Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 74 of 74
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,989
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    You mean like this?



    There's a different between "the evidence said he didn't" and "there isn't enough evidence to prove it in court." You're asserting that it's one without knowing if it's the other.
    Most states attorneys don't care if it can be proved in court. Many times when a crime was committed, there's enough evidence to charge a person with that crime, but there's a good chance of not get a conviction. In this case, I certainly don't know, as I haven't seen the evidence. So since he wasn't charged, the assumption has to be that the evidence just wasn't there to even charge him.

    I just don't understand how some people can make the assumption of guilt without knowing anything about the case, except for what the media says. If Bauer wasn't a douche, and the media was reporting that he is being set up, that's what people would believe. At the end of the day...we just don't know what happened except that she asked to be beat and choked out. As the douche that he is, he did just that. That's all we know.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    64,331

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    447
    Let's see if similar logic can be used here:

    hE wAsN't cHaRgEd. tHe lAw fOuNd hIm nOt gUiLtY

    Ok, since some on here want others to accept this, then they have to accept that Bauer's employer has a code of conduct and a collective bargaining agreement that he signed. Their investigation found that he broke the code of conduct and his actions violated parts of the collective bargaining agreement. Accept that and move on. Similar logic, no?

    Although this hasn't been explicitly stated by others, the constant defense of Bauer implies that he's being unfairly treated. He's made it into a pretty exclusive club of athletes that have made it to the top of their profession. He has nearly 100 million in career earnings + whatever he's earned outside of baseball. He has seemingly escaped legal trouble for his "character flaws". His life has been pretty fair given what he's done.

    Again, it hasn't been explicitly stated, but defending this guy in any way is not some righteous act of protecting someone's freedom. He's free. He's rich. Someone finally spoke up about his actions, which inspired others to do the same. He got caught. There is no cancel culture, manhunt, attack on freedom, etc. He did something awful and is experiencing really close to the minimum level of consequences one could face in a similar situation.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    64,331
    Bingo.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    32,395
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    No I don't believe that 100% of rapes get charged. I do however think that if there's evidence there to charge a person, they are charged

    But my point is that nobody can claim that he raped her, or he didn't rape her without SEEING ANY of the evidence. We have matter of fact statements on here claiming that he raped her.
    Nope

    Almost 100 percent of sexual assaults result in any justice. There will not be a trial.

    And almost 100 percent of sexual assault claims turn out to be false

    Almost every single case just results in the victims getting their names dragged through the mud, accused of being gold diggers , (likely threatened beyond comprehension considering how money often works in 'Murca), it's tried and true consistent propoganda.


    Also, there is almost never physical evidence. A person would more or less have to get violently raped, have proof it wasn't consensual on hand, and immediately sprint to or call the cops.
    Maybe then something would happen then. But doubtful.


    I'm so sick of this innocent until proven guilty ******** that 'Murcans love to spew whenever the **** they feel like it, then they trash the victims (because they don't understand that not getting convicted means nothing in reality besides there not being a enough evidence or a trial in our corrupt *** judicial system)

    I've heard it with every damn celebrity sexual assault case and it's absolutely disgusting.

    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by blams; 05-07-2022 at 02:25 AM.

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    46,306
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    Most states attorneys don't care if it can be proved in court. Many times when a crime was committed, there's enough evidence to charge a person with that crime, but there's a good chance of not get a conviction. In this case, I certainly don't know, as I haven't seen the evidence. So since he wasn't charged, the assumption has to be that the evidence just wasn't there to even charge him.

    I just don't understand how some people can make the assumption of guilt without knowing anything about the case, except for what the media says. If Bauer wasn't a douche, and the media was reporting that he is being set up, that's what people would believe. At the end of the day...we just don't know what happened except that she asked to be beat and choked out. As the douche that he is, he did just that. That's all we know.
    Uh.. what? Yes they do. State's Attorney's whose offices don't get convictions don't get reelected.

    Again, though, assuming a lack of indictment means innocence is to ignore the statistics on the issue.

    Per the DOJ, only about 31% of rapes are even reported to police to begin with, only about 5% result in an arrest, 1.1% are referred to a prosecutor, 0.7% are convicted, and 0.6% are incarcerated. Those are vanishingly small numbers. Unless you'd like to suggest that only 0.7% of all sexual assaults are actually crimes, the numbers just don't back this up.


    "It is a grotesque parody of the bazaar at Marrakech, as if dumb animals had been granted only the amount of sentience required to mock humanity."

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,989
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Uh.. what? Yes they do. State's Attorney's whose offices don't get convictions don't get reelected.

    Again, though, assuming a lack of indictment means innocence is to ignore the statistics on the issue.

    Per the DOJ, only about 31% of rapes are even reported to police to begin with, only about 5% result in an arrest, 1.1% are referred to a prosecutor, 0.7% are convicted, and 0.6% are incarcerated. Those are vanishingly small numbers. Unless you'd like to suggest that only 0.7% of all sexual assaults are actually crimes, the numbers just don't back this up.
    Interesting numbers. It's actually pretty sad to see so few rapists incarcerated.

    As far as the Bauer case goes...I truly don't know what happened. I wasn't there, and I haven't see any of the investigative findings. That's why I'm not assuming anything either way.

