The Heimlich maneuver

[Squirrel]

 

I think the line can be never as far as his aspirations to play in the MLB... It's a public facing profession and people will never let it go that their team signed a registered sex offender.

As far as other professions he could do, that's up to the organization. He could work in an Amazon warehouse or something like that and be out of the public's view forever.

This is going to be a life long problem for him as long as he's a registered sex offender.

But this is what I'm saying ... how would you react if you found out a neighbor or colleague or business associate was a registered sex offender. Can you honestly say that wouldn't change what you think about having to work with that person or live next door to some capacity? If someone started a campaign to remove this person from your neighborhood or from his employment or block doors to employment ... would you be on board with that? Okay, so baseball is 'too public' of a profession ... are you saying, then, that the general public, people that he doesn't know and don't know him (personally) get to have a say in how he lives the rest of his life? Again, not defending his actions, more posing a ... philosophical ... question ... so, his punishment then becomes we take away all his choices and opporutnities but for the narrow few we deem 'okay' for him to pursue? So he will, in essence, be punished for the rest of his life? While I get it .. the heinous nature of the crime has us all ... on edge ... but is that fair? Is this just a crime that carries a life-long sentence? Does he never a get a second chance at LIFE ... but only is allowed the life we, the general public, chooses for him? Forever, for as long as he lives? I think that's a dangerous precedence, personally.

[Mike Sixel]

Btw, I stopped rooting for AP, and for other athletes who did bad things more than one time...

 

I also understand why a team wouldn't want the negative PR. Hell, what's the Venn diagram of those supporting Heimlich, but against Kaepernick?

[Squirrel]

 

If you are interested in that, the Oregonian published a piece on its decision to publish the original story:

 

https://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2017/06/why_we_published_the_story_abo.html

Thanks. I'll read it. Have to get to work for now ... and have already spent too much time here.

[alarp33]

 

Okay, so baseball is 'too public' of a profession ... are you saying, then, that the general public, people that he doesn't know and don't know him (personally) get to have a say in how he lives the rest of his life?

 

Did the 6 year old get a say in how she lived the rest of her life?

[Squirrel]

 

Did the 6 year old get a say in how she lived the rest of her life?

She is still allowed to make choices in her life. And yes, this event has likely altered that. But did she have a particular talent and is no longer being allowed to pursue it by the general public?

 

Is this such a crime, then, that punishment should be life long? (I'm seriously asking ... as I said above, I'm not defending anyone ... but asking.) What crime is next? That drunk driver killed someone I loved, and because I grieve forever for that person, so should that driver, who knew better but drove anyway?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Did the 6 year old get a say in how she lived the rest of her life?

 

What do you advocate for his punishment?

[alarp33]

 

What do you advocate for his punishment?

 

I advocate for major league baseball teams not signing him. He can do whatever he wants with his life, but playing major league baseball is not a right. I think it's disgusting the amount of people in this thread absolving what he did so easily because he can throw a baseball 97mph

[alarp33]

 

She is still allowed to make choices in her life. And yes, this event has likely altered that. But did she have a particular talent and is no longer being allowed to pursue it by the general public?

 

 

Wow. Got it.  So if she threw 97mph we'd feel worse that her life was forever altered because her uncle raped her. This is truly an unbelievable thing to write, I hope this just came off poorly and isn't exactly what you think

[TheLeviathan]

 

I advocate for major league baseball teams not signing him. He can do whatever he wants with his life, but playing major league baseball is not a right. I think it's disgusting the amount of people in this thread absolving what he did so easily because he can throw a baseball 97mph

 

No one is absolving him.  And you do not want him to "do whatever he wants" because you've already shut him out of baseball.  What about being a police officer?  

 

What would you allow him to do?

[alarp33]

 

No one is absolving him.  And you do not want him to "do whatever he wants" because you've already shut him out of baseball.  What about being a police officer?  

 

What would you allow him to do?

 

I don't "want" him to do anything. He can rot in jail for all I care. I said he can do anything he wants. And MLB teams can not sign him if they want. Which is what I advocate they do, not sign him. 

