Trevor Bauer is a dirty fucking predator

robardin

Older East Asian dude seeing both sides
This is a restraining order.

While past conduct is certainly relevant for a restraining order, the main issue is whether or not a present threat exists or whether or not Bauer is engaging in behaviors now that make this woman fearful for her life.

Most likely Bauer has had no continuing contact with this woman that would necessitate the need for a restraining order.

Denial of this restraining order does not mean Bauer isn't guilty of sexual assault, battery, or a whole host of civil actions and crimes. A restraining order isn't the proper way to address any of those issues.
Technically no, but the wording of the judge's ruling while denying the restraining order is still very relevant: "If she set limits and he exceeded them, this case would've been clear. But she set limits without considering all the consequences, and respondent did not exceed limits that the petitioner set."

This ruling may have no direct bearing on whatever proceedings will happen with Bauer, but I'm sure his defense team will work it in somehow. Especially when the judge is a woman, and (if relevant) a Democratic appointee.

I'd imagine that restraining orders are given out more freely than people are sent to prison, meaning the bar is set lower; and if that bar were not met, given that the accuser and Bauer both agree that it began consensually with agreed-upon limits (safeword, etc.) and the only question is "did things go too far, to a criminal degree", shouldn't it reasonably be an even higher bar in order for a jury to unanimously convict Bauer of a crime?

Civil court, I suppose that is a different bar, or "MLB jail" in terms of a domestic violence suspension, and in any case, I am not a lawyer...

...but in terms of Bauer going to jail, I think the ruling denying the restraining order could be pretty impactful for a criminal trial.
 

lordsnot

Registered User
Technically no, but the wording of the judge's ruling while denying the restraining order is still very relevant: "If she set limits and he exceeded them, this case would've been clear. But she set limits without considering all the consequences, and respondent did not exceed limits that the petitioner set."

This ruling may have no direct bearing on whatever proceedings will happen with Bauer, but I'm sure his defense team will work it in somehow. Especially when the judge is a woman, and (if relevant) a Democratic appointee.

I'd imagine that restraining orders are given out more freely than people are sent to prison, meaning the bar is set lower; and if that bar were not met, given that the accuser and Bauer both agree that it began consensually with agreed-upon limits (safeword, etc.) and the only question is "did things go too far, to a criminal degree", shouldn't it reasonably be an even higher bar in order for a jury to unanimously convict Bauer of a crime?

Civil court, I suppose that is a different bar, or "MLB jail" in terms of a domestic violence suspension, and in any case, I am not a lawyer...

...but in terms of Bauer going to jail, I think the ruling denying the restraining order could be pretty impactful for a criminal trial.

I think this is a dark example of the world of S&M. Sadly, its a whole lot more common than one would think. I am single and I cannot tell you how many women post on their dating profiles that they are seeking a "Daddy Dom" or "Kinky Alpha Male" and looking for "non-vanilla" sex. The 50 Shades of Grey franchise really brought this shit to light. I think the lady engaged with Bauer looking for super rough sex and he probably went a bit too far for her liking. It's a dangerous game for a young lady to play, especially with a sociopath.
 

bphunke

Rephugee
Administrator
It will be interesting to see if he is back in MLB in 2022, what kind of contract he gets and from who.

Other players don’t like him. Fans don’t like him. He could end up being persona non grata.
 

dmtt61d

Veteran Refugee
Board lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong, but pretty sure the “limits” the judge is referencing here are the limits of what Bauer can and can’t do under the restraining order; I don’t think the judge is referencing limits in terms of what she was willing to do during their sexual encounters.
 

cmcm750203

Veteran Refugee
That's an interesting interpretation. I guess it could be, but what does she set the limits without considering all the consequences mean? Are people looking to get a restraining order given input in what it says?

The judge said the "injuries as shown in the photographs are terrible" but added, "If she set limits and he exceeded them, this case would've been clear. But she set limits without considering all the consequences, and respondent did not exceed limits that the petitioner set."
 