    As a retired cop, we used to have to get "felony approval" from the states attorney's office in order to charge a person with a felony. The police just can't charge a person with a felony without approval from an assistance sates attorney. And I stand corrected that most don't care about a conviction. Most do care. However, many don't care. Anyway, some assistance states attorney's would hand out a felony approval with very little evidence to convict, but just enough to charge. Others wouldn't give approval if they didn't think they can get a conviction. It all depended on which ASA we were dealing with. Depending on what shift we were on, we dealt with dozens of different ASA's. We kind of had a good idea if there was going to be an approval or not when we got to know the ASA we were dealing with on a case. Each person was different.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    9,342
    Bauer's appeal begins on May 23.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    8,333
    Quote Originally Posted by nyyfan555 View Post
    Let's see if similar logic can be used here:

    hE wAsN't cHaRgEd. tHe lAw fOuNd hIm nOt gUiLtY

    Ok, since some on here want others to accept this, then they have to accept that Bauer's employer has a code of conduct and a collective bargaining agreement that he signed. Their investigation found that he broke the code of conduct and his actions violated parts of the collective bargaining agreement. Accept that and move on. Similar logic, no?

    Although this hasn't been explicitly stated by others, the constant defense of Bauer implies that he's being unfairly treated. He's made it into a pretty exclusive club of athletes that have made it to the top of their profession. He has nearly 100 million in career earnings + whatever he's earned outside of baseball. He has seemingly escaped legal trouble for his "character flaws". His life has been pretty fair given what he's done.

    Again, it hasn't been explicitly stated, but defending this guy in any way is not some righteous act of protecting someone's freedom. He's free. He's rich. Someone finally spoke up about his actions, which inspired others to do the same. He got caught. There is no cancel culture, manhunt, attack on freedom, etc. He did something awful and is experiencing really close to the minimum level of consequences one could face in a similar situation.
    Does the code of conduct extend to what consenting adults do in their bedrooms?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    64,331
    dErP

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Does the code of conduct extend to what consenting adults do in their bedrooms?
    A bit of a straw man argument considering your distorting the language here. Namely, your use of the word "consenting", which is still up for interpretation. In addition, your use of the word "bedroom" implies that sexual assault cannot possibly take place in the bedroom, therefore employers should ignore any events that take place in the bedroom when writing codes of conduct and domestic violence policies.

    Either way, I'll bite:

    https://content.mlb.com/documents/2/...glish_2018.pdf

    ^^ There is MLB's domestic violence and sexual assault policy for your reference. Just in case you've closed your mind so tightly that you refuse to view it, here is a snapshot of their definition and 1 form of possible discipline:

    "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."

    "Commissioner Discipline. The Commissioner may discipline a Player who commits a Covered Act for just cause. In addition, a Player’s failure to comply with his Treatment Plan adopted pursuant to Section IV below may be an independent violation of this Policy. A Player’s failure to comply with his Treatment Plan will be determined by the Joint Policy Board under Section IV.F below."


    Perhaps, if Bauer is so against this "violation of his privacy and freedoms", he should have carefully read the contract he signed and fought for his freedumbs (edited: freedoms) prior to signing and not after the violent act he committed.

    No government forced him into anything. His freedom is not threatened. He agreed to all policies and codes of conduct. If his privately owned employer and company decided he broke one of their policies, then so be it. Private companies can make those decisions (like deciding what types of cakes they want to bake, remember that one?). Can't have it both ways to fit one's selfish desires. He signed the contract. Please excuse me while I shed a lone tear for him as he has to stay in his multi million dollar home, travel, party, etc. for the next 2 seasons.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    64,331
    All comes back around to "poor Bauer" for the people with blinders on.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    All comes back around to "poor Bauer" for the people with blinders on.
    I'm convinced it's all part of the culture wars used to distract from the lack of action on more important issues (economic, environmental, etc.). It's why you see so many news stories about M&Ms, Sesame Street, Athletes, etc.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    47,353
    Quote Originally Posted by nyyfan555 View Post
    A bit of a straw man argument considering your distorting the language here. Namely, your use of the word "consenting", which is still up for interpretation. In addition, your use of the word "bedroom" implies that sexual assault cannot possibly take place in the bedroom, therefore employers should ignore any events that take place in the bedroom when writing codes of conduct and domestic violence policies.

    Either way, I'll bite:

    https://content.mlb.com/documents/2/...glish_2018.pdf

    ^^ There is MLB's domestic violence and sexual assault policy for your reference. Just in case you've closed your mind so tightly that you refuse to view it, here is a snapshot of their definition and 1 form of possible discipline:

    "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."

    "Commissioner Discipline. The Commissioner may discipline a Player who commits a Covered Act for just cause. In addition, a Player’s failure to comply with his Treatment Plan adopted pursuant to Section IV below may be an independent violation of this Policy. A Player’s failure to comply with his Treatment Plan will be determined by the Joint Policy Board under Section IV.F below."


    Perhaps, if Bauer is so against this "violation of his privacy and freedoms", he should have carefully read the contract he signed and fought for his freedumbs (edited: freedoms) prior to signing and not after the violent act he committed.

    No government forced him into anything. His freedom is not threatened. He agreed to all policies and codes of conduct. If his privately owned employer and company decided he broke one of their policies, then so be it. Private companies can make those decisions (like deciding what types of cakes they want to bake, remember that one?). Can't have it both ways to fit one's selfish desires. He signed the contract. Please excuse me while I shed a lone tear for him as he has to stay in his multi million dollar home, travel, party, etc. for the next 2 seasons.
    Ciaban lives in a world where because Bauer was never charged that he can't be guilty. Like apparently the threshold for believing that he is culpable has to come with an actual charge or conviction. If he took off his Dodger blue shades and read the story, he would realize that Bauer is no innocent victim in all of this.
    Last edited by metswon69; 05-20-2022 at 04:26 PM.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •