OT: The Trevor Bauer Case

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Things are going to get pretty ugly and bad for MLB, and many others, if this video he provided is indeed accurate to the timeline. As easy as it is to not like him, this will be interesting to see how it plays out...

https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/su...counterclaims/

[Casey2296]

False assault allegations is nothing new, it's been in the tool bag for a couple of decades. What's unfortunate is it takes away from true assault victims.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

False assault allegations is nothing new, it's been in the tool bag for a couple of decades. What's unfortunate is it takes away from true assault victims.

True, but I'm looking at it more from what will happen to his career, lost salary and endorsements, can or will anything happen to MLB itself?

This is a high profile case for a very popular athlete with a decent sized social media following. He signed the largest AAV in history, so I'm sure he'll be after quite a few people for defamation and getting some money as well.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

True, but I'm looking at it more from what will happen to his career, lost salary and endorsements, can or will anything happen to MLB itself?

This is a high profile case for a very popular athlete with a decent sized social media following. He signed the largest AAV in history, so I'm sure he'll be after quite a few people for defamation and getting some money as well.

Deshawn Watson is doing just fine even in worse case for bauer

One point in time doesnt really prove much....she had pretty significant injuries and i thought he had a text to her asking if she was alright,....if going to do crazy stuff, and probably going to need a crazy girl to do it, you need to get stuff in writing and maybe agree to have it videotaped...

the wierd thing about that video is he wears a eye thing, he cant sleep at his young age?

[Snapolit1]

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from a short video.

First Bauer denied hitting anyone. Then he admitted that he beat a woman unconscious and badly bruised because that's what she wanted. Now appears he's back to saying nothing happened.

I think he's a bad bad guy with a lot of mental problems, but all we have really heard so far is spin by both sides.

Not going to land on the side of man who had sex with an unconscious women if that's what's ultimately substantiated.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

[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 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.

[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 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.

[rjackson44]

This is a bad cat period

[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.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by rjackson44

This is a bad cat period

And not in a good way! I'm amazed that anyone is still trying to defend him or his actions.The guy is clearly unhinged.

[G1911]

A bad cat should not be held guilty of rape and abuse, in court or by society and reasonable people, if he did not commit in fact commit rape or abuse. One may dislike or hate someone for any or no reason, but we should not let our opinion of a person conflate with what they have actually done. This woman's case fell apart by the evidence contradicting her story. To say that he is not guilty of the crime is not to say he is perfect or great or good, it is to acknowledge the evidence. I think it will be a sad day when we as a people no longer discern guilt from innocence for people we simply don't like. We are well on that path.

[irv]

I haven't followed this case at all but if you were just physically abused and raped, would you not try to flee, especially since it appears your accuser is sound asleep?

https://twitter.com/just_krissy19/st...unterclaims%2F

[Chris Counts]

Originally Posted by G1911

A bad cat should not be held guilty of rape and abuse, in court or by society and reasonable people, if he did not commit in fact commit rape or abuse. One may dislike or hate someone for any or no reason, but we should not let our opinion of a person conflate with what they have actually done. This woman's case fell apart by the evidence contradicting her story. To say that he is not guilty of the crime is not to say he is perfect or great or good, it is to acknowledge the evidence. I think it will be a sad day when we as a people no longer discern guilt from innocence for people we simply don't like. We are well on that path.

Well said. I worry about the loss of due process and the presumption of innocence in a world that's so quick condemn. I'm amazed at how often I hear someone spout off about how so-and-so is guilty of this or that — without offering a stitch of evidence.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

Well said. I worry about the loss of due process and the presumption of innocence in a world that's so quick condemn. I'm amazed at how often I hear someone spout off about how so-and-so is guilty of this or that — without offering a stitch of evidence.

There's plenty of evidence that Bauer beats up women and has been a misogynistic, harassing troll on social media (with a legion of incel fanboys) for years. That's the opposite of "quick to condemn"

[G1911]

Can anyone link or source any evidence he is guilty of violent abuse and/or rape? I can't find any. Just a claim, that was contradictory to the evidence, and got thrown out. I don't know much about Bauer before this case got attention outside of the baseball world, I don't watch much anymore. I am neither for nor against him. But claims of criminality should require evidence; the standard of western justice and thought for centuries.

