Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, January 11, 2013

TMZ.com: Ex-MLB star Milton Bradley Faces 13 Charges In Spousal Abuse Case

Former Los Angeles Dodger Milton Bradley was charged today with 13 counts related to several alleged attacks on his estranged wife, and could get up to 13 years behind bars ... TMZ has learned.

The City Attorney’s Office has filed charges against Bradley stemming from 5 different incidents. The charges break down like this: 4 counts of spousal battery, 4 counts of criminal threats, 2 counts of assault with a deadly weapon, 2 counts of vandalism and 1 count of dissuading a witness from making a report.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 04:43 PM | 87 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: athletics, cubs, dodgers, domestic abuse, expos, indians, mariners, milton bradley, padres, rangers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. bfan Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4345240)
13? I guess Bradley is not supersticious.
   2. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4345244)
What a lousy human being.
   3. Ron J2 Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4345245)
I had started to post something flip but deleted it before hitting submit. Geez I hope this isn't as bad as it sounds.
   4. ColonelTom Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4345246)
You have to make contact for battery. If this were tried in Seattle, no jury would convict him on those counts.
   5. Tripon Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4345251)
Milton Bradley should probably check himself into a psych facility. I'm serious.
   6. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4345255)
claiming he tried to choke her, with 2 hands

Does he normally only use one hand?
   7. GEB4000 Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4345264)
Remember when people were still defending Bradley after his 4th or 5th different team? Good times.
   8. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4345266)
What a lousy human being.

Yeah. I think we can put to bed the "Bradley's just tormented and misunderstood, not a bad guy" theory.

We've got at least 5 occasions, including weapons, and a death threat. He's scum.
   9. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4345267)
When a "tormented and misunderstood" guy's tormented misunderstandingness usually plays out in explosions of anger, stay the #### away.

This story is awful.
   10. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4345270)
Stay tuned for jokes about spousal abuse from the same people who joked about spousal abuse in this forum after the Andruw Jones incident - and then acted shocked when SugarBear and I raised an eyebrow in response.
   11. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 11, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4345272)
Link?

EDIT: Thread in question. Yeah, I'm not a fan of the wife-beating puns either.
   12. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4345273)
EDIT: Thread in question.


Yup.
   13. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:03 PM (#4345274)
Yeah. I think we can put to bed the "Bradley's just tormented and misunderstood, not a bad guy" theory.


Pretty much, yeah. I hope they throw the book at him.
   14. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:06 PM (#4345278)
Repeating, but: Athletes are a bigger threat to civilians, by orders of magnitude, than civilians are to athletes.

It's unfortunate how we acculturate so many accomplished athletes to become what so many of them become. It's a heavy price to pay for our bread and circuses.
   15. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:06 PM (#4345279)
Pretty much, yeah. I hope they throw the book at him.

Agreed. This is the money quote from the article.

and in March 2012 he allegedly threatened her with a knife and said, "You’ll be dead ##### before you divorce me."

   16. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:11 PM (#4345284)
I remember when people were still defending Bradley after 2005, when police responded to multiple domestic incident calls at his house.
   17. Peter Farted Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4345288)
Milton Bradley? No. Monopoly was a Parker Brothers game.
   18. Danny Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4345313)
This is awful.

Also, can we stop needlessly embedding pictures and videos into threads? It makes the site less work-friendly.
   19. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4345318)

Also, can we stop needlessly embedding pictures and videos into threads? It makes the site less work-friendly.


I can assure you, both gentlemen in the above picture are wearing pants.
   20. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:13 PM (#4345341)
I can assure you, both gentlemen in the above picture are wearing pants.


Must you taunt Smitty* so?
   21. Transmission Posted: January 11, 2013 at 07:20 PM (#4345342)
I was one of the last to give him the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but yeah, seems I was wrong. Ooof.
   22. BochysFingers Posted: January 11, 2013 at 08:34 PM (#4345377)
How does this affect his HOF chances?
   23. dirk Posted: January 11, 2013 at 08:35 PM (#4345378)
Repeating, but: Athletes are a bigger threat to civilians, by orders of magnitude, than civilians are to athletes.


this statement is completely false. the violent crime rate of professional athletes is lower than non-athletes in their age group.

there are many studies to back that up. in trying to find any truth in your statement, i found that there have been studies that show higher rates of sexual crimes by athletes, but even with those included as violent crime, the crime rate of athletes is lower than non-athletes.
   24. BochysFingers Posted: January 11, 2013 at 08:37 PM (#4345380)
Repeating, but: Athletes are a bigger threat to civilians, by orders of magnitude, than civilians are to athletes.


this statement is completely false. the violent crime rate of professional athletes is lower than non-athletes in their age group.

there are many studies to back that up. in trying to find any truth in your statement, i found that there have been studies that show higher rates of sexual crimes by athletes, but even with those included as violent crime, the crime rate of athletes is lower than non-athletes.


