|
|
Post by kersting13 on May 10, 2018 12:18:27 GMT -8
We all need to stop pretending we have ANY clue about ANYTHING that went on between Luke and his family. As far as the State of WA is concerned, the matter is settled. End of story. You want us to pretend that we cannot make logical inferences about a known set of facts? We should shake up a Magic 8-Ball and base our opinion on the subject on the outcome? The State of Washington chapter has closed its book on Luke Heimlich. However, the Luke Heimlich story will continue into time immemorial, just like every other embarrassing character, who has ever donned the black-and-orange. Luke Heimlich is the current gay sheep theft. Even the most logical inferences from what little known facts we have are very likely wrong. If you've ever read a newspaper article about a situation you are intimately familiar with, you'd know not to take any of the "angles" we've heard on this story seriously. Hell, I've even had a news article intentionally made to sound worse by the guy who knew the facts so that he could make himself sound better after he "cleaned up the mess". The sensitivity of the subject makes it a.) more emotionally enraging for those who are against it, and b.) less likely to get full details because it's of such a sensitive nature. The story is dead, but people sure like to keep re-animating it. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 10, 2018 15:36:48 GMT -8
I know where the .027% figure came from. A duck who happens to be a DA here in Oregon. It is a figure that is vigorously contested by real experts in the field who estimate the rate of false convictions is more in the range of 4 to 9%. When about 95% of felonies are settled by plea bargains where no evidence is produced in court, it is really a crap shoot to come up with accurate estimates of false conviction. It is a pretty damn spurious statistic. And one easily picked apart. Personally, I wouldn't trust a DA as far as I could throw him to tell me just how damn good of a job DAs do... The Innocence Project alone has exonerated 356 people to date using DNA evidence. 20 of which were on death row. Think about that for a bit. 20 people were almost killed (murdered really) by the state under completely false pretenses. and... 40 of those 356 people proven innocence from DNA testing had plead guilty to their crimes. 40 people, proven innocent, took plea deals to significant crimes. And of course... 220 of the 356 people were African American. 70% of all those exonerated involved the wrongly accused being misidentified by eye witnesses. The same Innocence Project uses their own proven innocent cases to extrapolate that at least 1% of the prison population is falsely accused. And while that number is certainly low, it is not insignificant, and it is nearly 37x more than the 0.027% figure... And what is worth pointing out is the prison population is only a subset of all crimes. And likely the subset where the rate of rightful conviction is better. When the consequence (the plea deal) involves dodging prison time, it is pretty easy to see more and more innocent people would just take deal. And I get it, 356 people across the nation in 25 years is pretty damn small, but you have to remember it is REALLY hard opening up convicted cases and going back into it. IP gets hundreds of cases referred to them, most of them they close because they cannot act on them. 30% of the cases they close are due to evidence being lost or destroyed. www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/It's all very well and good to observe that some folks will plea bargain while claiming innocence to avoid the possibility of a conviction to a higher offense and harsher sentence. But part of that "bargain" is that they are on record as swearing under oath ("the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God") that they did commit the "lesser" offense. It's one hell of a bargain. Some folks will be more inclined to dismiss that fact than others, depending on their own life experiences and concept of "justice". I think Luke's apologists need to understand that however convinced they may be of Luke's complete innocence, many will never see it their way. And vice versa. I think to the extent possible, everyone should reflect on whether they'd feel at all differently about these exact same facts if only one fact were to be changed. Namely, if Luke Heimlich played college baseball for the UO and George Horton instead of for OSU and Pat Casey. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 10, 2018 21:22:17 GMT -8
It is a pretty damn spurious statistic. And one easily picked apart. Personally, I wouldn't trust a DA as far as I could throw him to tell me just how damn good of a job DAs do... The Innocence Project alone has exonerated 356 people to date using DNA evidence. 20 of which were on death row. Think about that for a bit. 20 people were almost killed (murdered really) by the state under completely false pretenses. and... 40 of those 356 people proven innocence from DNA testing had plead guilty to their crimes. 40 people, proven innocent, took plea deals to significant crimes. And of course... 220 of the 356 people were African American. 