Signing Luke Heimlich: Acceptable or Quit being a fan worthy?

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm sorry, but no way am I pleading guilty to that if I'm innocent. You're 15. You know how creepy it is to touch a little kid.

Edited March 7, 2019 by soxfan2014

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

27 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Yah its fucked up.  No doubt about it.  Not saying she made it up, but its not out the realm of possibility.  I have no idea, nor do you.  

Huh?

Here is my case. She said it happened multiple times - over multiple years. The child described to the cops what happened. Luke was charged. He admitted he did it. So now, we have a child telling the story, the police pursuing it and the person accused admitting it. That seems pretty cut and dry.

Luke then becomes potentially rich and famous, this resurfaces, he now denies it because he figures that's his only way out. 

So not only did we have an accusation but also a conviction and a confession. You somehow think the side you're sitting in in this discussion has equal standing or facts behind it. No. You have one guy saying nope, never happened.

[ChiSox59]

12 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Huh?

Here is my case. She said it happened multiple times - over multiple years. The child described to the cops what happened. Luke was charged. He admitted he did it. So now, we have a child telling the story, the police pursuing it and the person accused admitting it. That seems pretty cut and dry.

Luke then becomes potentially rich and famous, this resurfaces, he now denies it because he figures that's his only way out. 

So not only did we have an accusation but also a conviction and a confession. You somehow think the side you're sitting in in this discussion has equal standing or facts behind it. No. You have one guy saying nope, never happened.

To be honest, I haven't read about it recently.  I read the SI article when it was released a year or two ago.  Haven't thought much about it since.  But IIRC (I may not be recalling correctly), he never actually "admitted" to doing it.  He plead guilty because he was 15 years old and that is what his parents and his attorney told him to do.  As a part of pleading guilty, he was forced to write some sort of letter of apology that people have since said was a confession, he said he was forced to write it.  IIRC, he has stated that he only plead guilty, in addition to being advised to do such by his attorney and parents, because he was told this would be expunged from his record when he turned 18 if he completed some type of rehab, which IIRC, he did, and that he'd be able to move on with his life.  

I don't sit on any particular side.  If he did what he is accused of doing, its beyond fucked up.  As others have said, he's lucky he was a minor or he'd be jail and maybe not even alive.  But since this went down, he's done what he's been told to do.  All his college teammates speak very highly of him.  IIRC, he's made some sort of amends with his brother (father of the girl). It was supposed to be expunged from his record and the only reason it is public is a clerical error and the fact that some journalist found something that wasn't supposed to legally be there when doing some digging.  I am not of the belief the major league baseball is only for people of moral superiority.  I don't think the kid should never be allowed to work a day in his life over something he was accused of doing when he was 15.  I completely understand why teams haven't touched him with a 15 foot pole.  I wouldn't want my team to do so.  But I do think at some point, somehow, he will be given a chance, and that chance will probably be full of conditions as it should be.  

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

32 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

To be honest, I haven't read about it recently.  I read the SI article when it was released a year or two ago.  Haven't thought much about it since.  But IIRC (I may not be recalling correctly), he never actually "admitted" to doing it.  He plead guilty because he was 15 years old and that is what his parents and his attorney told him to do.  As a part of pleading guilty, he was forced to write some sort of letter of apology that people have since said was a confession, he said he was forced to write it.  IIRC, he has stated that he only plead guilty, in addition to being advised to do such by his attorney and parents, because he was told this would be expunged from his record when he turned 18 if he completed some type of rehab, which IIRC, he did, and that he'd be able to move on with his life.  

I don't sit on any particular side.  If he did what he is accused of doing, its beyond fucked up.  As others have said, he's lucky he was a minor or he'd be jail and maybe not even alive.  But since this went down, he's done what he's been told to do.  All his college teammates speak very highly of him.  IIRC, he's made some sort of amends with his brother (father of the girl). It was supposed to be expunged from his record and the only reason it is public is a clerical error and the fact that some journalist found something that wasn't supposed to legally be there when doing some digging.  I am not of the belief the major league baseball is only for people of moral superiority.  I don't think the kid should never be allowed to work a day in his life over something he was accused of doing when he was 15.  I completely understand why teams haven't touched him with a 15 foot pole.  I wouldn't want my team to do so.  But I do think at some point, somehow, he will be given a chance, and that chance will probably be full of conditions as it should be.  