[BobC]

Great, let's see the evidence since there is plenty of it.

[campyfan39]

Nose rings, eyebrow, lip or tongue piercing is an automatic turnoff IMO.

With respect, some of you are naive in regards to how common this kind of mess goes on. In my line of work I have counseled numerous women who have low self esteem and self worth and who actually cannot orgasm without violent sexual acts. People act like this is some kind of anomaly but sadly it is getting more and more common in part because of porn and extreme cultural trends. I believe based on her contradictions that Bauer is a weird guy and should know better given his position, but this was consensual.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Nose rings, eyebrow, lip or tongue piercing is an automatic turnoff IMO.

With respect, some of you are naive in regards to how common this kind of mess goes on. In my line of work I have counseled numerous women who have low self esteem and self worth and who actually cannot orgasm without violent sexual acts. People act like this is some kind of anomaly but sadly it is getting more and more common in part because of porn and extreme cultural trends. I believe based on her contradictions that Bauer is a weird guy and should know better given his position, but this was consensual.

Very true! We definitely live in a very weird and odd world, with an awful lot of differences in how people are and interact with others. And kudos to you Campyfan39 for trying to help and assist those that have issues and need assistance, help, and understanding.

I do not have specific confirming evidence, but I've heard that if you take all the activity for an entire day across the world on all the social media type sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc., and add them all up, they still don't come close to the amount of online porn activity each day, in total, around the world. And strangely enough, it would not surprise me if that is actually true.

There are so many people in the world that are closed-minded and judgmental, and only want and expect others to think and act exactly like they do. And many that are biased and suffer from racial fears and hate, and everything else that can be a bad part of the human experience and existence. At the end of the day, we are all human animals, and subject to the very real instincts, desires, fears, hopes, and dreams that come with being human. And I am no better than anyone else. But I try to be open-minded and think through things, looking for information and evidence to support or discredit whatever issue or thinking is at hand after learning as much as possible about it, and try not to rush to judgement or carry pre-conceived notions and ideas.

This entire issue with Bauer is one of those extraordinary situations that get exacerbated and made worse by the fact that we now have the internet, and worldwide access to virtually anything and everything happens almost instantaneously. He and this woman have no privacy, and the media jump on this stuff for their own ratings, making money off stories like this. They care nothing for Bauer and this woman, and just use them for their own selfish purposes. Situations like this back in say Ruth's time would likely not be out there like they are today, as reporters would be more conscious and concerned with not blatantly sharing personal and private information of athletes lives like the media does today. News people, like Walter Cronkite, or Huntley and Brinkley, took pride in presenting the news and facts to the people, not adding and twisting the news with their own personal and political thoughts and feelings, like virtually all news reporting appears to be today. People need to be more open-minded and think for themselves, using common sense, and not just believe what they my initially hear and see. I've always felt that of all the rules, laws, beliefs and such that are in the world, the most important of all is the "Golden Rule". If more people tried to follow and live by that one simple rule, the world would likely be a much, much better place for all of us.

[glynparson]

Consent or not what he did was freaking disgusting and I wouldn’t want to employ or associate with an individual like him.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by glynparson

Consent or not what he did was freaking disgusting and I wouldn’t want to employ or associate with an individual like him.

right but than you have wife beaters that still get a job later on

issue is if cant tell one way or another which side is telling the truth than shouldnt you give the person thats accused the benefit of the doubt

someone argued here that 'guilty' people walk free all the time when the prosecution doesnt have the goods but thats how the system should work..

also realize just because you cant prove a civil slander case because you dont have the goods doesnt mean you were not slandered so you cant have it both ways when you need that person to prove a slander case to prove they are innocent...

also i do think people in their teens in early 20s make some decisions before and after events in which they dont think long term or think enough how things will play out...not sure you can always say '99% of people would do this" when you are that young you do and can say things later that are more fringe that that 99%. Especially when there are older people with various incentives pulling the strings as well.

I always say a lot of bad decisions in life come down to this analogy..

