|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 13, 2017 12:04:56 GMT -8
This was a very well written and thought out story. I had similar thoughts as this guy and stand by what he states. It is a very long read, but well worth it in my opinion. It's definitely a reminder to me to never give the Oregonian another dime as long as I live. This is a confusing article, because it gets the two mothers confused. One is the mother of Luke Heimlich and the other is the mother of the victim. But then, it could be as the article indicates and the victim could be Heimlich's full/half-/step-sister. Does anyone have any input? |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 13, 2017 12:16:34 GMT -8
The latest oregonian piece has Tracy emailing all power 5 conference members to adopt IU's zero tolerance of any felonies involving sexual assault. I think that might be the overreach that gets some push back. In the south, shockingly, the criminal justice system has not been colorblind. This type of policy will find opposition from the ACLU and every legal center in the south. I think the oregonian just had their "bring them to heal" moment. They are now pushing a policy that many will find racist and a dog whistle to white supremacists. Exactly, denying a kid an education and a chance to earn a living in the future, even though he's paid his debt to society. Double jeopardy, has lawsuit written all over it. You guys bring up a valid point. If someone could show that it disproportionately applied to one race, the rule could be found to be unconstitutional, because of a violation of the 14th Amendment. Why would it be double jeopardy? Is it double jeopardy that most convicted felons cannot vote? Felony convictions deprive you of certain privileges: the ability to vote, the right to own a gun, etc. Why would playing baseball for a university be any different? |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Jun 13, 2017 12:17:55 GMT -8
Exactly, denying a kid an education and a chance to earn a living in the future, even though he's paid his debt to society. Double jeopardy, has lawsuit written all over it. You guys bring up a valid point. If someone could show that it disproportionately applied to one race, the rule could be found to be unconstitutional, because of a violation of the 14th Amendment. Why would it be double jeopardy? Is it double jeopardy that most convicted felons cannot vote? Felony convictions deprive you of certain privileges: the ability to vote, the right to own a gun, etc. Why would playing baseball for a university be any different? His "conviction" is not a felony. That was very clearly spelled out in the linked article. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 13, 2017 12:41:53 GMT -8
bill82 You guys bring up a valid point. If someone could show that it disproportionately applied to one race, the rule could be found to be unconstitutional, because of a violation of the 14th Amendment. Why would it be double jeopardy? Is it double jeopardy that most convicted felons cannot vote? Felony convictions deprive you of certain privileges: the ability to vote, the right to own a gun, etc. Why would playing baseball for a university be any different? His "conviction" is not a felony. That was very clearly spelled out in the linked article. According to the Moran's original article, Scott Barnes and Steve Clark confirmed that Luke Heimlich was a convicted felon. Additionally, that is supported by the statement made by Clatsop County District Attorney, Josh Marquis. Oregon's laws regarding sex offenders appears to have elevated Heimlich's crime to a "felony" under Oregon law, whether or not it was a "felony" under Washington law. I suppose that there is a colorable argument to the contrary but not a very good one, in my opinion. Really, if Heimlich wanted his conduct to remain secret, he should have chosen to go to school in Washington or a state other than Oregon and how Oregon handles underage sex crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 13, 2017 14:07:45 GMT -8
Exactly, denying a kid an education and a chance to earn a living in the future, even though he's paid his debt to society. Double jeopardy, has lawsuit written all over it. You guys bring up a valid point. If someone could show that it disproportionately applied to one race, the rule could be found to be unconstitutional, because of a violation of the 14th Amendment. Why would it be double jeopardy? Is it double jeopardy that most convicted felons cannot vote? Felony convictions deprive you of certain privileges: the ability to vote, the right to own a gun, etc. Why would playing baseball for a university be any different? We do not even need to bring it up to the feds. What Tracey proposes, in situations like Luke, is a violation of state law. ORS 670.290. No university is allowed to even so much as ask about a potential juvenile offense. period. let alone look for one. This extends to any and all public agencies in the state. this applies to doctors, attorneys, nurses, architects, appraisers, insurance professionals, dentists, social workers, teachers, therapists and a host of other professions that rely on state licensing. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 13, 2017 14:21:52 GMT -8
His "conviction" is not a felony. That was very clearly spelled out in the linked article. According to the Moran's original article, Scott Barnes and Steve Clark confirmed that Luke Heimlich was a convicted felon. Additionally, that is supported by the statement made by Clatsop County District Attorney, Josh Marquis. Oregon's laws regarding sex offenders appears to have elevated Heimlich's crime to a "felony" under Oregon law, whether or not it was a "felony" under Washington law. I suppose that there is a colorable argument to the contrary but not a very good one, in my opinion. Really, if Heimlich wanted his conduct to remain secret, he should have chosen to go to school in Washington or a state other than Oregon and how Oregon handles underage sex crimes. This is not true, and Scott Barnes and Steve Clark also misspoke. Luke H is not a "felon" to my understanding. In the state of Oregon, ORS 419.400 states juvenile crimes process in juvenile court are not considered "convictions". like the article say resolution of the matter is considered adjudication. If he was processed by a juvenile court, and not tried as an adult, he is not a felon. Period. The state of Washington is very similar in this regard. Now, like you said, Luke could of potentially been tried as an adult for his offense here in Oregon. ORS 137.707 outlines it as likely. It would depend on the exact offense they brought against him, and how it correlates to Oregon's specified crimes. I believe, if I am not mistaken, these were part of the measure 11 overhauls... for better or for worse. But he was not tried in Oregon as an adult, he was processed in Washington as a juvenile. it may be pedantic, but legally he is not a felon. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 13, 2017 14:42:04 GMT -8
