It's the Robert Chambers Defense, but with texts. 30 years later, and here we are.Have a hard time reading the texts. Can you point me to the one where she says to TB, "Can you almost fracture my skull while I'm unconscious?"
It's the Robert Chambers Defense, but with texts. 30 years later, and here we are.Have a hard time reading the texts. Can you point me to the one where she says to TB, "Can you almost fracture my skull while I'm unconscious?"
I'm not sure if that's directed toward me because you think I'm defending TB. I think the anal and punching factors are more than enough to incriminate TB. I am, however, surprised that she's inviting to be choked unconscious and more messages like that could certainly help support Bauer's defense.Have a hard time reading the texts. Can you point me to the one where she says to TB, "Can you almost fracture my skull while I'm unconscious?"
Not really directed at you and I know this is a super-charged topic so I'll leave it at this.I'm not sure if that's directed toward me because you think I'm defending TB. I think the anal and punching factors are more than enough to incriminate TB. I am, however, surprised that she's inviting to be choked unconscious and more messages like that could certainly help support Bauer's defense.
The legal process is not waiting. In terms of the RO, the hearing is on a docket. Short of Bauer taking action to justify further adjudication against him, that hearing won't be moved up or changed. There are alleged crimes in CA other than Bauer's and they all get their day in court. There are also open investigations into his conduct. The purpose of those is not to jump at a charge the second one seems possible, but rather to build an investigative case that can be leveraged for prosecution. Those take time.Why is there a need to wait here? There is physical evidence, there are texts. There’s the survivor’s testimony. The push to wait and see whenever there’s an allegation of sexual violence seems vestigial to me. If the same amount of evidence existed surrounding a murder or theft or robbery, would there be a delay before suspension?
Is the desire for patience in no way related to the type of crime being alleged and old fashioned beliefs that men shouldn’t have their reputations and livelihoods ruined based on a woman’s accusation when false accusations on this topic are supposedly so common and easy to make by women scorned or passed over?
I have some knowledge of this in a different context; it’s probably less dangerous than you are imagining but not without risk.I have a question that's been bugging me about this situation, and I hope it isn't viewed as a digression. It's regarding the choking scenarios described in the texts and other materials related to the case. To me (someone who has no experience with either choking someone, or being choked), it seems like a serious high-wire act. I can only imagine that to choke someone to a specific degree, to some sort of target zone between consciousness and death, could go wrong in so many foreseeable ways.
Depending on the relative strength of the participants, there would seem to be a thin line where just a slight mistake could cause permanent injury or death. It's not like giving consent to a licensed anesthesiologist. Is there any way that anyone should be allowed to either ask for or give consent to something that seemingly dangerous?
No, it's not. Autoerotic Asphyxiation is when you choke yourself and masturbate.It’s called autoerotic asphyxiation and it’s very risky.
David Carradine's end, IIRC.No, it's not. Autoerotic Asphyxiation is when you choke yourself and masturbate.
First, just wanted to point out that while RO was filed a week ago, the victim went to the police in May and had a call monitored by the police on May 21. As mentioned upthread, police spokesperson said that the investigation is "bigger than [the police] thought," which could obviously cut in a lot of different ways, but the investigations have been going on longer than the RO filing.The legal process is not waiting. In terms of the RO, the hearing is on a docket. Short of Bauer taking action to justify further adjudication against him, that hearing won't be moved up or changed. There are alleged crimes in CA other than Bauer's and they all get their day in court. There are also open investigations into his conduct. The purpose of those is not to jump at a charge the second one seems possible, but rather to build an investigative case that can be leveraged for prosecution. Those take time.
It has been a week since the RO was filed. The timing of the follow-up hearing seems reasonable, and the investigations have started. I trust the professionals who are investigating.
