Luke Heimlich - assaulting niece and MLB bound?
 

Should this guy get an opportunity to play pro baseball. How many years does he wait for it to be ok. He apparently is huge talent as he is basically the best college pitcher

This guy plead guilty to a sex assaulting his niece. However, he says he pled guilty at the time not because he was guilty but to move on with life basically

Also he was only 16 at the time so when are sins of when you were a minor impact you forever. I had thought baseball is about performance on the field.

Also, his records are now sealed and he no longer has to register as a sex offender. So now we have someone that does not have to register a sex offender being denied employment for being a sex offender.

If he gets to play MLB, is what pete rose did worse than him as Rose has a lifetime ban but Heimlich will get to play MLB baseball...

also when is a guilty plea guilty these days? If you can plead guilty and deny being guilty later, that is interesting. He said/she said cases are pretty tough and can be defended.

Also why go through therapy etc if deny guilt. You are using up state resources for no reason and i would deem that fraud. Here is his quote

“I always denied anything ever happened,” he said. “Even after I pled guilty, which was a decision me and my parents thought was the best option to move forward as a family. And after that, even when I was going through counseling and treatment, I maintained my innocence the whole time.”

Why go through counseling and treatment when maintaining innocence, it would appear all of that counseling and treatment didnt do much if he is maintaning his innocence throughout the treatment, how the heck did the state deem he completed treatment (and allow him to complete treatment) if he says he is innocent.

Anyway, i am on the fence on this... your thoughts?

Hear here!

Missoula

Krakauer

According to his Sports Illustrated interview a couple of months ago, the counseling was part of his sentencing guidelines. Additionally, his niece would have had to testify at any trial... So it is believable that someone would plead guilty to spare more family angst, would not be the first time that has happened either...

Also it was apparently an error on the local PD that allowed his record to be accidentally unsealed.

That said most everyone deserves a second chance, worse people have gotten second chances, why not a college kid that can give back?

Well, Pandora's Box is now officially open.

After seeing this topic, I pulled out my Sports Illustrated (dated May 21, 2018), and re-read the article on Heimlich; the cover story, written by S.L. Price, is incredibly unnerving, and yet difficult to put down simply because the matter is unprecedented. This is a young man at the beginning of his adult life, vying for a job as a professional athlete, concurrent with the highest level of visibility and scrutiny imaginable.

https://i.imgur.com/lR2rqO8.png

Anybody wanting to participate in this discussion should read the article first. Make sure you have the facts-don't assume. Conjecture has a way of making these kinds of topics veer out of control.

Firstly, as of the article's publication, Heimlich's records have been sealed, and his rehabilitation has been deemed a success....in the state of Washington, where he is from, and where the crime occurred. The same cannot be said in Oregon, where he goes to school. He is still registered as an offender, and must notify authorities whenever he moves.

It needs to be pointed out that this was not a one time occurrence. While the article does not specify how many times Heimlich assaulted his niece, it first happened when she was four years old (he was thirteen); the last alleged occurrence happened when she was six, and he was fifteen.

I understand the argument that he was still considered a minor, and as such, his brain was still developing. The article in SI also points out how the juvenile court system has a different motivation than the criminal court system that handles adult cases-juvenile courts attempt to rehabilitate offenders if possible, while the criminal court system handling adult cases seek punitive measures (except for in cases of mental illness). Luke Heimlich was classified as a level 1 sex offender (least likely to repeat his offense); the article states that since he entered the program, he's followed every step required. And statistics show that these sex offenders have an incredibly low rate of recidivism (2.5%).

As far as his pleading guilty, and writing out a confession, he states that he did so to avoid a long trial that would play out in the public. He also didn't want to force his niece to take the stand. The article references multiple legal experts who state this is not uncommon. Heimlich was told that if he completed the five years of probation, and the court-prescribed biweekly counseling, his records would be sealed, and he would no longer need to register as a sex offender. He thought that if he did everything by the book, this would, essentially, be in the past. And it might have been. His arrest was only made public because the state of Oregon issued a citation stating that he failed to properly register; however, he did everything that he was required to do. My understanding is that the citation was essentially due to a clerical error. When a reporter for the local paper in Oregon did a standard background check prior to doing a feature article on Heimlich, the citation showed in public records, and the floodgates opened.