I'd contribute to a crowd sourcing/fundraising effort. and Bill, what do you see as libelous? It is hard to sue newspapers because of the First Amendment, but it can be done. Using draft status/ratings and lack of draft positioning is hard to prove as publicity factor comes into play. But, falsely using the word "felon" and "convicted felon" both in print, interviews, and radio is libelous and I believe if proven to cause personal or financial harm can be civil suit versus the individual(s) along with a suit versus the paper and radio companies/ownership. Improper accusations because of poor research and/or misguided usage of the terms used within the legal systems is not an excuse to publicly defame. It was on the shoulders of the reporters to make sure they got it correct. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 13, 2017 14:43:15 GMT -8
Exactly, denying a kid an education and a chance to earn a living in the future, even though he's paid his debt to society. Double jeopardy, has lawsuit written all over it. You guys bring up a valid point. If someone could show that it disproportionately applied to one race, the rule could be found to be unconstitutional, because of a violation of the 14th Amendment. Why would it be double jeopardy? Is it double jeopardy that most convicted felons cannot vote? Felony convictions deprive you of certain privileges: the ability to vote, the right to own a gun, etc. Why would playing baseball for a university be any different? He wasn't "convicted" of anything... he is not a felon. BIG difference. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Jun 13, 2017 14:52:55 GMT -8
The comments of that article also led to this one: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/when-kids-are-accused-of-sex-crimesWhich was an exhaustive and lengthy report on how the sex offender list can ruin a young persons life, usually needlessly... It doesn't necessarily apply directly to Luke, but I thought it an interesting read. Especially how troubling sounding a lot of the "therapy" is. And how much harder it is to actually comply to registering to the list. Some people are making a big deal out of Luke not resubmitting info on his birthday, but it sounds like there is WAY more to it than that. How did he ever even go on a road trip? Many places require you to register with local police if you are there for more than 48 hours? Just like most of the stories in that article, there is probably SO much more to Luke's story than just a giant CHILD MOLESTOR label... Maybe someday he will tell it. In the meantime he should probably get used to not having a job, being in and out of trouble, and constantly under harassment. |
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009 
|
Post by bill82 on Jun 13, 2017 14:58:57 GMT -8
I'd contribute to a crowd sourcing/fundraising effort. and Bill, what do you see as libelous? It is hard to sue newspapers because of the First Amendment, but it can be done. If the mother contacted the press with the intention of harming his draft standing and provided confidential information to the reporter I think she has a problem. Canzanno seems to make personal attacks against LH, and if he were aware of the mother's objective, I think he has a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver1989 on Jun 13, 2017 19:58:32 GMT -8
Canzano does nothing but "traffic in human misery". The guy is a lowlife.
|
|
|
|
Post by ricke71 on Jun 13, 2017 20:58:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Jun 14, 2017 7:15:48 GMT -8
baseba1111 and Bill, what do you see as libelous? It is hard to sue newspapers because of the First Amendment, but it can be done. If the mother contacted the press with the intention of harming his draft standing and provided confidential information to the reporter I think she has a problem. Canzanno seems to make personal attacks against LH, and if he were aware of the mother's objective, I think he has a problem. I can't say I know how I'd react for sure in the shoes of the victim's mother. I don't think anyone can unless you've been in that situation. But one thing I can be sure of - I would absolutely want to know exactly where LH was living moving forward. If someone abused my child and I knew they were not behind bars, I would want to know where they were for my own peace of mind. So with that said, I think she would have known for 3 years now that he was in Corvallis and playing baseball. That's why IMO, this does feel like an ambush from a pure timing standpoint. I don't buy the "we always run background checks" piece in the slightest. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 14, 2017 10:20:12 GMT -8
bill82 You guys bring up a valid point. If someone could show that it disproportionately applied to one race, the rule could be found to be unconstitutional, because of a violation of the 14th Amendment. Why would it be double jeopardy? Is it double jeopardy that most convicted felons cannot vote? Felony convictions deprive you of certain privileges: the ability to vote, the right to own a gun, etc. Why would playing baseball for a university be any different? We do not even need to bring it up to the feds. What Tracey proposes, in situations like Luke, is a violation of state law. ORS 670.290. No university is allowed to even so much as ask about a potential juvenile offense. period. let alone look for one. This extends to any and all public agencies in the state. this applies to doctors, attorneys, nurses, architects, appraisers, insurance professionals, dentists, social workers, teachers, therapists and a host of other professions that rely on state licensing. ORS 670.290 only applies to juvenile offenses that have been expunged. In Washington, the offense cannot be expunged until August, so ORS 670.290 does not apply. I am aware of no law against inquiring about juvenile offenses that have not been expunged. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver1989 on Jun 14, 2017 11:05:07 GMT -8
"I don't buy the "we always run background checks" piece in the slightest."
The word "routine" was my "red flag". They thought they were being clever.They aren't.
|
|
