|
|
Post by Tigardbeav on May 11, 2018 13:13:15 GMT -8
BUT... what if she was a uck athlete???  That's when the athlete pulls out their athletic dept resource card "accidently" and the officer notices and calls "Sarge" for directions. Athlete is told to continue on their way and have a nice evening. Later that week a package arrives for "Sarge" who passes down some graft goodies |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 11, 2018 13:15:52 GMT -8
BUT... what if she was a uck athlete??? I don't think she's plead guilty yet. Get back to me when she does. And, there is the critical point... there was no "pleading guilty". But, then again facts are irrelevant to some trying to keep their views salient. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 11, 2018 13:51:36 GMT -8
I don't think she's plead guilty yet. Get back to me when she does. And, there is the critical point... there was no "pleading guilty". But, then again facts are irrelevant to some trying to keep their views salient. Who are you talking about?
If you're talking about L.H. you might want to check YOUR facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by ricke71 on May 11, 2018 15:08:12 GMT -8
For the sake of brevity I’m NOT going to Quote any of the above Posts....But holy frickin’ Science! Bringing up a smaller person’s body weight in a discussion of BAC...is just WRONG!
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 11, 2018 16:19:13 GMT -8
And, there is the critical point... there was no "pleading guilty". But, then again facts are irrelevant to some trying to keep their views salient. Who are you talking about?
If you're talking about L.H. you might want to check YOUR facts.
No... I do know the facts of juvenile law and plea bargain and for a regular on this board it's scary you don't. It's been discussed ad nauseam for a year. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 11, 2018 16:23:19 GMT -8
Who are you talking about?
If you're talking about L.H. you might want to check YOUR facts.
No... I do know the facts of juvenile law and plea bargain and for a regular on this board it's scary you don't. It's been discussed ad nauseam for a year. From Kerry Eggers 2/1/18 Portland Tribune article:
portlandtribune.com/pt/12-sports/385703-274945-penalties-paid-heimlich-ready-to-return-for-beavers-baseball
"Collectively, Luke and his parents decided a guilty plea was the best route. He could stay at home, attend school and lead a somewhat normal life. If he followed all the rules through the five-year period, his records would be sealed. The parents felt that path would be the quickest toward healing and recovery of the family. They were were concerned that, if Luke contested the charges, it would require aggressive questioning to break down their granddaughter's story. They weren't comfortable with putting her through that.
On Aug. 27, 2012, Luke pleaded guilty to the single charge."
Care to keep digging?
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 11, 2018 18:27:22 GMT -8
I'm sorry but this is a stupid post. People are impaired at very different levels. A girl with a lesser body weight can easily be impaired at .05. What if she had an accident where someone else got hurt? Would you still be saying this? 38% under the limit? That means she was 62% legally intoxicated. So you're good with almost 2/3 drunk? I understand there are cops who push their "power" too far. But most cops are just trying to do their job well. If the officer had let her go, and she had an accident then people would be upset she wasn't cited for DUI. If you don't want to get arrested, don't drink and drive. I have a lot of friends and family who are cops, and have been on ride alongs with them. They put up with a lot of crap, take it, and say thanks and have a good day. So this athlete was driving erratically and was pulled over. Guaranteed she took a couple of FST's and then a breathalyzer test. Again, i get that there are cops who abuse their position, but the vast majority are just trying to do their job, so don't blame them for other people's mistakes. I'm sorry but in my opinion this is a stupid post. The law today makes it illegal to be slightly buzzed. Who among us who drink somewhat regularly think at .08 you're "drunk". Or at .05 you're 5/8 drunk? I'm not sure if I have a beer with dinner that I wouldn't be at a .05, but i'm sure i'm not close to being drunk or impaired. I think when I was younger .12 was the threshold for "legally intoxicated", so "drunk" seems to be a moving target in legal terms. .08 may be the law and I respect that, but you could likely have a shot of cough syrup on an empty stomach and blow a .05. If the girl was 21+ and blew a .05 I believe most cops I know would tell her to drive safe and go home. I’m sure you meant it’s illegal to drive slightly buzzed. If you’re of age it’s totally legal to get your drink on and get well and truly “buzzed”. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 11, 2018 18:45:40 GMT -8
No... I do know the facts of juvenile law and plea bargain and for a regular on this board it's scary you don't. It's been discussed ad nauseam for a year. From Kerry Eggers 2/1/18 Portland Tribune article:
portlandtribune.com/pt/12-sports/385703-274945-penalties-paid-heimlich-ready-to-return-for-beavers-baseball
"Collectively, Luke and his parents decided a guilty plea was the best route. He could stay at home, attend school and lead a somewhat normal life. If he followed all the rules through the five-year period, his records would be sealed. The parents felt that path would be the quickest toward healing and recovery of the family. They were were concerned that, if Luke contested the charges, it would require aggressive questioning to break down their granddaughter's story. They weren't comfortable with putting her through that.
