I do not condone the kid's behavior. I'm pretty sure he deserved a greater penalty than he got. But beyond that...

In the past, the Mariners front office had a choir-boys-only requirement. But first a flyer on Milton Bradley, now this.

If Rick Adair knew he was throwing Jack Zduriencik under the bus, I am surprised he shot his mouth off. It isn't a good way to get another job in MLB.

I think the kid did a smart thing for his career by taking the plea deal, even if it was better-than-even odds he could get acquitted (and I am not saying it was likely, I don't know). He got a reduced charge, a sentence of time served, and he got on with his career. Spending more time (and lawyers fees) in court, keeping him away from baseball, and keeping the reminder in the Rangers (or any team's) mind that he, at a minimum, behaved badly, would have hurt him, too.

Never saw him sodomize.

#1 Pat Lennon's career was pretty much destroyed by his conviction. It's possible that he could have salvaged matters by taking a plea (always assuming one was on offer)

May God forgive me, but I honest to goodness pictured Lueke as a black guy when I read the intro here on BTFA.

(I'm not even an American, and yet the above lapse made me suddenly feel like a Tea Partyer).

Googling Lueke gets the rape story on the front page. That Jack Z. admitted he didn't do a background check on Lueke or any player is stupidity on the highest level on his part.

If Rick Adair knew he was throwing Jack Zduriencik under the bus, I am surprised he shot his mouth off. It isn't a good way to get another job in MLB.

Between Adair, Daniels and Zduriencik, someone's lying and deserves to get thrown under the bus.

And I don't mean 1 of the three is lying, maybe just one is- at a minimum, it could be all three...
Daniels and Z are coming close to calling the other a liar, but backing off... just slightly

Some teams do Google, Facebook and background searches on prospects. The Mariners didn't do a Web search, which would have flagged Lueke's case.

When asked why, Zduriencik replied: "In all the deals I've been in all the years, I can't remember anybody saying 'I'm running a Google [search]' to figure out what a player's done."

For God's sake, at least check baseball-reference.com.

All levity aside, I am generally a big believer in forgiveness and redemption. The facts described in that article sorely test that belief, though.

In the past, the Mariners front office had a choir-boys-only requirement.

From everything I've heard the last few years, choirboys tend not to be strangers to sodomy, albeit as victims.

If he took steroids, I could see why this would be a big deal.

What does the "sodomy" charge mean these days? I'm assuming it means "non-consensual penetration in a non-reproductive orifice"?

That Jack Z. admitted he didn't do a background check on Lueke or any player is stupidity on the highest level on his part.

Well, he may have thought that the alternative, admitting that he didn't give a sh!t about Luecke's record, would come off even worse- especially after his boss weighed in.

I wasn't there, but Z is obviously squirming, either he didn't do any reasonable checking into Luecke's situation- which would be bad- or he did and simply didn't think that what Luecke did was bad- or would become an issue...

The whole:

Mariner's President: "I ordered Z to send him back"
Z: Daniels refused to take him back
Daniels: "I was and am willing to take him back"

routine is priceless.

Let's say the Mariners really wanted Luecke and didn't care about the situation making them look bad, they crossed their fingers and hoped it didn't come out- it comes out, Pres throws Z under the bus- Z blames Daniels, Pres. ups the ante- "I told Z to send him back, Z "I tried but Daniels wouldn't..."

For God's sake, at least check baseball-reference.com.

Does Baseball Reference have a "crimes committed" stat now? Felonies above Replacement?

#1 Pat Lennon's career was pretty much destroyed by his conviction. It's possible that he could have salvaged matters by taking a plea (always assuming one was on offer)

I had no idea what Pat Lennon had been convicted of, and when I googled "Pat Lennon" convicted, this was the first result:

Ex-Greenbank High School teacher Pat Lennon pleaded guilty to encouraging another man to rape a three-year-old girl.

Lennon, 59, also admitted making nearly 1,800 obscene pictures of children and further allegations relating to ‘extreme pornography’.

Liverpool Crown Court heard those charges relate to disgusting images of people performing sexual acts on a horse. -Chloe Griffiths, Southport Visiter

Upon review, it appears to be a different Pat Lennon. Still gave me quite a turn, though.

All levity aside, I am generally a big believer in forgiveness and redemption. The facts described in that article sorely test that belief, though

I think forgiveness is like freedom of speech. No half measures, you either believe in it or you don't.

-----

I think forgiveness is like freedom of speech. No half measures, you either believe in it or you don't.

But a person has to ask forgiveness in order to be forgiven. You can't really forgive unilaterally.

Fair enough. The asking is probably the most important part, because it requires the person to acknowledge their transgression.

But a person has to ask forgiveness in order to be forgiven. You can't really forgive unilaterally.

Disagree. YOU can't, and I personally am notoriously unforgiving, but there is no reason at all why someone has to ask for forgiveness in order to be forgiven.

Disagree. YOU can't, and I personally am notoriously unforgiving, but there is no reason at all why someone has to ask for forgiveness in order to be forgiven.

