The Heimlich maneuver

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

Is it even possible for her to forgive him, when he insists it never happened?

I don't know, that's not rhetorical, I'm genuinely asking.

[Platoon]

Please read the last sentence in the post you just quoted.

[Mike Sixel]

https://sports.yahoo.com/luke-heimlich-case-one-baseball-teams-pursuit-full-logical-landmines-133357057.html

[KirbyDome89]

 

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.

Its a reference to them sharing blame with Heimlich if the attention is indeed traumatic. Acknowledging that doesn't detract from the focus of the thread. 

 

If you believe that Heimlich maintaining his innocence is traumatizing then media outlets asking to reiterate that stance are complicit in the traumatization. You seem certain he committed the act he was accused of, obviously he has a very different story. Therein lies your issue. 

[alarp33]

 

You seem certain he committed the act he was accused of, obviously he has a very different story. Therein lies your issue. 

 

He pled guilty in the court of law. He has had a different story since it became public knowledge in an attempt to save his baseball career

[KirbyDome89]

The SI article was a good one, no doubt, but I feel like I have more questions now than I did prior to reading it. 

 

I honestly don't know how to feel about what did or did not happen, and it's not hard for me to see either scenario being true. IMO that's the best reason I can think of to err on the side of caution, i.e. he has paid a debt, rightly or wrongly, and he should have the same opportunities as any other individual who has completed the same process. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

He pled guilty in the court of law. He has had a different story since it became public knowledge in an attempt to save his baseball career

Did you read any of the posted articles? That simply isn't true. 

[Vanimal46]

He would have the same opportunities as most any other 'rehabilitated' sex offender. He's the very rare case that's good at a sport. And that's the issue for me. I'm not willing to forget his wrong doings while he goes out and earns millions of dollars and be a potential role model for fans.

[Mr. Brooks]

Please read the last sentence in the post you just quoted.

That doesn't answer my question.

I guess more generally, is it possible for any victim to forgive a perpetrator that insists crime never occurred?

I would personally think that's not compatible, but again, I don't know.

[Mr. Brooks]

Its a reference to them sharing blame with Heimlich if the attention is indeed traumatic. Acknowledging that doesn't detract from the focus of the thread.

 

If you believe that Heimlich maintaining his innocence is traumatizing then media outlets asking to reiterate that stance are complicit in the traumatization. You seem certain he committed the act he was accused of, obviously he has a very different story. Therein lies your issue.

You might want to read my post where I explain it's entirely possible that he didn't commit the acts.

 

My responses regarding his lack of contrition have been addressed to those who believe he did it, but should be forgiven.

[alarp33]

 

Did you read any of the posted articles? That simply isn't true. 

 

What is not true? Did he not plead guilty? Has he not been public about being innocent since this came to the public light, but intentionally withheld the info when enrolling in college?

[Mr. Brooks]

What is not true? Did he not plead guilty? Has he not been public about being innocent since this came to the public light, but intentionally withheld the info when enrolling in college?

He has insisted he didn't do it from the very beginning, outside of his plea agreement.

[Monkeypaws]

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/luke-heimlich-case-one-baseball-teams-pursuit-full-logical-landmines-133357057.html

Was just gonna post this.

 

All I can say, is drug offenses and gambling don't look so bad in this light.

[alarp33]

 

He has insisted he didn't do it from the very beginning, outside of his plea agreement.

 

Ok. I get that he has said that in the puff pieces written ahead of this years draft. That he has "always maintained his innocence". But these facts remain; he pled guilty by written statement and out loud in a courtroom, he did not report this to Oregon St upon enrolling, has sealed all court records, and has only become forthright in attempting to claim innocence since it became convenient for him to (the paper found out, so did MLB teams)

[gunnarthor]

 

Was just gonna post this.

 

All I can say, is drug offenses and gambling don't look so bad in this light.

It's Passan. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[biggentleben]

 

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.

 

And as I mentioned earlier, without true remorse, there's a very high chance he offends again as an adult. I'd love him to be the rare one that proves me wrong, but that's just what he'd be - rare.

[KirbyDome89]

 

He would have the same opportunities as most any other 'rehabilitated' sex offender. He's the very rare case that's good at a sport. And that's the issue for me. I'm not willing to forget his wrong doings while he goes out and earns millions of dollars and be a potential role model for fans.

Not wanting to see him in MLB and barring him from entry are two different things. I can understand the former but not the latter. Baseball is job, it shouldn't be given special status as employment only for those deemed acceptable by the masses. 

