EDIT: Thread in question.

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

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

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.

Repeating, but: Athletes are a bigger threat to civilians, by orders of magnitude, than civilians are to athletes.

I believe his point is that when there is an athlete vs. non-athlete conflict, the athlete has the advantage.

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

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

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]

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 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.

I believe his point is that when there is an athlete vs. non-athlete conflict, the athlete has the advantage.

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.

#29: Mmmm, yeah, you should probably report those lawyers to their state ethics office. That's totally unethical, and probably illegal.

I call ########.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

Jack Carter, is there something you want to share with us?

Yup, happens all the time. ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

What can you get out of that?

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?

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

...exposing real names

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.

What can you get out of that?

Kinky make-up sex.

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.

the past convictions are admissible.

Really?

Click on Ray (RDP) above. What do you see in the screenname history? When did Ray stop using that name?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.