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

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

...

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.

...

We all have some doors closed and others open throughout our whole lives. Sometimes, one door shuts hard on your face. It's up to you to go find another open door. Also, other doors open depending on what and how you deal with opportunities that don't work out. For Miller, he's still a young person who can move on with his life or continue to pursue his childhood dreams. However, if he still wants to continue pursuing his dream, it's up to him to live up to his mistakes and correct them. There's no better way to improve on one's self when you've fallen on hard times. This is how you can build character. If you go through life without learning from the mistakes of the past and keep going down a path that is unacceptable or blaming others for your failures, it a path that really go nowhere. That's when your dreams are are just dreams of the past. This is just a wakeup call for him. If he wakes up, he still have another chance. To say his life is ruined forever is like saying he's given up and that he's a total loser. It's up to him to make the necessary changes and it's up to him to make himself to be a better person. I think the Coyotes management started that process to see if he can actually do it.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

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.

You are basically saying "s*** happens."

To add to one of CorsiHockeyLeague's points made earlier, in my opinion internet mob justice is not unlike the Salem Witch Hunts. People incite each other with a limited set of facts, often the subject is someone they do not personally know or fully understand or empathize with, which leads to group think, which leads to outcomes that are not rationally just (or in other words, can not be codified and meted to all other equivalent individuals in equivalent scenarios and still be considered just). To illustrate how I define "rationally just," as an exercise, the outcomes must be generally acceptable if suddenly the perpetrator was someone you loved and cared for. If Miller was suddenly your brother or nephew, in a Canadian legal environment, would the events that transpired be acceptable to you, and would you want that to occur to all other equivalents going forward?

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.

Given the facts, for me it all seems too harsh as well, and that an injustice has been served, or true justice robbed. If people think this has hit the bullseye of justice, then they must disagree with the Canadian justice system, and they must think that these outcomes should be meted to all equivalent situations. It is fine if they do. But if they think the outcomes in this case have been truly just, but don't agree that it should be applied to all other equivalent situations, then they are morally dishonest.

How it would be put into criminal code is another issue, but this is an exercise of introspection to see if one is being rationally just.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I would have thought you were better than this, ikaris. Disappointing.

Honestly you’re right and I apologize. I was seething that kid almost was drafted.

[pepper24]

I don’t know anyone who agrees that what he did but now everything is about destroying people over forgiveness and second chances. Seems like a missed opportunity for the latter.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

You are basically saying "s*** happens."

To people who made terrible choices?

#### does happen to a lot of people who didn't make terrible choices.

Originally Posted by Plaedo

To add to one of CorsiHockeyLeague's points made earlier, in my opinion internet mob justice is not unlike the Salem Witch Hunts. People incite each other with a limited set of facts, often the subject is someone they do not personally know or fully understand or empathize with, which leads to group think, which leads to outcomes that are not rationally just (or in other words, can not be codified and meted to all other equivalent individuals in equivalent scenarios and still be considered just). To illustrate how I define "rationally just," as an exercise, the outcomes must be generally acceptable if suddenly the perpetrator was someone you loved and cared for. If Miller was suddenly your brother or nephew, in a Canadian legal environment, would the events that transpired be acceptable to you, and would you want that to occur to all other equivalents going forward?

After having his rights renounced by the Coyotes and being removed from the UND hockey team, if, and only if, the next justice to be bestowed on him is being physically mutilated, then we can bring up the Salem Witch trials.

Also, not to ruin Halloween for anyone, but the "witches" didn't do what they were accused of, witches aren't real. Racists are, and they are scarier.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

Salem witch hunts, among other examples, say "Hi."

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

You are basically saying "s*** happens."

To add to one of CorsiHockeyLeague's points made earlier, in my opinion internet mob justice is not unlike the Salem Witch Hunts. People incite each other with a limited set of facts, often the subject is someone they do not personally know or fully understand or empathize with, which leads to group think, which leads to outcomes that are not rationally just (or in other words, can not be codified and meted to all other equivalent individuals in equivalent scenarios and still be considered just). To illustrate how I define "rationally just," as an exercise, the outcomes must be generally acceptable if suddenly the perpetrator was someone you loved and cared for. If Miller was suddenly your brother or nephew, in a Canadian legal environment, would the events that transpired be acceptable to you, and would you want that to occur to all other equivalents going forward?



Given the facts, for me it all seems too harsh as well, and that an injustice has been served, or true justice robbed. If people think this has hit the bullseye of justice, then they must disagree with the Canadian justice system, and they must think that these outcomes should be meted to all equivalent situations. It is fine if they do. But if they think the outcomes in this case have been truly just, but don't agree that it should be applied to all other equivalent situations, then they are morally dishonest.

How it would be put into criminal code is another issue, but this is an exercise of introspection to see if one is being rationally just.

You know in the Salem Witch Hunt, those folks weren't witches, right? No evidence of their witchery? Miller is nothing like those folks. He was in fact convicted of his crimes, tried to "apologize" to the NHL teams to better his chances of being drafted with no evidence of any contrition? I don't think those facts are at issue, but let me know if they are in dispute.

