Every update to this story just makes me sad. Or angry. But mostly sad. Yet I keep reading them.

Hard to have too much sympathy for a supreme dirtball like Trevor Bauer, or for anyone who voluntarily chooses to be within a country mile of him outside of a ballpark.

I'm pretty sure consent should be irrelevant if the "[the woman’s] injuries were ‘terrible.’" You can't (or at least shouldn't be able) to consent to being badly injured during sex. I don't see how the world is any poorer if you can't beat the #### out of people during sex. If your enjoyment of sex requires punching and choking people, society should tell you to F$%^ right off.

Is it possible to defame someone who everyone already thinks is terrible?

Is it possible to defame someone who everyone already thinks is terrible?

That would be relevant to the issue of damages, rather than whether a particular statement was defamatory.

He's suing for definition of character.

Yes, I've followed the story but still don't get the entire set of facts. Not defending him at all, but I really want to understand precisely. Is there no chance of criminal or even civil prosecution? If no why not? Is there evidence of criminal or civil wrongdoing or not? Why no prosecution? Why no restraining order? Bauer is an incredibly provocative individual and certainly hated by many. Are there definitive reasons for his unprecedented suspension? Is MLB keeping them secret? Again, I don't know what is right because the facts have never been made clear to me. Is the suspension warranted or does everybody dislike him so much that it is enough?

Is it possible to defame someone who everyone already thinks is terrible?

Nearly every thread about Bauer and this case over the past couple of years have shown that to not be true.

This is all a side-show. The arbitration protesting his innocence is ongoing. He'll never play again but if he wins he'll probably have good cause to sue for lost future earnings. Right now he's got a two year suspension without pay. If the arbitrator comes back and says no cause, it will be interesting to see what happens next. As it is arbitration they always end up in the middle but it's possible the arbitrator will end up agreeing completely or disagreeing completely.

There's a lot riding on this - if MLB wins it gives them free rein to drop huge penalties on players going forward.

Is there no chance of criminal or even civil prosecution? If no why not? Is there evidence of criminal or civil wrongdoing or not? Why no prosecution?

the victim isn't dead, and the live victim isn't a minor of the same sex as bauer. it's the proverbial dead girl/live boy situation.

if you want to know why prosecutors won't take bauer to trial, just look at the way depp v. heard played out. no amount of evidence mattered to the jury; the only facts that mattered during their deliberation was their opinion that:

“The crying, the facial expressions that she had, the staring at the jury—all of us were very uncomfortable,” the juror, who was one of five male jurors on the seven-member panel, told GMA. “She would answer one question and she would be crying and then two seconds later she would turn ice cold… Some of us used the expression ‘crocodile tears.’”
[...]
“A lot of the jury felt what [Depp] was saying, at the end of the day, was more believable,” the male juror told GMA. “He just seemed a little more real in terms of how he was responding to questions. His emotional state was very stable throughout.”

who do you think the average american is going to believe: a traumatized (female) victim, or a charismatic (male) sociopath?

Are there definitive reasons for his unprecedented suspension?

Is the suspension warranted or does everybody dislike him so much that it is enough?

it shouldn't be unprecedented.

MLB can't just blackball trevor bauer under the table, but i see no reason why they can't let him rot on indefinite suspension, indefinitely.


sarah spain wrote some great features about the subject after aroldis chapman was traded to "her chicago cubs":

I've written before about why many domestic violence experts believe "one ­and ­done" isn't the best policy, and I agree. Players like Chapman should not be banned from the league forever, but discipline is necessary, and it must not be for the sake of PR. It must be meted out with the end goal of changing behavior.

Those experts say the most important factor in avoiding recidivism is the offender's willingness to acknowledge guilt and take accountability for his or her actions. Baseball is on the right track, putting in place a domestic violence policy that includes education and prevention programs. The next step would be to ensure that these elements of the policy are made clear to fans, so they're able to see that real efforts are being made to stop the cycle of violence.

Hard to have too much sympathy for a supreme dirtball like Trevor Bauer, or for anyone who voluntarily chooses to be within a country mile of him outside of a ballpark.