On Aug. 27, 2012, Luke pleaded guilty to the single charge."
Care to keep digging?
Sure, my shovel works just fine. In the state of Washington a minor under a plea agreement such as Luke's is not deemed "guilty" as there is no conviction. The plea agreement sets the terms and in his case terms for expunging his record. The word "guilty" freely used by Luke, his family, and the media is technically incorrect within the legal definition. If convicted, hence technically deemed guilty, Luke would have had to be assigned a Class A, B, or C Felony with supervision from 10 to 20 years, or by petitioning the court to remove it. Luke was never convicted, and his plea deal set forth an admission of wrong doing with certain specifications to be met. His response to questions on the NCAA forms was cited correctly, as he was never found guilty of any charge. His record was expunged, and he never has to answer any criminal background question with anything other than never being convicted or found guilty. Guilty in layman's terms and legalites are not always the same. And, toss in the fact Luke states that nothing happened and his plea was to save his family a more difficult time. But, again, some are just "guilty" of wanting one interpretation to be correct! |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 11, 2018 19:00:28 GMT -8
From Kerry Eggers 2/1/18 Portland Tribune article:
portlandtribune.com/pt/12-sports/385703-274945-penalties-paid-heimlich-ready-to-return-for-beavers-baseball
"Collectively, Luke and his parents decided a guilty plea was the best route. He could stay at home, attend school and lead a somewhat normal life. If he followed all the rules through the five-year period, his records would be sealed. The parents felt that path would be the quickest toward healing and recovery of the family. They were were concerned that, if Luke contested the charges, it would require aggressive questioning to break down their granddaughter's story. They weren't comfortable with putting her through that.
On Aug. 27, 2012, Luke pleaded guilty to the single charge."
Care to keep digging?
Sure, my shovel works just fine. In the state of Washington a minor under a plea agreement such as Luke's is not deemed "guilty" as there is no conviction. The plea agreement sets the terms and in his case terms for expunging his record. The word "guilty" freely used by Luke, his family, and the media is technically incorrect within the legal definition. If convicted, hence technically deemed guilty, Luke would have had to be assigned a Class A, B, or C Felony with supervision from 10 to 20 years, or by petitioning the court to remove it. Luke was never convicted, and his plea deal set forth an admission of wrong doing with certain specifications to be met. His response to questions on the NCAA forms was cited correctly, as he was never found guilty of any charge. His record was expunged, and he never has to answer any criminal background question with anything other than never being convicted or found guilty. Guilty in layman's terms and legalites are not always the same. And, toss in the fact Luke states that nothing happened and his plea was to save his family a more difficult time. But, again, some are just "guilty" of wanting one interpretation to be correct! I’ll go with Eggers over you. Eggers has actually spoken to the principals and has a reputation for thoroughness and accuracy. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 11, 2018 19:20:07 GMT -8
Sure, my shovel works just fine. In the state of Washington a minor under a plea agreement such as Luke's is not deemed "guilty" as there is no conviction. The plea agreement sets the terms and in his case terms for expunging his record. The word "guilty" freely used by Luke, his family, and the media is technically incorrect within the legal definition. If convicted, hence technically deemed guilty, Luke would have had to be assigned a Class A, B, or C Felony with supervision from 10 to 20 years, or by petitioning the court to remove it. Luke was never convicted, and his plea deal set forth an admission of wrong doing with certain specifications to be met. His response to questions on the NCAA forms was cited correctly, as he was never found guilty of any charge. His record was expunged, and he never has to answer any criminal background question with anything other than never being convicted or found guilty. Guilty in layman's terms and legalites are not always the same. And, toss in the fact Luke states that nothing happened and his plea was to save his family a more difficult time. But, again, some are just "guilty" of wanting one interpretation to be correct! I’ll go with Eggers over you. Eggers has actually spoken to the principals and has a reputation for thoroughness and accuracy. You do that... and I've already broken my own rule by wasting time on this topic in any thread. |
