Oregon State silent as Luke Heimlich is somehow allowed to return to the diamond

real green posted:

Iowamom23 posted:

RJM posted:

There are two lessons to be learned. One relates to the follow up story. Don’t go cheap on a lawyer. Get the best one available. 

The second relates to the original issue. Follow all the rules. Had Heimlich registered in the state of Oregon when he started college chances are none of this would have become public. 

According to the second story — "Shortly after his 21st birthday — Feb. 3, 2017 — he received a citation from Benton County for failure to re-register. Oregon officials had incorrectly determined him to be a resident of the state. Washington state rules do not require re-registration on a 21st birthday. Heimlich's attorney, Stephen Ensor, took the case to court, and the citation was dismissed."

Here's what I think all of us as parents should take from this story, and instill in our sons. Be careful. Whether you are guilty or innocent, just an accusation will do more than ruin your career, it will ruin your life.

I wonder if there is a civil suit pending.  His records are now sealed.  Benton County incorrectly cited him which brought his juvenile case to public light.  Without the citation his quilty plea would have never impacted Heimlich's career or his potential earnings.  

Interesting point. I would think if he doesn't get drafted again, he would at least look at a suit.

hshuler posted:

RJM posted:

Smitty28 posted:

Dominik85 posted:

I can't judge what happened but I find it hard to believe that a healthy family would allow his teenage son to plead guilty for something he didn't do. His life is basically over now, no pro team or company will ever give him a job. If the family knew he was innocent they are terrible people. A charge for a sex crime doesn't automatically mean you get sentenced.

I'm sceptical of this story, who makes his underaged kid admit raping a kindergarten kid when he didn't do it?

 

 

 

You can't see that the family patriarch would want to protect his grand daughter and "make this go away" by having his son plead guilty as a minor and take probation?

After the fact he was told their were better legal options. I would have consulted several lawyers and spent whatever it cost for a better result even if it meant taking a loan out against my house.

What if, hypothetically, they had nothing to spend and no equity in the house? Then what?

Sometimes people gets the short end of the stick because they simply don’t have the means to afford any lawyer, much less a good one. 

And sometimes they don't know the difference.

Iowamom23 posted:

hshuler posted:

RJM posted:

Smitty28 posted:

Dominik85 posted:

I can't judge what happened but I find it hard to believe that a healthy family would allow his teenage son to plead guilty for something he didn't do. His life is basically over now, no pro team or company will ever give him a job. If the family knew he was innocent they are terrible people. A charge for a sex crime doesn't automatically mean you get sentenced.

I'm sceptical of this story, who makes his underaged kid admit raping a kindergarten kid when he didn't do it?

 

 

 

You can't see that the family patriarch would want to protect his grand daughter and "make this go away" by having his son plead guilty as a minor and take probation?

After the fact he was told their were better legal options. I would have consulted several lawyers and spent whatever it cost for a better result even if it meant taking a loan out against my house.

What if, hypothetically, they had nothing to spend and no equity in the house? Then what?

Sometimes people gets the short end of the stick because they simply don’t have the means to afford any lawyer, much less a good one. 

And sometimes they don't know the difference.

Agreed!

Dominik85 posted:

I can't judge what happened but I find it hard to believe that a healthy family would allow his teenage son to plead guilty for something he didn't do. His life is basically over now, no pro team or company will ever give him a job. If the family knew he was innocent they are terrible people. A charge for a sex crime doesn't automatically mean you get sentenced.

I'm sceptical of this story, who makes his underaged kid admit raping a kindergarten kid when he didn't do it?

 

 

 

This is what has been bothering me (former investigator and all...) If he didn't do it, there's no need to protect the alleged victim from testifying. The only way the family's advice makes any sense is if they felt there was a chance he did it.

Matt13 posted:

Dominik85 posted:

I can't judge what happened but I find it hard to believe that a healthy family would allow his teenage son to plead guilty for something he didn't do. His life is basically over now, no pro team or company will ever give him a job. If the family knew he was innocent they are terrible people. A charge for a sex crime doesn't automatically mean you get sentenced.

I'm sceptical of this story, who makes his underaged kid admit raping a kindergarten kid when he didn't do it?