What you read is wrong. He literally put his confession in writing.

"I admit that I had sexual contact" with the girl, Heimlich wrote.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Nothing was fully expunged. You're reading some PR nonsense put out by team Luke that was damage control. His felony conviction would show up on a background check.

He had/has to register as a sex offender the rest of his life. He had to register as one in college. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Jack Parkman]

5 hours ago, Superstar Lamar said:

There was a very thorough article about the situation a couple of years ago in, I believe, SI that is worth a read.

One interesting excerpt, among many, was a third party expert in the field detailing that recidivism among underage people who commit the crime but undergo proper treatment is incredibly low.  I don't know how much that changes anyone's analysis.

Personally, I don't think we have to entirely forgive and forget but you also cannot damn a 20 or so year old guy to walking the earth alone unworthy of employment once he has paid his debt.  I also don't romanticize a job in baseball as some special privilege bestowed on only the purest.  If he were hired for the lowest job you can think of, would you hate the company that hired him?  If so, then you are essentially saying he should never have employment.  In my opinion that position leads to additional legal problems against society in the future.

I may find it repugnant but my line of thinking has to lead to an answer that I wouldn't be against the Sox hiring him.  Obviously there would have to be restrictions on his employment.

 

5 hours ago, cjgalloway said:

This is the winner post

Agreed. I find it disgusting and appalling, I think that he probably did it. We have to talk, as a society, about how to handle sex offenders.  We can't release sex offenders from jail if they then become unemployable. Either they have to be allowed to participate in society with restrictions, or sex offenses carry an automatic life sentence. You can't release these people from jail and  they have no way to sustain themselves. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[ChiSox59]

5 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

What you read is wrong. He literally put his confession in writing.

"I admit that I had sexual contact" with the girl, Heimlich wrote.

Direct quote from the SI article, that perhaps you should read.

"Asked last month the core question that any employer, teammate or neighbor going forward will ask—Why plead guilty to so heinous a crime, and write, "I admit that I had sexual contact with my niece," if it were not true?—Heimlich replied, evenly:

"I had several conversations with my mom, with my dad, and ultimately it came down to: We thought that this was going to be the best route for me and my family, knowing that it was basically a he-said/she-said. In the court of law we didn't really think I stood a fair chance; that was the advice we had been given. So we thought that pleading guilty was going to give me the best chance at a normal life, and our family a best chance at reconnecting and being able to just kind of move past this whole event."

The precise moments when he wrote his admission of guilt and signed his name, Heimlich says, were "definitely emotional. It wasn't easy for any of us. I definitely think at the time we didn't understand the magnitude of the situation, either." But he blames no one else for the decision.

"We didn't have all the answers, clearly," Heimlich says. "We didn't know what was going to happen. I would never say I was pushed into pleading guilty by either of my parents, because ultimately I can make decisions for myself—and I was the one that wrote my name down and pled guilty."

Throughout the judicial process, two words stuck in Heimlich's mind: five years. After that, he was sure, "This'll be like it never happened," he says. "It'll all be done... . So for those five years, or mainly the first two or three where I was in Washington and had to do more stuff on probation, it was, I just need to follow every rule to a T, and then when the five years come I'll be fine. I was not doing anything to go out of my way to talk to somebody or confront anybody. It was, just, What do I need to do? Tell me, I'll do it, and we'll be good."

Among experts on juvenile sex offenders, the disconnect between the two Lukes is not surprising. "Either the kid didn't do it or he did it and he's in some form of denial: Neither one is unusual," said Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law. "To be innocent and plead guilty to something is not unusual." She then quoted a line from a national columnist's February condemnation of Heimlich and OSU: If you were absolutely innocent—as Heimlich contended—how many of you would plead guilty to felony child molestation simply to avoid trial? Thought so.

Frazier sighed. "That's another instance where, if you're a practitioner in this world, you're ripping your hair out," she said. "I'm, like, Dude, this happens all the time."