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, I'm a Christian, and believe in forgiving those who are genuinely remorseful for what they've done. And, as previously stated, he's done everything the law has required of him. The state of Washington views it as Heimlich's paying his debt to society in full.

But it's just not that simple. It does boil down to a he said, she said, with the accuser being a young girl. There were no witnesses to the crime, so how can it be proven conclusively that he did what he was accused of? I didn't see (nor do I want to know) if there was any physical proof of the crime. And then there's the very fact that Heimlich states he did not do it. He has vehemently denied the accusation. The only time he's stated he did it was when accepting a plea deal that threw out the first felony charge (for when his niece was four).

I've tried to put myself in his head. One of the tenets of criminal law in the United States is that the accused is considered "innocent until proven guilty". Well, the court of public opinion is something entirely different. Let's say that he decided to fight the charges. It's easy to say that he should have fought it tooth and nail, professing his innocence from the top of every rooftop. But consider this-once Luke Heimlichs' name is publicly linked to sexually assaulting a minor, there's no turning back. That's a stain on his name forever, even if the court finds that he's innocent of the crime. There will always be people who think he did it. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, you can't put it back in. I don't think it's at all difficult to understand why he choose to plea out. If he fights the charges in court, he loses no matter what happens. If he wins, even though he's an elite talent, possessing the kind of ability that would likely have had him taken in the first round of the amateur draft, teams still avoid taking a chance on him. Not only is it highly likely he never plays in the Major Leagues, even if he's signed, he can kiss any endorsement deals goodbye. And the stigma of being a sex offender still follows him, regardless of any jurisprudence.

We're likely never going to know for sure what happened. I feel terribly for the little girl. I can't imagine she'd lie, but is it possible? Could a parent have coached her to say what she did? The niece's mother divorced her husband. I'm not going to delve into the possible motivations for coaching her daughter-I want to believe that a mother would not put her own daughter through that. Either alternative is terrible to think of-either the little girl was assaulted by a loved one over the course of two years, or, she was coached into lying. That child is likely scarred for life, and that knowledge makes me incredibly angry.

If I had a young daughter, would I ever let her near this guy? Absolutely not. If I had a young son, how would I react if one day he came home wearing a Luke Heimlich baseball jersey? This whole thing makes my head spin, and my stomach turn.

I still dont understand how his court appointed counseling can be deemed a success when his own quote says he maintained his innocence throughout the whole process.. what was all of this treatment for? Playing games with the system doesnt help the system. You arent moving on with your life if you just plead guilty to a sex crime. Its one thing if its for trespassing or maybe domestic batter, but man, i wouldnt plea gulity to a murder to get on with my life and just tell everyone i was really innocent etc..

We can take it a step further...what if he admitted he was guilty and everyone agrees he was guilty including him...the fact that he was a minor at the time still makes you think he should be able to get a job if the talent is there..

I dont know why his claiming innocence has anything to do with it. Otherwise every time we are dealing with someone that pleads 'guilty' we will then be having a second trial of public opinion of whether they were 'really guilty'

He could of gone to trial and lost and still claimed innocence...if lost a he said she said trial, i think he makes a better case of innocence.........

there are lot of guys on death row that lost at trial but then project innocence or something like that later proved they they were innocent by dna or whatever...if that same guy pleaded guilty to move on with their life i dont think project innocense gets involved......basically to me pleading guilty for such a bad crime still is a big deal to me....even bigger then losing a trial but maintaining innocence when the evidence is weak..

if you arent guilty, what are you really putting your 'victim' through. Why worry about her issues at trial if she is the liar.

Also the victim mother in this case i believe still thinks he did it...but again does it really matter...

I have no doubt that ownership has taken potential teammates and how they'd feel under consideration. Baseball is supposed to be a family friendly sport and venue, but would families feel comfortable at an event he attended?

As hard as I, personally, am on crime and due punishment...this reminds me how vital it is that any criminal investigation be done efficiently and without fanfare.

Today's social media has made a bad situation much, much worse. Folks, even like you and I, can sit behind keyboards and whittle away at the character of people we've never met.

All that being said, I will not straddle the fence...I simply do not know the Boy or any of those involved...so I won't voice even a neutral opinion...I will just hope that those who do know him and the situation, will do the right thing...and that we all learn from it..