70% of all those exonerated involved the wrongly accused being misidentified by eye witnesses. The same Innocence Project uses their own proven innocent cases to extrapolate that at least 1% of the prison population is falsely accused. And while that number is certainly low, it is not insignificant, and it is nearly 37x more than the 0.027% figure... And what is worth pointing out is the prison population is only a subset of all crimes. And likely the subset where the rate of rightful conviction is better. When the consequence (the plea deal) involves dodging prison time, it is pretty easy to see more and more innocent people would just take deal. And I get it, 356 people across the nation in 25 years is pretty damn small, but you have to remember it is REALLY hard opening up convicted cases and going back into it. IP gets hundreds of cases referred to them, most of them they close because they cannot act on them. 30% of the cases they close are due to evidence being lost or destroyed. www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/It's all very well and good to observe that some folks will plea bargain while claiming innocence to avoid the possibility of a conviction to a higher offense and harsher sentence. But part of that "bargain" is that they are on record as swearing under oath ("the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God") that they did commit the "lesser" offense. It's one hell of a bargain. Some folks will be more inclined to dismiss that fact than others, depending on their own life experiences and concept of "justice". I think Luke's apologists need to understand that however convinced they may be of Luke's complete innocence, many will never see it their way. And vice versa. I think to the extent possible, everyone should reflect on whether they'd feel at all differently about these exact same facts if only one fact were to be changed. Namely, if Luke Heimlich played college baseball for the UO and George Horton instead of for OSU and Pat Casey. What a loaded horse crap comment! Knowing this is a Beaver board, uck hate rampant, a jay walker would be ostracized! Those on this board that are actually of an intelligent open mindset, not predisposed to blind one-sided thought processes to only reinforce their viewpoints would see the same hypocrisy. The team affiliation doesn't change the story... doesn't change family tragedy... doesn't keep those prone to close minded injustice quiet. So... Luke is your son. Does the story change? My gawd. If threads ever needed to be locked and deleted... |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 11, 2018 7:09:50 GMT -8
It's all very well and good to observe that some folks will plea bargain while claiming innocence to avoid the possibility of a conviction to a higher offense and harsher sentence. But part of that "bargain" is that they are on record as swearing under oath ("the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God") that they did commit the "lesser" offense. It's one hell of a bargain. Some folks will be more inclined to dismiss that fact than others, depending on their own life experiences and concept of "justice". I think Luke's apologists need to understand that however convinced they may be of Luke's complete innocence, many will never see it their way. And vice versa. I think to the extent possible, everyone should reflect on whether they'd feel at all differently about these exact same facts if only one fact were to be changed. Namely, if Luke Heimlich played college baseball for the UO and George Horton instead of for OSU and Pat Casey. What a loaded horse crap comment! Knowing this is a Beaver board, uck hate rampant, a jay walker would be ostracized! Those on this board that are actually of an intelligent open mindset, not predisposed to blind one-sided thought processes to only reinforce their viewpoints would see the same hypocrisy. The team affiliation doesn't change the story... doesn't change family tragedy... doesn't keep those prone to close minded injustice quiet. So... Luke is your son. Does the story change? My gawd. If threads ever needed to be locked and deleted... “blind one-sided thought processes to only reinforce their viewpoints” Someone posts something you disagree with (it’s not profane, slanderous or off topic) and you want the topic locked and deleted. Hmm. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on May 11, 2018 7:35:38 GMT -8
What a loaded horse crap comment! Knowing this is a Beaver board, uck hate rampant, a jay walker would be ostracized! Those on this board that are actually of an intelligent open mindset, not predisposed to blind one-sided thought processes to only reinforce their viewpoints would see the same hypocrisy. The team affiliation doesn't change the story... doesn't change family tragedy... doesn't keep those prone to close minded injustice quiet. So... Luke is your son. Does the story change? My gawd. If threads ever needed to be locked and deleted... “blind one-sided thought processes to only reinforce their viewpoints” Someone posts something you disagree with (it’s not profane, slanderous or off topic) and you want the topic locked and deleted. Hmm. FWIW, I thought it was an excellent question, Squonk. Not sure if I can honestly answer it, but a good question, nonetheless |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on May 11, 2018 8:54:36 GMT -8