As for the "loved one" exercise. Yes, I would be appalled if a relation of mine acted in this way. I would have sought him to make amends. Failing that, I don't think the consequences were that great, not that surprising.

(None of which has anything to do with the Canadian Criminal Code! I don't know why that is even brought up!)

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

To people who made terrible choices?

#### does happen to a lot of people who didn't make terrible choices.

While I don't disagree, my point was that it's not an excuse for the macro-behaviors of society in response to injustice, or even something they just don't like, that lead to further injustices.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

After having his rights renounced by the Coyotes and being removed from the UND hockey team, if, and only if, the next justice to be bestowed on him is being physically mutilated, then we can bring up the Salem Witch trials.

Also, not to ruin Halloween for anyone, but the "witches" didn't do what they were accused of, witches aren't real. Racists are, and they are scarier.

I am aware of the facts, but I was using a clearly understandable, and historically valid example as illustration. Group think is a thing. Stacked on top of that, the phenomenon of the internet creates a true lack of empathy in humanity. In psychology and brain chemistry, it is said that people can think of up to 100 other people before they start thinking about them as objects. I would hypothesize that the internet makes that much worse, where our brain chemistry reacts to others over the internet like objects much more readily. You are probably not thinking about me, behind a computer screen, typing, as a human being, a dude that you could sit down with and enjoy a hockey game with and joke with. I may be wrong, but those are the odds.

[Monahammer]

Salem Witch Trials to this, the ultimate false equivalency.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

So the spin coming out now is the Coyotes were aware of the conviction but didn't know the full details and will be conducting an "internal investigation" on how that could happen. Also there were supposedly gasps in other team's war rooms when the Coyotes took Miller because they were surprised the Coyotes would do this.

https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/insider...miller~2065905

The war room was a #### show from what i've heard.

I think it falls on Sully

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

You know in the Salem Witch Hunt, those folks weren't witches, right? No evidence of their witchery? Miller is nothing like those folks. He was in fact convicted of his crimes, tried to "apologize" to the NHL teams to better his chances of being drafted with no evidence of any contrition? I don't think those facts are at issue, but let me know if they are in dispute.

As for the "loved one" exercise. Yes, I would be appalled if a relation of mine acted in this way. I would have sought him to make amends. Failing that, I don't think the consequences were that great, not that surprising.

(None of which has anything to do with the Canadian Criminal Code! I don't know why that is even brought up!)

As mentioned in another post, what happened in Salem is a classic example of group think. It is for illustrative purposes only, not meant to be an equivalency. There's another interesting example of people being convicted of Satanism, child molestation, etc. in a small town in Saskatchewan in the early 90s, based on little facts. I'm not suggesting Miller didn't do those things, or that he didn't deserve severe consequences, I'm suggesting that people incite each other's sense of justice, without any of them sitting on a jury and enduring the presentation of all facts, or being a seasoned judge. Yet the same group of people seem to be exacting their version of justice.

Criminal code brought up because, as referenced earlier in the thread, certain facts and details wouldn't be made public in a Canadian legal environment. That law is there for a reason, but some may disagree with that reason.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

I am aware of the facts, but I was using a clearly understandable, and historically valid example as illustration. Group think is a thing.

How is people being physically mutilated for something they didn't do in the 1600s a valid example for someone facing consequences for actions they are doing today from a private business?

Why not draw a comparison to a big mob of people fighting against racial injustice to a big mob of people fighting against racial injustice in 1964 if you're looking for historical examples to help illustrate what is happening? Keep in mind that a lot of people hated that big mob too at the time.

People want change. It doesn't happen by doing nothing. It especially won't happen when remorseless racists don't need to face consequences for their actions. We'll never be able to know for certain, but there was a distinction made between the two bullies, as far as I know there isn't a big mob hunting down Huner Mckie to have his school renounce him. Is it because he didn't get drafted or is it because he isn't refusing to apologize as an 18 year old adult for his actions? Probably both depending on who you talk to, but certainly the latter for me.

If you're telling us that it's wrong for the mob to speak out for what they believe in, how is that any different than telling minorities to simply shut up?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

Salem witch hunts, among other examples, say "Hi."

I've seen your justifications for the historical reference, but honestly, given that I was specifically talking about the reality of "the internet mob" in relation to corporate PR today, in 2020, it's fairly ridiculous.

Or perhaps if you really want to go back 300 years to the Salem Witch Trials to illustrate the dangers of group think, we could just go back 100 years and use white people lynching Black people under Jim Crow to illustrate the dangers of Miller's racism and torturing of another individual being largely ignored by society, because you know, relevant to today and this situation. Great, conversation over, glad we went there.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Honestly you’re right and I apologize. I was seething that kid almost was drafted.

Thank you for apologizing. No hard feelings.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

How is people being physically mutilated for something they didn't do in the 1600s a valid example for someone facing consequences for actions they are doing today from a private business?