I believe his point is that when there is an athlete vs. non-athlete conflict, the athlete has the advantage.
   25. dirk Posted: January 11, 2013 at 09:02 PM (#4345383)
I believe his point is that when there is an athlete vs. non-athlete conflict, the athlete has the advantage.



oh. nevermind then.
   26. puck Posted: January 11, 2013 at 09:36 PM (#4345392)
Damn, man. Why didn't he get help after all the other times?
   27. PerroX Posted: January 11, 2013 at 11:29 PM (#4345418)
Agree with #26. I'm no stone thrower, but he's had ample opportunity to get his act together.
   28. depletion Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:09 AM (#4345429)
The last baseball related item I remember about MBradley was getting pushed aside by a first base ump and blowing out a knee. Did he ever play after that? My understanding is that the basis of anger management is "when you get really mad, walk away". Yes, Milton, that's why they put doors on houses. So you could go outside, hop in the car, drive to Colorado, and smoke all the weed you want. And no one will bother you.
   29. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:31 AM (#4345433)
I'd be more inclined to credit reports if I weren't familiar with a number of attorneys who allow as how they'd be remiss as divorce proceedings begin if they didn't counsel their female clients to file assault and child abuse charges against their husbands, regardless of whether those occurred, as these give them significant leverage during the divorce.

I remember when people were still defending Bradley after 2005, when police responded to multiple domestic incident calls at his house.


Defending him of what--not being actually guilty?***

We've got at least 5 occasions, including weapons, and a death threat. He's scum.


Sorry for not wanting to participate in the Two-Minute Hate, but apparently he's not actually ever been found guilty of anything. The entirety of Wikipedia's "Personal" section on Bradley.

In 2005, Bradley was the Dodgers' nominee for the Roberto Clemente Award for working with the Dodgers Dream Foundation, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, and the Long Beach Boys & Girls Clubs, among other charities. Bradley has also opened two baseball academies, one in Long Beach and another in Baldwin Hills.[63] In August 2005, Redondo Beach police received three domestic-violence-related calls from Bradley's house. No charges were filed.[64] In 2006, Bradley filed for divorce but the petition was never finalized.[65] He has two sons.[66][67]

On January 18, 2011, Bradley was arrested at his home in Encino, California and charged with making criminal threats to his wife, Monique. In return for participating in an out-of-court hearing process, no charges were filed against him. However, she has subsequently filed for divorce.[62][68] On January 11, 2013, Bradley was again charged with domestic battery against his divorced wife. He denies the charges.[67]


Fwiw, years and years ago I was certain any team trading for Bradley were idiots. He seems like a jackass, the rare kind of guy awful enough to actually turn out to be someone who can make a team worse because of his attitude.

As for a 2005 incident,

Police have responded three times to the suburban home of Dodgers outfielder Milton Bradley on domestic violence calls this summer, but neither he nor his pregnant wife was arrested or charged.

Redondo Beach police counseled the couple after responding on June 28 and July 30. In the June report, Bradley told police his wife had hit and scratched him because she suspected him of cheating on her.


I know it's always more fun to assert men are ####, but sometimes the facts intrude.


***To a poster in this thread, by this I do actually, specifically mean this in the ordinary conversational sense that he hasn't been found actually guilty.
   30. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:34 AM (#4345434)
I was one of the last to give him the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but yeah, seems I was wrong. Ooof.


How so?
   31. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:35 AM (#4345435)
I believe his point is that when there is an athlete vs. non-athlete conflict, the athlete has the advantage.


Oh, really? Because I've got myself on a first round KO over prime Dick Button.
   32. Dudefella Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:11 AM (#4345445)
#29: Mmmm, yeah, you should probably report those lawyers to their state ethics office. That's totally unethical, and probably illegal.
   33. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:33 AM (#4345453)
I'd be more inclined to credit reports if I weren't familiar with a number of attorneys who allow as how they'd be remiss as divorce proceedings begin if they didn't counsel their female clients to file assault and child abuse charges against their husbands, regardless of whether those occurred, as these give them significant leverage during the divorce.
I call bullshit.

You spend the entire rest of the post focused like a laser on the lack of a guilty verdict in a court case, and at the same time we're supposed to believe this completely ludicrous story about fake assault charges with no evidence whatsoever?
   34. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:52 AM (#4345457)
Well, it's standard operating procedure in domestic actions for the attorney to allege at least generally somewhere in the pleadings that there was physical and mental abuse. It's like boilerplate. He does that because his client claims it (always have your client sign those pleadings), but when the client doesn't he'll include them anyway so as to cover himself, and will not make those allegations only if his client insist that he doesn't. But these here are criminal charges against Bradley, and they seem, and would have to be, specific. Still, an allegation in a criminal case is not a proven fact either, and can be baseless. We'll see.
   35. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:56 AM (#4345458)
Jack Carter, is there something you want to share with us?
   36. Steve Sparks Flying Everywhere Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:57 AM (#4345460)
I was one of the people who defended Bradley in the past. I suppose there was a part of me that didn't want to label him "an angry black man". Of course I think Bradley has some serious anger issues and just happens to be black.

