[News] UPD: Coyotes renounce the rights to draft pick Mitchell Miller

[AustinL_NHL]

Edit: beaten to it

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Does he keep his scholarship I wonder?

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Likely means his scholarship is revoked then?

Yeah I am curious what happened to his scholarship. Likely means the athletic scholarship is gone, but will the university cover it some other way?

Also wonder if UND and Miller discussed a possible path for him to rejoin the team. Of have they told him straight up that it would be no longer possible.

[GKDarts]

I would assume that we haven't heard from Miller yet because he is getting training by a PR crisis management firm. If the kid doesn't come out with a genuinely believable, public and contrite mea culpa that focuses on the welfare of his victim rather than himself in the next few days, Mitchell will quickly find himself with avenues to an NHL career closing.

Absent him doing this, I think you'll see the US National program turfing him. He'd then be absolutely toxic to any Junior leagues like the CHL and prospects in Europe would evaporate as well. He might only be left with KHL or more likely, KHL farm leagues that would accept him. I don't think the prospect of playing tier 2 pro hockey in a Siberian outpost because nobody else would have you, has much appeal to an 18 yr old.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don't know whether it's fair or excessive, but looking at it from a broad view:

Miller tortured another human being for half of his entire life, 9 years, both long before and long enough after a conviction for it, which he showed no remorse.

Sure. We're counting when he was 8 years old in that time frame, though, right? Do you make any allowances or adjustment for that? Because you've carefully avoided saying anything of the sort in the way you've framed this, and it seems like that was done for a reason.

As a result, his chances of having a career playing hockey are greatly diminished, if not removed entirely. But he can still: obtain a university education, get a relatively normal job, and live what most of us would consider a normal life, while continuing to play hockey for fun if he so chooses.

Well, he's going to have to completely change his life trajectory. His dream is now closed off to him. He has to go through the rest of his life knowing that he could have done the thing he loves, but lost out on that opportunity. I would say his life was ruined. It doesn't mean he pursue a new, different life from the one he wanted, but the one he had has pretty much been destroyed.

Further, I'm not sure what you've said is true. I see that UND has said he can continue as a student there. Would you? With this hanging over your head, and having to worry about, every time you meet someone and introduce yourself, seeing them realize "oh, you're that guy... never mind, I don't want to know you"? I would think the only thing for it is to move to another university somewhere. He should probably change his name, too, because any employer for the rest of his life that googles him is getting this story, and no one needs to take that sort of risk. I don't think his life is going to be normal, as a result of this.

I'm not defending what he did, because obviously there's no defense for that. I was also repeatedly on the other end of bullying because my brain doesn't work like most people's (though not to this extent, certainly, and not on the basis of race). What he did was clearly atrocious and warranted punishment. I just think de-railing his life like this is excessive, particularly considering his age at the time. Since he's been an adult - which is a period less than a year - his only real transgression was his failure to apologize directly to the person he hurt. He hasn't publicly shown contrition. Apparently, for some people here, it's too late to do that now, so his window has closed.

That all seems too harsh to me, personally. Apparently some people disagree, which is fair enough. I assume those people would like to see changes to the Criminal Code to ensure that anyone else who behaves like Miller did as a minor, and fails to demonstrate adequate remorse, is faced with similar consequences.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by dammage79

There's a special place in hell for abusers of people with special needs.

We had some pretty bad bullying in my school. We also had a group of about a half dozen students who were severely intellectually disabled. For the most part they did their own schooling in a separate classroom but for classes like physical education and recess they would join us. One thing that was never ever tolerated was bullying of them. Even the kids who were caught (or at least conspiring) putting pubes in their victims 'lunches would show respect to these students.

If someone deemed unpopular wanted to play soccer at lunch, it wouldn't be unusual that the popular soccer playing students didn't allow them to. But if one of the intellectually disabled students did, they played and were always allowed to score.

Now the students who were getting severely bullied and left out probably don't care that their bullies had a 'code' but certainly even in our early teens all the students in my school knew of this social norm. I'm curious if this was standard amongst us all growing up?

(I think it's a little bit different in this case as I don't think the victim would have qualified as one of the intellectually disabled students as he was only a couple years behind development.)

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

You defended the kid (sarcastically) in this very post. I bolded it.
You're trying to create a false equivalency between the actions of this mother in a completely separate incident vs the constant overwhelming abuse her child suffered at the hands of Mitch Miller.