Bobbyv13

Veteran Refugee
Board lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong, but pretty sure the “limits” the judge is referencing here are the limits of what Bauer can and can’t do under the restraining order; I don’t think the judge is referencing limits in terms of what she was willing to do during their sexual encounters.
I don't think so because of the "...But she set limits without considering all the consequences,..." part.
 

Wendell's Necklace

brought to you by Taijuan
It will be interesting to see if he is back in MLB in 2022, what kind of contract he gets and from who.

Other players don’t like him. Fans don’t like him. He could end up being persona non grata.
If the Dodgers can’t terminate his contract those questions will answer themselves.
 

BennySammy

Parents should have arranged for deodorant instead
Moderator
he's already under contract for $45 mil in 2022...his opt out isn't until after the season
 

Wendell's Necklace

brought to you by Taijuan
I’m not a trial lawyer, but would that even be admissible? Seems like knowledge that a restraining order had been denied would be prejudicial to a jury, and it’s not the same exact issue.
 

Edge03

Refugee
Board lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong, but pretty sure the “limits” the judge is referencing here are the limits of what Bauer can and can’t do under the restraining order; I don’t think the judge is referencing limits in terms of what she was willing to do during their sexual encounters.
The Judge is referencing the sexual encounter.
 

pedagogue

Veteran Refugee
Whoever tells the best story will have a significant edge, which I think goes to the prosecution. Slut shaming only goes so far....especially when you can blow up her pictures to life-sized and keep them up facing the jury. Put her on the stand and if the cross gets ugly, that can backfire on Bauer's lawyers, so 99.5% chance a female crosses her. The prosecutor should definitely bring back the expert nurse who evals sexual assault cases and said she had never seen bruising and trauma to a woman's genitals like that.
 

Bobbyv13

Veteran Refugee
I think it would be admissible on cross to attack her credibility as a witness. Assume the defense will at least partially be that she is out to get him. Filing for a protective order without merit would be evidence of that. While legally it doesn't mean much other than no PO, the language in her decision makes it sound like the whole story is not being reported. If you are her attorney's or prosecutors, that got to be troubling to read that.
 

dmtt61d

Veteran Refugee
The Judge is referencing the sexual encounter.
You’re right, just read the broader context of her comments.

That being the case, some shitty fuckin comments in there that feel to my admittedly non-lawyer self like they’re wading too deep into expressing her opinion on his innocence or guilt in a potential criminal case or liability in a civil case as opposed to just her opinion on whether or not he currently poses an active threat to her necessitating a restraining order. Again, I’m no lawyer, but feels like her opinion here is going well beyond the scope of what she’s meant to be ruling on, to the point that it’s arguably prejudicial ahead of a criminal or civil case.
 

amazin port

Refugee
Juries read the news.
I would of thought that the judge, knowing that criminal charges could be made, should have heard the case 'in camera'. As you say the hearing was purely the return of the 'ex-parte' restraining order and to establish whether it is reasonable and necessary to keep the order in force. In effect he's allowed the Defense to pre-empt and enact prejudice by allowing them to influence any jury.

I agree that if Bauer didnt initiate the contact and has no intention of contacting the victim then the law will see the order as being too prohibitive as to achieve it's purpose. This doesn't reflect on the necessity in the interim as the victim could well of feared intimidation to desist any legal action.

As you say the facts of the incident aren't necessarily the basis of the order, it's the need for protection following the incident. In the UK (unsure of the process in the USA) the Crown (or presumably the State in the USA) would impose bail conditions to cover the same protection until the criminal investigation is concluded.
 
Last edited:

robardin

Older East Asian dude seeing both sides
That's an interesting interpretation. I guess it could be, but what does she set the limits without considering all the consequences mean? Are people looking to get a restraining order given input in what it says?
It means the limits to the "consensual rough sex" both parties say they entered into at first. I'm guessing the judge is saying that based on the (also agreed upon as happened) text message to Bauer, following the first encounter and leading up to the second one, that read "gimme all the pain".

If it were me, I would say that the act of "immediately choking someone out", or any "choking out" at all, abrogates any agreement involving a safeword in the second encounter (which I think both parties are saying was established). But I guess that's a he said/she said situation, if Bauer denies she ever lost consciousness.