As to #29 stating that he was never found guilty, I think there's too much smoke to think that Bradley is completely innocent of any wrong. As a prosecutor, I've handled a fair share of domestic violence cases. If the victim suddenly doesn't want to testify, often times your case is toast. You can certainly try and go forward without the victim but it's an uphill battle many prosecutors don't want to mess with. Given the nature of the cycle of violence, I could see his wife not wanting to press charges after he apologizes and promises never to do it again.

Also, it's true that some attorneys have their clients file assault and child abuse charges before divorce proceedings. I work with an attorney who saw the practice happen in his old firm. However, in this case I think the allegation have some basis in truth.

Finally, a few years in the pen might be good for Bradley. With his anger issues, it's a matter of time before he kills someone and goes away for decades. Maybe some time in prison makes him see the light.
   37. PerroX Posted: January 12, 2013 at 02:08 AM (#4345464)
I've defended Bradley in the past, and I understand it could be a divorce court ploy, but there is a pattern over considerable time of Bradley acting out with angry outbursts. It's easy to believe he'd do so in a heated domestic confrontation, with little self-confrol. And in most cases, what gets to police report and court is going go be the tip of an iceberg.



   38. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:14 AM (#4345480)
#29: Mmmm, yeah, you should probably report those lawyers to their state ethics office. That's totally unethical, and probably illegal.


Of course it is, but anyone who meets regularly with lawyers and who knows how consultations operate also knows how routinely and in what fashion these kinds of things are talked about. "I'd never advise someone to file a false report, but it's clear that allegations of spousal or child abuse put the accused at a tremendous advantage". Or, "when it comes to deciding whether to report suspicions, do be aware of the tremendous advantage that accrues to the accuser".

When I first started talking to lawyers in the course of business, made several as friends, and helped out here and there during brainstorming sessions, I was thoroughly amazed at what they'll tell you. I can't tell you how many times I've had conversations proceed along the lines of, "Well, of course, someone should NEVER do something like x, but if they WERE going to do something like x, they should definitely also do y, but never do z, and then...," presented as scarcely veiled advice, and known exactly for what it was.

I call ########.


Of COURSE you do. Anyone who doesn't join the chorus wholeheartedly enough to satisfy you gets the lash. It can't be that the rush to "Guilty!" brings up other issues as well, right? Why not just accuse me of being 'abuser-loving scum'? You know you want to.

Anyway, given that Bradley's wife was also alleged to have assaulted Bradley, I was reminded that women are as violent as men (though the do definitely come out worse in exchanges because of the disparity in strength), an issue that routinely is ignored and suppressed, in some case even suppressed by statute.

When the State of Massachusetts actively prevents inquiries into female battering, there's a problem.

“Typical domestic violence research systematically eliminates the female batterer from study,” [Steve Basille***] adds. Indeed, at a seminar held at Mt. Wachusett Community College in November 2001, presenter Denise Gosselin, a law enforcement officer specializing in domestic violence and author of “Heavy Hands,” acknowledged that the government “will not provide any funding for domestic violence research that includes male victims of female domestic violence.”

Basile decided to examine all 209A domestic abuse prevention order case dockets from one year, one court, and see what patterns, if any, emerge. The court: Gardner District Court. The year: 1997.
One measure of the success of Basile's efforts is of the phyrrhic kind: legislation was introduced and enacted purely to hinder any future such efforts by “hostiles.” Senators Therese Murray and Cheryl Jacques and Attorney General Tom Reilly introduced legislation to make all 209A docket contact information unavailable to the public very soon after the study's first publicity in a Telegram & Gazette article in September, 1998.

The legislation passed and the Public Records Law (Massachusetts' version of the Freedom of Information Act) has now been so amended.


***
The Basile study of Gardner District Court 209A orders issued in 1997 is making waves. On September 27 last year, Steve Basile presented the study at the 2002 Family Violence Conference in San Diego. Two articles derived from his groundbreaking study are in press at the Journal of Family Violence.
   39. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:15 AM (#4345481)
I've defended Bradley in the past, and I understand it could be a divorce court ploy, but there is a pattern over considerable time of Bradley acting out with angry outbursts. It's easy to believe he'd do so in a heated domestic confrontation, with little self-confrol. And in most cases, what gets to police report and court is going go be the tip of an iceberg.


Yup to the last. The difference is though, I'm not defending him. I'm defending the presumption of innocence. If I had to bet, I'd bet he did rather more than what's been reported. My specific point was that he was assumed to be guilty of everything reported, and that the reports routinely omit allegations of Mrs. Bradley's violent behavior.

As to #29 stating that he was never found guilty, I think there's too much smoke to think that Bradley is completely innocent of any wrong.


Of course. I'd be literally amazed if he was completely innocent.

Finally, a few years in the pen might be good for Bradley. With his anger issues, it's a matter of time before he kills someone and goes away for decades. Maybe some time in prison makes him see the light.


I find this incredibly troubling.

   40. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:24 AM (#4345483)
Jack Carter, is there something you want to share with us?


Well, I haven't wanted to bring it up, [redacted], as I know it's been painful for you, but, have you stopped beating your wife?
   41. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:48 AM (#4345488)
Stay tuned for jokes about spousal abuse from the same people who joked about spousal abuse in this forum after the Andruw Jones incident - and then acted shocked when SugarBear and I raised an eyebrow in response.