I'm not creating a false equivalency. Some here seem to see the world as, for lack of a better phrasing, black and white. I'm pointing out the shades of grey, at least as I see them. This is a complicated situation. A sad situation for everyone involved. I don't claim to know how I truly feel about it.

I'm not trying to trigger people. But if you're triggered by anything less than "#### this kid", then that's a problem that I don't think I can help you solve. I'm not going there with you.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That all seems too harsh to me, personally. Apparently some people disagree, which is fair enough. I assume those people would like to see changes to the Criminal Code to ensure that anyone else who behaves like Miller did as a minor, and fails to demonstrate adequate remorse, is faced with similar consequences.

The only two things I would say is referring again to "relatively normal," as in, relatively normal, considering his history. Yes, this issue will probably come up and effect him in different ways for some time, but his life will otherwise align with the kind of trajectory of fairly lucky people who do not have his history. If you want to say his life is ruined, sure, but that's an awfully low bar for "ruined" and it's one he set for himself.

I also think that's an entirely unfair and baseless assumption. Not feeling bad or taking some level of satisfaction in the result is not remotely the same as looking for Criminal Code changes to ensure everyone similar meets the same fate. That's kind of ridiculous. To use an extreme example and not comparing Miller to the same, just because someone hears about someone guilty of rape getting hit by a bus and either doesn't feel bad or is happy it happened, does not mean they are in favour of implementing the death penalty, though sure, some might be. But it makes little sense to place that assumption on everyone.

That said, I'm not even sure how you'd amend the criminal code to say "if you act like Miller did, you lose the immediate opportunity to make millions of dollars in a public-facing entertainment job where you'll represent a multi-million dollar franchise and be a role model to children."

I mean I guess if people want that added to the criminal code go nuts.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Tough to reply at length on my phone but gettingnhit by a bus is an accident. These are consequences imposed on the kid by society, intentionally. This was the outcome people were calling for, and it was carried out by those with the authority to do it. The bus analogy is completely off.

So yeah, if you think this is what should be done with teenagers who behave like this kid, you should presumably want that to apply in all similar cases. That is what logically follows.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I'm not creating a false equivalency. Some here seem to see the world as, for lack of a better phrasing, black and white. I'm pointing out the shades of grey, at least as I see them. This is a complicated situation. A sad situation for everyone involved. I don't claim to know how I truly feel about it.

I'm not trying to trigger people. But if you're triggered by anything less than "#### this kid", then that's a problem that I don't think I can help you solve. I'm not going there with you.

Of course the world isn't mono or bichromatic. But you are creating a false equivalency by trying to position what the victim's mother and father did to the soccer coach of an example of similarly poor public behavior, and trying to liken them to the abuser of their son because of that incident.

The bullying situation is also not as complicated as you're making it seem.

The facts we know are that Mitch Miller bullied a disabled kid consistently for over 8 years, continued after criminal punishment for having done so, and never apologized for any element of that. A single incident of assault between the parents of the victim (conditioned by years of bullying against their son) and a soccer coach is not at all similar. The reactions and dispositions of the players involved are not similar. Bringing it up consistently and saying it is complicated Is absolutely trying to undermine the credibility of the victim and his parents by creating false equivalency between the situations.

I'm not saying "f this kid". I never have. In fact I argued at the beginning that rage should be focused on Mitch Millers parents, as it is abundantly clear that they helped to create and maintain this situation. This situation is of the Miller's family creation. Saying that they got themselves into this is not equivalent to saying "f em". I am triggered that you keep insisting you're not doing anything when you're consistently dredging up an unrelated incident to try and diminish their voices. That's ####ty behavior.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GKDarts

I would assume that we haven't heard from Miller yet because he is getting training by a PR crisis management firm. If the kid doesn't come out with a genuinely believable, public and contrite mea culpa that focuses on the welfare of his victim rather than himself in the next few days, Mitchell will quickly find himself with avenues to an NHL career closing.

I wonder about the advice Miller is getting. Does he have a family advisor or something? If so, it's time to get a new one in my opinion.