 

This is quite the battle to pick

[Vanimal46]

But this is what I'm saying ... how would you react if you found out a neighbor or colleague or business associate was a registered sex offender. Can you honestly say that wouldn't change what you think about having to work with that person or live next door to some capacity? If someone started a campaign to remove this person from your neighborhood or from his employment or block doors to employment ... would you be on board with that? Okay, so baseball is 'too public' of a profession ... are you saying, then, that the general public, people that he doesn't know and don't know him (personally) get to have a say in how he lives the rest of his life? Again, not defending his actions, more posing a ... philosophical ... question ... so, his punishment then becomes we take away all his choices and opporutnities but for the narrow few we deem 'okay' for him to pursue? So he will, in essence, be punished for the rest of his life? While I get it .. the heinous nature of the crime has us all ... on edge ... but is that fair? Is this just a crime that carries a life-long sentence? Does he never a get a second chance at LIFE ... but only is allowed the life we, the general public, chooses for him? Forever, for as long as he lives? I think that's a dangerous precedence, personally.

It would absolutely change my opinion of that person if I found out they were a sex offender and I worked or lived next to them.

 

Most likely I would be on board with taking part in the campaign to remove them from the neighborhood, and I'll leave it up to the organization they apply at to determine if they want that person to work for them.

 

I was recruiting talent for companies across the US for 5 years... And I saw several offers of employment withdrawn for reasons way less controversial than this. There's a job out there for everyone... Where do other sex offenders work across the country?

 

Child molesters typically don't get a 2nd chance in life... Fair or not. They're viewed as scum of the earth even in prisons. I think that says a lot.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't "want" him to do anything. He can rot in jail for all I care. I said he can do anything he wants. And MLB teams can not sign him if they want. Which is what I advocate they do, not sign him. 

 

This is quite the battle to pick

 

Well, it's one of the parts that is complicated.  Can a juvenile be redeemed?  That's the heart of the question.  

 

I asked what you would allow him to do.  Because you continue to imply he should've either been put to death or jailed for life for his act at 15.  Is that what you believe?  If not, what is it you believe?

 

The question of can he be redeemed or not is one of those tough complications to this story that many of us struggle with.  Since, from your tower, you seem to have moral clarity on it....please, enlighten.

[alarp33]

 

Well, it's one of the parts that is complicated.  Can a juvenile be redeemed?  That's the heart of the question.  

 

I asked what you would allow him to do.  Because you continue to imply he should've either been put to death or jailed for life for his act at 15.  Is that what you believe?  If not, what is it you believe?

 

The question of can he be redeemed or not is one of those tough complications to this story that many of us struggle with.  Since, from your tower, you seem to have moral clarity on it....please, enlighten.

 

Please show me where I said he should be put to death or jailed for life. I said he can do whatever he wants, find a job where someone hires child molesters and work it. I really couldn't be anymore clear with anything I've written. Playing Major League Baseball is not a right. 

 

It's not my job to decide on whether he can be redeemed or not. You can figure that out as you weigh whether he'd be the Twins #1 pitching prospect. My opinion as a fan is no way should a major league baseball team sign him. From PR, to the message it sends to fans, kids, etc. 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Please show me where I said he should be put to death or jailed for life. I said he can do whatever he wants, find a job where someone hires child molesters and work it. I really couldn't be anymore clear with anything I've written. Playing Major League Baseball is not a right. 

 

It's not my job to decide on whether he can be redeemed or not. You can figure that out as you weigh whether he'd be the Twins #1 pitching prospect. My opinion as a fan is no way should a major league baseball team sign him. From PR, to the message it sends to fans, kids, etc. 

 

I literally responded to a post wehre you said he could rot in jail his whole life?

 

Here's my issue - you're wading into those waters with your criticisms.  You are attacking everyone who has a torn view on this as being "Absolving".  But many of us are torn because there are so many difficult dichotomies to this case that it causes our moral values to collide in uncomfortable ways.

 

I've already said I'm glad the Twins aren't signing him.  But I also can't get behind some of the things you're saying.  It may not be your job to decide, but if you're going to rip people trying to wrestle with these ideas for being soft or absolving of a tough crime - then you better be ready to defend your own views too. 

[alarp33]

 

I literally responded to a post wehre you said he could rot in jail his whole life?

 

Here's my issue - you're wading into those waters with your criticisms.  You are attacking everyone who has a torn view on this as being "Absolving".  But many of us are torn because there are so many difficult dichotomies to this case that it causes our moral values to collide in uncomfortable ways.

 

I've already said I'm glad the Twins aren't signing him.  But I also can't get behind some of the things you're saying.  It may not be your job to decide, but if you're going to rip people trying to wrestle with these ideas for being soft or absolving of a tough crime - then you better be ready to defend your own views too. 