Such delicate sensibilities. I hope that's working out for you.

Of course it is, but anyone who meets regularly with lawyers and who knows how consultations operate also knows how routinely and in what fashion these kinds of things are talked about. "I'd never advise someone to file a false report, but it's clear that allegations of spousal or child abuse put the accused at a tremendous advantage". Or, "when it comes to deciding whether to report suspicions, do be aware of the tremendous advantage that accrues to the accuser".

Yup, happens all the time. Doubt it's happening here though. A few years back, my sister-in-law and her ex were in court working through a contentious divorce. They each accused the other of physical abuse and gave detailed accounts of various incidents in open court. From what I could tell, all complete BS. The judge didn't seem to buy any of it. More interesting is that they both seem to be on the same page as far as it being just a tactic, they are friendly these days and I wouldn't be shocked if they got back together at some point.

   42. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:22 AM (#4345497)
Yup, happens all the time. ...

There's a big difference between some "he said, she said" in a divorce case and the police charging people with felonies based on little or no evidence. The former might happen all the time, but I doubt the latter does.
   43. Walt Davis Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:34 AM (#4345500)
the basis of anger management is "when you get really mad, walk away".

I'm pretty sure the basis of anger management is to walk away before you get really mad. People don't make calm, rational decisions when they're really mad so it's usually a bit late by then.

   44. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:35 AM (#4345502)
Obviously. The 'she said' will only get you so far with the cops. At some point they are probably going to require some physical evidence, which is at least a little tougher to fake. Who knows.
   45. Tripon Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:43 AM (#4345503)

Also, it's true that some attorneys have their clients file assault and child abuse charges before divorce proceedings. I work with an attorney who saw the practice happen in his old firm. However, in this case I think the allegation have some basis in truth.


We seen this recently with Trarell Suggs and his fiance, now wife. She filed for sole custody and filed charges for domestic abuse. Then a month later they got married, the charges were dropped and nobody she said she was marrying her best friend.
   46. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:53 AM (#4345504)
The strange thing about this case is that the charges are based on five incidents. Unless Bradley was arrested previously but it didn't make the papers, it's hard to believe the police responded to domestic violence calls that included evidence of physical abuse but then left without taking anyone into custody.
   47. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:00 AM (#4345527)
Yup, happens all the time. Doubt it's happening here though. A few years back, my sister-in-law and her ex were in court working through a contentious divorce. They each accused the other of physical abuse and gave detailed accounts of various incidents in open court. From what I could tell, all complete BS. The judge didn't seem to buy any of it. More interesting is that they both seem to be on the same page as far as it being just a tactic, they are friendly these days and I wouldn't be shocked if they got back together at some point.


I don't doubt judges do get jaded, and pretty quickly, at that. Bradley and his wife did seem to swap accusations from time to time, then get back together, but at some point that's got to get old. I don't get couples who argue all the time, let alone slug each other every odd month. What can you get out of that?
   48. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:31 AM (#4345531)
There's a big difference between some "he said, she said" in a divorce case and the police charging people with felonies based on little or no evidence. The former might happen all the time, but I doubt the latter does.


The 'she said' will only get you so far with the cops. At some point they are probably going to require some physical evidence, which is at least a little tougher to fake. Who knows.


Police and prosecutorial policies undoubtedly vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but where I practice (Ontario) the police in domestic cases are not allowed to exercise any discretion and must lay charges whenever someone alleges an assault by a domestic partner, without regard to the presence or absence or corroborating evidence. While we don't use the felony/misdemeanour distinction and while most of these types of charges ultimately proceed as what are roughly equivalent to misdemeanour prosecutions, I've seen a great many cases where more serious charges (the equivalent of felonies) have been prosecuted based entirely on the uncorroborated word of one spouse (for example, cases where the spouse alleges a prior sexual assault that caused no injuries, or a prior physical assault that caused injury but that is only reported after the claimed injuries have fully healed and where there is no independent evidence that they ever existed).

The strange thing about this case is that the charges are based on five incidents. Unless Bradley was arrested previously but it didn't make the papers, it's hard to believe the police responded to domestic violence calls that included evidence of physical abuse but then left without taking anyone into custody.


I don't know the details of Bradley's case, but when domestic assault complaints are made to the police it is very common for the complainant to allege both some immediate assault and also previous acts of violence that she (or he) didn't report at the time.
   49. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:34 AM (#4345533)
What can you get out of that?

Kinky make-up sex.
   50. bobm Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:58 AM (#4345534)
[47] What is the benefit of making baseless spousal abuse allegations in a no fault divorce state?
   51. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4345559)
Child custody and money. It can have a direct bearing and it can be leverage.
   52. Jim Furtado Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4345563)
I don't have time right now to review the thread. I will warn people that exposing real names in such a way is a violation of the site's Terms Of Service. Since this is the second such occurrence in a week, I will be making a dedicated post about the topic in a day or so. Upon investigation, if I find that the person who made this comment is the same person who made the last one, he will be permanently banned from the site.

