|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Aug 13, 2018 14:24:04 GMT -8
As long as the reporting was accurate, he has no case in court. One must prove that what was written was untrue. It wasn't. End of story.The original story said he was convicted of felony child abuse. He was not, as juveniles cannot be "convicted" of any crime in the state of Washington, much less a felony. Juvenile crimes are adjudicated. Big difference. The Oregonian could not even get the cornerstone fact of the case right. Sadly the ship has simply sailed. There was opportunity for a more concerted defense for LH. I get it, as his parents said recently, on the advice of their lawyer, and because Luke's final review of his diversion was coming up in a matter of weeks, they simply kept their mouths shut. They didn't want to cause any possible reason to jeopardize it. And their silence is all the excuse the little O will ever need to defend anything and every thing they wrote. The Oregonian is under no legal obligation whatsoever to publish all sides of the story, or to give equal voice to any one side or another. That requirement ended in the Reagan administration. It has been practically 30 years in this nation where newspapers and news programming have had full right to report only on the things they choose to report on. They only possible way they could seek legal remedy if is they proved the Oregonian knowingly printed false information with the intend to defame Luke. And while I fully understand he was never a Felon, ever... I also accept it is a technicality, and it would be a really tiny hill to mount a defense on. Like I have said from day one, I do not know if Luke did it or not. I think there is enough suspicious stuff out there to make it reasonably doubtful he did. I think I know enough about the justice system that "pleading guilty" means exactly jack s%#t in my mind. I only accept that by pleading guilty, in the eyes of the law, he was guilty of the crime. But on that very same logic, because he was a juvenile and because of the terms of his plea, He is now nothing. with a fully expunged record he is not even an ex-felon, or an ex-sexual offender. He is a guy with zero record of anything whatsoever. And that is where I think it all sucks. A kid pleads guilty to a juvenile crime when he was a sophomore in high school. 6 years later as an adult, he can't get work in what he is trying to do because of it. That is not the point of the juvenile system. that is not how it is suppose to work. The Oregonian made sure Luke would never work again, regardless of the larger story. Danny Moran and Mark Katches absolutely, 100% destroyed a man's life and career. It is up to you if you feel it was just or not. I do not. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 13, 2018 16:32:25 GMT -8
As long as the reporting was accurate, he has no case in court. One must prove that what was written was untrue. It wasn't. End of story.The original story said he was convicted of felony child abuse. He was not, as juveniles cannot be "convicted" of any crime in the state of Washington, much less a felony. Juvenile crimes are adjudicated. Big difference. The Oregonian could not even get the cornerstone fact of the case right. Source? |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 13, 2018 17:23:35 GMT -8
As long as the reporting was accurate, he has no case in court. One must prove that what was written was untrue. It wasn't. End of story.The original story said he was convicted of felony child abuse. He was not, as juveniles cannot be "convicted" of any crime in the state of Washington, much less a felony. Juvenile crimes are adjudicated. Big difference. The Oregonian could not even get the cornerstone fact of the case right. Sadly the ship has simply sailed. There was opportunity for a more concerted defense for LH. I get it, as his parents said recently, on the advice of their lawyer, and because Luke's final review of his diversion was coming up in a matter of weeks, they simply kept their mouths shut. They didn't want to cause any possible reason to jeopardize it. And their silence is all the excuse the little O will ever need to defend anything and every thing they wrote. The Oregonian is under no legal obligation whatsoever to publish all sides of the story, or to give equal voice to any one side or another. That requirement ended in the Reagan administration. It has been practically 30 years in this nation where newspapers and news programming have had full right to report only on the things they choose to report on. They only possible way they could seek legal remedy if is they proved the Oregonian knowingly printed false information with the intend to defame Luke. And while I fully understand he was never a Felon, ever... I also accept it is a technicality, and it would be a really tiny hill to mount a defense on. Like I have said from day one, I do not know if Luke did it or not. I think there is enough suspicious stuff out there to make it reasonably doubtful he did. I think I know enough about the justice system that "pleading guilty" means exactly jack s%#t in my mind. I only accept that by pleading guilty, in the eyes of the law, he was guilty of the crime. But on that very same logic, because he was a juvenile and because of the terms of his plea, He is now nothing. with a fully expunged record he is not even an ex-felon, or an ex-sexual offender. He is a guy with zero record of anything whatsoever. And that is where I think it all sucks. A kid pleads guilty to a juvenile crime when he was a sophomore in high school. 