Probably my biggest pet peeve of message board culture is that topics like "Riley vs. Andersen" and the Luke situation generate by far the most comments and some of the best discussions, and yet they always get locked and/or moved to the hinterlands. God forbid people actually disagree on something. I'm all for deleting unnecessarily rude or offensive comments or blocking repeat offenders, but this idea that "people are sick of talking about this, so it needs to be locked" is ridiculous when it's still generating multiple posts a day that cover new ground. The "if Luke was a Duck" thing is totally relevant, because there have been many instances of Ducks running "afowl" of the law in a variety of ways. LeGarette Blount is a great example. Punched a dude talking smack on the football field after a tough loss....a guy who if you watch the video was being admonished by his own head coach for his conduct right before the punch occurred. As he is walking to the locker room, he's taunted by a bunch of jackwagon Bronco fans, who in all likelihood didn't even see the punch happen. Watch the video, the fans are right up in his face gleefully taunting a visibly upset man twice their size after Blount makes a move towards the stands, one of the grabs a goddamn chair like he's going to hit him with it. Another guy, probably in his late 40s/early 50s, actually does throw a punch a Blount. Blount was suspended for 10 games for what amounted to a personal foul had it occurred during the game. He would've been suspended for the first half of the next game under current rules. And yet Beaver fans by and large were furious that Chip Kelly allowed him to play one half of the final home game of his college career. After initially suspending him for the season immediately following the game, Kelly later said he could work his way back if "behavioral and academic" goals were met. He was reinstated (with a blessing from the Pac-12 commissioner) prior to the November 14 game vs. Arizona State, but sat out that game and the game the following week vs. Arizona. Then, a full three months after the incident, he's allowed to play one half of the final home game of his college career. 100% agree with Werebeaver that if it was a Beaver player that Riley or GA or Smith or Casey or Rueck or Tinkle reinstated, we'd talk about what a great redemption story it was. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 11, 2018 8:59:12 GMT -8
What a loaded horse crap comment! Knowing this is a Beaver board, uck hate rampant, a jay walker would be ostracized! Those on this board that are actually of an intelligent open mindset, not predisposed to blind one-sided thought processes to only reinforce their viewpoints would see the same hypocrisy. The team affiliation doesn't change the story... doesn't change family tragedy... doesn't keep those prone to close minded injustice quiet. So... Luke is your son. Does the story change? My gawd. If threads ever needed to be locked and deleted... “blind one-sided thought processes to only reinforce their viewpoints” Someone posts something you disagree with (it’s not profane, slanderous or off topic) and you want the topic locked and deleted. Hmm.  Yeah... that's exactly why I think it should be locked/closed... wow |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 11, 2018 9:12:39 GMT -8
Probably my biggest pet peeve of message board culture is that topics like "Riley vs. Andersen" and the Luke situation generate by far the most comments and some of the best discussions, and yet they always get locked and/or moved to the hinterlands. God forbid people actually disagree on something. I'm all for deleting unnecessarily rude or offensive comments or blocking repeat offenders, but this idea that "people are sick of talking about this, so it needs to be locked" is ridiculous when it's still generating multiple posts a day that cover new ground. The "if Luke was a Duck" thing is totally relevant, because there have been many instances of Ducks running "afowl" of the law in a variety of ways. LeGarette Blount is a great example. Punched a dude talking smack on the football field after a tough loss....a guy who if you watch the video was being admonished by his own head coach for his conduct right before the punch occurred. As he is walking to the locker room, he's taunted by a bunch of jackwagon Bronco fans, who in all likelihood didn't even see the punch happen. Watch the video, the fans are right up in his face gleefully taunting a visibly upset man twice their size after Blount makes a move towards the stands, one of the grabs a goddamn chair like he's going to hit him with it. Another guy, probably in his late 40s/early 50s, actually does throw a punch a Blount. Blount was suspended for 10 games for what amounted to a personal foul had it occurred during the game. He would've been suspended for the first half of the next game under current rules. And yet Beaver fans by and large were furious that Chip Kelly allowed him to play one half of the final home game of his college career. After initially suspending him for the season immediately following the game, Kelly later said he could work his way back if "behavioral and academic" goals were met. He was reinstated (with a blessing from the Pac-12 commissioner) prior to the November 14 game vs. Arizona State, but sat out that game and the game the following week vs. Arizona. Then, a full three months after the incident, he's allowed to play one half of the final home game of his college career. 100% agree with Werebeaver that if it was a Beaver player that Riley or GA or Smith or Casey or Rueck or Tinkle reinstated, we'd talk about what a great redemption story it was. Nope... it's not... cuz he's not... and EVERYTHING after that is not opinion based on any RELEVANT information. PURE utter nonsense and argumentative speculation on a topic already full of passion when the relevant info is discussed. The problem with message boards/this topic (and others) is when the discussion is no longer about the topic or educated opinion... agree or disagree. It is when posts venture off into the "fake" news realm of a bunch of "what ifs"! To top it off, some posters here seem to think this is their "ALAMO" and by gawd we'll keep dredging up the SAME info over and over to have their 'HEY... look at me moments' ... over and over and OVER! |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 11, 2018 9:22:34 GMT -8
