OT: The Trevor Bauer Case

[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.

[Snapolit1]

If he's innocent I cant think of a reason he wouldn't. Has the money to rein fire on them.

Originally Posted by 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.

[oldjudge]

As a side issue—why do people put rings in their noses? Can’t be pleasant, especially if you get a cold.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

As a side issue—why do people put rings in their noses? Can’t be pleasant, especially if you get a cold.

LOL

The noses are bad enough, but it's where they put some other piercings/rings as well that would potentially bother me even more.

[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.