Any interest in Trevor Bauer if he's released?

[owknows]

2 minutes ago, SteveA said:

 

But I don't know about that blanket statement at the end of your sentence.   I'm not an expert on the law.   But I believe he has admitted to beating her about the face, but said she had given consent for roughness/pain.   Where is that line drawn?   If I tell you that I want to die and ask you to kill me, I believe you can still be convicted of murder or manslaughter or something if you honor my wishes.

Dr. Kevorkian and the entire Canadian Socialized Medicine system beg to differ.

(not that I'm advocating their position)

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

Obviously that's the conclusion law enforcement came to, at least based on the evidence they had available, they didn't feel they had enough to prove it.

But I don't know about that blanket statement at the end of your sentence.   I'm not an expert on the law.   But I believe he has admitted to beating her about the face, but said she had given consent for roughness/pain.   Where is that line drawn?   If I tell you that I want to die and ask you to kill me, I believe you can still be convicted of murder or manslaughter or something if you honor my wishes.   If she gave consent for rough sex, does that mean that he can hit her until she has black eyes and a bruised face and that is not considered a crime?

Obviously, he wasn't charged, so maybe the answer to that question is yes.   Or maybe he wasn't charged because they just didn't have enough evidence to move foward.

The evidence they had was her face right?  I mean, there is no denying he hit her, I believe??

So, knowing that he definitely hit her and that she had the marks on her face and body to prove it, how is he not guilty?

I think it’s pretty obvious that the cops had evidence that showed she wanted this and that is was consensual and, at the end of the day, if that is the case, he didn’t do anything wrong legally speaking.

I mean, there are people who like to get pissed on, pooped on, thrown up on, rape fantasies, etc….there are just a lot of messed up people out there and while we may not be able to understand it or think they are sick f*cks, it’s how they choose to live and none of us have the right to intrude upon that.

[Jammer7]

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

Obviously that's the conclusion law enforcement came to, at least based on the evidence they had available, they didn't feel they had enough to prove it.

But I don't know about that blanket statement at the end of your sentence.   I'm not an expert on the law.   But I believe he has admitted to beating her about the face, but said she had given consent for roughness/pain.   Where is that line drawn?   If I tell you that I want to die and ask you to kill me, I believe you can still be convicted of murder or manslaughter or something if you honor my wishes.   If she gave consent for rough sex, does that mean that he can hit her until she has black eyes and a bruised face and that is not considered a crime?

Obviously, he wasn't charged, so maybe the answer to that question is yes.   Or maybe he wasn't charged because they just didn't have enough evidence to move foward.

Battery vs. Manslaughter or Murder, very different. So, if you and I decide to get into a boxing ring. We put gloves and head gear on, and we batter each other, is it a crime? I mean, we gave consent to each other by entering the ring and putting on gear. Even if it isn’t stated, which in this case it may or may not have been, is it implied by entering into some agreement where it is assumed that these things will happen. Did the alleged victim know, or should they have known? IDK, he needs Jesus though. That’s clear. 

[Aristotelian]

10 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

There is no evidence that he violated this, correct? Did he admit he did this?

The texts messages he released refer to him choking her out and her waking up from it, but they also suggest she consented and enjoyed it. 

[Jim'sKid26]

37 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

For what it's worth, as it is written, Bauer did violate MLB's Domestic Abuse policy. See the bolded part of the below excerpt. Did the punishment fit the crime? That's up for debate, but there's absolutely no doubt that he violated the policy based on the facts that came out about the case. 

"Sexual assault refers to a range of behaviors, including a completed nonconsensual sex act, an attempted nonconsensual sex act, and/or nonconsensual sexual contact. Lack of consent is inferred when a person uses force, harassment, threat of force, threat of adverse personnel or disciplinary action, or other coercion, or when the victim is asleep, incapacitated, unconscious or legally incapable of consent."

http://content.mlb.com/documents/2/9/2/296982292/Major_League_Player_Joint_DV_SA_CA_Policy_English_2018.pdf

Yes, I agree. I said that in my post. He did violate the policy. That's why he was suspended.

"Did the punishment fit the crime?" Apparently not as the original punishment was amended by an independent arbiter.

I'm not sure what you are attempting to point out with the bolded part.

[Moose Milligan]

[HakunaSakata]

3 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

Yes, I agree. I said that in my post. He did violate the policy. That's why he was suspended.

"Did the punishment fit the crime?" Apparently not as the original punishment was amended by an independent arbiter.

I'm not sure what you are attempting to point out with the bolded part.

I bolded that sentence because I think that's the part of the MLB policy that he clearly violated. Based on the text messages that were released she was, at one point, unconscious.  I'll leave it at that because I think I'm starting to stray a bit from the point of this thread. 

[HakunaSakata]

21 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

The texts messages he released refer to him choking her out and her waking up from it, but they also suggest she consented and enjoyed it. 

...which would still be in violation of the MLB Domestic Abuse Policy (regardless of consent). 

[Spy Fox]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don’t want to sign him partially bc I don’t want to have to deal with this type of thread weekly for the next year. 

[Aristotelian]

Just now, HakunaSakata said:

...which would still be in violation of the MLB Domestic Abuse Policy (regardless of consent). 

Yes, I was agreeing with you.

[Finisher]

There are texts from the girl basically begging him to get rough with her.

Anyway, we never sign TORs so we'd have to get unorthodox to get one, so I'd be in favor.

[geschinger]

28 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

There is no evidence that he violated this, correct? Did he admit he did this?

The independent arbitrator determined there was enough evidence to conclude a suspension of 194-games was acceptable.  It sounds like Bauer is going to accept it and not challenge the ruling.  If there truly was no evidence he violated the agreement I would expect him to challenge it and not willingly accept the loss of $37m.

[HakunaSakata]

3 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

I don’t want to sign him partially bc I don’t want to have to deal with this type of thread weekly for the next year. 

A"frickin"men

[HakunaSakata]

9 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

...and I'm out before the lock. 

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

What if he is actually innocent though?

There is no crime for 2 consenting adults to have weird fetishes.

I think this is the big point. Was it just a sex act “gone bad?”  Also, what “normal” people might consider “weird” acts, well those acts are a lot more mainstream now. We’re not talking ice cubes here. 
 

He’s hasn’t been charged, but does that mean he’s “innoncent?”  It just means the DA thought they didn’t have enough to convict or even justify taking to trial. This has just been bizzarre since the story broke.