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Direct quote from the SI article, that perhaps you should read.

"Asked last month the core question that any employer, teammate or neighbor going forward will ask—Why plead guilty to so heinous a crime, and write, "I admit that I had sexual contact with my niece," if it were not true?—Heimlich replied, evenly:

"I had several conversations with my mom, with my dad, and ultimately it came down to: We thought that this was going to be the best route for me and my family, knowing that it was basically a he-said/she-said. In the court of law we didn't really think I stood a fair chance; that was the advice we had been given. So we thought that pleading guilty was going to give me the best chance at a normal life, and our family a best chance at reconnecting and being able to just kind of move past this whole event."

The precise moments when he wrote his admission of guilt and signed his name, Heimlich says, were "definitely emotional. It wasn't easy for any of us. I definitely think at the time we didn't understand the magnitude of the situation, either." But he blames no one else for the decision.

"We didn't have all the answers, clearly," Heimlich says. "We didn't know what was going to happen. I would never say I was pushed into pleading guilty by either of my parents, because ultimately I can make decisions for myself—and I was the one that wrote my name down and pled guilty."

Throughout the judicial process, two words stuck in Heimlich's mind: five years. After that, he was sure, "This'll be like it never happened," he says. "It'll all be done... . So for those five years, or mainly the first two or three where I was in Washington and had to do more stuff on probation, it was, I just need to follow every rule to a T, and then when the five years come I'll be fine. I was not doing anything to go out of my way to talk to somebody or confront anybody. It was, just, What do I need to do? Tell me, I'll do it, and we'll be good."

Among experts on juvenile sex offenders, the disconnect between the two Lukes is not surprising. "Either the kid didn't do it or he did it and he's in some form of denial: Neither one is unusual," said Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law. "To be innocent and plead guilty to something is not unusual." She then quoted a line from a national columnist's February condemnation of Heimlich and OSU: If you were absolutely innocent—as Heimlich contended—how many of you would plead guilty to felony child molestation simply to avoid trial? Thought so.

Frazier sighed. "That's another instance where, if you're a practitioner in this world, you're ripping your hair out," she said. "I'm, like, Dude, this happens all the time."

Yes, I am quoting the police statement and you are quoting some story put out by the heimlich PR campaign.

[ChiSox59]

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Yes, I am quoting the police statement and you are quoting some story put out by the heimlich PR campaign.

Sounds good.  Don't really care to discuss this with you any further.  Whole situation is obviously fucked up, and I think we can both agree on that.  Chances of the Sox signing him are pretty much zero, so not really worth discussing here.  

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Sounds good.  Don't really care to discuss this with you any further.  Whole situation is obviously fucked up, and I think we can both agree on that.  Chances of the Sox signing him are pretty much zero, so not really worth discussing here.  

Ok, but youre still putting some blame on the victim here which is absolutely absurd, imo.

Victim shaming a victim that was 6 at the time and that the accused admitted to the act. Of course hes gonna say he didn't do it now.

Edit: not sure victim shaming is the right word, but your implication is that she could have been complicit in setting up Luke at 6 years old and I just don't by it.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Ok, but youre still putting some blame on the victim here which is absolutely absurd, imo.

Victim shaming a victim that was 6 at the time and that the accused admitted to the act. Of course hes gonna say he didn't do it now.

Who is victim shaming?

That phrase doesnt even make sense for this case. 

[ChiSox59]

7 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Ok, but youre still putting some blame on the victim here which is absolutely absurd, imo.

Victim shaming a victim that was 6 at the time and that the accused admitted to the act. Of course hes gonna say he didn't do it now.

Edit: not sure victim shaming is the right word, but your implication is that she could have been complicit in setting up Luke at 6 years old and I just don't by it.