This type of posting is not allowed on the site and will not be tolerated.

Well, I haven't wanted to bring it up, [redacted], as I know it's been painful for you, but, have you stopped beating your wife?
   53. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:16 PM (#4345573)
Everyone has a flagship issue, if you don't know by now what Jack Carter's is, you really REALLY haven't been paying attention.
   54. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4345592)
This type of posting is not allowed on the site and will not be tolerated.


While I'm infinitely sympathetic to your point, Jim, and won't repeat what I wrote, I thought it was abundantly clear why I responded the way I did, which was simply in kind to [xxx's] intentionally inflammatory post (which you've left up). Why is one form of innuendo permitted, but the response, in identical form, is redacted? Why is the provocation acceptable, but the response in kind isn't?

...exposing real names
The poster at issue has used his ream name on this site for years, from what I'm told. If that hadn't been the case, I wouldn't have used it.

   55. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4345594)
Everyone has a flagship issue, if you don't know by now what Jack Carter's is, you really REALLY haven't been paying attention.


My impression of you is that you're regularly confused by events, so I'm trying not to imagine where you think this is going.
   56. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4345597)
What can you get out of that?

Kinky make-up sex.


Like, funky eyeliner and green lip gloss?
   57. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:12 PM (#4345603)
52:

C'mon. Do you think that a serious accusation? That's a joke that's been around since there have been husband and wives. It's much less worse than Ray accusing people of stealing if they believe in taxes, an accusation he has made seriously repetitively ad infinitum.

EDITED: For proper attribution. I mean, Jim, Kehoskie calls people liars and drunks every time he gets his ass in a crack argumentatively. If you're going to be so literal-minded, posting will become impossible--and dull as hell.
   58. Lassus Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4345606)
I'm not sure if you are talking to me or Jim, Morty, but if it's the former I'm not talking about the "have you stopped beating your wife" comment. My post is far more general.
   59. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:35 PM (#4345613)
[47] What is the benefit of making baseless spousal abuse allegations in a no fault divorce state?

Child custody and money. It can have a direct bearing and it can be leverage.


Yeah, that's what my sister-in-law and her ex were angling for. Not that either wanted any part of the kids really - and the kids were in high school so the feeling was mutual - but they are both highly paid individuals who were looking to break off a chunk of the other's income for them self. With so much BS being put forward with not a lot of evidence behind it, the judge essentially defaulted to the 'Mom gets the kids and some child support' ruling. The whole thing was a big waste of time and money.

   60. Tim D Posted: January 12, 2013 at 01:39 PM (#4345617)
As an attorney I know that most of us stay far away from family law and this thread gives you a good idea of why that is so. The "dirty tricks" referred to are, unfortunately, commonplace in divorce actions. As is pointed out, however, there is a BIG difference between allegations made for leverage in a divorce action and felony charges carrying potential major jail time. IIRC Bradley has already been through "anger management" therapy, perhaps more than once. His previous actions have certainly showed him to have a short temper; witness the water bottle business with the home fans at Dodger Stadium. The absence of prior convictions is quite likely the result of his wife dropping the charges. The guy is a handsome, rich, articulate, baseball player who obviously has a good side. Is it any surprise that his wife would want to believe his promises and try to stick it out with him? No more so than Jim Hendry signing him to a long term deal. This is a very sad story and I hope it is untrue or overblown or that at least it goes both ways, but frankly I doubt it, and I expect Bradley will get some jail time to sort things out. He is one mixed up person and it is just very sad.
   61. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4345682)
Well, let's not forget that it can be like the gag about paranoia--just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you. And just because you have anger problems, or are generally dishonest, or habitually cheat on your spouse, doesn't mean that you did any one of those things in any one specific instance. The law is supposed to be about cases in controversy, not about "well, you know how he is" personal generalities.
   62. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:35 PM (#4345683)
The law is supposed to be about cases in controversy, not about "well, you know how he is" personal generalities.

True, but patterns of behavior are admissible.
   63. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4345687)
Ah, sex crime cases. Yes, but wherever they are used, they are not supposed to be dispositive. You still have to prove something really happened, not just that X was the sort of person that did that sort of thing.
   64. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:46 PM (#4345688)
Ah, sex crime cases. Yes, but wherever they are used, they are not supposed to be dispositive. You still have to prove something really happened, not just that X was the sort of person that did that sort of thing.

IIRC, any case where the accused has been convicted of crimes that fit the pattern of that which he is currently accused of.

e.g. if a guy has been convicted of 3 burglaries where he posed as a Utlity company worker, and he's accused of doing that again, the past convictions are admissible.
   65. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4345691)
C'mon. Do you think that a serious accusation? That's a joke that's been around since there have been husband and wives. It's much less worse than Ray accusing people of stealing if they believe in taxes, an accusation he has made seriously repetitively ad infinitum.
Pretty sure the comment wasn't singled out for being particularly serious, but for using RDP's full real name rather than his handle.
   66. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4345692)
the past convictions are admissible.