Go to a Bar and stare at some big person, when that person says 'why you looking at me' Then you say 'what you going to do about it'

After you get beat up, you can sue for injuries right? You did 'start' it but you arent at fault to getting beat up. However most people arent going to want to say 'what you going to do about it'

This kind of thing happens all the time in society when there are clear victims but there is a level of causation to making them a victim, not enough to say the victim deserved it, but enough causation that most people simply would not be that position to be a victim

[Snapolit1]

I don’t get people who say he’s a weird guy but nothing he’s done in his life would suggest he is capable of doing this. Do a Google search of him. Reports of him being stupid and aggressive with women, on the internet or in “real life” were out there for years. He’s been more than an oddball character. He’s been a real collosal douche bag for years. Does that mean he’s committed a crime. Of course not. But this is not exactly like Tim Tebow being accused of rape out of nowhere.

This is not the only woman who has made these claims. The others refused to press the issue. Happens all the time. Again, proves nothing. But like with Watson, when multiple people say the same thing that means
Something to me. No one ever accused Derek Jeter of raping them, and I’m
Sure he got more ass than a public toilet seat at OHare airport.

There are still people who adamantly insist Michael Jackson was not a child
Molester and OJ wasn’t a murderer. Neither was convinced of a crime. If convicted or a crime is your measuring stick of judging someone’s behavior, you should have no issue with either of them.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I don’t get people who say he’s a weird guy but nothing he’s done in his life would suggest he is capable of doing this. Do a Google search of him. Reports of him being stupid and aggressive with women, on the internet or in “real life” were out there for years. He’s been more than an oddball character. He’s been a real collosal douche bag for years. Does that mean he’s committed a crime. Of course not. But this is not exactly like Tim Tebow being accused of rape out of nowhere.

This is not the only woman who has made these claims. The others refused to press the issue. Happens all the time. Again, proves nothing. But like with Watson, when multiple people say the same thing that means
Something to me. No one ever accused Derek Jeter of raping them, and I’m
Sure he got more ass than a public toilet seat at OHare airport.

There are still people who adamantly insist Michael Jackson was not a child
Molester and OJ wasn’t a murderer. Neither was convinced of a crime. If convicted or a crime is your measuring stick of judging someone’s behavior, you should have no issue with either of them.

right but kobe bryant accusation is pretty bad and he is beloved and he settled out of court and 'apologized' to the victim while also denying.....

people hate a guy who settles a case always go 'well he must be guilty so he paid' people that love a guy say 'well he paid but no charges filed and not worth to defend a case in public' or whatever.....people have their own narrative

at least with bauer, easy to see he has some tendencies, i worry more about the the straight arrows that do things...as the narrative on these guys lets them get away with more......

[rjackson44]

Him and watson are low lifes

[Snapolit1]

For the life of me I just don’t get why supporting this guy is a hill anyone would want to die on.

And the fact that he has become a folk hero of sorts to a certain type of young men who feel aggrieved by women generally is disgusting. Sure he has never had more Twitter followers. Many of which I suspect aren’t
Even baseball fans

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...tection-order/

https://www.si.com/mlb/2019/01/09/in...nge-harassment

[BobC]

Times and thinking change guys. I've never said I defend or condone what Bauer does, so if anyone is insinuating that I'm sticking up and dying on some hill for him, I am not. But I'm also not going to be intimidated or influenced by anyone's myopic thinking and comments either. Last I looked, this is still a free country and he has a right to say and do want he wants, within the law, and whether anyone else likes and/or agrees with it or not. All I'm pointing out is how some people come on here and immediately say he's horrible and disgusting, without possibly knowing the entire story or situation, and convicting him in their minds because he is odd and different, based on all the stories and such that have come out about him over the years.

Do those being so critical of Bauer know if he has any mental or other issues? Is he possibly a bit autistic, or maybe he's just a lot like the Sheldon Cooper character from The Big Bang Theory TV series. A sizable portion of our population have and deal with any number and variety of mental, sociological, and physical defects and issues, and many so-called "normal" people look down on and show bias, discrimination, and outright hate for such people, without ever knowing or understanding where those people have come from and what they've had to deal with in their lives.