Yes there is, it's kind of the definition of forgiveness. You can't forgive something if they're going to keep doing it.
That's not giving a #### about the behavior, it's not forgiveness.

You can't really forgive unilaterally.

Sure you can. It is incredibly difficult and requires a kindness that I certainly do not possess but there is no reason you cannot grant forgiveness (which is entirely in the mind of the grantor, not the grantee) to someone who has not asked for it.

Sure you can. It is incredibly difficult and requires a kindness that I certainly do not possess but there is no reason you cannot grant forgiveness (which is entirely in the mind of the grantor, not the grantee) to someone who has not asked for it.

If they're not sorry???

So I kick you in the nuts, and you say "I forgive you" and I say "I'm not sorry" and I kick you again?

I don't really see that as "forgiveness". Maybe you're letting go of bitterness, or forswearing vengeance, which can be admirable things, but I think for a person to actually be forgiven they have to apologize, or at least express remorse in some way.

what would jesus do?

I think forgiveness is like freedom of speech. No half measures, you either believe in it or you don't.

Putting aside forgiveness for a moment, I totally believe in freedom of speech in most situations but not in all. Isn't that the conventional view?

[23] I think you'll need to elaborate.

"Slander", "Unpopular political speech" and "Women talking" are all different speech situtations that some might view as conventionally permitted or not permitted.

Insert #6org joke here

"What would jesus do?"

Last time I checked He required repentence before we could be forgiven for our sins.

Always seemed like sound policy to me.

(23) Concur.
Don't we all favor limitations on speech for slander, libel, child pornography, direct incitement to violence, etc?

Don't we all favor limitations on speech for slander, libel, child pornography, direct incitement to violence, etc?

This is going to sound horribly wishy-washy, but.... yes and no, hard to say. Innocent nudes of children vs. creepy exploitation; harsh editorials can be slanderous or libelous to some, truthful to others. There are true interpretation issues before those limitations can really be enacted. I mean, there are CLEAR issues where even I would. But then there are CLEAR issues to some that are like beacons, but to us illicit a "huh?", so.

Putting aside forgiveness for a moment, I totally believe in freedom of speech in most situations but not in all. Isn't that the conventional view?

Uh, no. That means you don't believe in freedom of speech, in my view. There might be a better example, though, I'm just thinking of a right that we value and consider pretty much inalienable precisely because it doesn't apply or not depending on circumstances...I think freedom of speech is pretty close to the bill.

27 - I don't think criminalizing child pornography has anything to do with free speech - exploitation is not expression. Slander, libel, incitement to violence - I don't think these are things that should be policed.

2 made me laugh out loud.

If what he's accused of was true, this kid is one sick puppy.

*** DISTURBING BEHAVIOR ALERT ***
According to Bakersfield Now, at http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/48562782.html
Some minor league groupies went with a bunch of Bakersfield players to a bar, where the alleged victim was reportedly making out with multiple men. She went back to Lueke and his roommate's apartment. While she was puking in the toilet, one of the guys was standing next to her and jerking off onto her. Then she passed out on the couch and when she woke up a bunch of her clothes were missing. Investigators got DNA from semen found on her shirt, in her hair, and - to answer the question posted in [10] - on an anal swab.


Re [12] - Lueke missed most of 2009 because he was in jail. Presumably the fact that he pitched fewer than 8 innings that season would have caused Jack Z., or anyone reviewing his prospect file, to wonder where he spent that season.

29
So you think someone should be able to directlt incite a mob to violence, directly call for them to attack someone, and go scot free as long as they don't participate in the violence themselves?

Or the NYTimes can run a totally fabricated front page story saying you are a pedophile, and you have no recourse against them?
That's a shitty society.
Why fetishize certain rights way beyond their intended purpose?

Bob -- last thing this thread needs is any inserting.

Don't we all favor limitations on speech for slander, libel, child pornography, direct incitement to violence, etc?

No. Slander and libel should be civil matters. If you damage someone with your words, you should be held liable, as with any other tort. Buying and selling child pornography should not be criminalized; the exploitation of the child itself should be. And incitement to violence shouldn't be a crime, but as with libel and slander, you could be liable civilly.

Insert #6org joke here

Obviously you have no idea how to evaluate a prospect who took a plea deal.

And incitement to violence shouldn't be a crime, but as with libel and slander, you could be liable civilly.

Really?

So if I'm a Mafia kingpin, and I say to my henchman "Go kill NYCTigersfan," that shouldn't be illegal, because it's speech? All the inchoate offences of "speech" like incitement, conspiracy, etc, should be done away with?

Wow.

Speaking as a civil liberties zealot, freedom of speech is not and should not be a boundless grant to say anything you like without any legal repercussion whatsoever.

I think even #29 would agree that you can't tell someone that rat poison is actually medicine and then hide behind the mantra of "free speech" when the po-po come calling...

Slander, libel, incitement to violence - I don't think these are things that should be policed.

And incitement to violence shouldn't be a crime

Both of you are nuts, absolutely nuts, for the reasons Snapper alluded to.

