Trevor Bauer Suspended Two Years

[CF DolFan]

^ Why are you still talking about law?

For the upteenth time, this isn't about law.

If he is talking about proving it then he is talking about law. I don't see where proving it is relavant if not the law. People can and do believe whatever they want without proof of anything. Just watch the same news story on dfferent channels or skim through social media.

[Spider-Dan]

No one is taking about a criminal conviction.  MLB doesn't need a guilty verdict to suspend him.

[CF DolFan]

No one is taking about a criminal conviction.  MLB doesn't need a guilty verdict to suspend him.

Honestly ... I don't see the difference. in regards to the questions you asked me. People aren't going to think any differently about what really happned based on the law vs in public opinion.

The fact that she went back to Bauer does not "prove" that she wanted to be punched in the face.  It doesn't prove anything.

I'm sorry I missed this. No one has to prove she wanted to be punched in the face. They have to prove he did something she did not want. The burden of proof is on the accusser.

[Dave Gray]

The burden of proof is on the accusser.

No. It. Is. Not.

What you are describing is a LEGAL burden for CRIMINAL prosecution (not even civil cases).
The MLB can hear her, believe her, and then act.

You can argue that they shouldn't do that or that it's not fair or whatever, but they don't have to prove him guilty.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm sorry I missed this. No one has to prove she wanted to be punched in the face. They have to prove he did something she did not want. The burden of proof is on the accusser.

So then: since Janay got married to Ray Rice after he punched her in the face, it is "hard to prove" she did not want to be punched in the face.
And even if she directly says "I did not want to be punched in the face," that does not count, because she went back to him after it happened.

[EDGECRUSHER]

No. It. Is. Not.

What you are describing is a LEGAL burden for CRIMINAL prosecution (not even civil cases).
The MLB can hear her, believe her, and then act.

You can argue that they shouldn't do that or that it's not fair or whatever, but they don't have to prove him guilty.

Agreed 100%, which is why it's so crazy to me that the Union let this be the case. To clarify what I stated above, Domingo didn't have a tearful breakdown and confessed to hitting his wife, he did it in front of teammates and MLB executives AND it was on camera. He just didn't fight the charges and got 81 games. To me, this will be Bauer's defense:

-Investigated by the police and no charges were pressed
-Complete lack of evidence outside of an accusation
-Alleged victim on at least one occasion consented to being choked and hit
-Alleged victim met with Bauer several times over the course of a few years after alleged incident took place
-Domingo got suspended for assault in public, in front of people and served 81 games. 2 year suspension based off of accusation is 4 times what he got.

To me, that is a very solid case with the arbitrator. Of course, like you say, this isn't the justice system. This is the MLB Kangaroo Court. The arbitrator can hear Trevor for 3 seconds and uphold the 2 year suspension. Trevor would then sue in the legal system but as we found out with Tom Brady and the NFL, MLB has the power to suspend players arbitrarily as it was granted to them by the players themselves. As long as they don't fine Clint Frazier $50,000 a day for being ginger, they can do what they want.

[Spider-Dan]

One more note here:

No one has to prove she wanted to be punched in the face. They have to prove he did something she did not want. The burden of proof is on the accusser.

Let me just point out this absurd reversal of victim and offender.

You seem to believe that the default assumption should be that Bauer was totally justified in being violent towards this woman, and that the "burden of proof" is on HER to PROVE that she DIDN'T want to be a target of violence.  This is insane.

But this is consistent with the conservative worldview: if a woman makes a rape allegation, the burden of proof is on HER to PROVE that she DIDN'T want sex, not on the alleged assailant to prove that she affirmatively gave her consent.

[ArtieChokePhin]

One more note here:
Let me just point out this absurd reversal of victim and offender.

You seem to believe that the default assumption should be that Bauer was totally justified in being violent towards this woman, and that the "burden of proof" is on HER to PROVE that she DIDN'T want to be a target of violence.  This is insane.

