OT: The Trevor Bauer Case

[Snapolit1]

As far as a defamation suit, discovery in lawsuits is very broad. I strongly suspect this dude is not going to want anyone to pull the curtain back on his sexual activities and take a deep dive.

[Carter08]

Agree the video does little for him. A murderer doesn’t have much of a defense if his or her main defense is look at how many times I didn’t murder the victim.

[BobC]

Having heard all of the above, since when is a person's private sex life really anyone else's business? I do not defend nor condemn Bauer, but realize that he interacted with women who apparently had a somewhat similar proclivity to his of enjoying what I'll simply call "rough sex". I think it is pretty well known there are an untold number of fetishes and odd/weird tastes when it comes to what turns on and excites some people, and that goes for both men AND women. The trouble is that after the fact, people can change their minds, start thinking a little differently, end up with a sort of case of buyer's/seller's remorse, so to speak, about what they've done. They can also realize that if one party has considerable wealth that bringing up a suit after the fact can also get them a significant payday in some cases.

I am not definitely saying, nor even remotely insinuating, that in this particular case the alleged victim is at any fault whatsoever. So don't even try accusing me of blaming the victim, I am judging no one. What we do know is that there are some men that are horrible and treat women terribly and abuse them. We also know that there are some women who do go out of their way to entrap men and may abuse and mistreat them as well, or possibly then look for a payday by suing them after the fact for alleged abuse and harm.

What little facts I have heard are that the alleged victim apparently hooked up with Bauer more than once for this "rough sex", and apparently Bauer did not coerce or force the alleged victim into meeting with him on any occasion for what was, at least initially, consensual sexual relations. It is also a fact that local officials declined to press criminal charges against Bauer based on the evidence and facts they knew and had. It is also a known fact that anyone can sue anyone else, for literally anything, and the burden of proof in a civil trial only requires a majority opinion of jurors to win the case, far less than the 100% agreement required in a criminal trial.

And because there is no written agreement or document concerning the alleged level of their consensually agreed upon "roughness" in their sexual activities, you come down to this being a virtual and classic case of "he said/she said", plain and simple. I don't know who is truly right or wrong in this case, or perhaps the truth is they're both partially right and both partially wrong. My guess is that the actual truth probably falls somewhere in the middle of their two stories. Unfortunately, given our current environment and the various movements and such that seem to be controlling our societal narratives, Bauer appears to be more often than not considered the guilty party in the biggest court of all, the court of public opinion. And as a result, has further suffered at the hands of MLB who suspended him because they don't want that public opinion to spill over and possibly have any negative effect on the business of baseball itself.
Yet Bauer has technically done nothing illegal, nor been found guilty of anything as of yet.

If Bauer ends up being found innocent in a civil suit as well, I can see him easily having grounds to go back at his accuser for the harm caused him financially and reputationally by the allegations made against him. But the woman isn't going to have the money and resources to make him whole from what he stands to lose from lost earnings from baseball. So that leads to the possibility of Bauer suing MLB for prematurely punishing him for something he may not actually be guilty of. I understand that baseball has a morals clause and doesn't allow or condone conduct or activity detrimental to the game of baseball, but do they really have the right to punish someone for their sexual proclivities, which are supposed to be private and behind closed doors? At some level, this punishment of Bauer for possibly liking "rough sex" is akin to if MLB had similarly punished a player who suddenly came out as gay, back in the day when homosexuality was not as accepted by the court of public opinion as it is in today's environment. That gay player's sexual preferences should be his business and his business alone, but if it somehow suddenly had come out say 50-60-70 years ago that a player was a homosexual, when society was not so accepting of gay men, I could easily have seen MLB suspending or cutting/banning that gay player back then as well.

If Bauer does end up being exonerated on all counts and charges, including the civil ones, it will be interesting to see if he does go after MLB and sue them for lost wages and income. Not so sure he'd be able to prevail, but he seems to be the kind of oddball, eccentric type of person that would follow through and try to prove his innocence and being in the right through the courts. Time will tell.

[Snapolit1]

There are apparently a lot of people who like it rough, so to speak. Sure there's nothing new under the sun as they say. But my understanding is that folks who swing that way are pretty careful about what is allowed and not allowed, safe words, etc. So lines can still be crossed and crimes can be committed.

Yep, totally agree, people can have "buyer's remorse" so to speak, particularly where they think there might be a huge pay day in doing so. On the flip side of that, I think 9,999 out 10,000 young women are not going to open up intimate details of their sex life to public scrutiny unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so. Particularly where they realize that the target of their accusations can pay millions and millions in litigation fees without blinking an eye. Would you want lawyers interrogating everyone you ever had sex with for details of what you liked, didn't like, how you liked it, how often you liked it, etc. I don't think many people want to subject themselves to that.