Put me down for a sliding scale of speech protection. The more valuable (from a societal point of view) the speech, the more protection it deserves.

Insert #6org joke here

#6men

No. Slander and libel should be civil matters.

I don't get this - these "civil matters" still carry government-enforced legal consequences. How are such laws compatible with the idea that freedom of speech trumps all?

In a different context, is there a meaningful difference between establishing a criminal fine for copyright infringement and allowing a private party to claim statutory damages that may massively exceed actual damages? The state doesn't prosecute the latter, of course, but it's still a legislative enactment that severely penalizes unauthorized file sharing as a form of speech.

Edit:

After all, what the First Amendment actually says is that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Not "no criminal law," but "no law."

Whether the courts have properly decided what constitutes protected speech or abridgment, I think they're 100% right that civil as well as criminal actions needs to be covered - otherwise it's a rather hollow protection, isn't it?

So if I'm a Mafia kingpin, and I say to my henchman "Go kill NYCTigersfan," that shouldn't be illegal, because it's speech? All the inchoate offences of "speech" like incitement, conspiracy, etc, should be done away with?

Conspiracy is a tough call because it depends on whether you view your role in the conspiracy as merely uttering those words or something greater. If the latter, I'm leaning towards not illegal. But if it could be shown that there was an agency relationship, or that you motivated the killing in some other way -- i.e., it's not the utterance of the words themselves that you're being prosecuted for, I'm all for a conspiracy charge.

I don't get this - these "civil matters" still carry government-enforced legal consequences. How are such laws compatible with the idea that freedom of speech trumps all?

In a different context, is there a meaningful difference between establishing a criminal fine for copyright infringement and allowing a private party to claim statutory damages that may massively exceed actual damages? The state doesn't prosecute the latter, of course, but it's still a legislative enactment that severely penalizes unauthorized file sharing as a form of speech.

There is a meaningful difference. The legislative enactment isn't doing the penalizing, it's merely setting terms on which the plaintiff can sue.

After all, what the First Amendment actually says is that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Not "no criminal law," but "no law."

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that the laws which establish our civil court system and allow wronged parties to seek recourse for particular behavior amount to a government prohibition of that behavior? I don't think the fact that the government allows you to sue me for libel or slander, and to order me to pay you damages, amounts to "abridging the freedom of speech."

Vlad/13 - pat lennon got in a barfight ... charged w/ att.murder among other stuff, did time.
Got repeated cups of coffee, but never the opps his #s suggested...

Here, either SEA knew the deal or they're stupid. And they aren't stupid.

By the way, I just had a brilliant idea. An idea so brilliant I hope nobody came up with it first.

If somebody shows up wearing this at a BTF meetup, your first 6 beers are on me. (First 12 beers if your name is Dave Cameron)

Link

By my calculations, I'd come up short on that deal by about $170.

I don't think the fact that the government allows you to sue me for libel or slander, and to order me to pay you damages, amounts to "abridging the freedom of speech."

If you're saying that the First Amendment does not apply to civil causes of action, the Supreme Court would beg to differ - N.Y. Times v. Sullivan being the most famous but not the only example.

(In Times v. Sullivan, the Court held on First Amendment grounds that the Times could not be held liable in a civil defamantion case for publishing false statements about a public figure unless it acted with "actual malice," which here means knew, should have known, or recklessly disregarded the falsity of the statements.)

The legislative enactment isn't doing the penalizing, it's merely setting terms on which the plaintiff can sue.

In many cases, this is a distinction without a difference: if the same act is being penalized and the penalty is the same, the fact that a private plaintiff rather than the state is bringing the case doesn't mean much.

Times v. Sullivan is again a paradigmatic example: if public figures could sue newspapers for damages whenever anything false about them was printed, newspapers would react exactly the same as they would if it were criminal to publish a false fact about a public figure: by avoiding talking about public figures at all unless they were absolutely certain as to the veracity of the story.

Or, again, copyright infringement: if an infringer is required to pay $750 to $30,000 for each act of infringement, it doesn't really matter whether he pays the government as a criminal fine or the plaintiff as civil statutory damages; it has the same basic impact on the activity either way.

Very nice, Guapo.

"What would jesus do?"

Last time I checked He required repentence before we could be forgiven for our sins.

Always seemed like sound policy to me.

Yes, but that's answering what it takes to be forgiven, not what is required to forgive.

When teaching his disciples, this situation comes to mind:

Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?"
Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.
(Mat 18:21-22 ESV)

The implication is that the offending party is not genuinely repentant, because they persist in their sin. Even more pressing is Jesus' own example on the cross:

And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luk 23:34 ESV)

I think Jesus taught that for us to be forgiven, we must be genuinely repentant (although I join my favorite theologian, the recently deceased Donald Bloesch, in hoping for the opportunity for forgiveness after death); however, he does not teach us that we are free to withhold forgiveness until someone is genuinely repentant.

Sixth-best rapist in baseball.

I cannot believe I didn't remember Golgotha as an example when I read snapper's #26 - thanks, Curly.