 

 

 

This is what has been bothering me (former investigator and all...) If he didn't do it, there's no need to protect the alleged victim from testifying. The only way the family's advice makes any sense is if they felt there was a chance he did it.

Not sure I understand... if he didn't do it, then that would mean the girl is lying and his lawyer would have to shred her on the stand, something Grandpa doesn't want to see.  What am I missing?

Smitty28 posted:

Matt13 posted:

Dominik85 posted:

I can't judge what happened but I find it hard to believe that a healthy family would allow his teenage son to plead guilty for something he didn't do. His life is basically over now, no pro team or company will ever give him a job. If the family knew he was innocent they are terrible people. A charge for a sex crime doesn't automatically mean you get sentenced.

I'm sceptical of this story, who makes his underaged kid admit raping a kindergarten kid when he didn't do it?

 

 

 

This is what has been bothering me (former investigator and all...) If he didn't do it, there's no need to protect the alleged victim from testifying. The only way the family's advice makes any sense is if they felt there was a chance he did it.

Not sure I understand... if he didn't do it, then that would mean the girl is lying and his lawyer would have to shred her on the stand, something Grandpa doesn't want to see.  What am I missing?

If she's lying, it wouldn't require shredding. Furthermore, it would establish that the mother was setting it up and providing evidence to remove the child from a manipulative and abusive parent, which would be far preferable (unless the father--the accused's brother--is a total POS, in which case why sacrifice an innocent teenager?)

There are many different meanings to some words.  Molestation for instance.  It could very well mean rape or in this case it means "The charge, brought forth by the ex-wife of Heimlich's brother and mother of his niece, was that Luke inappropriately touched the girl in a private area of her body at his family's home in Puyallup, Washington, at least twice when he was age 13 to 15 and she 4 to 6, from 2010-12."

Another one is "custody" as it pertains to a child. In this case "Josh was married for a few years to his ex-wife, who has moved out of state. Soon after their divorce, Josh was granted custody of their two children. The mother had visitation rights that allowed her to have the children with her over Christmas holidays and for a portion of the summer."

When a child is interviewed for sexual assault of any kind it can be traumatic.  When a nontrained person, like a parent, attempts to interview a child it is often done in a manner that would lead a 6 year old to the answers the questioner wants to hear.  

The way it worked in the case I was on a juror for went like:

Adult: Did Mr. Jones ever touch you in a bad way?

kid: no

adult: he never touched your head, or your body?

kid: well yeah he has touched me

Kid was thinking about getting spun around in the yard, but mom calls three other parents to question their kids, and more leading questions followed. When the moms didn't like the answers they asked the same things in different ways until the kids said yes, then repeated the stories their parents unwittingly helped them concoct when the police were called.

Matt13 posted:

Smitty28 posted:

Matt13 posted:

Dominik85 posted:

I can't judge what happened but I find it hard to believe that a healthy family would allow his teenage son to plead guilty for something he didn't do. His life is basically over now, no pro team or company will ever give him a job. If the family knew he was innocent they are terrible people. A charge for a sex crime doesn't automatically mean you get sentenced.

I'm sceptical of this story, who makes his underaged kid admit raping a kindergarten kid when he didn't do it?

 

 

 

This is what has been bothering me (former investigator and all...) If he didn't do it, there's no need to protect the alleged victim from testifying. The only way the family's advice makes any sense is if they felt there was a chance he did it.

Not sure I understand... if he didn't do it, then that would mean the girl is lying and his lawyer would have to shred her on the stand, something Grandpa doesn't want to see.  What am I missing?

If she's lying, it wouldn't require shredding. Furthermore, it would establish that the mother was setting it up and providing evidence to remove the child from a manipulative and abusive parent, which would be far preferable (unless the father--the accused's brother--is a total POS, in which case why sacrifice an innocent teenager?)

Hmmm, well I'm glad I wasn't involved in making this decision.  I would have come to the exact opposite conclusion - i.e., if the kid is innocent, why risk jail time?