“blind one-sided thought processes to only reinforce their viewpoints” Someone posts something you disagree with (it’s not profane, slanderous or off topic) and you want the topic locked and deleted. Hmm. Yeah... that's exactly why I think it should be locked/closed... wow wow |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on May 11, 2018 9:28:15 GMT -8
baseba1111 I do disagree...the fact that we have moved on from the original NYT piece to discuss other avenues is great in my opinion. It's a free flowing discussion that continues to draw comments. There's plenty of topics that I contribute to for a while, decide I am no longer interested in discussing, and proceed to ignore. This isn't one of them. New ground gets covered, I have an opinion on that, so I chime in. I don't care if it's not about the NYT piece. That was a starting point. Sure maybe someone is just jumping in now and goes to the last page of comments and says "Why the F are we talking about Legarrette Blount?" Well, go back and start at the beginning like a normal person and figure it out. Just because it's something someone doesn't want to talk about doesn't mean it's something NOBODY wants to talk about. Short of personal insults or profane tirades, I see no reason any thread should ever be locked. My opinion. But it's not my board, and I don't set the rules. I just try to abide by them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 11, 2018 9:29:58 GMT -8
Probably my biggest pet peeve of message board culture is that topics like "Riley vs. Andersen" and the Luke situation generate by far the most comments and some of the best discussions, and yet they always get locked and/or moved to the hinterlands. God forbid people actually disagree on something. I'm all for deleting unnecessarily rude or offensive comments or blocking repeat offenders, but this idea that "people are sick of talking about this, so it needs to be locked" is ridiculous when it's still generating multiple posts a day that cover new ground. The "if Luke was a Duck" thing is totally relevant, because there have been many instances of Ducks running "afowl" of the law in a variety of ways. LeGarette Blount is a great example. Punched a dude talking smack on the football field after a tough loss....a guy who if you watch the video was being admonished by his own head coach for his conduct right before the punch occurred. As he is walking to the locker room, he's taunted by a bunch of jackwagon Bronco fans, who in all likelihood didn't even see the punch happen. Watch the video, the fans are right up in his face gleefully taunting a visibly upset man twice their size after Blount makes a move towards the stands, one of the grabs a goddamn chair like he's going to hit him with it. Another guy, probably in his late 40s/early 50s, actually does throw a punch a Blount. Blount was suspended for 10 games for what amounted to a personal foul had it occurred during the game. He would've been suspended for the first half of the next game under current rules. And yet Beaver fans by and large were furious that Chip Kelly allowed him to play one half of the final home game of his college career. After initially suspending him for the season immediately following the game, Kelly later said he could work his way back if "behavioral and academic" goals were met. He was reinstated (with a blessing from the Pac-12 commissioner) prior to the November 14 game vs. Arizona State, but sat out that game and the game the following week vs. Arizona. Then, a full three months after the incident, he's allowed to play one half of the final home game of his college career. 100% agree with Werebeaver that if it was a Beaver player that Riley or GA or Smith or Casey or Rueck or Tinkle reinstated, we'd talk about what a great redemption story it was. Nope... it's not... cuz he's not... and EVERYTHING after that is not opinion based on any RELEVANT information. PURE utter nonsense and argumentative speculation on a topic already full of passion when the relevant info is discussed. The problem with message boards/this topic (and others) is when the discussion is no longer about the topic or educated opinion... agree or disagree. It is when posts venture off into the "fake" news realm of a bunch of "what ifs"! To top it off, some posters here seem to think this is their "ALAMO" and by gawd we'll keep dredging up the SAME info over and over to have their ' HEY... look at me moments' ... over and over and OVER! |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 11, 2018 9:38:34 GMT -8
Nope... it's not... cuz he's not... and EVERYTHING after that is not opinion based on any RELEVANT information. PURE utter nonsense and argumentative speculation on a topic already full of passion when the relevant info is discussed. The problem with message boards/this topic (and others) is when the discussion is no longer about the topic or educated opinion... agree or disagree. It is when posts venture off into the "fake" news realm of a bunch of "what ifs"! To top it off, some posters here seem to think this is their "ALAMO" and by gawd we'll keep dredging up the SAME info over and over to have their ' HEY... look at me moments' ... over and over and OVER!Thx, for proving my point... and for skipping over the equally inane question, if Luke were your son. Cuz I'm pretty sure you'd not be posting, and assuredly not in the manner you do. But, then again... |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 11, 2018 9:53:59 GMT -8
