User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5836 seconds
69 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Friday, September 30, 2022Trevor Bauer’s defamation case against accuser’s former attorney could be thrown out
RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)
Posted: September 30, 2022 at 05:59 PM | 30 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: trevor bauer |
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: Howard Johnson, Al Leiter headline Mets hall of fame class
(7 - 12:32am, Jun 05) Last: rr: over-entitled starf@ck3r Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for June 2023 (134 - 12:27am, Jun 05) Last: esseff Newsblog: Beloved ex-Met Bartolo Colon finally retires from baseball at 50 (14 - 11:32pm, Jun 04) Last: SoSH U at work Newsblog: 2023 NBA Playoffs Thread (2560 - 11:01pm, Jun 04) Last: rr: over-entitled starf@ck3r Newsblog: Economic boost or big business hand-out? Nevada lawmakers consider A’s stadium financing (13 - 10:51pm, Jun 04) Last: ReggieThomasLives Newsblog: Report: Nationals' Stephen Strasburg has 'severe nerve damage' (12 - 10:25pm, Jun 04) Last: Mr. Hotfoot Jackson (gef, talking mongoose) Newsblog: Jays pitcher Anthony Bass sorry for posting video endorsing anti-LGBTQ boycotts (105 - 8:54pm, Jun 04) Last: base ball chick Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - The Run In (438 - 8:23pm, Jun 04) Last: Pirate Joe Newsblog: Aaron Boone’s Rate of Ejections Is Embarrassing ... And Historically Significant (18 - 4:15pm, Jun 04) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Newsblog: Brewers' Jon Singleton back in majors for 1st time since '15 (1 - 12:47pm, Jun 04) Last: Tom and Shivs couples counselor Newsblog: Diamond Sports Group fails to pay Padres, loses broadcast rights (27 - 7:52pm, Jun 03) Last: McCoy Sox Therapy: Lining Up The Minors (31 - 4:07pm, Jun 03) Last: villageidiom Newsblog: Former Los Angeles Dodger Steve Garvey weighs U.S. Senate bid (24 - 3:23pm, Jun 03) Last: cookiedabookie Newsblog: Big Spending Begins To Pay Off For AL West-Leading Rangers (11 - 2:39pm, Jun 03) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: 8 big All-Star voting storylines to follow (26 - 11:54pm, Jun 02) Last: bjhanke |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.5836 seconds |
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. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 30, 2022 at 09:27 PM (#6098547)Nearly every thread about Bauer and this case over the past couple of years have shown that to not be true.
There's a lot riding on this - if MLB wins it gives them free rein to drop huge penalties on players going forward.
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:
who do you think the average american is going to believe: a traumatized (female) victim, or a charismatic (male) sociopath?
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 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.
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"
your choice of language betrays the two-faced game you're trying to play here.
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:
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.
"aggrieved female"
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.
"maybe she is a good actress"
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.
"aggrieved female"
(trigger warning)
"maybe she is a good actress"
It's a rare day indeed when I'm in full agreement with stiggles.
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).
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.
yawn
The casual acceptance of violence against men, however ...
No.
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?
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main