I think people immediately assume guilt after an accusation (#metoo).  Lives are ruined before a trial.  A 15 yo boy in my daughters class was at a party when a girl yelled rape as a parent walked in. Boy completely naked runs and hides in the bushes. Police called. Boy arrested and spends the night in jail. Social media destroys the kid for days.  My daughter who was his friend says she can't imagine he would do that but doesn't know what to believe...and she's his friend.  Kid leaves the school enrolls in a private school where parents start a petition to have him removed.  A month later it is revealed that this is the third school and third boy this girl has accused. She moves away.  We are so politically correct that you can't question a victim.  If you are accused there are bad consequences regardless.   I have no idea if this kid did it or not, I'm pretty sure he has faced some steep consequences either way.

baseballhs posted:

I think people immediately assume guilt after an accusation (#metoo).  Lives are ruined before a trial.  A 15 yo boy in my daughters class was at a party when a girl yelled rape as a parent walked in. Boy completely naked runs and hides in the bushes. Police called. Boy arrested and spends the night in jail. Social media destroys the kid for days.  My daughter who was his friend says she can't imagine he would do that but doesn't know what to believe...and she's his friend.  Kid leaves the school enrolls in a private school where parents start a petition to have him removed.  A month later it is revealed that this is the third school and third boy this girl has accused. She moves away.  We are so politically correct that you can't question a victim.  If you are accused there are bad consequences regardless.   I have no idea if this kid did it or not, I'm pretty sure he has faced some steep consequences either way.

We haven't really heard the girls side of the story or her mother's.  So this is a tough case to judge.  It does seem like his school and teammates believe his side.  

It is sad that despite our lip service of innocent until proven guilty, we as a society assume guilt until proven innocent. Think Duke LA Crosse team.  The accuser is supposed to bring evidence supporting their accusation, not the accused  having to be the one proving their innocence.  All to often, however,  that is what has to be done, especially in sexual cases such as this or the current harassment climate.  Especially for middle or working class families that can not afford high powered attorneys, How do you prove that you did not touch any one.  It is not as if there is negative DNA.  You do not have evidence that you did not do something. If your sons and daughters were accused by a parent of a child  that they baby sat, a close relative or family friend, especially if the parents are now vindictive or have ulterior motives how can your child prove that they did not do anything unless you  have a credible eye witness with you.  It is  very tough to prove a negative. Without an alibi how do you prove you did not do it. We do not know if the  child's side had evidence proving guilt or not but we do know he as always maintained his innocence, a trained therapist could not get him to admit guilt, a non specific lie detector supported him and his mother claims he was never with alone with the child, but the attorney said that a Jury would tend to believe the child anyway.  He was damned if he did it  and damned if he did not 

Innocent people often plead guilty, or settle law suits for lesser sentencing or awards in order to avoid an unpredictable  jury trial. I'm not saying he was innocent, he very well may not be, but  I can easily see scenarios where, despite claiming his innocence, as he always has,, the lawyer and family would settle for a lesser plea, jump through some hoops, and be able to get on with as normal of a life as possible after the case was supposedly sealed. Unfortunately having the State of Oregon make such a serious mistake to 'unseal the plea" was not part of the deal, truly guilty or not.  If I were him and I was innocent as he maintains he is,  I would now spend every last dime I can make looking for any legal way to clear my name.  

The one thing that still stands out to me in the case is that the father/Luke's brother has nothing to do with his brother.  That says his brother has some knowledge of something.  If it were all false and the brother believed it, then he would support his brother and not be removed from him. 

I have a major problem as a parent agreeing to allow one of my sons to take a life altering plea if he was innocent to protect the other.  That is just wrong as a parent. 

PitchingFan posted:

The one thing that still stands out to me in the case is that the father/Luke's brother has nothing to do with his brother.  That says his brother has some knowledge of something.  If it were all false and the brother believed it, then he would support his brother and not be removed from him. 

I have a major problem as a parent agreeing to allow one of my sons to take a life altering plea if he was innocent to protect the other.  That is just wrong as a parent. 

As a dad, would you believe your daughter or brother?  He had to choose a side and did. 

Thank God that I don’t have to make that choice but I think most dads would believe their daughter. 

Also, not choosing to side with his daughter would have put him at risk for losing custody of her, right?