 

You said "what do you want him to do", I said I don't care, he can rot in prison for all I care. I did not say he SHOULD be in jail for life. What he does with his life doesn't concern me, unless he is playing MLB, then I would be disappointed. 

 

I did not say everyone in this thread is absolving what he did. I said there are people doing it, and there is; 

 

I just don'tunderstand the "he shouldn't play" stance.

 

1) He committed a crime as a juvenile.

2) We're supposed to believe that our justice system can rehab people

3) We know the juvenile brain is different than an adult brain.

4) Experts on the subject of sexual abuse say he has less than a 3% chance of being a threat.

5) He fully followed the terms of his sentence.

 

This is absolving his crime because he was 15, making it somehow less traumatic for his 6 year old victim? I was 15 and had a juvenile brain, I never considered raping any 6 year olds?

 

Here is a post absolving what he did because he has a skill 99.9% of the population doesn't. 

 

She is still allowed to make choices in her life. And yes, this event has likely altered that. But did she have a particular talent and is no longer being allowed to pursue it by the general public?

 

I mean seriously? These aren't people wrestling with what he did. 

 

More "absolving" what he did; 

 

Second chances. Whatever did or did not happen, he was 13 at the time. Remember how mature you were then? Me neither. I was throwing snowballs at cars and just discovering the wonders of Playboy magazine.

 

Second chances. He's not the same guy today. His cerebral cortex is fully grown.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You said "what do you want him to do", I said I don't care, he can rot in prison for all I care. I did not say he SHOULD be in jail for life. What he does with his life doesn't concern me, unless he is playing MLB, then I would be disappointed. 

 

This is absolving his crime because he was 15, making it somehow less traumatic for his 6 year old victim? I was 15 and had a juvenile brain, I never considered raping any 6 year olds?

 

Except, and this is the part I really hope you recognize, you DO care.  You are concerned.  If he was your local sheriff - would itconcern you?  How about your kid's first grade teacher?  Can you please drop the facade that this is only about whether he plays baseball or not?  It clearly isn't.

 

That he was 15 does not make it less traumatic for the 6 year old.  That poor child has been scarred for life regardless.  What it does change is how we treat the crime, their punishment, and their future.  We know juveniles are less likely to repeat crimes because they commit crimes for reasons different than adults.  We have an entire process to protect juveniles from their crimes due to a myriad of research to suggest against it.  And to suggest for therapy and redemption. 

 

And, I can't stress this enough, but for the incompetence of a local police department Heimlich would've been protected as well.  Maybe he didn't deserve that protection, but there are thousands of people out there in the world, probably some of whom you interact with, that have been protected from being outed for their crimes as a juvenile.  There are valid reasons for that.

[alarp33]

 

Except, and this is the part I really hope you recognize, you DO care.  You are concerned.  If he was your local sheriff - would itconcern you?  How about your kid's first grade teacher?  Can you please drop the facade that this is only about whether he plays baseball or not?  It clearly isn't.

 

That he was 15 does not make it less traumatic for the 6 year old.  That poor child has been scarred for life regardless.  What it does change is how we treat the crime, their punishment, and their future.  We know juveniles are less likely to repeat crimes because they commit crimes for reasons different than adults.  We have an entire process to protect juveniles from their crimes due to a myriad of research to suggest against it.  And to suggest for therapy and redemption. 

 

And, I can't stress this enough, but for the incompetence of a local police department Heimlich would've been protected as well.  Maybe he didn't deserve that protection, but there are thousands of people out there in the world, probably some of whom you interact with, that have been protected from being outed for their crimes as a juvenile.  There are valid reasons for that.

 

You got me, I do care about Child molesters. I'm done with this conversation but you can continue to nitpick every word I've written if you'd like, or try to twist them around to play the "ah ha!" game. I wouldn't want my kids around child molesters, and I don't want to watch them playing major league baseball

[TheLeviathan]

 

You got me, I do care about Child molesters. I'm done with this conversation but you can continue to nitpick every word I've written if you'd like, or try to twist them around to play the "ah ha!" game. I wouldn't want my kids around child molesters, and I don't want to watch them playing major league baseball

 

I'm sorry you joined a difficult conversation and expected it to be easy.  I also care about the effects of child molestation, I worked directly with kids who experienced it as a counselor for about 5 years.  Some of those kids themselves offended in part because of the offenses done to them.  