This sums up my feelings pretty damn well.

If I wereadvising him I'd say go play overseas in Japan for a few years.

I am not in favor of ruining someone's life or career over one mistake, especially since this occurred as a minor and the record was supposed to be sealed. He has served his sentence, and deserves a chance to earn a living in my opinion.

So does serving sentence matter? To me would depend on what the one mistake is to see about if it ruins your life.

Lots of bad guys do horrific crimes and serve their sentence that you wouldnt want to play baseball. I never understood the 'serve your sentence' argument There is earning a living doing things and earning a living in the public forum of baseball. I am sure some will argue he deserves to earn a living but not in baseball.

Rae Carruth served his sentence, if he could still play in the NFL noone would hire him, even if the murder he committed was his only one mistake and even if he did it as 17 year old minor for sake of argument

so how many years do we all forget and he comes back to open arms

I feel like when people say things like "one mistake shouldn't ruin a life" or "he paid his debt" that is really minimizing the victim's experience. A child who is assaulted is going to suffer from that assault for their entire life. There is no "debt paid" for them. They will always pay. And while I've heard his comments about his guilty plea, I don't see why anyone would plea to charges like those just to be over and done with the episode. It's not like he admitted to vandalism or something like that. Those were pretty disturbing charges to casually plead guilty to, if his comments are to be believed.

A variation on the Heimlich Maneuver. :D

I am pretty comfortable that the hecklers in every major league stadium will not forget...ever. He would need 5 consecutive Cy Youngs to stop getting boos in his home stadium.

Example: this is the headline for his performance in game 1 of the College WS -

"One bad inning sinks convicted child molester at College World Series"
By Associated Press June 27, 2018 | 12:56am


Anyone think that will stop anytime soon?

I don't know what to say on this one. I will say this: in our hobby there are a number of convicted felons who are dealers. If you are willing to do business with them, having this kid play baseball shouldn't be all that troubling.

Felon is a broad stroke though.

I don't understand the "earn a living, but not playing baseball " line. If he had an overwhelming talent for architecture, would you let him do that? Or can he only earn a living at something menial and demeaning? What is the line? And please don't tell me it's a "privilege" to play pro sports, not with all the A-Holes people cheer for today.

I think this is such a difficult dilemma, but to me, if he deserves a second chance, he deserves it at what he does best. His crime was against a child, so keep him away from children (which he appears to have been doing in college ), but I think he deserves to play.

I don't understand the "earn a living, but not playing baseball " line. If he had an overwhelming talent for architecture, would you let him do that? Or can he only earn a living at something menial and demeaning? What is the line? And please don't tell me it's a "privilege" to play pro sports, not with all the A-Holes people cheer for today.

I think this is such a difficult dilemma, but to me, if he deserves a second chance, he deserves it at what he does best. His crime was against a child, so keep him away from children (which he appears to have been doing in college ), but I think he deserves to play.

Its tough. It makes my skin crawl, but hard to say he shouldn't be able to play at this point, He would have to deal with the court of public opinion every time he pitched

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

I've discussed this with some buddies of mine and we see both sides. 1. When people talk about how he should be able to make a living they don't factor in the public perception that will follow him around in the organization. If my Twins drafted him it's pretty much saying "Who cares what he did/didn't do with this little girl, his curve has great break and everything else is secondary" Whatever team gives him a shot has to think about their bottom line and can't afford to lose thousands or millions of fans by taking 1 pitcher. 2. My friends talked about how people have beaten their wives / almost killed people in the past and still collect a paycheck in sports and how is this different? Nobody is saying what they're doing is acceptable behavior at all, but is there much worse than being a pedophile? When using the argument "he was only 15 so we should give him a break" I can't see that at all. Although I probably did something stupid at 15, I still knew what I was doing and their age shouldn't give them a pass.

If we aren't willing to give second chances, then why not just have every crime receive a mandatory life sentence? Years ago, I was a manager at a fast food restaurant. I was desperate for help, and a guy came in that had just gotten out of prison for selling drugs. I hired him. He was awesome. A few weeks later, upper management found out he had a drug conviction and he was fired. I quit shortly thereafter. If we aren't willing to give opportunities to convicted felons, should we be surprised when they can't find work and then have to rob someone? Give the young man a chance.