|
|
|
Post by beavfan14 on May 11, 2018 19:41:19 GMT -8
Look up ANY chart about BAC levels. There are lots of factors including body size and weight. Lets see, what does BAC stand for? Blood Alcohol Concentration. NOT PERCENTAGE!! It's not the percentage of alcohol in your system which would be the same for everyone. It's the concentration which is affected by a lot of variables. And if you don't believe me, here is a chart from Virginia Tech that matches any chart you will look up. Check out the section marked body weight. A women who weighs 120 with a BAC of .04 is considered SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED. www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 11, 2018 19:57:17 GMT -8
Look up ANY chart about BAC levels. There are lots of factors including body size and weight. Lets see, what does BAC stand for? Blood Alcohol Concentration. NOT PERCENTAGE!! It's not the percentage of alcohol in your system which would be the same for everyone. It's the concentration which is affected by a lot of variables. And if you don't believe me, here is a chart from Virginia Tech that matches any chart you will look up. Check out the section marked body weight. A women who weighs 120 with a BAC of .04 is considered SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED. www.brad21.org/bac_charts.htmlAs is a 220 or 240 lb man with a BAC of .03 - per the link the original assertion was that the same BAC could have more adverse effect on a small woman than a larger man or woman. That does not appear to be the case, irrespective of how that BAC metric is derived. BTW “Concentration” is defined as: “The amount of a component in a given area or volume“. And - per Wikipedia: ”Blood alcohol concentration is usually expressed as a percentage of ethanol in the blood in units of mass of alcohol per volume of blood or mass of alcohol per mass of blood, depending on the country. For instance, in North America a BAC of 0.1 (0.1% or one tenth of one percent) means that there are 0.10 g of alcohol for every 100 mL of blood”. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on May 11, 2018 21:39:16 GMT -8
Sure, my shovel works just fine. In the state of Washington a minor under a plea agreement such as Luke's is not deemed "guilty" as there is no conviction. The plea agreement sets the terms and in his case terms for expunging his record. The word "guilty" freely used by Luke, his family, and the media is technically incorrect within the legal definition. If convicted, hence technically deemed guilty, Luke would have had to be assigned a Class A, B, or C Felony with supervision from 10 to 20 years, or by petitioning the court to remove it. Luke was never convicted, and his plea deal set forth an admission of wrong doing with certain specifications to be met. His response to questions on the NCAA forms was cited correctly, as he was never found guilty of any charge. His record was expunged, and he never has to answer any criminal background question with anything other than never being convicted or found guilty. Guilty in layman's terms and legalites are not always the same. And, toss in the fact Luke states that nothing happened and his plea was to save his family a more difficult time. But, again, some are just "guilty" of wanting one interpretation to be correct! I’ll go with Eggers over you. Eggers has actually spoken to the principals and has a reputation for thoroughness and accuracy. This is way off topic, but it is in the off topic board now.
Eggers is correct with his quote, but that is all. He quoted the terminology used by those he interviewed, but he is not correct as per Washington law in terminology. So why do Heimlich and his family use this terminology? Probably because of complication in describing the correct situation and the ease of helping others understand. It is really difficult to say and describe something to the effect "I accepted adjudication for an offense as a minor with the terms being probation and therapy".
Here is an explanation from another: "... he’s legally not innocent (or wasn’t at that time). But he’s also not legally guilty. I know it’s a weird technicality, but it does explain why choosing this path would seem easier for juveniles who even get to make such a deal."