Past convictions?
   67. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4345695)
65:

Really? Click on Ray (RDP) above. What do you see in the screenname history? When did Ray stop using that name?
   68. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 12, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4345705)
Really?
Yeah, really. I mean, that's what Furtado's [52] is very explicitly about, and he's the guy doing the ToS.
Click on Ray (RDP) above. What do you see in the screenname history? When did Ray stop using that name?

A while back, why? The point is that he stopped using his real/full name, along with a number of other posters. Those changes, and the ToS, are intended to prevent that "dull as hell" atmosphere by providing a protective sheen of privacy and making the issue/policy revolve around that (privacy) rather than some subjective interpretation of whose insult was more vile. It's a lot simpler, and more conducive to discussion, that way.
   69. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4345714)
The whole point is that searching for Ray's real name in Google does not bring up BTF results in the first few pages, which is what he and the others are preferring to avoid. Most people here know his real name and as was pointed out above you can find it out just by clicking on his member profile but the handle prevents him being easily searched for. That's the issue here, in the last few days Good Face, Joe K, and Jack Carter have deliberately included the full name of a poster who uses a handle while making a negative/controversial charge against them in blatantly obvious attempts to make them show up in search engines. It's petty and malicious.
   70. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4345720)
The whole point is that searching for Ray's real name in Google does not bring up BTF results in the first few pages, which is what he and the others are preferring to avoid. Most people here know his real name and as was pointed out above you can find it out just by clicking on his member profile but the handle prevents him being easily searched for. That's the issue here, in the last few days Good Face, Joe K, and Jack Carter have deliberately included the full name of a poster who uses a handle while making a negative/controversial charge against them in blatantly obvious attempts to make them show up in search engines. It's petty and malicious.

Exactly. For the Smiths and Jones of the world it doesn't matter, but for those of us with relative rare names (e.g. White Pages has 5 people in the US that share my first and last name, and one of them is my dead grandfather), you don't want random S showing up on Google.

I really don't know why everyone doesn't use a handle.
   71. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4345736)
Well, first, how do we know if XXX is someone's real name?

I readily admit I didn't know Ray had changed his name, and I very well could have referred to him by the name he used before (which we don't know is his real name, anyway). A poster, it seems, to me can't change his name, but maintain his identity, as well as every name he's ever used, all set out in his profile, with an expectation that everyone will transmogrify into a state of amnesia suddenly pretend that he's a different person, and erase all associations and appellations. That's an risk he assumed when he decided to post under the other name to start with. But if that's what he expects, that we pretend we don't know him or his name that he made numerous posts for years under, then he needs to at least expunge all those alternate names and alias, and go all out in creating another identity, making sure that we never know who he used to be. And maybe nicely remind us that he doesn't want to be referred to by that name he made 20,000 posts under. Otherwise, it becomes a mug's game.
   72. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4345738)
I not very sympathetic toward people making opinions but not owning them -- whether that is making criminal accusations and expecting their name to be kept off the record or this sort of stuff.

And, yes, I realize I use an alias. I did it because of the spam problem (business type solicitations especially), but it's very easy to find out my name, and I certainly wouldn't jump all over anyone who used my real name. And I haven't been using my real name (supposedly) for five years and thousands of posts. And I wouldn't kick if the rule were you had to use a real name, and I certainly wouldn't have any legal grounds to object.
   73. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 12, 2013 at 06:07 PM (#4345740)
I don't because I have no real reason to. The job I have currently, like my previous one, is not in a field where anyone is likely to give a damn about what I write on the internet as long as it's not negative about the company or just plain nuts. Since I never say anything majorly controversial in the first place and never say anything negative about my job or company online I don't have anything to worry about on that end. I actually do share some of Joe K's sentiments on preferring that people not be so anonymous online and for some of the same reasons but that certainly doesn't extend to being the slightest bit willing to compromise the anonymity of anyone who is seeking it. Also, while a big reason that I dislike the easy anonymity of the internet is that it really does cause people to act in a way they never would in public or with their real name attached, that's not something I feel is a significant issue at BTF. Things are civilized here and people tend to act pretty decently most of the time.

I suppose to forestall the likely objections by Joe K: Yes, I fully support your right to request Jim's intervention if you feel like someone is getting out of line with their comments towards you. If it's a problem, report it. Jim is pretty hands-off about these things unless they get seriously out of hand (which I like) so it's generally up to us to request his attention if we're feeling that someone's comment towards us is out of line.
   74. Greg K Posted: January 12, 2013 at 06:07 PM (#4345741)
A poster, it seems, to me can't change his name, but maintain his identity, as well as every name he's ever used, all set out in his profile, with an expectation that everyone will transmogrify into a state of amnesia suddenly pretend that he's a different person, and erase all associations and appellations.

He's still Ray, just don't use his last name.