It's hard to know with certainty exactly what happened, but I just read a more detailed account and it sounds like one of the deciding factors in his decision to plead guilty was that the matter would be closed and the record sealed. It also sounds like it wasnt his fault this became public, but some kind of a mixup in an Oregon state office is to blame. An unfortunate mistake for Luke, especially if he really is innocent and got some bad advice from his family and legal counsel.

And even if he really did what he plead guilty to, I still dont like seeing someone's career ruined over something that happened when he was 13-15 years old.

baseball is more of a public domain that being an architect...you need a community to support a baseball team...tax dollars...bringing familiies for family day....tons of special days and events for the public....

there isnt children run the bases after someone submits architecture plans...

again, i am on the fence in this..but you cant deny there is a difference in earning a living as an architect versus making millions based on public support in an entertainment type business. He doesnt have to have a job thats demeaning...but earning a living doesnt have to be playing baseball..he can earn a living doing many other non demeaning things..even making millions and millions of dollars...but earn a living doesnt mean have to play MLB baseball..

and dont say there is politics in baseball.....there are many players that dont get a chance to play based on certain politics.(country they are from, who their agent is...alleged PED)..and not being able to play because of being a convicted child molester would not make make him more sympathetic than others




Perception is reality...and being in your face everyday playing baseball to the many cheers of the public is tough to stomach versus working in the back office submitting blueprints..even if he makes 10 million as an architect

Serving your times means something..but it doesnt mean you have no consequences in the future..

He could be a tax dodger or had many other types of crimes...but sex predator...after all i can see someone being convicted of some bad felony and attempt to get a job by saying 'its not like i was a convicted child molester' as a reason to have a second chance

you are entitled to have a second chance at life...but you arent entitled to have a second chance in everything........ i am a fan of giving people first chances (people who did not commit child molestation crimes) versus giving second chances......

right its hard to know...but you have to hire him based on assuming the worst...that he did do it......so if you are ok with that than fine...but its not fair to have 'second trial' of whether he really did it or not because than it would matter if he really did it (plus he knew the risks when pleading guilty that it could come out in the public)

If it mattered if he really did it, then you could have someone hiring him thinking he was innocent but come to find out he was not and thus taking a job away from someone else........no way every employer is going to be right about whether someone in his situation did it or not...so you have to assume the worst and decide if you still want him assuming he did it (and served his time and debt to society)

I'm a little surprised by what people view as a second chance in life. A second chance at life means an individual has the opportunity to atone for what they've done, it doesn't mean a person has carte blanche to do all of the things he otherwise would have done.

Agree completely...

So you're saying if a person fulfills his punishment, and does not stray or break any other laws, he still should continue being punished?

If so, who decides what he is "allowed" to do in the future? In this case, it appears major league teams have decided they don't want to deal with him, fine. But if he was drafted, or later signs as a free agent, should there be a system in place saying "baseball is cool and you can make a lot of money at it, so Thou Shall Not Play!"??

Felons can't participate in many aspects of society after being released: they can't own firearms, they can't vote while on probation or parole, their travel is restricted, and in some cases they can't live in certain areas. You act as though having things taken away from you in response to breaking a law is an alien concept. This guy can earn a living. Baseball is not his only avenue toward a productive life. If he can't do this one thing as a result of the crime he admitted to, that's his penance. There are many other jobs being a convicted felon excludes you from as well. If his dream was to be a police officer instead of a baseball player he can say goodbye to that too.

I would feel a lot better if he had a trial and even if found guilty we would know all of the evidence or lack of which was used against him. I not a fan of plea guilty but i am really innocent..and by the way im pleaing to a sex crime and not tax evasion.. and using that 'fake plea' as a way to do an end run for public sympathy....like i said if everyone is ok with him playing if he did it..then fine...but dont fall for the plea guilty but really not public sympathy tour..

Unless I'm mistaken, felons are allowed to play major league baseball.

Since baseball may not work out for him, what about acting in movies? Being a TV game show host? Professional wrestler? Big finance guy on Wall St? Can he become a famous internet personality? Please tell me what the line is on what he can and can't do, and please tell me who gets to choose that for him.