QUOTE=BobC;2264317]Having heard all of the above, since when is a person's private sex life really anyone else's business? I do not defend nor condemn Bauer, but realize that he interacted with women who apparently had a somewhat similar proclivity to his of enjoying what I'll simply call "rough sex". I think it is pretty well known there are an untold number of fetishes and odd/weird tastes when it comes to what turns on and excites some people, and that goes for both men AND women. The trouble is that after the fact, people can change their minds, start thinking a little differently, end up with a sort of case of buyer's/seller's remorse, so to speak, about what they've done. They can also realize that if one party has considerable wealth that bringing up a suit after the fact can also get them a significant payday in some cases.

I am not definitely saying, nor even remotely insinuating, that in this particular case the alleged victim is at any fault whatsoever. So don't even try accusing me of blaming the victim, I am judging no one. What we do know is that there are some men that are horrible and treat women terribly and abuse them. We also know that there are some women who do go out of their way to entrap men and may abuse and mistreat them as well, or possibly then look for a payday by suing them after the fact for alleged abuse and harm.

What little facts I have heard are that the alleged victim apparently hooked up with Bauer more than once for this "rough sex", and apparently Bauer did not coerce or force the alleged victim into meeting with him on any occasion for what was, at least initially, consensual sexual relations. It is also a fact that local officials declined to press criminal charges against Bauer based on the evidence and facts they knew and had. It is also a known fact that anyone can sue anyone else, for literally anything, and the burden of proof in a civil trial only requires a majority opinion of jurors to win the case, far less than the 100% agreement required in a criminal trial.

And because there is no written agreement or document concerning the alleged level of their consensually agreed upon "roughness" in their sexual activities, you come down to this being a virtual and classic case of "he said/she said", plain and simple. I don't know who is truly right or wrong in this case, or perhaps the truth is they're both partially right and both partially wrong. My guess is that the actual truth probably falls somewhere in the middle of their two stories. Unfortunately, given our current environment and the various movements and such that seem to be controlling our societal narratives, Bauer appears to be more often than not considered the guilty party in the biggest court of all, the court of public opinion. And as a result, has further suffered at the hands of MLB who suspended him because they don't want that public opinion to spill over and possibly have any negative effect on the business of baseball itself.
Yet Bauer has technically done nothing illegal, nor been found guilty of anything as of yet.

If Bauer ends up being found innocent in a civil suit as well, I can see him easily having grounds to go back at his accuser for the harm caused him financially and reputationally by the allegations made against him. But the woman isn't going to have the money and resources to make him whole from what he stands to lose from lost earnings from baseball. So that leads to the possibility of Bauer suing MLB for prematurely punishing him for something he may not actually be guilty of. I understand that baseball has a morals clause and doesn't allow or condone conduct or activity detrimental to the game of baseball, but do they really have the right to punish someone for their sexual proclivities, which are supposed to be private and behind closed doors? At some level, this punishment of Bauer for possibly liking "rough sex" is akin to if MLB had similarly punished a player who suddenly came out as gay, back in the day when homosexuality was not as accepted by the court of public opinion as it is in today's environment. That gay player's sexual preferences should be his business and his business alone, but if it somehow suddenly had come out say 50-60-70 years ago that a player was a homosexual, when society was not so accepting of gay men, I could easily have seen MLB suspending or cutting/banning that gay player back then as well.

If Bauer does end up being exonerated on all counts and charges, including the civil ones, it will be interesting to see if he does go after MLB and sue them for lost wages and income. Not so sure he'd be able to prevail, but he seems to be the kind of oddball, eccentric type of person that would follow through and try to prove his innocence and being in the right through the courts. Time will tell.[/QUOTE]

[BobC]

[QUOTE=Snapolit1;2264333]There are apparently a lot of people who like it rough, so to speak. Sure there's nothing new under the sun as they say. But my understanding is that folks who swing that way are pretty careful about what is allowed and not allowed, safe words, etc. So lines can still be crossed and crimes can be committed.

Yep, totally agree, people can have "buyer's remorse" so to speak, particularly where they think there might be a huge pay day in doing so. On the flip side of that, I think 9,999 out 10,000 young women are not going to open up intimate details of their sex life to public scrutiny unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so. Particularly where they realize that the target of their accusations can pay millions and millions in litigation fees without blinking an eye. Would you want lawyers interrogating everyone you ever had sex with for details of what you liked, didn't like, how you liked it, how often you liked it, etc. I don't think many people want to subject themselves to that.