JFC, I am not putting blame on anyone, or am I victim shaming.  I am providing context to people that may have not have cared to read more about the story.  Its not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be or the kid would have been kicked out of school immediately and never allowed to play in the NCAA.  Your mind has clearly been made up in this case.  That's fine. I personally think there is quite a bit of gray area, and that a mistake a kid may or may not have made when he is 15 is enough to punish him for his entire life.  /end of discussion 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 minute ago, ChiSox59 said:

JFC, I am not putting blame on anyone, or am I victim shaming.  I am providing context to people that may have not have cared to read more about the story.  Its not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be or the kid would have been kicked out of school immediately and never allowed to play in the NCAA.  Your mind has clearly been made up in this case.  That's fine. I personally think there is quite a bit of gray area, and that a mistake a kid may or may not have made when he is 15 is enough to punish him for his entire life.  /end of discussion 

Of course it's cut and dry.

I have no idea how anyone could argue otherwise. Plenty of convicted murderers deny the crime - does that mean it didn't happen? The only person who has ever said he didn't do it is Luke heimlich himself. Sorry if I'm not sold. Have a good one.

NCAA has no felony clause so no he wouldn't have been kicked out. 

[ChiSox59]

11 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Of course it's cut and dry.

I have no idea how anyone could argue otherwise. Plenty of convicted murderers deny the crime - does that mean it didn't happen? The only person who has ever said he didn't do it is Luke heimlich himself. Sorry if I'm not sold. Have a good one.

NCAA has no felony clause so no he wouldn't have been kicked out. 

Cut and dried would mean there is tangible physical evidence tying him to the crime, not he said/she said of a 6 year child and 15 year old kid.  There is no physical evidence that I am aware of.  

Generally speaking, people aren't convicted of murder without any physical evidence (obviously there are exceptions). 

[southsideirish71]

10 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Cut and dried would mean there is tangible physical evidence tying him to the crime, not he said/she said of a 6 year child and 15 year old kid.  There is no physical evidence that I am aware of.  



Generally speaking, people aren't convicted of murder without any physical evidence (obviously there are exceptions). 



Physical Evidence?  This isn't a CSI show.  She said he touched her, he said he touched her.   I don't need Perry Mason to figure this out for us.   

 

[Jack Parkman]

9 hours ago, The Sir said:

Without getting too political, I think convicted pedophiles should receive the death penalty. So that’s where I stand.

BUT...

Something that mitigates in this case is that Luke was 15. This isn’t a 30 year old who was predating on children. He himself was a child, albeit a slightly more developed one. Still, if an adult had sex with him around the time he did this, we would all pretty much agree that he lacked the ability to properly consent, no matter what words were coming out of his mouth. So how can we look at this situation and say that he had the full mental capacity to understand what he was doing and how insanely wrong it was?

I find this hilarious coming from you, given your previous positions in the Filibuster. In order to keep this about the topic at hand and not get political, if you want to discuss feel free to PM me. I'd love to hear your rationale for this stance. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Soxbadger]

34 minutes ago, southsideirish71 said:

Physical Evidence?  This isn't a CSI show.  She said he touched her, he said he touched her.   I don't need Perry Mason to figure this out for us.   

 

But the problem is that people are conveniently ignoring the fact that at the time he confessed he was a minor. In the eyes of the law, minors are not even capable of entering into contracts. His lawyer and family advised him to take the deal. 

Its easy to say now that it blew up, that it was bad to confess if he was innocent. But if it never came out in the open, if he was drafted in the first round and making millions, then confessing to a crime he didnt commit may have been the best decision he ever made.

Trials are extremely risky, even with his current outcome it may have been better that he avoided trial, even if he was innocent.

 

[Superstar Lamar]

6 hours ago, The Sir said:

After further reflection, I think this is the crux of it for me. Due to mitigating factors such as his own youth when the offense occurred, society determined that he didn't have to rot in prison for the rest of his life. He should be thankful for that. Nowhere does it mean he deserves an amazing job with a millionaire salary.

As I said in my earlier post, I don't view employment in baseball to be something sacred.  It's a meritocracy.  He deserves a shot at the job if his talent is sufficient.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Superstar Lamar

[Jose Abreu]

 

[southsider2k5]

And let's be honest here, if this kid couldn't pitch, there wouldn't be a single person out there defending him, or wanting him around their own children.  As an employer, I damned well know I wouldn't want to hire him and have him around children as much as he will be as a major league athlete, or even a MiLB one.  Not to mention that the risk here, even if it isn't high, would destroy a franchise if another incident happened, or even was accused of happening.

