortitude Treatment Center. Federal court records show U.S. Magistrate Judge Evelyn Furse allowed him to be released from federal custody to go to the treatment center. On Dec. 18, 2015, Henderson is reported as a walkaway from the Fortitude Treatment Center. The Utah Department of Corrections said Henderson checked out in the morning to look for employment but did not return at the end of the day. That night, state dispatch was contacted and notified that he was missing.”

What type of nutjob judge paroles a felon with a lengthy history of convictions? This article is must reading:

Henderson’s criminal history includes arrests for drugs, weapons, assault and theft. He was convicted of possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia in 2009, 2010, 2013 and 2015. He was imprisoned for possession of a firearm by a restricted person in 2014 and was jailed on parole violations in November and December last year.

Criminal justice activists will surely attempt to tell the public that he never should’ve been jailed for the drug charges. That’s BS. In this and many other instances, drugs are just the tip of the iceberg. Notice that Henderson’s record includes arrests for “weapons, assault and theft,” too.

Last night, Megyn Kelly demolished defense attorney Arthur Aidala’s argument that no state laws were broken when the Duggars’ daughters were identified as victims of sex crimes. Check this video out:

First, here’s the Arkansas law that’s being debated:

Arkansas Legal Code
ANN. SEC. 16-90-1104

“A law enforcement agency shall not disclose to the public information directly or indirectly identifying the victim of a sex crime.”

Aidala argued that the lawyer in question relied on the opinions of 2 different Arkansas attorneys general in making his decision. If that’s true, which I believe is true, then these attorneys general got their opinions horribly wrong.

The Arkansas statute is exceptionally clearly written. It isn’t ambiguous. If there’s another law that says that people who commit sex crimes must be identified, then these attorneys general should’ve brought these conflicting statutes to the attention of the Arkansas legislature, Arkansas’ governor and the people of Arkansas. Those conflicting statutes must be fixed so that they aren’t conflicting anymore. Otherwise, teenage victims of sex crimes will be doubly victimized in the future.

Fortunately, a judge has stepped in and said “Don’t release it and destroy the remaining reports.”

What people think about Josh Duggar is irrelevant to this topic. That’s totally separate. The law states what the law states. Releasing the report that identified those girls was illegal. Now that the Arkansas judge has ruled, that’s the law of the land unless and until the legislature changes those statutes. I’m betting that the legislature won’t touch it because it’s an emotionally charged subject that’s settled at this point.

The bigger point, though, to this discussion is that a state attorney general’s opinion shouldn’t conflict with clearly written state statutes. Opinions and precedents that conflict with statutes are simply wrong. There can’t be any question about that. Period.

When Marilyn Mosby won an indictment against 6 police officers in the death of Freddie Gray and when Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake watched Baltimore descend into chaos, they became the public face of Baltimore’s political and legal leadership. Now that violence engulfs Baltimore, it’s clear that this disastrous duo deserve the criticism they’re getting.

In most instances, I’d argue that Marilyn Mosby deserves the lion’s share of the blame for Baltimore’s problems. This isn’t like most situations, though. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake first gave the thugs permission to loot stores and destroy buildings. She told police officers to “Let them loot. It’s only property”:

As amazing as that sounds, it’s gotten worse since:

BALTIMORE (AP) — Antoinette Perrine has barricaded her front door since her brother was killed three weeks ago on a basketball court near her home in the Harlem Park neighborhood of West Baltimore. She already has iron bars outside her windows and added metal slabs on the inside to deflect the gunfire.

“I’m afraid to go outside,” said Perrine, 47. “It’s so bad, people are afraid to let their kids outside. People wake up with shots through their windows. Police used to sit on every corner, on the top of the block. These days? They’re nowhere.”

This explains why the officers aren’t there:

Police Commissioner Anthony Batts said last week his officers “are not holding back” from policing tough neighborhoods, but they are encountering dangerous hostility in the Western District. “Our officers tell me that when officers pull up, they have 30 to 50 people surrounding them at any time,” Batts said.

This doesn’t help, either:

At a City Council meeting Wednesday, Batts said officers have expressed concern they could be arrested for making mistakes. “What is happening, there is a lot of levels of confusion in the police organization. There are people who have pain, there are people who are hurt, there are people who are frustrated, there are people who are angry,” Batts said. “There are people, and they’ve said this to me, ‘If I get out of my car and make a stop for a reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause but I make a mistake on it, will I be arrested?’ They pull up to a scene and another officer has done something that they don’t know, it may be illegal, will they be arrested for it? Those are things they are asking.”

Marilyn Mosby’s hostility towards the police has accelerated the mistrust between City Hall, her office and the police officers. The police officers don’t know whether they’ll get arrested for making a mistake because Ms. Mosby and Stephanie Rawlings-Blake will take the thugs’ side or the officers’ side.

Two of the things that are fundamental to city governance is public safety and law enforcement. These ladies are failing to produce on either count. Based on their hostility towards police officers, it’s unrealistic to think they’ll suddenly change their policies and start making the streets safe or prosecuting the thugs that are murdering people.

Part I of this series highlighted a timeline of events that led to the termination of Todd Hoffner, the head football coach at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Part II highlighted some of President Davenport’s rationalizations for terminating Coach Hoffner. This post will highlight the substantive complaints from Coach Hoffner’s attorneys. This paragraph is particularly noteworthy:

Second, in that same section, the OLA report devotes an entire paragraph to President Davenport’s justification for his reaction to the charges against Coach Hoffner and, specifically, the description of the Pennsylvania State University sex scandal. No comparable explanation from Coach Hoffner is included, nor is the fundamental distinguishing fact that the alleged conduct that MSU Mankato investigated had nothing to do with sexual abuse or similar conduct with respect to MSU Mankato students.