I don't know his situation, and I really don't care. But outside of the crime itself, he and she probably have loved ones; mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and wives and husbands who were not there, did not participate in the event, yet have to hear about all of the details. Plus the lawyers and other advocates who have to go in public and say stuff like "She wanted to be strangled!" as part of the service to their client. Something like this really sucks for the victim, but she is definitely not the only one for whom it sucks.

To 7, but also 10, particularly, the filing decision in a criminal case should be based upon whether the prosecutor thinks that proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists that a crime occurred (sufficient proof to overcome a presumption of innocence). Human beings make that decision; there's no formula. In Bauer's case, I read that the prosecutor assigned to the criminal matter.

With that in mind 10, please consider the following texts presented as part of the Bauer restraining order hearing:
In one conversation, Hill was allegedly referring to Bauer when she texted Decker saying: “Give me $50 million and just slap my cl*t…”

When asked by Holley if the message meant “it would be okay” if the baseball star gave her money, Hill responded, “no.”

Holley also quoted another message sent to Hill from Decker saying: “Hey b***h, pretty soon it’ll be rich b***h.”

When asked why the two were bantering about her becoming a “rich,” Hill told the court they were “just joking around” and said “there was no ill intent at all.”

In another text, Decker told Hill to “secure the bag.”

“Isn’t the general meaning of ‘secure the bag’ to get the money?” Holley asked, to which Hill replied: “It can mean that….I’m not sure.”

Source: https://brobible.com/sports/article/trevor-bauer-accuser-texted-give-50-million/

--

Now, financial interest is a form of bias that Bauer's attorneys would be able to present at a criminal (or civil, for that matter) trial.

I think juries feel a sympathy for victims, or those that they perceive as victims. It's human nature. But, when the witness has a financial interest and the jurors think they're being conned, that sympathy can fade. Does that mean the complaining witness in Bauer's case was lying? No, certainly not, but does it raise a doubt about her truthfulness? It certainly could.

Also, 10, you describe the description excerpted in the story of the Depp/Heard trial as supporting a point that "no amount of evidence mattered." Well, the jurors, not you, sat through the trial. Think about it, a person goes from crying to ice cold (and by the way, 10, do you have some proof that this description is inaccurate?). Would that give you some pause. The civil jury (with a lesser standard of proof) did award Heard some damages. Maybe she is a good actress. Maybe Heard is a better actress than Bette Davis (who resorted to pulling nose hairs to cry on cue).

As to a civil case, the civil attorney would have to bankroll, underwrite the case, perhaps get financial backing in order to prepare. Bauer is going to have a team of competent attorneys to defend him. Are you going to risk it? The restraining order hearing seemed like a dry run for a civil case, if not an attempt to convince the prosecutor's office to file criminal charges. Ask yourself, who paid for the filings in the restraining order matter for the plaintiff? If the case were that good, the firm would have filed a civil case against Bauer.

Finally, 10, can you point to what evidence existed that Bauer attempted to have contact with the c/w after the c/w indicated she did not want contact with Bauer? That would be basis for the civil restraining order. A bench officer heard several days of testimony, supplemented by the c/w's (and Bauer's) text messages.

Do you think, 10, that the issue is a bit more nuanced than male sociopath v. aggrieved female?

If not, you might want to think about it a little harder, or in the words of Steve Garvey, that resulted in an objection by Charlie Wiliams, "We've got to bear down"

who do you think the average american is going to believe: a traumatized (female) victim, or a charismatic (male) sociopath?

Do you think, 10, that the issue is a bit more nuanced than male sociopath v. aggrieved female?

your choice of language betrays the two-faced game you're trying to play here.

To 7, but also 10, particularly, the filing decision in a criminal case should be based upon whether the prosecutor thinks that proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists that a crime occurred

thank you for including this weasel word that happens to invalidate the rest of your statement. prosecutorial discretion exists beyond (nearly) any other checks and/or balances in the legal system. there's no appeal process when a prosecutor chooses not to file charges.


and let's be clear:
the reason why cases like bauer's don't go to trial is because people like you think it's acceptable to say #### like this about victims of abuse:

Maybe she is a good actress. Maybe Heard is a better actress than Bette Davis (who resorted to pulling nose hairs to cry on cue).

does it raise a doubt about her truthfulness? It certainly could.

you're pulling some very scummy #### here, and i hope you're doing it on purpose because if this is just the way you happen to think, it's pretty ####### ugly.