[greg775]

Personally I would not sign him if I were the Sox.  There's just no reason to go there if you are running a business. Am I against him ever working again? Man it's a tough topic. I don't know. I'd like to hear opinions from people much smarter than me. Would it be proper to ask the victim what she wants him to achieve out of his life? Would she be OK with him working again?

Edited March 7, 2019 by greg775

[turnin' two]

There was a contingent here last year that was all about drafting him, especially late due to "value".  And while he has the - right to work and have a job -- he is in no way entitled to play in MLB.  

This is a no,  just no.  Not at all.  Not ever.  

[turnin' two]

39 minutes ago, Superstar Lamar said:

As I said in my earlier post, I don't view employment in baseball to be something sacred.  It's a meritocracy.  He deserves a shot at the job if his talent is sufficient.

But you are a very public representative of your team.  You are interacting with fans.  No.  Just no.

[turnin' two]

1 hour ago, southsideirish71 said:

Physical Evidence?  This isn't a CSI show.  She said he touched her, he said he touched her.   I don't need Perry Mason to figure this out for us.   

 

Yeah, Columbo would be sufficient I think.  

Jessica Fletcher?

Shawn Spencer?

Diagnosis Murder?

Any of those would work.

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by turnin' two

[Jake]

First of all, as a general rule I strongly dislike the idea of sex offender registries and so on. If you're a menace to society, then you can't be in society. If your punishment is over, your punishment is over. People who commit crimes and serve their punishment should be allowed to be full participants in society. Everybody wants to say that sure the person shouldn't be in prison, but they shouldn't be allowed to do [insert whatever thing here].

This was I believe the most complete reporting on what happened: https://portlandtribune.com/pt/12-sports/385703-274945-penalties-paid-heimlich-ready-to-return-for-beavers-baseball

From the public safety perspective, it appears experts believe Heimlich is a very low risk to re-offend. His court-appointed therapist told the court he should have his restrictions as soon as allowed, saying they "do nothing to protect the community and serve no other useful purpose." The only reason this ultimately came to light was an error on the part of state police in Oregon, who misunderstood the laws under which Heimlich was sentenced. If not for the news coverage, a criminal background check would not yield any results for Heimlich. He is not a registered sex offender. In the eyes of the law, he has no criminal history.

Heimlich has only "admitted" to the offense under a single circumstance: his guilty plea required him to write an apology letter that had to be written as if he committed the offense. Maybe that's enough for you to say he is an admitted offender, but in my view it would be very naive to assume that only guilty people take guilty pleas.

The alternative that Heimlich faced after the accusation against him was to fight in a quasi-court setting (this is the juvenile justice system, not the court us adults at Soxtalk would go to if we were accused of such crimes). Heimlich's lawyer, the family says, advised that in such juvenile proceedings the accuser is always believed unless they are unequivocally proven wrong. There was an unusual circumstance here in that when Heimlich's brother divorced, he was granted full custody of the child. Nobody has said publicly why that happened but it is not what typically happens. It was understood that Heimlich's brother would see his custody questioned if he didn't react appropriately to this accusation. This is just to say that there was much more at stake here than Heimlich's own interests.

So I don't know what he did. I think there's a chance he is innocent as he claims. The best evidence against him is that the child told somebody it happened; I'm generally inclined to believe the accuser and I wouldn't sign Heimlich if I wasn't comfortable with the possibility that he did what he was accused of doing. I would advise against using his guilty plea as evidence of his guilt as there was abundant reason for an innocent person in his situation to accept the deal offered to him: go to counseling, avoid the niece, and after a few years it's all over and nobody will ever find out (unless some police officer in another state accidentally leaks your name into the public record). The alternative is a drawn out hearing process that will likely ruin your relationship with several members of the family and if found guilty, time in juvenile detention.

All that being said, I'm not hoping for the Sox to sign him no matter how talented he may be — I'm thinking he's being overrated just because he's basically untouchable — because the Sox are not exactly in a position where they have built up goodwill they can burn on a controversial thing like this.