2boydad posted:

It is sad that despite our lip service of innocent until proven guilty, we as a society assume guilt until proven innocent. Think Duke LA Crosse team.  The accuser is supposed to bring evidence supporting their accusation, not the accused  having to be the one proving their innocence.  All to often, however,  that is what has to be done, especially in sexual cases such as this or the current harassment climate.  Especially for middle or working class families that can not afford high powered attorneys, How do you prove that you did not touch any one.  It is not as if there is negative DNA.  You do not have evidence that you did not do something. If your sons and daughters were accused by a parent of a child  that they baby sat, a close relative or family friend, especially if the parents are now vindictive or have ulterior motives how can your child prove that they did not do anything unless you  have a credible eye witness with you.  It is  very tough to prove a negative. Without an alibi how do you prove you did not do it. We do not know if the  child's side had evidence proving guilt or not but we do know he as always maintained his innocence, a trained therapist could not get him to admit guilt, a non specific lie detector supported him and his mother claims he was never with alone with the child, but the attorney said that a Jury would tend to believe the child anyway.  He was damned if he did it  and damned if he did not 

Innocent people often plead guilty, or settle law suits for lesser sentencing or awards in order to avoid an unpredictable  jury trial. I'm not saying he was innocent, he very well may not be, but  I can easily see scenarios where, despite claiming his innocence, as he always has,, the lawyer and family would settle for a lesser plea, jump through some hoops, and be able to get on with as normal of a life as possible after the case was supposedly sealed. Unfortunately having the State of Oregon make such a serious mistake to 'unseal the plea" was not part of the deal, truly guilty or not.  If I were him and I was innocent as he maintains he is,  I would now spend every last dime I can make looking for any legal way to clear my name.  

Duke Lacrosse is a perfect example of what we have become.    If you have not, watch the ESPN 30 30 "Fantastic Lies."  It is simply unbelievable what happened in that case.  Unfortunately, we haven't learned a thing. 

Golfman25 posted:

2boydad posted:

It is sad that despite our lip service of innocent until proven guilty, we as a society assume guilt until proven innocent. Think Duke LA Crosse team.  The accuser is supposed to bring evidence supporting their accusation, not the accused  having to be the one proving their innocence.  All to often, however,  that is what has to be done, especially in sexual cases such as this or the current harassment climate.  Especially for middle or working class families that can not afford high powered attorneys, How do you prove that you did not touch any one.  It is not as if there is negative DNA.  You do not have evidence that you did not do something. If your sons and daughters were accused by a parent of a child  that they baby sat, a close relative or family friend, especially if the parents are now vindictive or have ulterior motives how can your child prove that they did not do anything unless you  have a credible eye witness with you.  It is  very tough to prove a negative. Without an alibi how do you prove you did not do it. We do not know if the  child's side had evidence proving guilt or not but we do know he as always maintained his innocence, a trained therapist could not get him to admit guilt, a non specific lie detector supported him and his mother claims he was never with alone with the child, but the attorney said that a Jury would tend to believe the child anyway.  He was damned if he did it  and damned if he did not 

Innocent people often plead guilty, or settle law suits for lesser sentencing or awards in order to avoid an unpredictable  jury trial. I'm not saying he was innocent, he very well may not be, but  I can easily see scenarios where, despite claiming his innocence, as he always has,, the lawyer and family would settle for a lesser plea, jump through some hoops, and be able to get on with as normal of a life as possible after the case was supposedly sealed. Unfortunately having the State of Oregon make such a serious mistake to 'unseal the plea" was not part of the deal, truly guilty or not.  If I were him and I was innocent as he maintains he is,  I would now spend every last dime I can make looking for any legal way to clear my name.  

Duke Lacrosse is a perfect example of what we have become.    If you have not, watch the ESPN 30 30 "Fantastic Lies."  It is simply unbelievable what happened in that case.  Unfortunately, we haven't learned a thing. 

The Suke lacrosse players are all 30+ now. The only thing they were guilty of was being drunk and stupid. All these years ,after Reid Seligman says he will forever be Reid Seligman, accused Duke rapist even though it never happened.

There are 2 possibilities. #1: He is innocent & was advised to plead guilty as a 16 year old kid relying on so called "experts." #2: He did engage in the behavior alleged as a 15 year old. The punishment for which, as determined by the DA was zero jail time / Juvenile time.