I know things moved quickly but the family has been calling for an apology for days now. When the story first picked up he was very quick to release a statement:

“I am extremely sorry about the bullying incident that occurred in 2016 while I was in eighth grade. I was young, immature and feel terrible about my actions. At the time, I did not understand the gravity of my actions and how they can affect other people. I have issued an apology to the family for my behavior, completed cultural diversity and sensitivity training and volunteered within my community with organizations such as Little Miracles. Over the past four years, I have had a lot of time to reflect and grow and I am very grateful to the Arizona Coyotes for taking a chance on me. I promise not to let them down. Moving forward, I want to be a leader for this cause and help end bullying and racism.”

Joni Meyer-Crothers said the other boy broke down in tears while personally apologizing to her son, yet Miller has never personally apologized, she said, other than the court-mandated letter.

Instead of telling everyone he had apologized multiple times now, why not just pick up the phone and actually do it? 10 minutes after hearing the Meyer-Crothers had not received an apology he should have been on the phone with them.

Yeah, the cynics would never believe he did it for any other reason than getting called out, but if he was earnest in wanting to redeem himself he could have made a call in the ensuing days. And maybe then when the media and Coyotes called the Meyer-Crothers they would have soften their stance or maybe even forgiven him.

At this point, he's not apologizing out of principle or stupidity.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Tough to reply at length on my phone but gettingnhit by a bus is an accident. These are consequences imposed on the kid by society, intentionally. This was the outcome people were calling for, and it was carried out by those with the authority to do it. The bus analogy is completely off.

So yeah, if you think this is what should be done with teenagers who behave like this kid, you should presumably want that to apply in all similar cases. That is what logically follows.

For someone who admitted previously that there seemed to be a pretty healthy nuance and range of opinions, I find the constant reliance on guilting "society" with this or saying "everyone who is ok with this must also want this entirely separate thing" pretty exhausting, honestly.

I get you and a couple others want to make this about cancel culture, or the mob, or the internet, or the will of society. But I find it to be performatively intellectual at best.

Guy spent half his childhood torturing someone which was publicly available information, bad PR logically followed, organizations that rely on PR cut ties. PR is not new... we're aware of this, yes? Aware of the consequences of bad PR? Aware that Miller's history is a classic definition of "bad PR"? Any questions?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Of course the world isn't mono or bichromatic. But you are creating a false equivalency by trying to position what the victim's mother and father did to the soccer coach of an example of similarly poor public behavior, and trying to liken them to the abuser of their son because of that incident.

We live in a world where the mother of a bullied child has herself bullied others. And this happened shortly after Miller was before a juvenile court. I'm not likening the two in the way you assert that I am. There are different degrees of severity here, one was a child and the other an adult etc.

The point is that if the mother of a bullied child can still make such a mistake after her son was bullied -- then maybe the world isn't as cut and dry as some would like it to be.

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The bullying situation is also not as complicated as you're making it seem.

We'll have to disagree about that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For someone who admitted previously that there seemed to be a pretty healthy nuance and range of opinions, I find the constant reliance on guilting "society" with this or saying "everyone who is ok with this must also want this entirely separate thing" pretty exhausting, honestly.

I still see a healthy range of opinions. I'm suspicious of yours, because you seem to want to be able to say "these are deserved consequences", while at the same time saying, "I'm just not rooting for him, I'm not calling for anything specifically bad to happen to him". I don't see that as very honest.

When I say, "everyone who is okay with this", I'm clearly referring to those among the healthy range of opinions who hold the opinion that this is okay - that this outcome was deserved. In this case, those people won the day. They got what they were after. I don't see how that's contradictory. Those people presumably want similar consequences for other people in similar circumstances. That is not "this entirely separate thing", it's the logical outcome. Stop lying about my position. In particular:

I get you and a couple others want to make this about cancel culture, or the mob, or the internet, or the will of society. But I find it to be performatively intellectual at best.

Don't try to lump me in with other posters and mix my views in with theirs. That's slimy, mendacious crap. I speak for myself and only for myself. And I'm pretty sure I've never used the words "cancel culture" in this thread. I don't see this as the same thing. He didn't lose his job and life because of his views or something he said or some minor error. He committed a heinous act that was subject to legal consequences. Whether those legal consequences should have been publicly known is a question that has been debated in this thread, but that's a separate issue.

Certainly, internet mob justice is at issue here - can anyone deny that with a straight face? Does anyone think that absent the internet mob calling for harsh sanctions, this would have happened? Come on.

