Add new comment

So the back-and-forth is useful.  There are lots of ways to look at it.
To my mind, he was not "judged" to be innocent of a sexual crime.  In exchange for avoiding a trial of uncertain outcome, both sides agreed to a plea arrangment. The particular charge agreed to was one that would not trigger sex-offender registration/consequences (like, in some states, not being allowed to live near a school).  At the same time, the charge was "false imprisonment with violence" when there is really no evidence of violence in any of the facts I've seen.
So I think the negotiation was that Lueke's side took the "with violence" charge "in exchange for" the removal of sex offender charges.  Nonsensical, but not necessarily unusual I don't think.   The "with violence" might carry different consequences (ability to get a weapons permit or qualify for certain jobs), but he was probably more willing to accept those consequences than sex offender consequences.
But obviously, the nature of Lueke's misconduct was sexual -- the technicalities of negotiations don't change that.
Then, from the Mariners standpoint, they are not a court of law, and are not bound by those technicalities.  We can disagree that Baker went too far, but to me the evidence is pretty clear that the events of that night would reflect negatively on the Mariners no matter how you slice it, and Z did a poor job of managing it, and Baker is within the scope of his journalistic role to pursue it the way he did.
We agree that Baker is doing a very good job generally, and we agree that Lueke deserves a chance to play baseball as long as he toes the line, so the specifics become less relevant.