[biggentleben]

 

Not wanting to see him in MLB and barring him from entry are two different things. I can understand the former but not the latter. Baseball is job, it shouldn't be given special status as employment only for those deemed acceptable by the masses. 

 

But he's also not guaranteed employment at the highest level. I've mentioned it already, but why does a major league team have to sign him? Why can't he prove himself in independent ball? If you have your MBA but have a sex offense on your record, you won't be getting considered for the same job most with the same education would. It's the way it is.

[Vanimal46]

Not wanting to see him in MLB and barring him from entry are two different things. I can understand the former but not the latter. Baseball is job, it shouldn't be given special status as employment only for those deemed acceptable by the masses.

I don't think the MLB barred him from entry though. He went to the draft 2 years in a row, but no one selected him for various reasons.

 

There are other leagues he could try to join and get paid to play baseball, but I'm sure he will come across the same issues.

 

I don't think MLB teams' decision to not sign him is any different than organizations in the corporate world... If, for example he had potential to be a really good accountant, he'll still have a hard time getting that job. The background check will come back saying he's a registered sex offender, and they'll most likely move on to the next candidate.

[KirbyDome89]

 

You might want to read my post where I explain it's entirely possible that he didn't commit the acts.

My responses regarding his lack of contrition have been addressed to those who believe he did it, but should be forgiven.

Neither of us have any idea what, if anything, happened. It sounds like we can both agree that there's a chance he actually is innocent. We don't have to agree where those odds fall, and personally I have no clue where'd I put them. It seems to me that if we can entertain the possibility of innocence then angst over his insistence on the matter and his supposed lack of contrition appear to be excessive. 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

But he's also not guaranteed employment at the highest level. I've mentioned it already, but why does a major league team have to sign him? Why can't he prove himself in independent ball? If you have your MBA but have a sex offense on your record, you won't be getting considered for the same job most with the same education would. It's the way it is.

 

 

I don't think the MLB barred him from entry though. He went to the draft 2 years in a row, but no one selected him for various reasons.

There are other leagues he could try to join and get paid to play baseball, but I'm sure he will come across the same issues.

I don't think MLB teams' decision to not sign him is any different than organizations in the corporate world... If, for example he had potential to be a really good accountant, he'll still have a hard time getting that job. The background check will come back saying he's a registered sex offender, and they'll most likely move on to the next candidate.

I'm not making the case that MLB teams have to sign him. I agree, teams should be allowed to operate as they so choose. An unobstructed opportunity, the same one every potential signee has, is all he can ask for. That's all I meant by he should be granted the same opportunities as others who have completed similar programs. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't think MLB teams' decision to not sign him is any different than organizations in the corporate world... If, for example he had potential to be a really good accountant, he'll still have a hard time getting that job. The background check will come back saying he's a registered sex offender, and they'll most likely move on to the next candidate.

 

Possibly.  Though, again, it warrants being said that no future employer should have access to that information.  Many people charged with juvenile crimes would not see that show up in a background check.  But for police incompetence, much would be the same here.

 

I don't want to say I feel sympathy for him on that, sympathy is too strong a word.  But the system did fail him also.

[Vanimal46]

Possibly. Though, again, it warrants being said that no future employer should have access to that information. Many people charged with juvenile crimes would not see that show up in a background check. But for police incompetence, much would be the same here.

 

I don't want to say I feel sympathy for him on that, sympathy is too strong a word. But the system did fail him also.

The system and now the internet will work against him the rest of his life... Now when he's looking for a new job and they Google his name...

 

I'm not sure how background checks pick up info. There were some weird examples that came up when I was recruiting and it prevented that candidate from getting the job.

 

The manager at my new job said in my background check the underage drinking violation I got at 17 going on 18 years old was still on there. But that didn't prevent me from getting the job.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The system and now the internet will work against him the rest of his life... Now when he's looking for a new job and they Google his name...

 

Yes, this is very much true.  And another whole tangent we could probably go on.  This story really has a lot of ethical dilemmas.  None of which are particularly enjoyable to weed through.

[Jham]

I don’t think this is a ‘the truth is in the middle’ situation, not one iota. It’s more of a case of ‘we don’t know what the whole truth is’ situation. I also don’t think this is a situation of ... well ... something that would be legal between adults. I don’t think a 4-6 year old is thinking in terms of sexual contact. And even in adults, unwanted contact is unwanted. If he did rape her, it’s rape no matter her age. It’s just quite a bit more heinous given the fact she was 6. This isn’t two teenagers fooling around and they got caught. Again, I don’t know the whole truth and I’m very conflicted about this young man.