In the last 5 years this kid has been Zero trouble by all accounts & has been basically a model citizen. At a minimum, I feel it is time to let the kid be & turn the page on trying to extract "consequences" for acts where the punishment has been served according to our legal system guidelines.

Not only has the punishment been served but it has been amplified many fold because the kid has become successful on a National Level in spite of the difficulties. If he was a loser there would be no interest here.

I think a big part of this was the fact he was a minor, none of this should have become public nor should it be part of his life at this point in time. I feel that had to be a factor in the family choice to plead guilty.

The State Oregon screwed up really bad and nobody seems to have any concern on that part. I am long way from a bleeding heart but this whole story seems to be missing some important info which allows for speculation that seldom ends well for anyone.

PitchingFan posted:

The one thing that still stands out to me in the case is that the father/Luke's brother has nothing to do with his brother.  That says his brother has some knowledge of something.  If it were all false and the brother believed it, then he would support his brother and not be removed from him. 

I have a major problem as a parent agreeing to allow one of my sons to take a life altering plea if he was innocent to protect the other.  That is just wrong as a parent. 

Your honor my ex husband is still spending time with his brother who plead guilty to molesting our child.  He obviously isn't taking this crime seriously therefor I am petitioning the court that I have full custody of both children, in another state, away from everyone in that family.

That is how that would go if the dad spent time with his brother.  Loose Two of your kids, loose your brother.  No brainer.

Please do NOT speculate as to custody issues.  Being on a jury a few times on your life does NOT qualify you, not to mention we do NOT KNOW THE FACTS ABOUT CUSTODY.  It is not a "no brainer" CACO.  That is not how custody cases work.  The legal standard is the best interests of the child and we have NO IDEA what those may be for this girl!!  ZERO information about it in fact.  Please not just you, but everyone seriously stick to baseball advice and stop giving inaccurate legal advice 

I am a lawyer and I can tell you that even the article posted did not contain all of the evidence.  As I said previously, we do not know whether this kid is guilty -- just because he has said he is innocent does not mean he is, and just because he plead guilty does not mean he is.  

Please refrain from anecdotal evidence to try and prove your points!  Just because Duke lacrosse boys were not guilty, or some of the #MeToo cases may not be, do not have any bearing on this case.  None of us are his parents, his brother or the ex wife, the lawyer(s) involved or even him or the alleged victim. 

This forum is about baseball, and just my opinion we should stop speculating about legal issues in which we do not have full information.  The case was decided.  Oregon State decided to welcome him back to the team.  It is what it is.   

Twoboys posted:

Please do NOT speculate as to custody issues.  Being on a jury a few times on your life does NOT qualify you, not to mention we do NOT KNOW THE FACTS ABOUT CUSTODY.  It is not a "no brainer" CACO.  That is not how custody cases work.  The legal standard is the best interests of the child and we have NO IDEA what those may be for this girl!!  ZERO information about it in fact.  Please not just you, but everyone seriously stick to baseball advice and stop giving inaccurate legal advice 

I am a lawyer and I can tell you that even the article posted did not contain all of the evidence.  As I said previously, we do not know whether this kid is guilty -- just because he has said he is innocent does not mean he is, and just because he plead guilty does not mean he is.  

Please refrain from anecdotal evidence to try and prove your points!  Just because Duke lacrosse boys were not guilty, or some of the #MeToo cases may not be, do not have any bearing on this case.  None of us are his parents, his brother or the ex wife, the lawyer(s) involved or even him or the alleged victim. 

This forum is about baseball, and just my opinion we should stop speculating about legal issues in which we do not have full information.  The case was decided.  Oregon State decided to welcome him back to the team.  It is what it is.   

This entire thread is about your last point and the two articles referenced gave background and information on the story.  Like it or not this is a pretty big baseball story at this point in the season and may get bigger.  For the most part the discussion has been respectful, and I for one have gained a lot of perspective from the various points of view.  Maybe there is a little "people's court" going on, but only to help illustrate a point of view.  You don't need to try to shut down civil discussion just because you don't see a need for it.

I find it interesting that people think that Oregon State gives one iota of thought to what a few posters on a small website think about their decision to allow Heimlich to play. I have been lurking as a guest a long time, and to think anyone’s thought on here matters to them is stupid.

The school is going to do what they feel is best. Best for the school, best for the baseball program and then the player. If the baseball program wants to win, and they think he helps them to win, he’s in the field. If the school is willing to take the heat for it or there isn’t a lot of fallout, he stays at school and in baseball. It’s a risk analysis and they have done their homework. They are either seen as fools or heroes for letting him play. But nobodies opinion on here will influence it one way or another unless you are in the schools administration, athletic department or coaching staff.

GaryMe posted:

I find it interesting that people think that Oregon State gives one iota of thought to what a few posters on a small website think about their decision to allow Heimlich to play. I have been lurking as a guest a long time, and to think anyone’s thought on here matters to them is stupid.

The school is going to do what they feel is best. Best for the school, best for the baseball program and then the player. If the baseball program wants to win, and they think he helps them to win, he’s in the field. If the school is willing to take the heat for it or there isn’t a lot of fallout, he stays at school and in baseball. It’s a risk analysis and they have done their homework. They are either seen as fools or heroes for letting him play. But nobodies opinion on here will influence it one way or another unless you are in the schools administration, athletic department or coaching staff.

We don’t matter. It’s conversation and debate. But I’ll bet there are a lot of people in the baseball world who have an opinion. We will find out what it is in June.

Why June? CWS? If the kid is playing this season, no way they make the mistake of not having him active for CWS. I would have him on the roster, if he played all along the way. The team and school shouldn’t have buckled last year. At least last you there was plausible deniability that they didn’t do their due diligence and were blindsided. Now that excuse is out they window. They own it and all of their chips are pushed to the middle. Win now.

I was not trying to shut any discussion down!  (For the record I am against all forms of censorship).  I was trying to suggest that making anecdotal comments about the legal process, including especially how a custody case gets decided (or re-adjudicated) is just pure speculation, and in some of the comments made even possibly wrong.  My hope was we could stop the legal speculation and perhaps talk about the baseball issues.  

I think by "June" RJM meant the MLB draft. 

Guilty or not (but mostly if he is) the reporter did this girl a hugh disservice, and the adults around her continue to do so. Whats done is done and can't be undone, but the pain and suffering can be alleviated somewhat. 

If I were the mom I would approach the ex about all parties involved sitting down to "work this out". Once a understanding is reached I'd release a statement along these lines. "While the events of the past are unfortunate my family wishes to put them behind us. My daughter is doing well and after receiving help it looks like Luke is also. Luke has fulfilled his obligation to society and our hope is that he be allowed to pursue his dream of playing baseball at the highest level".

At the risk of sounding crass the child wasn't rape repeatedly for years and years. Touched twice. These people are about to piss away a fortune. Spite and revenge won't make this kids future any easier, a few million dollars surly would.

Twoboys posted:

Please do NOT speculate as to custody issues.  Being on a jury a few times on your life does NOT qualify you, not to mention we do NOT KNOW THE FACTS ABOUT CUSTODY.  It is not a "no brainer" CACO.  That is not how custody cases work.  The legal standard is the best interests of the child and we have NO IDEA what those may be for this girl!!  ZERO information about it in fact.  Please not just you, but everyone seriously stick to baseball advice and stop giving inaccurate legal advice 

I am a lawyer and I can tell you that even the article posted did not contain all of the evidence.  As I said previously, we do not know whether this kid is guilty -- just because he has said he is innocent does not mean he is, and just because he plead guilty does not mean he is.  

Please refrain from anecdotal evidence to try and prove your points!  Just because Duke lacrosse boys were not guilty, or some of the #MeToo cases may not be, do not have any bearing on this case.  None of us are his parents, his brother or the ex wife, the lawyer(s) involved or even him or the alleged victim. 

This forum is about baseball, and just my opinion we should stop speculating about legal issues in which we do not have full information.  The case was decided.  Oregon State decided to welcome him back to the team.  It is what it is.   

Sent you a PM.

This is what I mean!  Saying "Spite and revenge won't make this kids future any easier" is making a huge speculative leap.  We have no idea what motivation anyone in this case had.  We have no idea that there is spite or revenge involved, might be, and might be actual truth,  Might be a desire to wreck a nice family, might be a nice family with a dark secret.  WHO KNOWS?  Not people posting on a baseball forum...