This issue hadn't really occurred to me either until it came up this week, but it seems reasonable to me.
   75. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 12, 2013 at 06:19 PM (#4345748)
I readily admit I didn't know Ray had changed his name, and I very well could have referred to him by the name he used before (which we don't know is his real name, anyway). A poster, it seems, to me can't change his name, but maintain his identity, as well as every name he's ever used, all set out in his profile, with an expectation that everyone will transmogrify into a state of amnesia suddenly pretend that he's a different person, and erase all associations and appellations. That's an risk he assumed when he decided to post under the other name to start with. But if that's what he expects, that we pretend we don't know him or his name that he made numerous posts for years under, then he needs to at least expunge all those alternate names and alias, and go all out in creating another identity, making sure that we never know who he used to be. And maybe nicely remind us that he doesn't want to be referred to by that name he made 20,000 posts under. Otherwise, it becomes a mug's game.


That's not what Ray, Sam, and the others are asking though. They don't have any problem with us knowing their real names, they just don't want someone from their professional or personal lives being able to Google them and easily come across all the stuff here. That's why what Joe, Good Face, and Jack Carter did is so wrong, they're not only ignoring the reasonable and easily satisfied wishes of those people but they're deliberately inserting negative statements to go along with the full names so that someone Googling that person may not only find BTF and all their activity on it but might also see someone accusing that person of being an anti-semite, wife beater, or one of the nastiest people on the internet.

   76. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4345763)
You know, you could resolve all this by simply having all posts appear under the simple rubric of "Anonymous". No other names at all. If fact, I'd be for that--then you wouldn't have any of these "well, he has a history". You just deal with the merits of what is written in a specific instance and no more. As it is, it's like so many posters here never heard of critical thinking. I don't think the owner of this site likes all these off-topic discussion, particularly those of the political stripe, and many others whole-heartedly and vehemently agree with him. This would discourage a lot of frustrated wannabe columnists. It would clear the floor of amateurs seeking a spotlight in order to glitter with the glory of the hummingbird.
   77. NattyBoh Posted: January 12, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4345802)
MB is facing up to thirteen years in prison.
   78. Tripon Posted: January 12, 2013 at 08:49 PM (#4345804)

76. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4345763)
You know, you could resolve all this by simply having all posts appear under the simple rubric of "Anonymous". No other names at all. If fact, I'd be for that--then you wouldn't have any of these "well, he has a history". You just deal with the merits of what is written in a specific instance and no more. As it is, it's like so many posters here never heard of critical thinking. I don't think the owner of this site likes all these off-topic discussion, particularly those of the political stripe, and many others whole-heartedly and vehemently agree with him. This would discourage a lot of frustrated wannabe columnists. It would clear the floor of amateurs seeking a spotlight in order to glitter with the glory of the hummingbird.


This isn't 4chan.
   79. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:21 PM (#4345926)
What's 4chan?
   80. Morty Causa Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:41 PM (#4345940)
Never mind, I looked it up.
   81. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 13, 2013 at 04:18 AM (#4346030)
That's the issue here, in the last few days Good Face, Joe K, and Jack Carter have deliberately included the full name of a poster who uses a handle while making a negative/controversial charge against them in blatantly obvious attempts to make them show up in search engines. It's petty and malicious.

Just for the record, the above is utterly false, at least as it pertains to me. I used Sam's name a few days ago — in a non-slanderous comment — because it's Sam's name. The sudden rash of complaints over the past few days about (alleged) attempts to "Google-bomb" people's names is beyond strange. Did some of you people not know about Google before this week?

I suppose to forestall the likely objections by Joe K: Yes, I fully support your right to request Jim's intervention if you feel like someone is getting out of line with their comments towards you. If it's a problem, report it. Jim is pretty hands-off about these things unless they get seriously out of hand (which I like) so it's generally up to us to request his attention if we're feeling that someone's comment towards us is out of line.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I'm not sure where it's coming from. I've never complained to Jim about anything or otherwise complained about his stewardship of the site. I had a little fun mocking Sam for running to Jim a few days ago, which was rather shameless given Sam's history on this site, but I'm mostly a "sticks and stones ..." guy. (Hell, Morty's #57 is nonsense, but I know that's just Morty being Morty, and nothing to get excited about. In typical Morty fashion, he went from spouting nonsense in #57 to being the voice of reason in #71.)

That's why what Joe, Good Face, and Jack Carter did is so wrong, they're not only ignoring the reasonable and easily satisfied wishes of those people but they're deliberately inserting negative statements to go along with the full names so that someone Googling that person may not only find BTF and all their activity on it but might also see someone accusing that person of being an anti-semite, wife beater, or one of the nastiest people on the internet.

First of all, if you're going to list three names along with three actions, the standard practice is to list them in the same order so as not to give an erroneous impression of who did what. (I didn't accuse anyone of anti-semitism or wife-beating.)

Second, I've never mentioned anyone's name here with Google in mind, but if anyone feared Google so much, they shouldn't have used their real name for thousands of comments in the first place.

