In one season, you're going to have two players who will test MLB's ability to void contracts (Ozuna and Bauer). Should be a fascinating fight between the union and MLB.

Good for them. They should make it loudly known.

Criminal charges have yet to be filed, which could suggest it’s not an open & shut case, or that the prosecutors are just being thorough, or cautious, and perhaps hope to benefit from the 8/2 hearing on extending the protective order. The original order was an ex parte proceeding, but it appears that Bauer intends to contest the extension. Could be a rather ‘kinky’ hearing.

No charges are being filed because there is likely no basis for charges. The authorities wanted this to go public because they need better evidence. LA police are notoriously risk-averse to charging celebrities as they have a lot of money and the PR is bad for them if they lose (see: Simpson, OJ). They’ve got texts from this woman saying in effect “please beat me up, I love that stuff”. It will be hard to get him unless there are a bunch of others.

He’s definitely a weird dude though -

Sign a big deal with a guy who has some issues and you gotta be ready for the risk it involves. I suspect a negotiation will happen to try to get rid of him where MLB will let LA off the hook on the luxury tax to some degree.

Can't imagine Bauer willingly opting out now though. So $103 million might be down the drain for the Dodgers regardless.

FYI: From Cot's: if released for lack of skill while still under contract, Bauer may elect to take remaining money due as a buyout, preventing another club from signing him for the minimum salary with the Dodgers paying the remaining balance, less the minimum salary

Wonder if 'sexual assault alleged' counts as lack of skill?

Sign a big deal with a guy who has some issues and you gotta be ready for the risk it involves.

And what exactly were Bauer's issues? That he let his twitter followers be mean to a woman that tried to troll him? That he's disagreeable and people don't seem to like him?

That he let his twitter followers be mean to a woman that tried to troll him?

I think this undersells just what a ######### Bauer was. He got more than a little aggressive with his responses online and he can say what he wants about not encouraging his supporters to target the woman but he was a pretty substantial jackass.

With all that said Bauer has always been a bit of a self-centered jerk but that's hardly unique among pro sports and assuming the Dodgers did a reasonable deep dive into the guy (as I suspect is standard when throwing 100 million clams at someone) there isn't anything obvious in his history that makes me think that what he is accused of here was something they should have known about or expected.

They’ve got texts from this woman saying in effect “please beat me up, I love that stuff”. It will be hard to get him unless there are a bunch of others.


Even if someone ask you to beat them up, choke them to unconsciousness, and rape them while they're unconscious, you're still a terrible person for doing it. I'd also argue it's still criminal, b/c once she's unconscious, she can no longer consent.

They’ve got texts from this woman saying in effect “please beat me up, I love that stuff”.

It's an interesting thing to see her word being totally credible when saying "I like it rough" but not at all credible when saying "but not to that degree". We don't seem to hold people to that kind of standard in other aspects of life.

customer: This burger has too much mayo on it.

Wendy's: You said you wanted extra mayo.

customer: The burger you gave me is like 80% mayo. I'm not even sure there's any beef in there. Two halves of a bun, a piece of lettuce, and a big cylinder of mayo.

Wendy's: Are you trying to tell me you don't want extra mayo? It's on the receipt. You ordered extra mayo, I typed it in, it's on the receipt. We made it the way you said you wanted it.

customer: There's more mayo on this so-called burger than there is vanilla Frosty in that cup.

Wendy's: Oh, that's not vanilla Frosty, sir. That's also mayo.

customer: You do realize there is such a thing as an amount of mayo that nobody could possibly want, right? Like, clearly you took this too far. Any reasonable person can see this.

Wendy's: You said you wanted it. There's the receipt, we have proof you were asking for it. We've done nothing wrong here.

Even if someone ask you to beat them up, choke them to unconsciousness, and rape them while they're unconscious, you're still a terrible person for doing it. I'd also argue it's still criminal, b/c once she's unconscious, she can no longer consent.

I think there's a split between morally wrong and legally wrong here. IANAL but I suspect from a legal perspective it becomes very difficult to prosecute in a case like this. Bauer's still a scumbag either way but unless she can prove he continued to violate her after she lost consciousness my guess is Bauer faces no legal ramifications. MLB will likely still be empowered to take pretty dramatic action as they've done in other cases (e.g. Chapman).