Twoboys posted:

This is what I mean!  Saying "Spite and revenge won't make this kids future any easier" is making a huge speculative leap.  We have no idea what motivation anyone in this case had.  We have no idea that there is spite or revenge involved, might be, and might be actual truth,  Might be a desire to wreck a nice family, might be a nice family with a dark secret.  WHO KNOWS?  Not people posting on a baseball forum...

Um, OK....

>including a quote from the niece's mother saying she was "appalled " that Oregon State would have him on its team<

My "spite" quote would seem a somewhat logical conclusion.

Like I said before, maybe actually reading the article thoroughly would be helpful before posting.

And before you go off I said >somewhat<......

And..... my point is these people are handling this very poorly and in no ones best interest.

Twoboys posted:

My hope was we could stop the legal speculation and perhaps talk about the baseball issues.  

Honestly, what baseball issues? This has nothing to do with the kid's ability, unless it's maybe at what point is he so good that it overcomes all concern about what he might or might not have done when he was 15?

This is about public relations, perception, how the criminal justice system can impact kids and other similar issues. It could have happened to someone playing any sport, starring in a Disney movie or anyone else in the public eye.

I think a lot of the speculation is another way of saying "here's why this can't happen to me cause i would have handled it better, my family is more 'normal than this', etc."

And we're all wrong. it could happen to any of us.

Iowamom23 posted:

Twoboys posted:

My hope was we could stop the legal speculation and perhaps talk about the baseball issues.  

Honestly, what baseball issues? This has nothing to do with the kid's ability, unless it's maybe at what point is he so good that it overcomes all concern about what he might or might not have done when he was 15?

This is about public relations, perception, how the criminal justice system can impact kids and other similar issues. It could have happened to someone playing any sport, starring in a Disney movie or anyone else in the public eye.

I think a lot of the speculation is another way of saying "here's why this can't happen to me cause i would have handled it better, my family is more 'normal than this', etc."

And we're all wrong. it could happen to any of us.

I think he means we should drop the subject altogether. He doesn't approve of this thread. Instead of ignoring it and starting his own baseball related thread he'd rather play forum nanny. 

GaryMe posted:

I find it interesting that people think that Oregon State gives one iota of thought to what a few posters on a small website think about their decision to allow Heimlich to play. I have been lurking as a guest a long time, and to think anyone’s thought on here matters to them is stupid.

The school is going to do what they feel is best. Best for the school, best for the baseball program and then the player. If the baseball program wants to win, and they think he helps them to win, he’s in the field. If the school is willing to take the heat for it or there isn’t a lot of fallout, he stays at school and in baseball. It’s a risk analysis and they have done their homework. They are either seen as fools or heroes for letting him play. But nobodies opinion on here will influence it one way or another unless you are in the schools administration, athletic department or coaching staff.

Did I miss the part where someone here suggested their opinion was going to impact what OS does or thinks? Please clarify.

Steve A. posted:

GaryMe posted:

I find it interesting that people think that Oregon State gives one iota of thought to what a few posters on a small website think about their decision to allow Heimlich to play. I have been lurking as a guest a long time, and to think anyone’s thought on here matters to them is stupid.

The school is going to do what they feel is best. Best for the school, best for the baseball program and then the player. If the baseball program wants to win, and they think he helps them to win, he’s in the field. If the school is willing to take the heat for it or there isn’t a lot of fallout, he stays at school and in baseball. It’s a risk analysis and they have done their homework. They are either seen as fools or heroes for letting him play. But nobodies opinion on here will influence it one way or another unless you are in the schools administration, athletic department or coaching staff.

Did I miss the part where someone here suggested their opinion was going to impact what OS does or thinks? Please clarify.

No, there are just a lot of people on this site who seem to be really impressed by their own opinions- including you. Opinions are like ...., everyone has one, but in reality, most of the time nobody cares. I’d take Heimlich in a heartbeat, baggage or not, and win.

GaryMe posted:

Steve A. posted:

GaryMe posted:

I find it interesting that people think that Oregon State gives one iota of thought to what a few posters on a small website think about their decision to allow Heimlich to play. I have been lurking as a guest a long time, and to think anyone’s thought on here matters to them is stupid.