6 years later as an adult, he can't get work in what he is trying to do because of it. That is not the point of the juvenile system. that is not how it is suppose to work. The Oregonian made sure Luke would never work again, regardless of the larger story. Danny Moran and Mark Katches absolutely, 100% destroyed a man's life and career. It is up to you if you feel it was just or not. I do not. Are you talking about the FCC Fairness Doctrine? The FCC Fairness Doctrine never applied to newspapers. And state laws that mandated "fairness" were unanimously held to be unconstitutional as to newspapers in 1974. Further, even if the Fairness Doctrine were to apply, the fact that the Heimlichs refused to comment on it would have allowed The Oregonian to write the article however they saw fit. That fact also does not help a theoretical Luke lawsuit against The Oregonian. If Heimlich were to plead guilty to the analogous juvenile crime in Oregon, he would still be in prison. His earliest release date would be in November. I still maintain that Heimlich went to one of the worst possible states that a person with his background could have went to. If he had gone to pretty much every other state beside Florida, he would probably be playing professional ball right now. Finally, the "journalists" at The Oregonian generated clicks. They did not destroy Luke's life or career. Luke Heimlich did that. Whether he sexually assaulted his niece or not (and he probably did IMO), he admitted in a signed statement to having sexual contact with a six-year-old. You can be mad at the rubes at The Oregonian for pulling the trigger all you would like, but Heimlich loaded the gun and aimed it. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Aug 13, 2018 17:55:06 GMT -8
Are you talking about the FCC Fairness Doctrine? The FCC Fairness Doctrine never applied to newspapers. And state laws that mandated "fairness" were unanimously held to be unconstitutional as to newspapers in 1974. Further, even if the Fairness Doctrine were to apply, the fact that the Heimlichs refused to comment on it would have allowed The Oregonian to write the article however they saw fit. That fact also does not help a theoretical Luke lawsuit against The Oregonian. If Heimlich were to plead guilty to the analogous juvenile crime in Oregon, he would still be in prison. His earliest release date would be in November. I still maintain that Heimlich went to one of the worst possible states that a person with his background could have went to. If he had gone to pretty much every other state beside Florida, he would probably be playing professional ball right now.And how would you feel about that? If he were pitching in games alongside Kwan or Trevor or any of the others? Would you balk at supporting him? I ask because it was a glitch, a foul-up, a mistake that allowed this whole thing to come to light. Until that inauspicious day when Moran published the article, we all stood 100% behind Luke. The hammer fell unwarranted, and the boy's dream was ruined. For what it's worth, when you look out at the boys in Orange and Black, you cannot be 100% certain that there isn't another Luke among them, who by grace or good fortune, is able to keep the past behind him. Kwan, Trevor, or even Nick. Are they clean? How can you be certain? If Luke had done ANYTHING wrong while a Beaver, he would not have my support. But he was clearly doing everything he was supposed to. The law is the law and baseball is baseball. Let the lawyers and judges figure out crimes and punishments and let the umps call the strikes and for all that is holy, let the boys play! |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 13, 2018 17:58:16 GMT -8
Hello. I personally know the author of this site ( justiceforluke.com) and spoke with her yesterday for the first time in a few months. I did not know that she was pursuing this story, but am glad she is. She is a person of high integrity and character--I have known her for over 40 years and can personally attest to this. She presents a compelling case for Luke Heimlich. I am hopeful that one day there will be justice in this case. The ostensible argument for Luke accepting the plea deal and the accompanying implication of guilt was that it protected the young girl from having to endure a potentially traumatic trial. Pursuing a civil case against the Oregonian in open court seems like it would likely carry the same potential for trauma to the young girl in question. So what has changed to eliminate the original stated concern for the girl? |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 13, 2018 18:09:20 GMT -8
Are you talking about the FCC Fairness Doctrine? The FCC Fairness Doctrine never applied to newspapers. And state laws that mandated "fairness" were unanimously held to be unconstitutional as to newspapers in 1974. Further, even if the Fairness Doctrine were to apply, the fact that the Heimlichs refused to comment on it would have allowed The Oregonian to write the article however they saw fit. That fact also does not help a theoretical Luke lawsuit against The Oregonian. If Heimlich were to plead guilty to the analogous juvenile crime in Oregon, he would still be in prison. His earliest release date would be in November. I still maintain that Heimlich went to one of the worst possible states that a person with his background could have went to. If he had gone to pretty much every other state beside Florida, he would probably be playing professional ball right now.And how would you feel about that? If he were pitching in games alongside Kwan or Trevor