Steve A. posted:& then you continue by suggesting that nobody cares about anyone's "opinion," & then offer your own opinion, which happens to agree with mine, yet mine is not valid because I believe I am important enough to influence OS player policy, by posting on a small message board.... Do I have it summed up right?
Maybe you got drawn offsides. Can't move until the ball moves !
Steve A. posted:& then you continue by suggesting that nobody cares about anyone's "opinion," & then offer your own opinion, which happens to agree with mine, yet mine is not valid because I believe I am important enough to influence OS player policy, by posting on a small message board.... Do I have it summed up right?
Pretty much. Now go away
roothog66 posted:Scotty83 posted:SomeBaseballDad posted:Scotty83 posted:SomeBaseballDad posted:SomeBaseballDad posted:Scotty83 posted:Kyle Boddy posted:Some of you should read the updated information rather than jumping to conclusions from hit pieces.
I've read all that information but a mother wanting custody doesn't make me jump to the conclusion she tried to frame someone for molestation. The kids parents being involved in the church doesn't make me jump to the conclusion there's nothing wrong with the kid. Him being a multisport athlete doesn't make me jump to the conclusion he would never do anything wrong.
All I know is he plead guilty to it. Yes he did so because being found guilty would carry a harsher sentence. Criminals do it all the time. They also declare their inocents. Im not going to jump to conclusions baised on a pro puff piece artical either.
It stands to reason that the chance someone/s like you might end up on the jury is why they decided to take the plea. If the victim herself got on the stand and recanted you'd still vote guilty.
"pro puff piece artical". Really, 90% of the quotes in the article were from court appointed individuals. So he's implying they're all pro Luke Heimlich? The article raises questions and presents facts the are contrary to his feeling about the case, so he dismisses it out of hand. Not really someone I'd want judging my guilt or innocence.
Pease keep in mind I didn't say he was a child molester his lawyer and he did.
Again what choice did he have? Go to court? From go it would be the word of a "monster" vs a sweet little girl. Hell I could have won that case drunk, high on Xanax, and with a severe brain injury. My dog could have convicted him.
Like I said, I'd have told my son to do the same thing
All of our views on things are formed from our experience. A large portion of my family are lawyers and a few judges. I spent most of my life hearing cases and judgements. It wouldn't be hard to get a specialist that would easily prove a child lying in cross-examination. His lawyer would have known this. So the only way I can see him pleaing out is if there was some proof. However since there was a plea that proof will never come to life. I even asked my sister who said every case she has sat on like this it was pretty easy to show the child was lying. She thinks it even happens when children are telling the truth. That's how easy it is for an adult lawyer to make a child look like they are lying.
And last thing I'll say on it. If he didn't and chose to say he did the. He chose to deal with those consequences.
I have taken a role in over 20 sexual assault on a child trials. They are unique in the criminal world for being extraordinarily unpredictable. I have seen juries convict with nothing more than victim testimony that was absolutely incredible and could not have possibly been true and I've seen absolutely solid cases end in an acquittal. Given the offer that was made and comparing it to the risk I know exists in these types of cases, if it were my son - even if I was 100% convinced he were innocent - I'd strongly suggest he take the deal. It sucks, but that's my experiences. I also agree with a previous post that I'd go to trial with a bench trial vs. a jury trial, but no lawyer is going to suggest that to a client because he'd be opening himself up to a malpractice suit if he lost at a bench trial.
Having said all of that, I get angry with some of the opinions in cases like this. Even if he is guilty (and his plea says for the record that he is), the idea that we completely ostracize defendants like many would completely works against the idea of trying to make sure defendants don't repeat their mistakes. When we make it impossible to find housing and jobs and make them pariahs in the community, we vastly increase the chances of recidivism. A teenager commits a crime, regardless of how hideous, completes the process that comes with a conviction, and then we take every opportunity away from him to establish a normal life or to reach his potential as a human being? Just make sure they do what they are supposed to do, but blocking all doors to future success doesn't do anyone any good we certainly don't improve society by assuring that such individuals have no path to redemption by purposely inserting roadblocks that guarantee they will never become productive members of society.
I agree with the majority of what you or saying. Especially when it comes to criminals who's crimes were about making money. If their ability to make money is taken away of coarse they will most likely revert back to the illegal way of doing it. I just have a much stronger view of sex crimes. I don't believe our punishments fit the crime at all.
This thread has run its natural baseball-related course. We all know the update to the story. We've read two articles that cast very different lights on the matter. We've had some back-and-forth among our members, including some informed comments by people with relevant experience.
I think it's time to shut it down before the comments get more personal.