The school is going to do what they feel is best. Best for the school, best for the baseball program and then the player. If the baseball program wants to win, and they think he helps them to win, he’s in the field. If the school is willing to take the heat for it or there isn’t a lot of fallout, he stays at school and in baseball. It’s a risk analysis and they have done their homework. They are either seen as fools or heroes for letting him play. But nobodies opinion on here will influence it one way or another unless you are in the schools administration, athletic department or coaching staff.

Did I miss the part where someone here suggested their opinion was going to impact what OS does or thinks? Please clarify.

No, there are just a lot of people on this site who seem to be really impressed by their own opinions- including you. Opinions are like ...., everyone has one, but in reality, most of the time nobody cares. I’d take Heimlich in a heartbeat, baggage or not, and win.

Gary says "...to think anyone's thought on here matters to them is stupid" and "a lot of people on this site who seem to be really impressed by their own opinions", then he gives us his opinion.  That's a clown move, Bro.

If the thread continues to be poster bashing rather than discusssing a difficult subject it will be shut down. Every opinion counts. Some are just more intelligent and relevant than others. 

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.

 

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/...for-beavers-baseball

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. 

Smitty28 posted:

GaryMe posted:

Steve A. posted:

GaryMe posted:

I find it interesting that people think that Oregon State gives one iota of thought to what a few posters on a small website think about their decision to allow Heimlich to play. I have been lurking as a guest a long time, and to think anyone’s thought on here matters to them is stupid.

The school is going to do what they feel is best. Best for the school, best for the baseball program and then the player. If the baseball program wants to win, and they think he helps them to win, he’s in the field. If the school is willing to take the heat for it or there isn’t a lot of fallout, he stays at school and in baseball. It’s a risk analysis and they have done their homework. They are either seen as fools or heroes for letting him play. But nobodies opinion on here will influence it one way or another unless you are in the schools administration, athletic department or coaching staff.

Did I miss the part where someone here suggested their opinion was going to impact what OS does or thinks? Please clarify.

No, there are just a lot of people on this site who seem to be really impressed by their own opinions- including you. Opinions are like ...., everyone has one, but in reality, most of the time nobody cares. I’d take Heimlich in a heartbeat, baggage or not, and win.

Gary says "...to think anyone's thought on here matters to them is stupid" and "a lot of people on this site who seem to be really impressed by their own opinions", then he gives us his opinion.  That's a clown move, Bro.

You mad, bro? Where did I give an opinion? First, you don’t know me. Second, I know that this subject may be sensitive to a snowflake like yourself, but get real. Nobody gives 2 craps about what a bunch of people on a forum think, you all just come here argue with each other and to see who can be the loudest voice in the room on every topic. Gimme a break. Get over yourself.

GaryMe posted:

Steve A. posted:

GaryMe posted:

I find it interesting that people think that Oregon State gives one iota of thought to what a few posters on a small website think about their decision to allow Heimlich to play. I have been lurking as a guest a long time, and to think anyone’s thought on here matters to them is stupid.

The school is going to do what they feel is best. Best for the school, best for the baseball program and then the player. If the baseball program wants to win, and they think he helps them to win, he’s in the field. If the school is willing to take the heat for it or there isn’t a lot of fallout, he stays at school and in baseball. It’s a risk analysis and they have done their homework. They are either seen as fools or heroes for letting him play. But nobodies opinion on here will influence it one way or another unless you are in the schools administration, athletic department or coaching staff.

Did I miss the part where someone here suggested their opinion was going to impact what OS does or thinks? Please clarify.

No, there are just a lot of people on this site who seem to be really impressed by their own opinions- including you. Opinions are like ...., everyone has one, but in reality, most of the time nobody cares. I’d take Heimlich in a heartbeat, baggage or not, and win.

So you can suggest something completely false ( "people here think that OS gives one iota of thought about what posters on this "small" site think ) & I'm the bad guy because I offered an opinion that the kid has served the punishment & deserves a shot. Yeah Ok buddy, go back in your lurk hole.

Great post by ROOTHOG !   Why are we fighting ?1?1

& 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?