My view here is pretty simple: given the information we have about the acts committed, the impact on the victim, the age of the perpetrator, his actions since that time, the punishment he has received (at the time and now), and what's likely to happen to him going forward, I think the punishment was overly severe. I think that's generally true in cases where an internet mob gets involved. I wouldn't want this sort of outcome to be the rule in cases like this. That's really it. It's not a complicated point of view, nor is it "performative". That's kind of a ridiculous thing to accuse me of given what I've posted in here.

Guy spent half his childhood torturing someone which was publicly available information, bad PR logically followed, organizations that rely on PR cut ties. PR is not new... we're aware of this, yes? Aware of the consequences of bad PR? Aware that Miller's history is a classic definition of "bad PR"? Any questions?

You really do love to lazily oversimplify things in a way that flatters your position. I'm not sure why you think it's rhetorically effective, though. Maybe try characterizing them in the worst possible light for your view, instead, just as an exercise. It will be just as easy to do.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Certainly, internet mob justice is at issue here - can anyone deny that with a straight face? Does anyone think that absent the internet mob calling for harsh sanctions, this would have happened? Come on.

Well there wouldn't be an internet mob if he didn't bully the kid. So I 'm not about to blame Al Gore for creating the internet.

There probably wouldn't be an internet mob if he even just apologized before being drafted. It was the family coming out to condemn him that really got this story (known for literally years) going mainstream.

The balls in his court now, he can play victim and believe he was wronged by the internet or he can try and become a better person, maybe even actually redeem himself and end up playing professional hockey for a living. But there is some positives to this. Those who want to blame his parents, well now the next racist hockey parents that come along will know they can't behave the same way if they want their kid to succeed in the NHL, the next racist up and coming sport star will know he doesn't just have to take a 10 minute diversity training video if he gets caught being a racist. Even the kid who replaces him on the hockey team(s) that Miller would have been on is hopefully more deserving of a person.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

In literally every case that an internet mob is involved, they're responding to something that thee target of their wrath did. That's true 100% of the time. That doesn't imply that the consequences are always proportional and reasonable. I would say they almost never are.

[afc wimbledon]

If you commit a crime as a kid in small town rural Canada everyone knows what you did and if you will likely have to move away to get a fresh start, commit the same crime in a larger town or city and no one has a clue, such is life

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I'd like to think my opinion is in the "healthy range of opinion", and yes, I am ok with what has happened. For sure when it comes to the Coyote situation. Less clear on UND, as we don't really know what representations he made to them when they signed him up, and also not clear what it means for him to continue to be a student.

I totally disagree on this outraged mob narrative. At least on CP, I thought there was a fairly measured response, with a few totally foreseeable outliers. How this discussion affects any of the parties is beyond me. Has anyone here actually contacted any of the parties? Wrote an opinion piece at the NYT? All of this seems to be basically water cooler talk, with about as much sway as same.

Ultimately, Miller made numerous mistakes, some as a child, some as a young adult. This isn't a happy story and I don't think many are celebrating right now. Yet, even now, I think there is still a shot at redemption. He may never be an NHL player, but that was never his right, and ultimately a very slim chance at fruition under the best of circumstances. Maybe he becomes a better person; a leader in the dangers of bullying, who knows, but that is still within his control. I would say the chances that he has a normal life is still very high.

[Strange Brew]

I would hope he does not keep his scholarship, assuming it was an athletic scholarship.

That seems like the least controversial part of this. Have that money go to someone who didn’t abuse anyone. A scholarship is literally predicated upon your actions and behavior as a minor.

I see this is as a rather complex discussion of appropriate consequences, with the nuances being the age of the offender, the nature of the crimes, the degree to which we believe our sources of information, rights of privacy and probably many more.

I don’t get how anyone can’t at least see some nuance in all this.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In literally every case that an internet mob is involved, they're responding to something that thee target of their wrath did. That's true 100% of the time.

Not true. Nick Sandmann disagrees.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That doesn't imply that the consequences are always proportional and reasonable. I would say they almost never are

I don't disagree but I think this is a microcosm of race relations happening now.

Some people riot for the sake of riot, others are doing so because they feel it's the last resort (others are alt-right agent provocateur). They've tried remaining silent, they tried peacefully protesting, they tried kneeling for the anthem, it didn't amount to meaningful change. They are desperate, they are angry. You can chose to condemn those rioters, but at least see where they are coming from.