 

One of those kids, who was an accused offender, has gone on to be a state champion for victims rights in his state.  And there are other success stories I've seen because juvenile offenders are not the same and we shouldn't treat them the same.  Now how we treat them, and Heimlich in particular, gets really hard.  It's a tough circle to square.

[alarp33]

 

I'm sorry you joined a difficult conversation and expected it to be easy.  I also care about the effects of child molestation, I worked directly with kids who experienced it as a counselor for about 5 years.  Some of those kids themselves offended in part because of the offenses done to them.  

.

 

Here's the thing I think you are missing about what I think. I don't find this to be a difficult conversation. I find it to be pretty open and shut. I don't think MLB should be in the business of employing someone in such a public facing career who is a child molester. And I'm not wrestling with that opinion in the least.  

[TheLeviathan]

Here's the thing I think you are missing about what I think. I don't find this to be a difficult conversation.

 

I do understand that. In fact I think it's the root of the problem with your viewpoint. I'm not sure you're considering all the Dynamics. Which I understand because of the nature of the crime but I'm trying to take emotion out of it and consider it from all the angles the story presents. And I think that's what many in here that you're trying to rip are trying to do.

[Vanimal46]

I do understand that. In fact I think it's the root of the problem with your viewpoint. I'm not sure you're considering all the Dynamics. Which I understand because of the nature of the crime but I'm trying to take emotion out of it and consider it from all the angles the story it's. And I think that's what many in here that you're trying to be critical of our trying to do.

 

The Dynamics don't really register with me when it comes to a crime such as this. It doesn't matter whether he was 13, 15, 33, or 53 years old when he did it. This person did something that 99% of people that age don't do... Act on sexual urges with a very young girl. There are serious life long consequences for what he did. Not having a public facing profession should certainly be one of those consequences.

[alarp33]

 

I do understand that. In fact I think it's the root of the problem with your viewpoint. I'm not sure you're considering all the Dynamics. Which I understand because of the nature of the crime but I'm trying to take emotion out of it and consider it from all the angles the story presents. And I think that's what many in here that you're trying to rip are trying to do.

 

The emotion of it comes in when people are justifying / absolving his crimes, and ignoring the effects on the victim because she doesn't have a skill set like a pitcher who throws 97. Which people in this thread have done.

 

I don't care if you are struggling with the decision on whether he should be signed or not, that's your right. What I don't like is my words are being twisted/ taken out of context in such a delicate subject. 

[TheLeviathan]

The Dynamics don't really register with me when it comes to a crime such as this. It doesn't matter whether he was 13, 15, 33, or 53 years old when he did it. This person did something that 99% of people that age don't do... Act on sexual urges with a very young girl. There are serious life long consequences for what he did. Not having a public facing profession should certainly be one of those consequences.

If you dismiss the relevance of his age then, with all due respect, you may wamy to do some reading on that.

 

Sexual offenses are heinous and I feel for adults the death penalty should often be on the table. But juveniles are, and should be, treated differently.

 

But yeah, what he did is awful. I'm glad the Twins aren't in on it.

[Mr. Brooks]

None of those things you wrote is true but it's also an emotionally charged topic. I've said my piece.

Huh?

From the SI piece:

 

"I pled guilty to it," he said of the child molestation charge. "But ever since that day and even before that, in court records and everything, I've denied ever committing the offense. I stand by that."

 

Asked, minutes later, if he ever touched his niece inappropriately or sexually, Heimlich said, "No."

 

Asked, then, if he's asserting that the girl repeatedly told a false story, he said, "Yes."

 

"I can't speak to the accusation because I would just be guessing and I don't want to do something like that. I don't know why it would've come up."

 

 

What, exactly, did I say that wasn't true?

[Mr. Brooks]

While I'm not trying to defend Heimlich here, if we want to talk about who is victimizing whom, then why isn't the person who broke this story part of this ongoing victimization? Was there any thought to what doing this might mean to this girl, or was the only thought given to outing Heimlich because he is a college baseball star and that would garner attention?

 

And in what sector, what job could he possibly try for, where this won't be an issue for employers and/or colleagues?

 

While I fully understand the heinous nature of the crime has many of us saying, 'Omg, no! Anywhere but here!' ... if everyone says that, then where? He's satisfied the terms of his punishment, is this how all offenders, of any crime, should be treated? You don't know what contrition he has or hasn't shown as I don't think he needs to prove that to me. Yeah, okay, it'd be nice to see him publicly remorseful, but I don't count and what I think doesn't count toward that, and shouldn't, imo. The general public shouldn't be allowed to tack on terms to his punishment. We have no idea what has/hasn't been said privately. Is he supposed to go through circus hoops every time this comes up? At what point does he get to move on to some degree? (I'd guess completely being able to move on will never happen for him because, well, yeah, but ... I still ask the question.)