It seems that some, here and elsewhere, are determined to accept the accuser’s version of events without regard to any contradictory evidence or any findings as to her credibility. The decision to not file charges is because of the weakness of the case, not conspiracy-theory nonsense about the system being rigged.

(trigger warning)


"aggrieved female"

Apologize for misquoting you, C/w in Bauer's case certainly may be traumatized, it also doesn't mean she's the victim of a crime.

I use the word "should" in the sense that prosecutors will, apparently (I am not privy the decisions prosecutors make to file case, as I suspect is the same with you) file cases against individuals to cover misconduct. This often occurs in cases where an individual is brutalized by the police by faces charges himself/herself. Prosecutors will say I am backing the officer.

In Bauer's case, there is no police department to support. I doubt that Bauer scares the LA County DA's office, except in the sense that it would be concerned about being able to prove a case and face a loss in a high profile case (more the former than the latter is my complete speculation).

You make an assumption by calling the complaining witness in Bauer's case is a victim. I get that you feel sympathetic towards her (and Ms. Heard perhaps). I don't make an assumption about the truthfulness or motives of the witness in Bauer's matter. I think they are subject to question, not fit for blind acceptance.

Think about the depth of the emotion you harbor regarding Ms. Heard and c/w in Bauer's case. I can feel it through the screen; it's visceral in nature. Think about horrible it is, the depths of depravity that you believe theses women suffered. Now, pivot that emotion to someone being wrongfully accused of the same conduct. Do you think people are wrongfully accused? Do you think people you look down on with disdain, perhaps hatred can be wrongfully accused? What do you think about that?

I am doing it on purpose. I do think that way and proudly so.

Also, there are loads of plaintiff's lawyers in California (and throughout the country) who are quite competent. Do you wonder why no firm has filed civilly on this matter? Again, Mr. Bauer appears to have significant assets (often not the case of those accused of crimes).

Looking at the basis for the article prompting this thread, 10, do you ever wonder why it is that news commentators (if you ever notice in articles or broadcasts) refer to conduct pre-criminal conviction as "alleged?"

You might want to think about this. Emotion wins cases, not logic. But there is logic involved in deciding what emotions to present and how to present them.

Finally, when you employ ad hominem, it speaks about you, not the point you are, rather inartfully, attempting to make.

The Clapper says much more succinctly than I. Damn Yankees.

(trigger warning)

"maybe she is a good actress"

It seems that some, here and elsewhere, are determined to accept the accuser’s version of events without regard to any contradictory evidence or any findings as to her credibility. The decision to not file charges is because of the weakness of the case, not conspiracy-theory nonsense about the system being rigged.

The evidence is pretty strong that Bauer liked to hurt women for sexual kicks. I frankly don't care if that's technically legal because of "consent", and I'm perfectly happy for him to lose his career, all his money, and go to jail for it. Anyone who hurts another human being for pleasure, deserves whatever they get. If the father or brother of a woman who Bauer choked and punched during sex killed him, and I was on the jury, I'd nullify. I really can't understand the casual acceptance of violence against women.

(trigger warning)


"aggrieved female"

(trigger warning)

"maybe she is a good actress"

It's a rare day indeed when I'm in full agreement with stiggles.

Finally, when you employ ad hominem, it speaks about you, not the point you are, rather inartfully, attempting to make.

i know. i very respectfully do not care.


some people believe in debating nazis. i believe in punching nazis in the mouth.


this is not me calling you a nazi; this is me explaining my thought process in refusing to engage in a debate on this topic. i'm not here for that. i'm not going to have a back and forth conversation about why someone who has two black eyes, a fractured skull and a broken nose is a victim, and not a "victim".

i'm here to tell you that what you're doing is very scummy, because the other people in your life clearly do not respect you enough to do so (or maybe you just don't feel the need to hide it here, for whatever reason).