The internet mob, those calling for action against Miller, were doing so because they were tired of seeing nothing happen and no meaningful change happening, just empty words. They too are angry. You can condemn them, but what other options do they have when doing nothing keeps the status quo?

One way I can look at this is; I too am not playing for the Coyotes right now because of actions I did as a child. Those actions were sleeping in instead of making hockey practice and eating copious amounts of junk food which I think are less heinous actions, but nobody is running to my defense that the Coyotes won't sign me. Actions have consequences, well at least now they do, I'm not sure I am mad about it especially as his actions extended until today as an adult.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I still see a healthy range of opinions. I'm suspicious of yours, because you seem to want to be able to say "these are deserved consequences", while at the same time saying, "I'm just not rooting for him, I'm not calling for anything specifically bad to happen to him". I don't see that as very honest.

When I say, "everyone who is okay with this", I'm clearly referring to those among the healthy range of opinions who hold the opinion that this is okay - that this outcome was deserved. In this case, those people won the day. They got what they were after. I don't see how that's contradictory. Those people presumably want similar consequences for other people in similar circumstances. That is not "this entirely separate thing", it's the logical outcome. Stop lying about my position. In particular:

Don't try to lump me in with other posters and mix my views in with theirs. That's slimy, mendacious crap. I speak for myself and only for myself. And I'm pretty sure I've never used the words "cancel culture" in this thread. I don't see this as the same thing. He didn't lose his job and life because of his views or something he said or some minor error. He committed a heinous act that was subject to legal consequences. Whether those legal consequences should have been publicly known is a question that has been debated in this thread, but that's a separate issue.

Certainly, internet mob justice is at issue here - can anyone deny that with a straight face? Does anyone think that absent the internet mob calling for harsh sanctions, this would have happened? Come on.

My view here is pretty simple: given the information we have about the acts committed, the impact on the victim, the age of the perpetrator, his actions since that time, the punishment he has received (at the time and now), and what's likely to happen to him going forward, I think the punishment was overly severe. I think that's generally true in cases where an internet mob gets involved. I wouldn't want this sort of outcome to be the rule in cases like this. That's really it. It's not a complicated point of view, nor is it "performative". That's kind of a ridiculous thing to accuse me of given what I've posted in here.

You really do love to lazily oversimplify things in a way that flatters your position. I'm not sure why you think it's rhetorically effective, though. Maybe try characterizing them in the worst possible light for your view, instead, just as an exercise. It will be just as easy to do.

Being ok with something and actively seeking or demanding it are two entirely different things. Why you need to lump them together to make your point is beyond me, and considering both your internet mob crutch and "they must all want Criminal Code changes!" rely on it, your view, however simple, is nonsense.

Apologies for lumping you in with the others, you're right, it wasn't fair. But to that end, I would actually think critically about the group you're lumping together and calling "society" or the "internet mob" and providing the same respective nuance, instead of gross generalizations that "they" called for it, that "they" got their wish. Who is they? Do you even know? How many people is enough to be the mob, and how do you decide on lumping people into the mob and then not only assuming what they asked for, but what their reaction is, and what they must all then logically want, because you have decided it must be? If we're talking about lazy oversimplification, you hit the jackpot. It's a lazy well and go to it if you want, drink up, but it's just so unbecoming of someone like yourself who generally does have really interesting and well-thought-out opinions. "The mob!" Really? From you? It's sad, man. That's the kind of schtick I expect from people who barely put two thoughts together. It's performative.

The power of "the mob's desires" is entirely overrated and it's pretty sad to see people just going to that well, because it dismisses the range of validity and nuance that exist in all the people who get lumped in. I can tell you from a PR perspective, "the mob" i.e. people who are irrationally upset and specifically call for a company to take action, is measured equally across the people who just think it's a negative thing to begin with. The quantity of negative reaction has more weight than the context and wishes in those reactions. And that includes everyone from "embarrassing draft pick" to "THE NHL SHOULD BAN HIM FOR LIFE." Doesn't make "embarrassing draft pick" part of the mob, nor does it mean that any reaction is catering to the mob. It's about getting away from bad PR as cleanly as possible, and for public figures, it's usually a severance of the relationship. That's just life. If you think any negative reaction about the pick was the mob, or should be seen as such, then I respectfully disagree. And if you don't, but you think the mob is the main power broker, then we'll have to disagree on that too.