Here is some quotes from Martin Meyer, a Washington lawyer and true expert on this subject, that help in understanding the true difference:
"Our state constitution guarantees jury trials in criminal prosecutions and this right to a trial by jury shall remain inviolate. We have a separate system for dealing with juveniles accused of committing offenses and they are not afforded jury trials. According to our Supreme Court, Washington has been avoiding accusing and convicting juveniles of crimes for more than 100 years.
Under the Juvenile code “An order of court adjudging a child a juvenile offender or dependent under the provisions of this chapter shall in no case be deemed a conviction of crime.” RCW 13.04.240. Our Supreme Court has written: Thus, “An act which would be a crime if committed by an adult is not a crime, and thus not a felony, if committed by a juvenile.” We treat youth here in Washington differently than adults charged with the same offense. We use a completely different vernacular. Our Juvenile Justice Act operates under the philosophy to rehabilitate, correct and direct errant youth. It appears Mr. Heimlich did not require much redirection. We don’t rehabilitate youth to 95% and say “you may now resume your pursuit of life, liberty & happiness. Oh, except you can’t play professional baseball. Sorry.” If that were the case, what else couldn’t he do? Where would you draw the line in the sand?
The reason our Supreme Court denies juveniles the right to a jury trial lies in the distinction between the adult and juvenile systems. It is the rehabilitative purposes and lesser penalties of the JJA which stand in contrast to the punitive purposes and much more serious penalties of the adult criminal system. It is the nature of the penalty, not the criminal act committed that distinguishes the juvenile from the adult system. Our Supreme Court has written in justification of the denial of jury trials to juveniles as follows:
The purpose of the juvenile justice system is ostensibly to establish a system of having primary responsibility for, and responding to, the needs of offenders, as well as to hold juveniles responsible for their offenses. The critical distinction between the two systems lies in the Juvenile Justice Act of 1997’s (JJA) policy of responding to the needs of juvenile offenders. We have in the past found such a policy as rehabilitative in nature, whereas the criminal system is punitive. Such difference has led us to consistently conclude the right to jury trial does not extend to juveniles adjudicated in juvenile proceedings.
This highlights the complexities an accused juvenile faces. Especially in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse where the evidence is nothing more than “he said” “she said.” The principle function of a jury is to find facts, not determine punishment. Our Supreme courts answer to this is, if a juvenile wants a jury trial, then they can decline Juvenile court jurisdiction and be tried as an adult. The trouble with this is if convicted, one would face the consequences an adult would receive.
This further complicates the difficulties of a 15 year old accused of a sex offense faces. Although the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt is the same in an adult criminal proceeding as in a juvenile offender proceeding, it is not the same standard of proof. Who would you want to decide your fate? A jury of one judicial officer wearing a black robe or a jury of 12 of your peers who must be unanimous in their decision?
So yes, youth do often plead guilty to things they didn’t do to avoid likely much worse consequences. And yes, false accusations exist. The Department of Education report references plea bargains and collateral consequences for anyone who would care to read the report."
So the bottom line is, if you go through the treatment program as Luke Heimlich did, you only declare that you are an offender and do not enter guilty/not guilty plea. The intent of the different vernacular is to show the program is about rehabilitation and not about conviction.
After completing the treatment program and the appropriate period afterward (5 years), the records can be sealed. At this time the offender is no longer an offender in the eyes of the judicial system. There is no record of wrong doings.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on May 11, 2018 21:53:36 GMT -8
I’ll go with Eggers over you. Eggers has actually spoken to the principals and has a reputation for thoroughness and accuracy. This is way off topic, but it is in the off topic board now.
Eggers is correct with his quote, but that is all. He quoted the terminology used by those he interviewed, but he is not correct as per Washington law in terminology. So why do Heimlich and his family use this terminology? Probably because of complication in describing the correct situation and the ease of helping others understand. It is really difficult to say and describe something to the effect "I accepted adjudication for an offense as a minor with the terms being probation and therapy".