Comparing the Hoffner situation with what happened at Penn State is foolish. According to a footnote in the OLA’s report, Penn State’s high-level administrators, including Penn State’s president at the time, “were indicted for endangering the welfare of children, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury. They are awaiting trial.” In Coach Hoffner’s case, he didn’t exercise good judgment. Still, the Blue Earth County judge that dismissed the charges said that “the children acted silly, playful and age appropriate.”

There’s a little bit of hyperbole in this paragraph:

To omit from the OLA’s report even the most basic of facts in this regard is misleading and profoundly unfair. The notion that a person could equate Coach Hoffner with Jerry Sandusky is absurd, and that a person could draw such a comparison exemplifies why that person should not have the authority to make life-changing employment decisions affecting others.

First, Hoffner’s attorneys went a little overboard in saying that President Davenport shouldn’t “have the authority to make life-changing employment decisions affecting others.” That being said, Hoffner’s attorneys are right in saying that comparing Coach Hoffner’s actions with Sandusky’s is absurd. They aren’t close to being similar, much less close to being the same thing.

Jerry Sandusky is serving a minimum of 30 years in prison. According to Wikipedia, which I realize isn’t always the most accurate website, “Specifically, Sandusky was convicted of the following charges and counts: eight counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, seven counts of indecent assault, one count of criminal intent to commit indecent assault, nine counts of unlawful contact with minors, 10 counts of corruption of minors and 10 counts of endangering the welfare of children. Cleland immediately revoked Sandusky’s bail and remanded him to the Centre County Correctional Facility to await sentencing.”

It shouldn’t be difficult for university presidents to differentiate between a man who was investigated and had charges dropped and a man convicted of “eight counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, seven counts of indecent assault, one count of criminal intent to commit indecent assault [and] nine counts of unlawful contact with minors…” I’m betting that most high school students could differentiate between the two.

Simply put, this would be a disaster for President Davenport if the MnSCU Chancellor, aka Davenport’s boss, were a principled man or if the DFL-chaired Higher Ed committees took their oversight responsibilities seriously. Since neither is the case, it isn’t likely that this will hurt President Davenport.

That’s the biggest of disasters in this entire situation.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

This post about Richard Davenport’s termination of Coach Todd Hoffner highlights the timeline of Mankato State University, Mankato’s investigation that ultimately led to Coach Hoffner’s termination. This post will highlight the OLA’s report of what happened that triggered the investigation:

On August 10, 2012, Coach Hoffner asked a MSU, Mankato information technology staff person to examine his cell phone because it was not working properly. The staff person found a video recording of naked children on the phone and brought it to the attention of MSU, Mankato officials, who turned the cell phone over to the Mankato police. Coach Hoffner was arrested at his home on August 21, 2012. The following day, the Blue Earth County Attorney filed charges against Todd Hoffner alleging that the images of the children were pornographic and criminal.

After reviewing the images, other evidence, and considering the applicable laws, on November 30, 2012, a Blue Earth County District Court Judge dismissed the criminal charges for lack of “probable cause.” In her order, the judge noted that the children in the video were Todd Hoffner’s children, who asked their father to record a “performance” after they emerged from a bath. The judge went on to say
that the context of the video showed that the “children’s performance was not intended to be erotic or pornographic in nature.” She also noted that the children acted silly, playful, and age appropriate.

Despite the fact that charges were dismissed by a Blue Earth County district court judge, President Davenport proceeded with his investigation.

It’s worth highlighting that the judge ruled that “the children acted silly, playful and age appropriate.”

Here’s another situation that might put President Davenport into a delicate situation:

President Davenport also told us that he responded to the allegations against Coach Hoffner with the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) football sex scandal in mind. In that case, a former Penn State assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, was accused of sexually abusing children for more than a decade. In addition, university officials were accused of failing to respond adequately when concerns about the coach were brought to their attention.

The Penn State situation was dramatically different from what happened in Mankato. Here’s one of the report’s footnotes:

In June 2012, former Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of 45 counts of child sexual abuse and, in October 2012, he was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) imposed severe sanctions against the Penn State football program, including: a $60 million fine to create an endowment to prevent child sexual abuse and help child abuse victims; barring Penn State’s football program from post-season play for four years; and vacating the team’s wins from 1998-2011. In addition, former Penn State officials, President Graham Spanier, Senior VP for Finance and Business Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Tim Curley were indicted for endangering the welfare of children, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. They are awaiting trial.

In the Penn State case, senior members of the administration, including Penn State’s president were accused of lying to investigators and for trying to hide Jerry Sandusky’s actions. Further, they “were indicted “for endangering the welfare of children…”

The underlying allegations included this:

Victims also commonly reported that Sandusky would place his hand on their thighs or inside the waistband of their underpants. Two recounted oral sex with Sandusky, sometimes culminating in his ejaculation.

That’s totally different than the situation at Mankato. First, President Davenport didn’t attempt to cover anything up. Second, he wasn’t accused of lying to investigators. Those things alone differentiate this situation from the Penn State scandal.

I understand that administrators nationwide worried about being accused of covering up a pervert’s lengthy history of child sex abuse. That’s appropriate and justified. What isn’t appropriate or justified is conflating everything into another Penn State.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,