 

As I said above, I'm very conflicted. Part of me is saying, 'Yuck, no, go away! Ugh!' but part of me knows, well, he has to be given an opportunity somewhere if he's legally satisfied the terms of his punishment. Where is the line? It can't be never.

His family, as well as the mother of the girl are on record in the SI piece confirming, explicitly, that he has never admitted what he did, outside of his plea agreement. So we do know the level of his contrition, both publicly and privately.

 

As to your question, I'd say he gets to move on when he says he's sorry for what he did.

[Platoon]

Minnesota has dealt with this problem, unsuccessfully, for years. People accused of a sex related crime are tried, convicted, and sentenced to a determinate time in prison. But just prior to their release, they are then run through a civil procedure, determined to be a danger to the community, and sent to a facility in St. Peter, or Moose Lake MN. In theory to be rehabilitated, yet again. The difference is that up until very recent years, after lengthly court cases, and over the states dead body, no one was ever deemed rehabilitated. Not one single person. It was in essence a life sentence imposed without due process. Now after federal intervention, some are finally trickling out. I am not here to defend sex offenses, or offenders. But I do have an issue with indeterminate punishment. There's a reason sentencing guidelines and criteria exist. Fair and equal punishment to fit the crime. Obviously there is a wide and varying opinion on what is a suitable punishment for the crime Heimlich pled to. And I imagine that punishment is based on a balance between the retribution minded, and the rehabilitation minded, a compromise, as it should be. It must be nice for those who think Heimlich should be banished to some non productive hell for the rest of his life, to have never benefited from some version of balanced punishment for an indiscretion, regardless of the magnitude. Or for them to have the arrogance to have forgotten it. For I imagine that if I looked around long enough, I could find someone who thought anyone caught speeding or texting while driving, should never again be allowed behind the wheel of a car. While I am not comparing Heimlichs admission to a vehicular offense, I doubt anyone really wants punishments meted out by either the most retribusionist of us, nor the most lenient. There is a a balance to strike. No matter the severity of the offense.

[KirbyDome89]

 

While I'm not trying to defend Heimlich here, if we want to talk about who is victimizing whom, then why isn't the person who broke this story part of this ongoing victimization? Was there any thought to what doing this might mean to this girl, or was the only thought given to outing Heimlich because he is a college baseball star and that would garner attention?

That's a great point. If Heimlich's responses are so traumatizing then why aren't those posing the questions or writing the pieces being admonished as well? Aren't they equally, if not more guilty of adding to the pain? I doubt anybody is naive enough to believe that the story broke because the writer and editor were "concerned for public safety." 

[USAFChief]

I'm going to say this once, and once only: stop attacking other posters. Immediately.

 

Thanks

 

Chief

[Mr. Brooks]

That's a great point. If Heimlich's responses are so traumatizing then why aren't those posing the questions or writing the pieces being admonished as well? Aren't they equally, if not more guilty of adding to the pain? I doubt anybody is naive enough to believe that the story broke because the writer and editor were "concerned for public safety."

For one, this thread is about Heimlich, not about the fine line of free press and privacy, which is a legitimate, but separate topic. That might be why that issue isn't being discussed much here.

 

Secondly, I personally find a large difference between the mere reporting of the incident (which I don't in any way doubt is traumatic to the victim), and publicly calling her a liar.

There are degrees to everything. Acknowledging that a rape victim is in fact a victim is one step towards recovery for them. The perpetrator attempting to deny them that step, by saying their victimization never happened is incredibly harmful.

[Platoon]

While I am as guilty as the next for propagating this thread, it does make me yearn for the days that the value received in the upcoming Brian Duensing trade was the most vitriol tossed to and fro on here. I have some other thoughts I will keep to myself in deference to the Chiefs subtle rebuke just above. In closing I hope that both the girl and Luke Heimlich are able to go forward in some manner. That's going to require the girl to forgive, and while never really forgetting, to understand someday this doesn't define her. And for Heimlich never to forget, but to remind himself each day that his whole life is a second chance, and to make the best of it. That's really the only way he will ever be forgiven. Those two and only those two will decide down the road, the ultimate outcome of this sad situation.