Definitely still not defending anyone, but just for my own clarification, do we know what exactly the GA saw in the shower? I mean, if he saw Sandusky fucking a kid in the mouth, then yeah, he's an utter POS for not beating his ass right then and there. But he reported "inappropriate behavior". I'm assuming that's more along the lines of he was chasing him around the shower or giggling with him or something that was just offputting, or something just didn't seem right.
I'm assuming somewhere down the line it became known for certain that he was diddling kids, but was this the moment?
I guess what I'm asking is, was Paterno told something along the lines of "Hey, that Sandusky dude was creeping me out the other day. Something just wasn't right", or was it "I saw this guy having sex with a child." As Pat Dye would say, hindsight is 50/50. Knowing what we know now, any sign that this dude was a creeper should have been dealt with, but in the real world if it was just vague "inappropriate behavior", is Paterno really such scum that his 60+ year legacy should be tarnished forever and this old man on the verge of death have to disgrace his name, family, and life's work over it?
At the same time, rushing to judgment on the other end is equally as stupid. These mobs holding vigils and shit for Paterno: It's entirely possible that you're holding demonstrations adamantly defending a child molester.