Why not draw a comparison to a big mob of people fighting against racial injustice to a big mob of people fighting against racial injustice in 1964? Keep in mind that a lot of people hated that big mob too at the time.

People want change. It doesn't happen by doing nothing. It especially won't happen when remorseless racists don't need to face consequences for their actions.

I'm not debating the need for change, but that there is a need for people to be rational when they discuss such serious events and consequences that impact people's lives. A fact of the constitution is that all men and women are made equal - both the abused and the sick abuser, so it isn't simple. Individually, being reactionary usually leads to regret, and for society it can be the same. I'm not saying the consequences haven't been rational either, but what has lead up to certain outcomes has, understandably, been pure emotion by some voices in the mob, where being rational is also required.

I think there is a better way, based on some of the nuances in this case, so while I think the outcomes have been generally acceptable and Miller can still turn his life around - there's an opportunity for him there - I do think that more good could have been done with a different response by many characters in this story.

What if all of the NHL teams jointly responded and told Miller and his family that he wouldn't be considered until he had made amends? Maybe he turns things around, all are satisfied, and he is drafted the next year?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

I'm not debating the need for change, but that there is a need for people to be rational when they discuss such serious events and consequences that impact people's lives.

I think the most irrational discussion in this thread has been comparing what happened to him to being killed for being a witch.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I've seen your justifications for the historical reference, but honestly, given that I was specifically talking about the reality of "the internet mob" in relation to corporate PR today, in 2020, it's fairly ridiculous.

I don't think it's ridiculous, I think with the internet group think is even more dangerous - it can accelerate it.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Or perhaps if you really want to go back 300 years to the Salem Witch Trials to illustrate the dangers of group think, we could just go back 100 years and use white people lynching Black people under Jim Crow to illustrate the dangers of Miller's racism and torturing of another individual being largely ignored by society, because you know, relevant to today and this situation. Great, conversation over, glad we went there.

Why not both? Let's learn from both!

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

As mentioned in another post, what happened in Salem is a classic example of group think. It is for illustrative purposes only, not meant to be an equivalency. There's another interesting example of people being convicted of Satanism, child molestation, etc. in a small town in Saskatchewan in the early 90s, based on little facts. I'm not suggesting Miller didn't do those things, or that he didn't deserve severe consequences, I'm suggesting that people incite each other's sense of justice, without any of them sitting on a jury and enduring the presentation of all facts, or being a seasoned judge. Yet the same group of people seem to be exacting their version of justice.

Criminal code brought up because, as referenced earlier in the thread, certain facts and details wouldn't be made public in a Canadian legal environment. That law is there for a reason, but some may disagree with that reason.

This still makes no sense. Witch Hunt or Satanism are examples of criminal justice gone wrong. Where has the criminal justice system gone wrong with this case? I assume there is no publication ban in Ohio. Miller was convicted and could be searched by NHL and college teams. They knew about the convictions either through due diligence, or the fact that Miller told them. They then decided to pursue or not to pursue Miller based on those facts and the answers given to them by Miller himself. Are you suggesting it was wrong for the victim to make his feelings known?

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

This still makes no sense. Witch Hunt or Satanism are examples of criminal justice gone wrong. Where has the criminal justice system gone wrong with this case? I assume there is no publication ban in Ohio. Miller was convicted and could be searched by NHL and college teams. They knew about the convictions either through due diligence, or the fact that Miller told them. They then decided to pursue or not to pursue Miller based on those facts and the answers given to them by Miller himself. Are you suggesting it was wrong for the victim to make his feelings known?

Okay, I'm sure I could have come up with a more closely related example, but I was simply trying to illustrate the power of the "mob mentality." And then tried to draw the comparison with what happens on the internet today. In this case, this only makes sense through the Canadian justice system lens, provided you agree with the law that protects young offenders. Then you see outcomes that are slightly more severe than ideal. If you don't then you may not see effects of the "internet mob."

I probably could have been clearer in my earlier posts, so my apologies.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

What if all of the NHL teams jointly responded and told Miller and his family that he wouldn't be considered until he had made amends? Maybe he turns things around, all are satisfied, and he is drafted the next year?

He hasn't been banned from the NHL though. There's nothing stopping him from truly changing his life around, truly trying to apologize and rectify his actions with his victims. But he refused to take those steps. That shouldn't be on the NHL to hold his hands and walk him through this now.

I hope he's getting the support he needs as this is clearly a crossroads for him. But he can sulk and blame the internet mob or his Black victim he refuses to apologize to, or he can learn from this and become a better person.

I do agree he has the ability to grow as a person, and should be given the opportunity by the public, but the onus is on him to show it, not for the public to automatically grant it.

I also think you need to realize that this isn't only about him. His victim spoke out about how hurt he was to see him drafted. Everyone who has been bullied, especially for their race, probably had emotionally responses hearing the cruel stories about this guy and when they found out he won't apologize, why shouldn't they want the NHL to do something? Why shouldn't they want consequences and changes?