There is another extremely huge thing that those condemning Bauer have completely failed to mention or discuss......what about the alleged victim? Not one of the naysayers has mentioned anything about the alleged victim's background, demeanor, or situation in the least. They just say they hate Bauer and/or what he allegedly did. Remember, Bauer didn't go out and kidnap some women to take back to his apartment to abuse and rape them. These women met him somehow and apparently shared some thoughts and beliefs with him as far as sexual preferences, and clearly liked him enough to voluntarily want to be with him and engage in what some of you look upon as deviant sexual activity and behavior. Now, were these women actually into the "rough sex" scene that Bauer apparently is into, or were they into being with a star athlete who makes lots of money and maybe decided to put up with Bauer's sexual preferences to have a chance to score the rich athlete of their dreams, or maybe they were just crazy or with low esteem and confidence and grabbing at anything they can and Bauer just happened to be the low hanging fruit they hooked up with? We'll most likely never really know, but whatever the reason, it seems the Bauer naysayers have no comments in regard to the possibility that these women may be as much, or even more, to blame than Bauer. Yet not a one of the naysayers has mentioned that aspect at all of potential shared blame. They sound like they condemn Bauer simply because he's the man, so the women are automatically the victim and he's totally guilty?

Some naysayers call Bauer misogynistic as supposed proof of their point of view, but offer no background or explanation as to how or why he may have a dislike for women. And even if he does have an overall dislike or distrust of women, why does that automatically mean to some that he is guilty in this situation? For all we know, he may have been abused by his own Mother, or some other female(s) in his early years, and those issues possibly have carried over to his adult life. The fact is, none of us know the entire and complete backgrounds and situations of BOTH parties to this case, and all the circumstances surrounding it. Yet, it seems some of the people out there are quick to condemn Bauer as disgusting and horrible, lay all the fault at his feet, and apparently condone what MLB has done to possibly punish Bauer prematurely for what may ultimately turn out to be nothing more than he's the man in the situation, which given the current thinking of society about women's rights and the influence of the #MeToo and like movements, makes him automatically guilty.

Geez, talk about how misinformation, lack of information, biases, and discrimination can play into what happens in our world!

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobC

Times and thinking change guys. I've never said I defend or condone what Bauer does, so if anyone is insinuating that I'm sticking up and dying on some hill for him, I am not. But I'm also not going to be intimidated or influenced by anyone's myopic thinking and comments either. Last I looked, this is still a free country and he has a right to say and do want he wants, within the law, and whether anyone else likes and/or agrees with it or not. All I'm pointing out is how some people come on here and immediately say he's horrible and disgusting, without possibly knowing the entire story or situation, and convicting him in their minds because he is odd and different, based on all the stories and such that have come out about him over the years.

Do those being so critical of Bauer know if he has any mental or other issues? Is he possibly a bit autistic, or maybe he's just a lot like the Sheldon Cooper character from The Big Bang Theory TV series. A sizable portion of our population have and deal with any number and variety of mental, sociological, and physical defects and issues, and many so-called "normal" people look down on and show bias, discrimination, and outright hate for such people, without ever knowing or understanding where those people have come from and what they've had to deal with in their lives.

There is another extremely huge thing that those condemning Bauer have completely failed to mention or discuss......what about the alleged victim? Not one of the naysayers has mentioned anything about the alleged victim's background, demeanor, or situation in the least. They just say they hate Bauer and/or what he allegedly did. Remember, Bauer didn't go out and kidnap some women to take back to his apartment to abuse and rape them. These women met him somehow and apparently shared some thoughts and beliefs with him as far as sexual preferences, and clearly liked him enough to voluntarily want to be with him and engage in what some of you look upon as deviant sexual activity and behavior. Now, were these women actually into the "rough sex" scene that Bauer apparently is into, or were they into being with a star athlete who makes lots of money and maybe decided to put up with Bauer's sexual preferences to have a chance to score the rich athlete of their dreams, or maybe they were just crazy or with low esteem and confidence and grabbing at anything they can and Bauer just happened to be the low hanging fruit they hooked up with? We'll most likely never really know, but whatever the reason, it seems the Bauer naysayers have no comments in regard to the possibility that these women may be as much, or even more, to blame than Bauer. Yet not a one of the naysayers has mentioned that aspect at all of potential shared blame. They sound like they condemn Bauer simply because he's the man, so the women are automatically the victim and he's totally guilty?

