OT: The Trevor Bauer Case

[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?

[Snapolit1]

Appreciate the civil discussion. I don't think these are easy points.

I am a firm believer in the presumption of innocence. I think it has largely been lost in this country. I think it is one of the hallmarks of what makes our justice system great.

And, yes, once you are charged with something improperly it sucks and people's reputations can be ruined. Not to be flip, but read up on the Fatty Arbuckle case. Ridiculous.

I don't think it was fair to say these charges were tried or tested in court. If there was a trial or hearing of some kind I missed it. I though there was just a decision not to proceed.

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent. I suspect he committed crimes that can't be proven. I also believe he is a shitbag of a human being. If I was charged with such horrible acts I would wish the people I work with would come to my defense immediately and make an uproar. And talk about my character generally. Haven't seen much of any of that.

We all make judgments in these situations based on our instincts and life experience. I'm not saying mine is any better than yours. I don't know he's guilty of these acts any more than you know he's innocent.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Appreciate the civil discussion. I don't think these are easy points.

I am a firm believer in the presumption of innocence. I think it has largely been lost in this country. I think it is one of the hallmarks of what makes our justice system great.

And, yes, once you are charged with something improperly it sucks and people's reputations can be ruined. Not to be flip, but read up on the Fatty Arbuckle case. Ridiculous.

I don't think it was fair to say these charges were tried or tested in court. If there was a trial or hearing of some kind I missed it. I though there was just a decision not to proceed.

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent. I suspect he committed crimes that can't be proven. I also believe he is a shitbag of a human being. If I was charged with such horrible acts I would wish the people I work with would come to my defense immediately and make an uproar. And talk about my character generally. Haven't seen much of any of that.

We all make judgments in these situations based on our instincts and life experience. I'm not saying mine is any better than yours. I don't know he's guilty of these acts any more than you know he's innocent.

Certainly not easy. Debate is great fun and need not be personal. I agree the presumption of innocence has been largely lost; if not in court certainly in the public realm.

This is my understanding too. There was no trial; the state would not even bring charges because her evidence directly contradicted her claim, or they thought that it did. California is extremely pro #metoo. My personal opinion is that this furthers Bauer’s claim, not even a California DA would bring charges on this one to send to trial because it’s such a loser of a case.

I think where I differ is that reputation for other things shouldn’t be relevant. I would hope my coworkers would say “that’s not right, he wouldn’t do that”, but one should be able to bank on the truth and not their popularity. That a person, say, has committed theft and fraud doesn’t mean they committed a murder or some other crime. I think this is where our system often fails, juries and judges tend to convict people who don’t present well of all kinds of crimes. Bauer may or may not be an ass (I really only know his pitching, criticisms of the commissioner, and this case here, I haven’t followed his whole saga), but it shouldn’t be relevant to this. If he committed the crime he should be convicted, if he did not he should get off completely free. Proving a negative is often impossible, but that the case was dropped because the evidence she provided completely contradicted her claims does, in my eye, absolve the accused.

Rape is often a terrible crime because (I am speaking effectively here, not morally) it is a difficult crime to prove with little evidence; centered in what is usually a 1:1 encounter without witnesses. Cases like this make it worse; a societal focus on it is not bad but when it turns to incidents like this, where claims are made against unpopular people that turn out to be false it hurts everyone. It hurts actual victims, it hurts people who did nothing wrong under the law (whatever one’s thoughts in rough sex, it is not a crime), it hurts the legal system, it hurts the original goals of the activists. It pushes the activism into bad ground, their instinctual reaction to believe an accuser instead of evidence making them defend a bad and false case discredits the whole effort in the eyes of many who were in agreement or open to their efforts before.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I don't think it was fair to say these charges were tried or tested in court. If there was a trial or hearing of some kind I missed it. I though there was just a decision not to proceed.

There was a four-day hearing on the civil restraining order the accuser requested, including extensive live testimony from the accuser. Bauer's legal team used the hearing as a way to attack the potential criminal charges. According to the Los Angeles Times, the DA decided not to prosecute based in part on the transcripts of the hearing. That is because the defense counsel basically gutted the accuser on the stand. The threshold for granting a restraining order is far lower than beyond a reasonable doubt, and she was not even able to meet that burden. Again, the system worked. We Californians don't allow an accuser a walk-over just because it is a woman alleging harassment or assault. They have to go into the legal system and they will be challenged vigorously unless the accused decides it is better to settle or plead than to fight.

Bob, Bauer isn't going to sue MLB or the Dodgers. The CBA provides the administrative mechanisms for dispute resolution (arbitration). Besides, he has no damages from the team. He has been on MLB paid administrative leave. A team has to pay a player, not play a player. As long as the Dodgers pay the contract he has no remedy against them other than to quit.

[campyfan39]

I think he should sue MLB. There was no presumption of innocence. Being stripped of years in the prime of your career, having your reputation sullied, losing possible endorsements etc. is a big deal. Anyone of us could be accused of something terrible at any time. We have to get back to letting justice take its course.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Bob, Bauer isn't going to sue MLB or the Dodgers. The CBA provides the administrative mechanisms for dispute resolution (arbitration). Besides, he has no damages from the team. He has been on MLB paid administrative leave. A team has to pay a player, not play a player. As long as the Dodgers pay the contract he has no remedy against them other than to quit.

Definitely agree with you there Adam. If he did, it would likely end his MLB career IMO as I'm not sure any other team would want to take a chance on him and anger the commissioner or other teams in the majors. Kind of like what happened to Kaepernick in football.

But if there was ever a player that had the kind of eccentric behavior and thinking to go against what you would think would be the norm, Bauer is your man. While in Cleveland, he was definitely known as being "different" from your typical person/player. He absolutely marches to the beat of his own, different drum.

[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.