The other day, I was accused of acting "high and mighty" for suggesting Penn State scandal witness Mike McQueary was morally detestable for not stopping and reporting Jerry Sandusky after he claims he witnessed Sandusky raping a boy in 2002.
The person also claimed that no one knows what they would have done in McQueary's situation.
First, there's nothing high or mighty about suggesting McQueary should have called the police. It's just common sense.
As a mandated reporter for the State of California, I know exactly what I would have done in Mike's position, just like I know what to do when I get to a stop light. As a human being, I know that running away and calling daddy is not an acceptable response to witnessing a child being violently victimized.
I'm not patting myself on the back, because it's really not rocket science, and it's rather disturbing that some people are treating this like an impossible-to-figure-out existential moral dilemma. It's not.
This is how it works: see a child being raped, attempt to bring the child to safety and call the police. Why is this difficult to figure out? Do we really have to have a handbook for this?
Those who "do not know what they would have done" if they saw a 10-year-old kid being sodomized need to do some serious soul searching.
Comments