Juries read the news.
I don't know whether or not the fact that "this evidence, as presented, had not even been sufficient to gain a restraining order against Bauer" would be admissible in a criminal trial... But if anybody on the jury has awareness of this, I think this is going to make a conviction that much harder. Because a criminal verdict of guilty has to be unanimous, right?
 

joedabum

Registered User
Gross.

The US justice system never fails to disappoint.
I'm not specifically commenting on this case at all, but to your point, I think it probably all started with holding McDonald's accountable when that plaintiff complained of getting burned while holding the coffee between the thighs in the car (I don't know if it spilled or what). But from then on, McDonald's had to tell people that hot coffee can burn you.
So, as far as I can see, when common sense had to be adjudicated, we were all starting down the rabbit hole, which is the place we all inhabit today.
There's no more assumption of common sense. Everything has to be specifically warned, even if it means that you've got to be a bumblehead not to realize it in the first place. A giant Duh.
 

DrKingman

Registered User
I'm not specifically commenting on this case at all, but to your point, I think it probably all started with holding McDonald's accountable when that plaintiff complained of getting burned while holding the coffee between the thighs in the car (I don't know if it spilled or what). But from then on, McDonald's had to tell people that hot coffee can burn you.
So, as far as I can see, when common sense had to be adjudicated, we were all starting down the rabbit hole, which is the place we all inhabit today.
There's no more assumption of common sense. Everything has to be specifically warned, even if it means that you've got to be a bumblehead not to realize it in the first place. A giant Duh.
It's often cited as an example of frivolous lawsuits that defy common sense, but sometime you should read the actual details of the McDonald's case. You might feel a bit differently about it at that point.
 

Ralph Wiggum

Note to self: Coleslaw
I'm not specifically commenting on this case at all, but to your point, I think it probably all started with holding McDonald's accountable when that plaintiff complained of getting burned while holding the coffee between the thighs in the car (I don't know if it spilled or what). But from then on, McDonald's had to tell people that hot coffee can burn you.
So, as far as I can see, when common sense had to be adjudicated, we were all starting down the rabbit hole, which is the place we all inhabit today.
There's no more assumption of common sense. Everything has to be specifically warned, even if it means that you've got to be a bumblehead not to realize it in the first place. A giant Duh.
That woman that sued McDonalds was a legit law suit. McDonalds was heating the coffee up to nearly boiling point because it extended the shelf life of the coffee which was against the law. I think you could only keep it as high as 150 degrees, McDonald's had it at 190 because it extended the shelf life by 2 hours. McDonalds already had 700 reports on file of people burning themselves because of the coffee temperature. Initially She was only asking for $20k to cover her medical expenses, McDonald's only gave her $800. In court she admitted it was her fault it spilled but she was parked, she wasn't driving like reported. Eventually the jurors decided to award here $2.9 million because of how irresponsible and callus McDonald's was. They eventually settled for $600k and McDonald's changed how's they heat up coffee.
 

robardin

Older East Asian dude seeing both sides
I'm not specifically commenting on this case at all, but to your point, I think it probably all started with holding McDonald's accountable when that plaintiff complained of getting burned while holding the coffee between the thighs in the car (I don't know if it spilled or what). But from then on, McDonald's had to tell people that hot coffee can burn you.
So, as far as I can see, when common sense had to be adjudicated, we were all starting down the rabbit hole, which is the place we all inhabit today.
There's no more assumption of common sense. Everything has to be specifically warned, even if it means that you've got to be a bumblehead not to realize it in the first place. A giant Duh.
This case has become synonymous with "frivolous lawsuits of the obvious", but in fact it was legit: there is such a thing as "way too hot" coffee, and you could argue that saying McD's could be absolved of a similar outcome in the future by saying "well we told you it was extremely not!" is kind of bad.


There's "you spilled hot coffee in your lap, what'd you expect, a pleasing sensation?" and going to the ER for THIRD DEGREE BURNS requiring eight days of skin grafting in the groin area.
 
Top