18. Fantastic to hear that you are an advocate for women. Please continue to do so.

Glad to hear also that you would nullify a verdict if you strongly believed in it. It really takes a lot of courage to do that, especially in some cases where you might be the only one and eleven are people are leaning on you, perhaps insulting or yelling at you to change your decision. You must indeed be a courageous person. I would never have the guts to do that. I wish I could be as strong as you, but I'm just not.

19. Of course, are you able to follow trial testimony, or would something such as that be too complicated?
There was apparently testimony at the trial that two photos of Ms. H were taken at the same time; one has the injuries one does not; the one that had the injuries was stored in a photo editing application: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zj-0ubsv5M (closing argument for defense, cites testimony). Hence, the argument that they were manipulated.

I know those are just legal technicalities; but they sometimes matter. But, to a strong thinking individual like you, who can see things for the way they are, that may not matter. I appreciate someone who has the courage of his (I assume you are male, but her, if the case may be) convictions. Again, I'm not that strong.

20. I appreciate your bravery. You don't just punch keyboards. You punch Nazis. Thank you again for the courage. It will take people like you to stand up against injustice. I am surprised there ever was such a thing as Nazis with people such as yourself who would be willing to stop them. I would never have the courage to do such a thing. I respect those feelings, if indeed they are true. Of course, you are just punching away at your keyboard here, this isn't a trial or a test. But, if it were, with your fortitude, you would pass with flying colors. I envy your strength.

All the people in your life must respect and venerate you for your willingness to stand up (or keyboard punch) for what is right.

to steal the words of a departed primate:

yawn

23. Thank you; I watched the clip that you so cleverly posted; which one are you supposed to be in the cartoon?

i'm not going to have a back and forth conversation about why someone who has two black eyes, a fractured skull and a broken nose is a victim, and not a "victim".

Well facts do matter, so who had a fractured skull & broken nose? And would not falsely claiming such injuries create a credibility problem for one making such claims?

I think Bauer is an uninteresting jerk and baseball is 0% less fun without him. My opinion of him isn't meaningfully changed whether he's legally and factually guilty, factually guilty but not legally guilty, or even factually innocent but just icky. Were I a juror, I'd care about particulars of texts, images, and medical reports - but I'm not and I don't. He's an ####### and he can #### right off.

If the father or brother of a woman who Bauer choked and punched during sex killed him, and I was on the jury, I'd nullify. I really can't understand the casual acceptance of violence against women.

The casual acceptance of violence against men, however ...

That would be relevant to the issue of damages, rather than whether a particular statement was defamatory.

No.

as all yall know, i am no laaar

so, legally speaking (ignoring the fact that one of the partners is someone who is a person who is disliked by many)

what exactly IS the law about s&m sex agreements? IS one partner allowed to ask the other to beat them? even if the amount of beating that they agree on would be illegal assault and battery if not during a sexual agreement?

would any of this be the same if it was the male partner who was the submissive and had a what looks like a severe beating by the female?

#28 It's complicated. People have successfully defended themselves with a defense of consensual rough sex that went wrong. People have been sent to prison for a fairly long time for injuring (or killing) somebody in consensual sex.

There are verdicts all over the map and what it boils down to is that consent will not automatically be a successful defense. Nor does the fact that somebody got seriously hurt mean that somebody will go to prison.

As for female dominant cases, shouldn't matter. I know I've read about female wrestlers willing to choke out their clients and I don't think they commonly get a signed waiver. And I know there are some guys who want (or think they want) a serious beating. Not hard to imagine a beating or choking going wrong, but I'm not aware of any prosecutions. I think there's somebody here who actually knows the scene, but I gather it's considered unprofessional/very risky to do these things without a safeword. And I'd imagine that any kind of setup where there was a safeword and it was taken seriously would make it hard to prosecute.

And I’d imagine that any kind of setup where there was a safe word and it was taken seriously would be hard to prosecute.

FWIW, that seems to be what was done in the Bauer incident, at least that’s what the Judge found in her ruling denying the accuser’s restraining order request. It’s also worth noting that the Judge found that the accuser was “materially misleading” in her request about her post-incident contacts with Bauer. While much is still murky about exactly what happened, there does appear to be some basis for not blindly accepting the accuser’s version. I suggest reading the Judge’s opinion before reaching even tentative conclusions.