Respectfully, he wasn't charged with rape. There are no allegations of rape. Additionally, consent, as you've pointed out, doesn't matter because of age which is why I suggested that conduct that may be legal at some point is illegal at that point. The conduct could be giving each other spankings. It could be touching of genitals. But penetration is separately addressed under the rape statute so that seems unlikely.

 

"A person is guilty of child molestation in the first degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim."

 

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083

 

Sexual contact is also defined as touching sexual of intimate parts for sexual gratification. RCW 9A.44.010

 

So without knowing the details, we don't really know what happened or how bad it was. But it almost certainly did not involve any sort of penetration.

 

If we then agree that something inappropriate likely happened, then we just proved that the truth is indeed probably somewhere in the middle.

[Mr. Brooks]

Neither of us have any idea what, if anything, happened. It sounds like we can both agree that there's a chance he actually is innocent. We don't have to agree where those odds fall, and personally I have no clue where'd I put them. It seems to me that if we can entertain the possibility of innocence then angst over his insistence on the matter and his supposed lack of contrition appear to be excessive.

But the people I'm addressing aren't arguing that he innocent. They are arguing that he did it, but should be forgiven.

 

He either did it, in which case he's shown no remorse.

 

Or, he didn't do it, in which case there is nothing to be remorseful for.

 

I think it's fair to acknowledge that either of these could be the truth, as I have.

I don't think it's fair to combine the two though. It's not possible for it to be some combination of the two.

I don't think it's fair to say we can't question his lack of remorse for the thing he pled guilty to doing, just because an alternate scenario where he didn't do it exists.

 

Even though false confessions do exist, these are the things a defendant has to weigh if they decide to plead guilty to something. In addition to the legal ramifications, they also have to accept that they are telling the world that they did it.

This isn't a case of improper interrogation methods, or incompetent counsel, as is often the case in false confessions.

If he didn't do it, this is a case of a tactical decision that the ramifications of pleading guilty outweigh the ramifications of insisting on the truth. One of those ramifications that he weighed, was that he was telling the world he did it.

[Mr. Brooks]

Respectfully, he wasn't charged with rape. There are no allegations of rape. Additionally, consent, as you've pointed out, doesn't matter because of age which is why I suggested that conduct that may be legal at some point is illegal at that point. The conduct could be giving each other spankings. It could be touching of genitals. But penetration is separately addressed under the rape statute so that seems unlikely.

 

"A person is guilty of child molestation in the first degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim."

 

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083

 

Sexual contact is also defined as touching sexual of intimate parts for sexual gratification. RCW 9A.44.010

 

So without knowing the details, we don't really know what happened or how bad it was. But it almost certainly did not involve any sort of penetration.

 

If we then agree that something inappropriate likely happened, then we just proved that the truth is indeed probably somewhere in the middle.

 

The charges he pleaded guilty to are detailed in the SI report.

I won't post them here because they are graphic, but penetration was specifically involved.

[Squirrel]

 

Respectfully, he wasn't charged with rape. There are no allegations of rape. Additionally, consent, as you've pointed out, doesn't matter because of age which is why I suggested that conduct that may be legal at some point is illegal at that point. The conduct could be giving each other spankings. It could be touching of genitals. But penetration is separately addressed under the rape statute so that seems unlikely.

"A person is guilty of child molestation in the first degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim."

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.083

Sexual contact is also defined as touching sexual of intimate parts for sexual gratification. RCW 9A.44.010

So without knowing the details, we don't really know what happened or how bad it was. But it almost certainly did not involve any sort of penetration.

If we then agree that something inappropriate likely happened, then we just proved that the truth is indeed probably somewhere in the middle.

Again ... my point was I didn't think this was a 'truth in the middle' situation. Either he did this or he didn't. Period. There is no middle ground on child molestation, no matter what degree it was. You trying to say something about the truth in the middle just didn't fly with me. That's all I was saying.

[KirbyDome89]

 

But the people I'm addressing aren't arguing that he innocent. They are arguing that he did it, but should be forgiven.

He either did it, in which case he's shown no remorse.

Or, he didn't do it, in which case there is nothing to be remorseful for.

I think it's fair to acknowledge that either of these could be the truth, as I have.
I don't think it's fair to combine the two though. It's not possible for it to be some combination of the two.
I don't think it's fair to say we can't question his lack of remorse for the thing he pled guilty to doing, just because an alternate scenario where he didn't do it exists.