Third, I've never been under the impression that using a person's name was verboten here. Jim's rule about not slandering people makes good sense, but I'm unaware of any blanket bans on using people's names. There's a big difference between outing someone and using someone's name after they've used it themselves here (in some cases, for thousands of comments over many years). And if using names is some sort of violation, I'm quite sure Sam has used Ray's and Dan's full names since they started using a screen name, so Sam would be an odd choice of poster boy for BBTF victimhood.
   82. Morty Causa Posted: January 13, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4346142)
75:

Yeah, I understand that; what I don't understand or approve of is why that should obligate me. If X doesn't want that to happen, then he needs to not have used his real name. Seems like for libertarians to all of sudden get on the bandwagon of suppression of freedom is highly ironic.

It seems to me that's an assumption of risk that comes with posting in a public medium, and I don’t think it can be shifted, or should be shifted, to other posters.

You cannot expect that people will not use your name, whatever it is, assuming we even know that what you are on record as your real is your real name. If that is such a taboo, then make each person’s “real name” irreproducible in the text—is that so hard to program?

Placing obligations, or suddenly switching the onus of obligation, on people not to use it at all, no matter what they say was said by that name, when you yourself did at one time, when everyone has become habituated to using that name, is renouncing responsibility and holding someone to assume that responsibility all out of whack—against natural inclinations. In "real" life I am not under an obligation not to use your real or bogus name or even not to report what you said. I am only responsible for actionable statements concerning what I actually say about you (and that's whether I got your name right or not)--but that's it. It gets too complicated otherwise, too hard to expect something more. The problem isn't he use of the name. The problem is calling that person an anti-Semite, a child abuser, or a drunk.


   83. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 13, 2013 at 01:10 PM (#4346149)
See, this sort of drama is why I'd never post under my real name, Well, that and the fact that my real name is Dee Snuts.
   84. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: January 13, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4346188)
I use my real name on my e-mail accounts and quite a few forums, and since there's someone else with the same name who writes books and give seminars on some kind of new-age mysticism crap that is all over the net. Search for me and you'll have to wade through 20 pages of his stuff. I occasionally get e-mails with questions meant for him, and the temptation to answer with something really crass will someday get the best of me.
   85. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: January 13, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4346194)
I occasionally get e-mails with questions meant for him, and the temptation to answer with something really crass will someday get the best of me.

Just give them a jack keefe post as the response.
   86. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 19, 2013 at 11:34 AM (#4350494)
The whole point is that searching for Ray's real name in Google does not bring up BTF results in the first few pages, which is what he and the others are preferring to avoid. Most people here know his real name and as was pointed out above you can find it out just by clicking on his member profile but the handle prevents him being easily searched for. That's the issue here, in the last few days Good Face, Joe K, and Jack Carter have deliberately included the full name of a poster who uses a handle while making a negative/controversial charge against them in blatantly obvious attempts to make them show up in search engines. It's petty and malicious.


Sure--you take something desperately out of context, as you've just done, and you can make it sound like anything you want. Ray had just made a point of using my full name along with a slimy innuendo. I responded with the most obvious counter possible, to throw his stupidity and offensiveness in his face. He used my full name; I therefore used his.

Could "have you stopped beating your wife?" been any more obvious?
   87. BDC Posted: January 19, 2013 at 01:13 PM (#4350544)
I'm glad I clicked on this thread; it's raised my consciousness. Since registration, I have been using – not my own real name, which I could care less about anyone learning, and which is pretty transparent if you click on my handle – but at least the real name of a journeyman major-leaguer, punned-upon in homage to my friend GGC and his handle. You can Google that journeyman's name and not run across any references to BBTF till eight pages in, and then they're pretty anodyne. But it's probably not the most scrupulous thing in the world to be doing. Henceforth I'm going the initial route, with apologies. I mean, not that I've said anything too outré under my old screen name. I may have said that I didn't like Alex Rodriguez. But who does.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sheer Tim Foli
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1129 - 4:44am, Nov 21)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(903 - 4:31am, Nov 21)
Last: steagles

NewsblogRunning list of 2014 40-man roster additions | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball
(8 - 4:04am, Nov 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(3884 - 3:36am, Nov 21)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogMLB Transaction Trees «
(15 - 3:26am, Nov 21)
Last: Boxkutter

NewsblogWhy The Billy Butler Deal May Not Be Totally Crazy | FanGraphs Baseball
(33 - 3:23am, Nov 21)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(36 - 1:36am, Nov 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRanking the top 25 prospects from the Arizona Fall League | MLB.com
(8 - 1:24am, Nov 21)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-20-2014
(19 - 12:38am, Nov 21)
Last: The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(356 - 12:26am, Nov 21)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogThe family legal fight over Ryan Howard's finances
(57 - 12:08am, Nov 21)
Last: Zach

NewsblogExamining our assumptions about Pablo Sandoval
(24 - 11:58pm, Nov 20)
Last: madvillain

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(52 - 11:02pm, Nov 20)
Last: Ardo

Hall of Merit2014 Results: Maddux, Thomas and Glavine elected to the Hall of Merit!
(81 - 10:56pm, Nov 20)
Last: Ardo

NewsblogSwitch-pitcher Pat Venditte is ready to take a major step. | SportsonEarth.com : Howard Megdal Article
(25 - 10:11pm, Nov 20)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

Page rendered in 0.9861 seconds
52 querie(s) executed