To vi's example I suspect if the customer tried to sue Wendy's he would lose for the same reason. I also suspect the customer would never go to Wendy's again.

I think there's a split between morally wrong and legally wrong here. IANAL but I suspect from a legal perspective it becomes very difficult to prosecute in a case like this. Bauer's still a scumbag either way but unless she can prove he continued to violate her after she lost consciousness my guess is Bauer faces no legal ramifications.

Well, it's still illegal, even if you can't prove it in court. Your larger point stands; it may be very hard to convict, which is a shame.

To vi's example I suspect if the customer tried to sue Wendy's he would lose for the same reason. I also suspect the customer would never go to Wendy's again.

Anyone who is perverse enough to ask for extra mayo deserves whatever disgusting consequences result.

Note that this is specific to mayonnaise.

Even if someone ask you to beat them up, choke them to unconsciousness, and rape them while they're unconscious, you're still a terrible person for doing it. I'd also argue it's still criminal, b/c once she's unconscious, she can no longer consent.

It isn't that. It's that you can't consent to someone choking you unconscious at all, at least not in a way that lets the strangler off the hook. If I pay you to shoot me, you're still going to jail for doing it.

- One of BBTF's approximately 600 lawyers

This documentary about a man asking someone to kill him was really interesting.

It isn't that. It's that you can't consent to someone choking you unconscious at all, at least not in a way that lets the strangler off the hook.

Good.

It isn't that. It's that you can't consent to someone choking you unconscious at all, at least not in a way that lets the strangler off the hook. If I pay you to shoot me, you're still going to jail for doing it.

Attorney / Baseball writer Sheryl Ring wrote a nice piece about this topic here. (The piece is "nice" as in it nicely lays out the legal issues; obviously the subject matter is pretty damn far from "nice".)

Relevant quote (but read the whole thing):

Also, every state has enacted a statute which states that you cannot consent to the infliction of grievous bodily harm. In other words, it doesn’t matter what the context is: whether or not sex is involved, you cannot legally consent to an act which will result in your death or serious bodily injury.

Also, every state has enacted a statute which states that you cannot consent to the infliction of grievous bodily harm.

Which suggests that Bauer’s situation will entail a detailed examination of who did what to whom, and whether that meets the definition of grievous bodily harm. I don’t really get the attraction of either aspect of the heavy S & M scene, but those who do will likely find the hearing of interest.

Also, every state has enacted a statute which states that you cannot consent to the infliction of grievous bodily harm. In other words, it doesn’t matter what the context is: whether or not sex is involved, you cannot legally consent to an act which will result in your death or serious bodily injury.

How does that jive with something like boxing or MMA?

#18 Presumably will vs may. Plus the fact that the participants can take actions to protect themselves. But mostly the legal system is reluctant to get directly involved with sports.

It's an interesting thing to see her word being totally credible when saying "I like it rough" but not at all credible when saying "but not to that degree". We don't seem to hold people to that kind of standard in other aspects of life.

We don't have a presumption of innocence, and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in other aspects of life.

You and I might wish it to be otherwise, but these kinds of cases can be hard to win before a carefully selected jury. And you don't even need all of them on your side. Three or four, or even one, can hang a jury, and after a few misses, the DA either quits, or pleads it down to some low level misdemeanor.

The hearing on the Temporary Restraining Order has been postponed until August 16-19. Adjust your travel plans accordingly.

16. I did not find the article particularly helpful. To discuss what every state does is meaningless because this occurred in CA; all that matters is CA law, particularly criminal law. Ms. Ring lists herself a civil rights/consumer affairs lawyer. She may indeed be an excellent one; however she does not claim any expertise in criminal law. Mike Tyson may have been represented by a very fine corporate attorney in his IN rape case, it harmed him quite a bit (testified in front of a grand jury, something NO competent criminal practitioner would advise). Also, the article opines, rather certainly, as to why Bauer's lawyer's released text messages, stating that the messages were in fact harmful to Bauer's case (which is why the attorneys did not append the texts to the motion in opposition to the TRO, per Ms. Ring). Going as far back as OJ Simpson, I have seen enough criminal lawyer/pundits wrongly second guess defense lawyers.