Here is an explanation from another: "... he’s legally not innocent (or wasn’t at that time). But he’s also not legally guilty. I know it’s a weird technicality, but it does explain why choosing this path would seem easier for juveniles who even get to make such a deal."
Here is some quotes from Martin Meyer, a Washington lawyer and true expert on this subject, that help in understanding the true difference:
"Our state constitution guarantees jury trials in criminal prosecutions and this right to a trial by jury shall remain inviolate. We have a separate system for dealing with juveniles accused of committing offenses and they are not afforded jury trials. According to our Supreme Court, Washington has been avoiding accusing and convicting juveniles of crimes for more than 100 years.
Under the Juvenile code “An order of court adjudging a child a juvenile offender or dependent under the provisions of this chapter shall in no case be deemed a conviction of crime.” RCW 13.04.240. Our Supreme Court has written: Thus, “An act which would be a crime if committed by an adult is not a crime, and thus not a felony, if committed by a juvenile.” We treat youth here in Washington differently than adults charged with the same offense. We use a completely different vernacular. Our Juvenile Justice Act operates under the philosophy to rehabilitate, correct and direct errant youth. It appears Mr. Heimlich did not require much redirection. We don’t rehabilitate youth to 95% and say “you may now resume your pursuit of life, liberty & happiness. Oh, except you can’t play professional baseball. Sorry.” If that were the case, what else couldn’t he do? Where would you draw the line in the sand?
The reason our Supreme Court denies juveniles the right to a jury trial lies in the distinction between the adult and juvenile systems. It is the rehabilitative purposes and lesser penalties of the JJA which stand in contrast to the punitive purposes and much more serious penalties of the adult criminal system. It is the nature of the penalty, not the criminal act committed that distinguishes the juvenile from the adult system. Our Supreme Court has written in justification of the denial of jury trials to juveniles as follows:
The purpose of the juvenile justice system is ostensibly to establish a system of having primary responsibility for, and responding to, the needs of offenders, as well as to hold juveniles responsible for their offenses. The critical distinction between the two systems lies in the Juvenile Justice Act of 1997’s (JJA) policy of responding to the needs of juvenile offenders. We have in the past found such a policy as rehabilitative in nature, whereas the criminal system is punitive. Such difference has led us to consistently conclude the right to jury trial does not extend to juveniles adjudicated in juvenile proceedings.
This highlights the complexities an accused juvenile faces. Especially in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse where the evidence is nothing more than “he said” “she said.” The principle function of a jury is to find facts, not determine punishment. Our Supreme courts answer to this is, if a juvenile wants a jury trial, then they can decline Juvenile court jurisdiction and be tried as an adult. The trouble with this is if convicted, one would face the consequences an adult would receive.
This further complicates the difficulties of a 15 year old accused of a sex offense faces. Although the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt is the same in an adult criminal proceeding as in a juvenile offender proceeding, it is not the same standard of proof. Who would you want to decide your fate? A jury of one judicial officer wearing a black robe or a jury of 12 of your peers who must be unanimous in their decision?
So yes, youth do often plead guilty to things they didn’t do to avoid likely much worse consequences. And yes, false accusations exist. The Department of Education report references plea bargains and collateral consequences for anyone who would care to read the report."
So the bottom line is, if you go through the treatment program as Luke Heimlich did, you only declare that you are an offender and do not enter guilty/not guilty plea. The intent of the different vernacular is to show the program is about rehabilitation and not about conviction.
After completing the treatment program and the appropriate period afterward (5 years), the records can be sealed. At this time the offender is no longer an offender in the eyes of the judicial system. There is no record of wrong doings.
Thank you for the very on topic and much more precise explanation. Lol... Care to forward it to media outlets? Who I'm guessing could find out the very same info without much effort... but, chose not to. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 12, 2018 6:29:53 GMT -8
I’ll go with Eggers over you. Eggers has actually spoken to the principals and has a reputation for thoroughness and accuracy. This is way off topic, but it is in the off topic board now.