Thx, for proving my point... and for skipping over the equally inane question, if Luke were your son. Cuz I'm pretty sure you'd not be posting, and assuredly not in the manner you do. But, then again... I would expect any father to think their son was innocent. I would not expect them to be objective. The purpose of my hypothetical question was to examine whether the fact that Luke plays for OSU might incline some OSU fans (ones who aren't Luke's father) to be less objective than they would be if he simply played his college ball for a team other than OSU - the Ducks for instance? Are you willing to view his situation more favorably or leniently because he wears OSU on his jersey than you would be if he did not? I think that is a fair question - not inane. You clearly disagree. That's fine. Disagreement doesn't surprise or upset me. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on May 11, 2018 13:12:10 GMT -8
It is a pretty damn spurious statistic. And one easily picked apart. Personally, I wouldn't trust a DA as far as I could throw him to tell me just how damn good of a job DAs do... The Innocence Project alone has exonerated 356 people to date using DNA evidence. 20 of which were on death row. Think about that for a bit. 20 people were almost killed (murdered really) by the state under completely false pretenses. and... 40 of those 356 people proven innocence from DNA testing had plead guilty to their crimes. 40 people, proven innocent, took plea deals to significant crimes. And of course... 220 of the 356 people were African American. 70% of all those exonerated involved the wrongly accused being misidentified by eye witnesses. The same Innocence Project uses their own proven innocent cases to extrapolate that at least 1% of the prison population is falsely accused. And while that number is certainly low, it is not insignificant, and it is nearly 37x more than the 0.027% figure... And what is worth pointing out is the prison population is only a subset of all crimes. And likely the subset where the rate of rightful conviction is better. When the consequence (the plea deal) involves dodging prison time, it is pretty easy to see more and more innocent people would just take deal. And I get it, 356 people across the nation in 25 years is pretty damn small, but you have to remember it is REALLY hard opening up convicted cases and going back into it. IP gets hundreds of cases referred to them, most of them they close because they cannot act on them. 30% of the cases they close are due to evidence being lost or destroyed. www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/It's all very well and good to observe that some folks will plea bargain while claiming innocence to avoid the possibility of a conviction to a higher offense and harsher sentence. But part of that "bargain" is that they are on record as swearing under oath ("the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God") that they did commit the "lesser" offense. It's one hell of a bargain. Some folks will be more inclined to dismiss that fact than others, depending on their own life experiences and concept of "justice". I think Luke's apologists need to understand that however convinced they may be of Luke's complete innocence, many will never see it their way. And vice versa. I think to the extent possible, everyone should reflect on whether they'd feel at all differently about these exact same facts if only one fact were to be changed. Namely, if Luke Heimlich played college baseball for the UO and George Horton instead of for OSU and Pat Casey. FWIW, from day one with the LaMicheal James strangulation of his girlfriend saga, I maintained a "wait for the facts" stance. If BF.com still existed, I'd probably give you evidence! There has been a few other high profile examples over the years of cases that proceed very far along before they are ultimately proven to be bunk. The quite famous Duke Lacrosse scandal, and more recently and locally, the soccer coach, Joe Leonetti I think, what it comes down to, again, is whatever inherent bias we have. I don't want to say I hate the justice system...that is not true. But I am a cynic of it. I recognize the business of it. I recognize that quite simply it does not have the integrity and the honor people so desperately want to assign to it. Reading your sentence: But part of that "bargain" is that they are on record as swearing under oath ("the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God") that they did commit the "lesser" offense. It's one hell of a bargain. I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, but what I am reading from this is that the "hell of a bargain" is the sacrifice of your integrity. That to be innocent, yet plead guilty to a lesser crime under a deal amounts to lying. It amounts to disgracing your own honor. So how can anybody do it? It is just my viewpoint, but I think I see a bias here. That admitting guilt when innocence is such a violation of your personal integrity that it is hard to accept anybody would really do it. Therefore, people that plead out ARE guilty in at least some degree. I think it is simply hard to tell what a person would do when put in any particular scenario. I just honestly hope nobody here will have to test their resolve. |
|
Yeah... that's exactly why I think it should be locked/closed... wow