I will put a long cut and paste for a sexual battery instruction, but ONE (of a few hundred) of hundreds of criminal jury instructions (this is what jurors receive in CA when deciding a criminal case). They are called CAL CRIM (also available on line, at no charge--nice because West Publishing used to charge $ for the previous instructions, CAL JIC):

Sexual Battery

935. Sexual Battery: Felony (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243.4(a) & (d))
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with sexual battery [in
violation of Penal Code section 243.4].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant [or an accomplice] unlawfully restrained
<insert name of complaining witness>;
<Alternative 2A—defendant touched>
[2. While <insert name of complaining witness> was
restrained, the defendant touched an intimate part of
<insert name of complaining witness>;]
<Alternative 2B—caused complaining witness to touch>
[2. While <insert name of complaining witness> was
restrained, the defendant (caused <insert name of
complaining witness> to touch (his/her) own intimate part/ [or]
caused <insert name of complaining witness> to touch
the intimate part of defendant [or someone else]);]
3. The touching was done against ’s <insert name of
complaining witness> will;
AND
4. The touching was done for the specific purpose of sexual arousal,
sexual gratification, or sexual abuse.
An intimate part is a female’s breast or the anus, groin, sexual organ or
buttocks of anyone.
Contact must have been made with ’s <insert name of
complaining witness> bare skin. This means that:
1. The defendant must have touched the bare skin of ’s
<insert name of complaining witness> intimate part;
OR
2. ’s <insert name of complaining witness> bare skin
must have touched the defendant’s [or ’s <insert
name or description of third person>] intimate part either directly
or through (his/her) clothing.
Someone is unlawfully restrained when his or her liberty is controlled by
649
Copyright Judicial Council of California
words, acts, or authority of another and the restraint is against his or
her will. Unlawful restraint requires more than just the physical force
necessary to accomplish the sexual touching. [A person does not
unlawfully restrain someone if he or she only uses lawful authority for a
lawful purpose.]
[A touching is done against a person’s will if that person does not consent
to it. To consent, a person must act freely and voluntarily and know the
nature of the touching.]
[A person is an accomplice if he or she is subject to prosecution for the
identical crime charged against the defendant. Someone is subject to
prosecution if he or she personally committed the crime or if:
1. He or she knew of the criminal purpose of the person who
committed the crime;
AND
2. He or she intended to, and did in fact, (aid, facilitate, promote,
encourage, or instigate the commission of the crime/ [or]
participate in a criminal conspiracy to commit the crime).]
<Defense: Reasonable Belief in Consent>
[The defendant is not guilty of sexual battery if (he/she) actually and
reasonably, even if mistakenly, believed that the other person consented
to the touching [and actually and reasonably believed that (he/she)
consented throughout the act of touching]. The People have the burden
of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not
actually and reasonably believe that the other person consented. If the
People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not
guilty.]
New January 2006; Revised February 2016
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give an instruction defining the elements of the
crime.
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defense of mistaken but honest
and reasonable belief in consent if there is substantial evidence of equivocal conduct
that would have led a defendant to reasonably and in good faith believe consent
existed where it did not. (See People v. Andrews (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 590, 602
[184 Cal.Rptr.3d 183]; following People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, 362 [14
Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 841 P.2d 961]; People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143, 153–158
[125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337].)
Give either alternative 2A or 2B depending on the evidence in the case.

am unsurprised that trevor bauer likes rough sex with strange females he meets on the intarnetz. he has said he doesn't want a "personal" relationship with a woman while he's still playing baseball

there is somethin not quite right with that boy. even before the S&M stuff came out

he can almost fer sher win in court - if he has a good laar and does what the laar sez and does not try to get someone who he just pays for exactly the service he wants so as he gets it cheaper, like he did with his (woman) agent

but no telling what MLB is gonna do if he is found not guilty in court or even if the DA/cops don't press charges. i guess the woman can do something in a civil court but i think bauer is gonna defend himself to his last breath

he's SO about his Brand. wonder if he's gonna go from - how to throw a slider or how to get your agent for cheap, to how to beat a woman good. the way things are, the last one will prolly out earn his baseball stuff

am unsurprised that trevor bauer likes rough sex with strange females he meets on the intarnetz. he has said he doesn't want a "personal" relationship with a woman while he's still playing baseball

there is somethin not quite right with that boy. even before the S&M stuff came out

I think the preference to separate sex from emotion is a bad sign with anyone. Screams narcissism.