But this is consistent with the conservative worldview: if a woman makes a rape allegation, the burden of proof is on HER to PROVE that she DIDN'T want sex, not on the alleged assailant to prove that she affirmatively gave her consent.

That's also the LEGAL worldview in the U.S.   It's in the Constitution.   You should try reading it sometime. 

And a lot of times, women do make false rape allegations because they are mad at the guy.   Women who do that should be locked up.

[Spider-Dan]

No, the legal worldview in the US is not "if someone punches you in the face, first you have to prove you didn't want it."  Domestic violence cases would be unprosecutable if this were true.

[EDGECRUSHER]

No, the legal worldview in the US is not "if someone punches you in the face, first you have to prove you didn't want it."  Domestic violence cases would be unprosecutable if this were true.

I think the issue in this case is that she says it got way more violent and nonconsensual than Bauer says it did. In that case, the burden of proof is on her. If he threw her out the window and he says that is what she wanted, THEN the burden of proof is on him.

[Spider-Dan]

I think the issue in this case is that she says it got way more violent and nonconsensual than Bauer says it did. In that case, the burden of proof is on her.

There are two very different things going on here.

1) "Did the alleged actions happen?"
Which, fine!  If there is a dispute over whether Bauer punched her in the face, that question should be resolved.  In a criminal court, that question would need to be answered beyond a reasonable doubt; in a civil court, that question would need to be answered by the preponderance of the evidence; in an employer investigation, they could use an even lower standard than that.

2) "Were the actions consensual?"
If it is determined (to the appropriate standard of the setting) that the actions did happen, consent matters.  If she says it "got more nonconsensual" than Bauer says it did, that's the textbook definition of exceeding consent.

Agreeing to a kiss is not agreeing to be felt up.
Agreeing to be felt up is not agreeing to sex.
Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to be choked.
Agreeing to be choked is not agreeing to be punched in the face.

The argument over whether it happened is not the same as the argument over whether it was consensual.  So far, a lot of people in this thread haven't been disputing that the violence happened, but have insisted she needs to prove she DIDN'T agree to the violence, which is backwards.  That's not how consent works.

[EDGECRUSHER]

Yes, this is one of the cases where we are discussing many different things at once and this is where it is confusing. To my knowledge, while she consented to similar stuff in the past, she is saying at this particular time she did not and it got bad. He is saying, once again to my knowledge because it's hard to pinpoint this stuff down now, that she consented to this rough stuff but it didn't get as bad as she claims.

So, the burden of proof on him is that he needs to show that she consented to his version of events. The burden of proof on her is proving her claims that it got really bad and she never said to do that. It's very murky and if she ever had to testify, would probably do very poorly on the witness stand considering she saw him for years after. Bauer is suing her and her attorney and that is typically not something a guilty person would do as it will bring up cellphone records and all sorts of other things.

Then again, a psychopath like Bauer probably wouldn't look favorable to a jury either. Moral of the story, if the thought of hurting women turns you on, go see a therapist.

[Dave Gray]

While not being into BDSM myself, from what I understand about that community is that those limits are clearly defined and there really isn't gray area as to what's acceptable.  The relationship is built on rules and trust and safety.  It sounds like they aren't doing it right.

[EDGECRUSHER]

While not being into BDSM myself, from what I understand about that community is that those limits are clearly defined and there really isn't gray area as to what's acceptable.  The relationship is built on rules and trust and safety.  It sounds like they aren't doing it right.

That is the case between couples or adult performers. Bauer and the woman were just casual hookups over the course of a few years, doesn't seem like they ever dated. Which makes it an even worse idea, especially for an athlete who makes big money.

[masterfins]

No. It. Is. Not.

What you are describing is a LEGAL burden for CRIMINAL prosecution (not even civil cases).
The MLB can hear her, believe her, and then act.

You can argue that they shouldn't do that or that it's not fair or whatever, but they don't have to prove him guilty.

Most likely what the MLB, or NFL, does is listen to both sides (hopefully), then they look at how THEIR bottom line will be affected, then act for or against the player.  Sadly, 95% comes down to money.