Yes sir, there are a lot of things in all this that most people would not want to be discussing in public at all. And again, as I had already said, I wouldn't be surprised if the real truth lies somewhere in the middle between what both of them have been saying, and we'll most likely never find out what that real truth is. For as weird as Bauer can act and be, he never struck me as someone who would intentionally lie or do harm to another person. Doesn't mean he couldn't have misunderstood or got his signals crossed on what his partner said or wanted, but he certainly wasn't doing things like drugging woman against their will to take advantage of them. There definitely seems to have been some level of complicity between both parties, but then some possible misunderstanding of how far each one wanted the other to take things.

As Adam was pointing out though, the issue with her trying to obtain a restraining order when apparently there really wasn't one needed, made her entire case suspect. I hate to say it, but it seems the court in turning down her request viewed the underlying actions of her and her attorney as trying to make a money grab on Bauer. In DeShaun Watson's case, he initially said he was innocent and going to fight all the women suing him, but ended up settling 23 of the 24 suits so he could get on with his life and career. The one woman, who's suit still remains, knows she has Watson by the short ones and will eventually get paid as well. Bauer is the type of person I could see actually following through and fighting his accuser all the way through the court system to prove himself right, and not be willing to settle and just pay off his accuser at all. Heck, all the lurid details of his relationship seems to be out in the public already, so he has nothing else apparently to lose by fighting.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

As far as a defamation suit, discovery in lawsuits is very broad. I strongly suspect this dude is not going to want anyone to pull the curtain back on his sexual activities and take a deep dive.

Bingo. Until he actually sues someone for defamation, this is little more than hot air.

[G1911]

I'm not sure why so many people seem to be convinced he is guilty. No case was even brought against him after the police reviewed the evidence (the story on Twitter is that Bauer got this video she took from that investigation). They have the texts, this tape and possibly others, and both stories in an area that defaults to believing accusers. That MLB has suspended him for 2 years for being accused in a case that failed to even lead to charges should be troubling.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm not sure why so many people seem to be convinced he is guilty. No case was even brought against him after the police reviewed the evidence (the story on Twitter is that Bauer got this video she took from that investigation). They have the texts, this tape and possibly others, and both stories in an area that defaults to believing accusers. That MLB has suspended him for 2 years for being accused in a case that failed to even lead to charges should be troubling.

My recollection is that he pummeled a woman unconscious during sex and then basically said that’s what she wanted. Whether that’s a crime or not, it’s certainly awfully disturbed behavior. Can’t believe anyone would be too pleased if that was a sister, daughter or other family member.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

My recollection is that he pummeled a woman unconscious during sex and then basically said that’s what she wanted. Whether that’s a crime or not, it’s certainly awfully disturbed behavior. Can’t believe anyone would be too pleased if that was a sister, daughter or other family member.

My recollection is that he allegedly beat and raped her, later admitted to hitting her during sex consensually, which she has texts requesting, and then her videos and texts completely contradicted her claims to victimhood and rape and the case fell apart, so it was dropped.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't give a hoot what weird kinks (this one is not particularly rare, though I don't understand it) people are into. It's none of my business how rough people may or may not enjoy their sex. One's business is their own sex life and nobody else's besides a partner or spouse.

My personal opinion is that what two people consent to do is between them; and that false rape claims are wrong and repugnant. His career and reputation are being ruined by a claim that does not appear to be true. This is wrong.

[Snapolit1]

Why are you so certain it's not true? Because criminal charges were dropped? It is very very difficult to bring charges in any kind of domestic situation involving 2 people. This is why 1000s of spouses are killed every year despite going to the police. (And, yes, it can happen to men or woman, but obviously women far more frequently.) When you have two people in a room with the door shut, it's very hard to substantiate "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case which one is telling the truth. The fact that criminal charges are not being pushed doesn't mean that he didn't do it, or that he did it. It means someone somewhere doesn't think they have enough admissible evidence to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Guilty" people walk free in the US all the time. If the prosecutor doesn't have the goods, they aren't charged. That's actually exactly how the system is supposed to work. I could walk into a police station tonight with 50 pounds of cocaine in my briefcase. If the police improperly searched me and seized the evidence I should walk free.

If Bauer is innocent and simply a kinky guy into consensual rough play, he should bring on his defamation case. I won't hold my breath.