Is he only allowed to make a living at jobs most people aren't envious of? Because that's what I'm hearing. Nobody here has said anything along the lines of "That SOB better not try to be an elementary school teacher/camp counselor/teen coach." Because that makes a hell of a lot more sense, IMHO, than "He'd better not throw a baseball and get rich and famous."

I don't know if there's an actual line in terms of what type of employment he can hold, but in regards to who gets to choose, it's the employer. In this case the 30 MLB teams, who are clearly saying they don't want to sign him because they don't want that construed as them supporting a heinous crime. That is well within their rights. Kudos to someone for actually taking a stand on character over talent IMO. People complain that athletes and celebrities are held to different standards and don't have to face consequences, but then when someone actually tries to hold an athlete accountable people complain that so-and-so did X and nothing happened so why punish poor Luke? It seems like contradicting philosophies.

I think a lot of people tend to ignore that the victim may never have closure, regardless of what punishment Heimlich is subjected to. That girl may never feel better about what happened. If he ended up in the World Series and was on every TV in the nation, how would that make her feel? Obviously I don't know with any certainty that it would negatively impact her rehabilitation, maybe she's come to terms with it and would be just fine, but I think that's something teams should consider as well. Not solely think about Luke Heimlich, but the situation as a whole.

I guess bottom line, teams have every right to employ or not employ someone if they don't want the baggage that comes with the person. And I don't think that's exclusive to baseball, that's just the reason it's being discussed by strangers on the internet. Because sports, and movies and celebrities are so important to us. Society always wants to discuss those in the public eye. I believe if Heimlich were hired by my place of employment there would be the same debates, they just wouldn't be on a forum such as this.

He can try to be a famous internet personality if he wants to be. If he can get the eyeballs, thats fine.

There are morals clauses in baseball and sports. People get suspended for large chunks of the season for just getting arrested. Why do they do that....why not just let them play? Prior history matters too. Michael vick eventually got a job but that was for dog fighting..not sex assault. How many games would you be suspended if you were playing and was convicted of being a child molester.?

They absolutely are, however talent does not outweigh the bottom line. Teams will very much need to decide the impact on ticket and product sales by offended fans.

I have a pretty hard time thinking that his rookie impact would supplant the backlash and media criticism. If no one touched him in the draft or took a flyer on the fan kickback of even taking him in the 40th round (40TH!) and the only sniff comes not from the team but a foolhardy comment by Dayton Moore that was just subtly placed to be stupid enough to test the waters on that move.

There is not going to be movement here. None, nada, ziltch.

Not getting into a talent comparison discussion, but if teams are scared of touching players that anthem protest for fear of fan kickback because it just isn't worth the trouble...do we think this is?

Get a 9-5 or head to Latin America kid.

I didn't mean to suggest that he can't play baseball because of what he did. My point was that if what he did keeps him from playing baseball that is something he would have to accept. But there are still plenty of other ways he can be a valued member of society.

Is someone with a sealed juvenile record considered a convicted felon? I was under the impression they are not.

This was not a " one time " occurrence, or " one mistake ". The sexual assault occurred over a two year span.

He certainly deserves an opportunity to earn a living. It may not be as a professional athlete, but he certainly will be able to gain employment in some capacity. That will be up to whomever decides to hire him. However, baseball does not owe him that opportunity.

and OJ was not guilty of murder as well so not even a sealed juvenile record to worry about. No conviction at all, but if he was 25 at the time of the trial, good luck going back to the NFL... Point is saying you are innocent, but plead guilty, juvenile record closed, winning a criminal trial but losing civil case......teams will assume the worst....if it the worst is still ok, they will give you a job...

With all the lawyers on the board, I am surprised no one is mentioning that he could sue the state of Oregon for releasing his sealed record information by mistake, costing him millions in potential income.

Signed,
Devil's Advocate

Well stated

The rebuttal might be : Heimlich cost himself by sexually assaulting the child.

Yes it's unfortunate that his records were released, but this never would have happened if Heimlich had not performed the assault to begin with.

Let's not forget, the victim is the child, his niece. Not Heimlich.

If I am not mistaken his past was discovered because he failed to update his offender registration, which he was required to do. One of the articles I read also mentioned that in Oregon these types of juvenile crimes are not confidential.