Some naysayers call Bauer misogynistic as supposed proof of their point of view, but offer no background or explanation as to how or why he may have a dislike for women. And even if he does have an overall dislike or distrust of women, why does that automatically mean to some that he is guilty in this situation? For all we know, he may have been abused by his own Mother, or some other female(s) in his early years, and those issues possibly have carried over to his adult life. The fact is, none of us know the entire and complete backgrounds and situations of BOTH parties to this case, and all the circumstances surrounding it. Yet, it seems some of the people out there are quick to condemn Bauer as disgusting and horrible, lay all the fault at his feet, and apparently condone what MLB has done to possibly punish Bauer prematurely for what may ultimately turn out to be nothing more than he's the man in the situation, which given the current thinking of society about women's rights and the influence of the #MeToo and like movements, makes him automatically guilty.

Geez, talk about how misinformation, lack of information, biases, and discrimination can play into what happens in our world!

Look at the pictures of her and that may help realize why it’s an uphill battle for me to take his side on this. You beat the crap out of someone and I’m not giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Look at the pictures of her and that may help realize why it’s an uphill battle for me to take his side on this. You beat the crap out of someone and I’m not giving you the benefit of the doubt.

as to my analogy i gave above...she is the one at the bar staring somebody down and when given the look back by a big guy she says 'what you going to do about it' Then the guy beats her up

yeah she did things that i would never do in that example and clearly wrong, but she is trumped by even the bigger wrong of getting beaten up

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Look at the pictures of her and that may help realize why it’s an uphill battle for me to take his side on this. You beat the crap out of someone and I’m not giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I never said I condone what Bauer did, and am certainly not automatically taking his side. I do not know all the facts and details in this case to be able to do so. I also cannot automatically dismiss that the alleged victim may have had some complicity or shared guilt in all this either. Please tell me why he is somehow then able to find women that apparently want to have "rough sex" with him? Didn't the women who has taken him to court actually sleep with him and have these "rough sex' sessions more than once? If she wasn't into it and asking for the punishment to reach her "happy ending", why did she voluntarily go back to him then?

Something about this entire situation doesn't quite add up, especially when you add in the pictures of the victim in bed with Bauer supposedly after one of these "rough sex" sessions. Add in to that the decision by the prosecutors NOT to press criminal charges against Bauer, AND the fact that the victim could not get a judge to grant her a restraining order against Bauer. As others have previously pointed out, getting a simple restraining order in an alleged assault type case should be a virtual slam dunk for the victim/accuser, yet the judge involved said NO!!!! That is fricking huge! I am not privy to all the evidence, testimony, and such that led a judge to decide against granting the restraining order, are you??? If not, then you probably don't know anything more about all the actual details and such, other than what has come out and been reported in the news and media, than I or pretty much anyone else on this forum really does. I at least have the intelligence and open-mindedness to not rush to a biased decision and know and realize that I do not know all the true facts and details in this case, and don' just make decisions based on what is shown and reported in possibly sensationalized and biased media and news stories and reports, or by others who tell me what I should believe because they are right, and anyone not in absolute agreement with them is wrong. I am totally against anyone, female or male, getting beaten up like this woman was. But if she was in fact asking to be treated roughly during sex with Bauer, and he was complying with her wishes and desires, at least initially, the narrative isn't as cut and dried IMO as others are claiming.

And the fact I know that I don't know enough to make a final decision on this issue, makes me all the more question MLB for what now appears to possibly be a somewhat premature judgement and penalty handed down against Bauer. And don't kid yourself, MLB likely went ahead and penalized Bauer already, before any final legal resolution to his civil case, just to make the public that has already declared Bauer guilty in their minds, happy. They don't want fans upset with them and to possibly lose business and money because of Bauer. I don't think they honestly care what kind of sex life Bauer chooses, but when it may cost the baseball team owners a dollar or two, suddenly they gain a conscience.

People are free to think and decide how they like, and I am happy to hear and listen to anyone's reasoning and evidence. But people also need to remember the "Golden Rule", and try to see and realize that others may have radically different ideas than them, like possibly being into "rough sex" or "S&M" and what that entails and implies.