or any of the others? Would you balk at supporting him? I ask because it was a glitch, a foul-up, a mistake that allowed this whole thing to come to light. Until that inauspicious day when Moran published the article, we all stood 100% behind Luke. The hammer fell unwarranted, and the boy's dream was ruined. For what it's worth, when you look out at the boys in Orange and Black, you cannot be 100% certain that there isn't another Luke among them, who by grace or good fortune, is able to keep the past behind him. Kwan, Trevor, or even Nick. Are they clean? How can you be certain? If Luke had done ANYTHING wrong while a Beaver, he would not have my support. But he was clearly doing everything he was supposed to. The law is the law and baseball is baseball. Let the lawyers and judges figure out crimes and punishments and let the umps call the strikes and for all that is holy, let the boys play! LH is from Washington. One of many Evergreen Staters to find success in Pat Casey's program. But what if he'd decided to play in his home state for either Lindsay Meggs at UW, Marty Lees at WSU or Mark Machtholf at Gonzaga? And instead of the Oregonian, the paper in question would have been the Seattle Times or the Spokesman Review? I think we'd be viewing these circumstances with a different perspective - certainly a less personal one. And sadly, I would not be surprised to see a player for those schools under the exact same set of circumstances subjected to some harsh judgments on this very board. As the old saying goes. "It all depends on whose Ox is being gored". www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-whose-ox-is-gored-mean |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Aug 13, 2018 18:54:30 GMT -8
And how would you feel about that? If he were pitching in games alongside Kwan or Trevor or any of the others? Would you balk at supporting him? I ask because it was a glitch, a foul-up, a mistake that allowed this whole thing to come to light. Until that inauspicious day when Moran published the article, we all stood 100% behind Luke. The hammer fell unwarranted, and the boy's dream was ruined. For what it's worth, when you look out at the boys in Orange and Black, you cannot be 100% certain that there isn't another Luke among them, who by grace or good fortune, is able to keep the past behind him. Kwan, Trevor, or even Nick. Are they clean? How can you be certain? If Luke had done ANYTHING wrong while a Beaver, he would not have my support. But he was clearly doing everything he was supposed to. The law is the law and baseball is baseball. Let the lawyers and judges figure out crimes and punishments and let the umps call the strikes and for all that is holy, let the boys play! LH is from Washington. One of many Evergreen Staters to find success in Pat Casey's program. But what if he'd decided to play in his home state for either Lindsay Meggs at UW, Marty Lees at WSU or Mark Machtholf at Gonzaga? And instead of the Oregonian, the paper in question would have been the Seattle Times or the Spokesman Review? I think we'd be viewing these circumstances with a different perspective - certainly a less personal one. And sadly, I would not be surprised to see a player for those schools under the exact same set of circumstances subjected to some harsh judgments on this very board. As the old saying goes. "It all depends on whose Ox is being gored". www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-whose-ox-is-gored-meanI see your point. But my point is different. My point is simply that since Juvie records are supposed to be sealed, you've probably been rooting for kids who have gotten to trouble in the past but you didn't know it. Certainly, Luke isn't the first boy to come through mighty OSU with a skeleton in the closet. The only difference was that the system worked with the others. With Luke, a stupid glitch allowed the O-rag to out him. So as a fan, you have to make a tough call. If you think you know more than the judicial system, then damn Luke. But while you do that, you should be praising the Oregonian for its uncovering of the "truth" and hope that they continue to dig into all players' juvie records. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Aug 13, 2018 19:01:49 GMT -8
By the way, I would hope that I would be just as understanding if Luke had played at U or O or UW, but I doubt it. That's because I'm a Beaver fan, and it's in my nature to distrust and hate all things Duck or Husky. I don't expect Luke to get a fair shake from anyone who sees the Beavers as a rival, but at least Beaver fans ought to be able to be fair-minded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Aug 13, 2018 19:26:19 GMT -8
LH is from Washington. One of many Evergreen Staters to find success in Pat Casey's program. But what if he'd decided to play in his home state for either Lindsay Meggs at UW, Marty Lees at WSU or Mark Machtholf at Gonzaga? And instead of the Oregonian, the paper in question would have been the Seattle Times or the Spokesman Review? I think we'd be viewing these circumstances with a different perspective - certainly a less personal one. And sadly, I would not be surprised to see a player for those schools under the exact same set of circumstances subjected to some harsh judgments on this very board. As the old saying goes. "It all depends on whose Ox is being gored". www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-whose-ox-is-gored-meanI see your point. But my point is different. My point is simply that since Juvie records are supposed to be sealed, you've probably been rooting for kids who have gotten to trouble in the past but you didn't know it. Certainly, Luke isn't the first boy to come through mighty OSU with a skeleton in the closet. The only difference was that the system worked with the others. With Luke, a stupid glitch allowed the O-rag to out him. So as a fan, you have to make a tough call. If you think you know more than the judicial system, then damn Luke. But while you do that, you should be praising the Oregonian for its uncovering of the "truth" and hope that they continue to dig into all players' juvie records. Just to be clear, I’m in favor of LH playing MLB. He has paid his debt to society in full. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Aug 13, 2018 19:34:38 GMT -8