Eggers is correct with his quote, but that is all. He quoted the terminology used by those he interviewed, but he is not correct as per Washington law in terminology. So why do Heimlich and his family use this terminology? Probably because of complication in describing the correct situation and the ease of helping others understand. It is really difficult to say and describe something to the effect "I accepted adjudication for an offense as a minor with the terms being probation and therapy".
Here is an explanation from another: "... he’s legally not innocent (or wasn’t at that time). But he’s also not legally guilty. I know it’s a weird technicality, but it does explain why choosing this path would seem easier for juveniles who even get to make such a deal."
Here is some quotes from Martin Meyer, a Washington lawyer and true expert on this subject, that help in understanding the true difference:
"Our state constitution guarantees jury trials in criminal prosecutions and this right to a trial by jury shall remain inviolate. We have a separate system for dealing with juveniles accused of committing offenses and they are not afforded jury trials. According to our Supreme Court, Washington has been avoiding accusing and convicting juveniles of crimes for more than 100 years.
Under the Juvenile code “An order of court adjudging a child a juvenile offender or dependent under the provisions of this chapter shall in no case be deemed a conviction of crime.” RCW 13.04.240. Our Supreme Court has written: Thus, “An act which would be a crime if committed by an adult is not a crime, and thus not a felony, if committed by a juvenile.” We treat youth here in Washington differently than adults charged with the same offense. We use a completely different vernacular. Our Juvenile Justice Act operates under the philosophy to rehabilitate, correct and direct errant youth. It appears Mr. Heimlich did not require much redirection. We don’t rehabilitate youth to 95% and say “you may now resume your pursuit of life, liberty & happiness. Oh, except you can’t play professional baseball. Sorry.” If that were the case, what else couldn’t he do? Where would you draw the line in the sand?
The reason our Supreme Court denies juveniles the right to a jury trial lies in the distinction between the adult and juvenile systems. It is the rehabilitative purposes and lesser penalties of the JJA which stand in contrast to the punitive purposes and much more serious penalties of the adult criminal system. It is the nature of the penalty, not the criminal act committed that distinguishes the juvenile from the adult system. Our Supreme Court has written in justification of the denial of jury trials to juveniles as follows:
The purpose of the juvenile justice system is ostensibly to establish a system of having primary responsibility for, and responding to, the needs of offenders, as well as to hold juveniles responsible for their offenses. The critical distinction between the two systems lies in the Juvenile Justice Act of 1997’s (JJA) policy of responding to the needs of juvenile offenders. We have in the past found such a policy as rehabilitative in nature, whereas the criminal system is punitive. Such difference has led us to consistently conclude the right to jury trial does not extend to juveniles adjudicated in juvenile proceedings.
This highlights the complexities an accused juvenile faces. Especially in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse where the evidence is nothing more than “he said” “she said.” The principle function of a jury is to find facts, not determine punishment. Our Supreme courts answer to this is, if a juvenile wants a jury trial, then they can decline Juvenile court jurisdiction and be tried as an adult. The trouble with this is if convicted, one would face the consequences an adult would receive.
This further complicates the difficulties of a 15 year old accused of a sex offense faces. Although the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt is the same in an adult criminal proceeding as in a juvenile offender proceeding, it is not the same standard of proof. Who would you want to decide your fate? A jury of one judicial officer wearing a black robe or a jury of 12 of your peers who must be unanimous in their decision?
So yes, youth do often plead guilty to things they didn’t do to avoid likely much worse consequences. And yes, false accusations exist. The Department of Education report references plea bargains and collateral consequences for anyone who would care to read the report."
So the bottom line is, if you go through the treatment program as Luke Heimlich did, you only declare that you are an offender and do not enter guilty/not guilty plea. The intent of the different vernacular is to show the program is about rehabilitation and not about conviction.
After completing the treatment program and the appropriate period afterward (5 years), the records can be sealed. At this time the offender is no longer an offender in the eyes of the judicial system. There is no record of wrong doings.
"I accepted adjudication for an offense” including a personal letter of apology to the victim that acknowledges the offense actually occurred - versus a plea of guilty, seems in laymen’s terms to be a “distinction without a difference”. |
|