Originally Posted by G1911

My recollection is that he allegedly beat and raped her, later admitted to hitting her during sex consensually, which she has texts requesting, and then her videos and texts completely contradicted her claims to victimhood and rape and the case fell apart, so it was dropped.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't give a hoot what weird kinks (this one is not particularly rare, though I don't understand it) people are into. It's none of my business how rough people may or may not enjoy their sex. One's business is their own sex life and nobody else's besides a partner or spouse.

My personal opinion is that what two people consent to do is between them; and that false rape claims are wrong and repugnant. His career and reputation are being ruined by a claim that does not appear to be true. This is wrong.

[Exhibitman]

I think the system worked as it is supposed to. Serious allegations were made, they were treated seriously, tested in court, then thrown out when the witness proved to lack credibility.

If Bauer thinks he was wronged, he is a remedy: file the case. All the rest is just hot air.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Why are you so certain it's not true? Because criminal charges were dropped? It is very very difficult to bring charges in any kind of domestic situation involving 2 people. This is why 1000s of spouses are killed every year despite going to the police. (And, yes, it can happen to men or woman, but obviously women far more frequently.) When you have two people in a room with the door shut, it's very hard to substantiate "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case which one is telling the truth. The fact that criminal charges are not being pushed doesn't mean that he didn't do it, or that he did it. It means someone somewhere doesn't think they have enough admissible evidence to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Guilty people walk free in the US all the time. If the prosecutor doesn't have the good, they aren't charged. That's actually exactly how the system is supposed to work. I could walk into a police station tonight with 50 pounds of cocaine in my briefcase. If the police improperly searched me and seized the evidence I should walk free.

If Bauer is innocent and simply a kinky guy into consensual rough play, he should bring on his defamation case. I won't hold my breath.

It’s a lot harder, often impossible, to prove a negative, that something did not happen or does not exist. That is why the west, and Aristotelian logic, base it on having to prove the claim to accept it as true. I have seen no evidence it is true. The people who have appear to find her claims to be contradictory to the evidence. I think an assumption of guilt is irrational and not in accord with the western tradition. That the case was dropped, apparently due to her own phone records contradicting her narrative, not a lack of evidence at all, would seem to necessitate the conclusion. Bauer did not get off after being caught guilty but in a way inadmissible in court, charges weren’t even filed because her story didn’t add up to the evidence. The cocaine analogy is irrelevant to this case.


Do you think that he should be punished for partaking in rough sex, or that he is guilty of rape? The first post sounded like the former, this one the later.

Do you think a person who is simply accused of rape should be suspended for two years and have their career ruined?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

My recollection is that he pummeled a woman unconscious during sex and then basically said that’s what she wanted. Whether that’s a crime or not, it’s certainly awfully disturbed behavior. Can’t believe anyone would be too pleased if that was a sister, daughter or other family member.

In football, men get pummeled, tackled and end up unconscious and with broken bones and other injuries all the time. In baseball, pitchers miss and hit batters with 90+ MPH pitches, injuring them, and in one instance (Ray Chapman) even killing them. Yet I seem to not remember anyone getting arrested, or charged with anything, in any of these instances because the parties had agreed to play the games and knew the potential consequences of such actions. Is that really any different from two consenting adults who agree to engage in "rough sex" where one party may accidently inflict more pain/injury than the other would have liked or preferred?

One person says I want you to hit me during sex, so you hit them, and then they scream out that you hit them too hard and now they're going to have you arrested and sue you. Did you really do anything wrong or that the other party didn't ask for/agree to? How would you even write such a thing down in a written agreement if you did try to have one signed to protect yourself? Party A agrees to hit Party B during sex, but not too hard so it causes injury. How do you define what is "too hard", or how can you definitively tell what will or will not end up injuring someone so you don't accidently cross that line? Everyone is different and has different tolerances for pain and injury. The smart thing is to never engage in such activity at all, but there still are people, both men AND women, that apparently like and want that kind of experience.

Or is it simply that 99.999% of the time nowadays the man is initially considered wrong and guilty because unlike sports like baseball or football, where it is men against men, in regard to heterosexual relationships the male is generally bigger and stronger than their female partner. So it always seems that the woman is automatically considered the victim and that the male is considered the aggressor/abuser, at least until he can actually prove if he is innocent?

And it also doesn't mean a sister, daughter, or other family member couldn't be deceitful or outright lying about something that was said or happened as well. Like I already said, I certainly don't condone or go for "rough sex", but I also don't look down on and judge others that may actually enjoy or want it, for whatever reason. As long as they are consenting adults, and it doesn't hurt anyone else and break any laws, that is their business and no one else's in my thinking. There are probably other people in this world that think that some things you and I may do or believe in are just as much, if not possibly more so, awfully disturbed behavior as well.