Even though false confessions do exist, these are the things a defendant has to weigh if they decide to plead guilty to something. In addition to the legal ramifications, they also have to accept that they are telling the world that they did it.
This isn't a case of improper interrogation methods, or incompetent counsel, as is often the case in false confessions.
If he didn't do it, this is a case of a tactical decision that the ramifications of pleading guilty outweigh the ramifications of insisting on the truth. One of those ramifications that he weighed, was that he was telling the world he did it.

Accepting that an individual has completed the steps deemed necessary to be reintegrated into society isn't the same thing as forgiveness. Forgiveness occurs on an individual level. I can support his pursuit of employment in MLB after demonstrating he's capable of being a functioning member of society. That doesn't mean his actions are absolutely excused. We can debate how much of an effect those actions at 15 should have on him through his 20s and 30s, and I've seen that in this thread, but I haven't seen anybody suggest that because he completed his mandatory rehabilitation he's free from all reproach. This of course, is if he's truly guilty. 

 

I agree with you, it's important to acknowledge that either scenario could be true, and I also agree that there isn't much wiggle room in regards to what happened. Either something did, or it didn't, there isn't much middle ground there. The fact that nobody actually knows what did happen though does create a bit of a gray area. I don't think this is a situation where we have to pick a side and then either throw the book at him or absolve him of all past actions. 

 

I'm not saying you can't question his lack of remorse, but I will point out that if we've recognized that the possibility exists that he may be innocent, it seems rather insincere to come down on him for claiming his innocence and showing what's subjectively termed a "lack of remorse." 

 

I have a hard time labeling what she said a false confession. At age 4 there's a lot going on that isn't understood. In general, you're right, he and his family made the conscious decision to enter a guilty plea. That said, I think it's fair to consider the alternative to pleading guilty was worse. What chance does an adolescent male accused of sexual molestation of a 4-6 year old girl stand in court?  When you consider that the alleged incident occurred between family members you're looking at a national news story on top of probable jail time. By pleading guilty one charge was dropped, he had to keep his head low for 5 years, and the records would've been permanently sealed. He had a "choice," to proclaim his innocence at 15, but it isn't the easy road some are making it out to be. 

 

I'd also add that while he certainly knew he would have to inform certain people over that 5 year span of his listing on the registry, the whole point of pleading guilty was to keep the alleged incident under the radar. It isn't fair to say he knew there would be backlash today, especially when barring a bungling by Corvallis police, nobody should've known about this. The point of the plea was in fact to not have to tell the world anything about the alleged incident. One question that I haven't heard him answer is whether he would've singed the plea agreement if he had known this info would leak. Based on his insistence of innocence I'd guess not. 

 

**Before anybody reads this and loses their mind, no, this isn't some proclamation of innocence. It's an objective look at why a 15 year old may have chosen to enter a guilty plea despite claiming innocence. 

[Jham]

The charges he pleaded guilty to are detailed in the SI report.

I won't post them here because they are graphic, but penetration was specifically involved.

Charges, allegations, and pleas are all different. He was charged with molestation and not penetration despite the allegation. The fact pattern he plead to could be very different still.

 

I'm not here saying something dis or didn't happen, but everyone involved had an agenda. Questioning a child in this type of case is extremely difficult to do, and can rarely be done without extreme leading and offering of affirmation for desired responses. My only point in citing the statute was to show how many circumstances may fall under the broad definition of molestation. But to be clear, none of them are good. Would it matter if the touching was over or under clothes? Would it matter if he touched her or she touched him? If she consented or asked? If he said,I absolutely did not do what she said, but we were joking about privates and jokingly patted each other their. it was wrong, I felt guilty afterward but I never touched her under the clothes.

 

I use that as an almost identical example of a case I had. Legally, all those scenarios would be violations of the same statute. To Carol's point, they are therefore all the same. Yet the only thing we can say for certain is that he admitted some facts that provided a basis for an adjudication of guilt to the crime of fist degree molestation.

 

It's human nature for defendants to minimize their actions or find excuses why they aren't a monster. Prosecutors want convictions. Not charging rape when the facts allege penetration would be extremely rare as it could be plead simply as leverage toward molestation in this case. Lawyers can't ask leading questions of their witnesses at trial. Police officers can and frequently do. Child witnesses are very impressionable. If an officer says, "he touched you here didn't he. It's ok to admit it. You didn't do anything wrong. Look how brave you are!" The odds are the officer gets the statement he wants regardless of whether it's the truth, part truth, or total fabrication.

 

I'm not saying that's what happened. But those competing forces of minimization and pressure for convictions means the truth is often somewhere in the middle. I can certainly understand why some here would suggest it doesn't matter.