If Heimlich were to plead guilty to the analogous juvenile crime in Oregon, he would still be in prison. If you seriously believe that Heimlich wouldn't have fought the charge if he was facing a multi-year prison term, then you need your head examined, because you're presenting a false flag by claiming Luke would "still be in prison if he lived in Oregon." the risk/reward factor is ALL that really matters in choosing to plea bargain vs taking it to trial. |
|
|
|
Post by 56chevy on Aug 13, 2018 21:01:22 GMT -8
Until the Oregonian story, the practice by media in this State had been to not identify by name juveniles who had committed criminal acts unless they were being prosecuted as adults. Not sure if that was the practice as required by statute or some duty to ethical standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Aug 13, 2018 21:13:32 GMT -8
As long as the reporting was accurate, he has no case in court. One must prove that what was written was untrue. It wasn't. End of story.The original story said he was convicted of felony child abuse. He was not, as juveniles cannot be "convicted" of any crime in the state of Washington, much less a felony. Juvenile crimes are adjudicated. Big difference. The Oregonian could not even get the cornerstone fact of the case right. Source? From the original story: The conviction
Heimlich's felony conviction stems from an incident prosecuted by Pierce County beginning in March 2012. The young victim had reported Heimlich's abuse to her mother, and the father later contacted authorities, according to a probable cause document filed by prosecutors.Numerous references to a "felony conviction: throughout the original story, something that never happened. All incorrect. www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2017/06/luke_heimlich_sex_crime_surfac.html |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Aug 14, 2018 8:52:52 GMT -8
From the original story: The conviction
Heimlich's felony conviction stems from an incident prosecuted by Pierce County beginning in March 2012. The young victim had reported Heimlich's abuse to her mother, and the father later contacted authorities, according to a probable cause document filed by prosecutors.Numerous references to a "felony conviction: throughout the original story, something that never happened. All incorrect. www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2017/06/luke_heimlich_sex_crime_surfac.htmlI was asking about your comment that in Washington, teens can't be convicted. The fact that he wrote "felony" if it was a "misdemeanor" isn't relevant. He pled guilty to a sex crime and, I suspect, was placed into a diversion program. So the story is accurate in the eyes of the law. Did whats-his-name act unethically? Most certainly. Did he commit liable? Nope. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Aug 14, 2018 10:10:17 GMT -8
The fact that he wrote "felony" if it was a "misdemeanor" isn't relevant.
BS. That mistake - which is huge, legally - has been repeated in every single story about Luke. He was never even charged with a felony, much less convicted of one.
In the "eyes of the law," the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is as wide as the Grand Canyon. In no way are they even remotely similar.
I suspect if you got charged with a felony in a misdemeanor case you would not see it as irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 14, 2018 11:35:23 GMT -8
The fact that he wrote "felony" if it was a "misdemeanor" isn't relevant.BS. That mistake - which is huge, legally - has been repeated in every single story about Luke. He was never even charged with a felony, much less convicted of one. In the "eyes of the law," the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is as wide as the Grand Canyon. In no way are they even remotely similar. I suspect if you got charged with a felony in a misdemeanor case you would not see it as irrelevant. You are obscuring the issue by using a straw man's argument. The reason that everyone freaked out about Luke Heimlich was not because they thought that he committed a felony. It was because he admitted in writing in open court that he had sexually molested his niece. In order for LH to recover dollar one from The Oregonian, he would have to prove that he missed out on his millions of dollars, because The Oregonian wrote the word "felony," which is a supremely dopey argument to make in my opinion. There is also an argument to be made that, as the State of Oregon uses the terms, LH was a "convicted felon." And it is because he was a "convicted felon" that he had to register as a sex offender. And it was because he was a "convicted felon" that there was the whole kerfuffle about him having to register again as a 21-year-old sex offender. You argue the rest of the straw man's argument that you are making well. |
|