I think the point McDrew was making is with regard to scheduling. The Bauer case isn't moving faster because there are loads of other cases the courts (and law enforcement) are dealing with on a day-to-day basis. Nothing specific, just that it's not a matter of the judge or the prosecutor dragging his or her feet.First, just wanted to point out that while RO was filed a week ago, the victim went to the police in May and had a call monitored by the police on May 21. As mentioned upthread, police spokesperson said that the investigation is "bigger than [the police] thought," which could obviously cut in a lot of different ways, but the investigations have been going on longer than the RO filing.
Also, curious to know what you meant by "There are alleged crimes in CA other than Bauer's and they all get their day in court." Was this a typo? If not, what other crimes other than Bauer's are you referring to?
That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.I think the point McDrew was making is with regard to scheduling. The Bauer case isn't moving faster because there are loads of other cases the courts (and law enforcement) are dealing with on a day-to-day basis. Nothing specific, just that it's not a matter of the judge or the prosecutor dragging his or her feet.
Are you speaking as a lawyer here or just a person on the internet?The whole consent defense is stupid because you cannot consent to a battery of the kind that would result in fucking skull fractures (or honestly even being choked unconscious).
Are you speaking as a lawyer here or just a person on the internet?
Let's create a hypothetical. You and I are best friends and I say hey "I bet you can't punch me and knock me out. I give you permission to try" You punch me and then I press charges, get a restraining order, and sue you for punching and fracturing my skull. Thoughts?
This is not the same as TB and the victim, but I'm challenging your point on consent and the law, which I think is more grey than you're assuming.
Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?Let's create a hypothetical. You and I are best friends and I say hey "I bet you can't punch me and knock me out. I give you permission to try" You punch me and then I press charges, get a restraining order, and sue you for punching and fracturing my skull. Thoughts?
As I understand it, when she first got examined, someone said that they suspected a skull fracture but the MRI apparently did not find one.Is the skull fracture confirmed?
https://breakinggrips.com/mutual-combat-law-washington/ talks about why that interpretation is likely wrong. https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/how-far-will--mutual-combat--hold-up-in-court--if--1132222.html has a Washington attorney's opinion that “There is no exception at law for Mutual Combat.”In Washington state you can consent to mutual combat (don’t know if this changed but I know it used to be true). There were some funny videos of guys yelling mutual combat before fighting and cops watching.
Edit:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_combat
Notable examplesEdit
In 2012, MMA fighter Phoenix Jones hit the headlines for engaging in mutual combat.[5] A video of the fight went viral.[6] The Seattle Police Department later defended their officers for not intervening.[3] The Seattle Municipal Code 12A.06.025 states that "It is unlawful for any person to intentionally fight with another person in a public place and thereby create a substantial risk of: 1. Injury to a person who is not actively participating in the fight; or 2. Damage to the property of a person who is not actively participating in the fight."[7] Thus since the fight did not injure a third party or damage property, it was allowed by this law.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/consent/
- There was no possibility of serious bodily injury
- The harm was reasonably foreseeable and the risk reasonably accepted
- The individual received a benefit that justified the consent
There are a lot of reasons why Trevor messed up. I can't see confusion of the terminology being one of them. Especially as she articulated that the literal "going out" part was the turn on and "never been so turned on in my life." Hard to argue it meant anything else.I have a question Re: the texts. Couldn't her telling him that she wanted him to choke her unconscious be the lingo that they used? Like, if she texted "I want you to choke the shit out of me"...I doubt that she would want him to take her literally?
Otherwise known as the Kobe defense. If you can’t defend yourself, just start accidentally on purpose giving out the survivor’s information and let the mob do the rest. Oops.So, apparently Bauer's camp sent unredacted medical records of the victim out to media agencies in an attempt to exonerate him. Cool cool.
https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2021/7/6/22563919/trevor-bauer-domestic-abuse-medical-records
Phoenix Jones is also a crazy person who is a self-styled Superhero, dressing up and performing vigilante crime-fighting.In Washington state you can consent to mutual combat (don’t know if this changed but I know it used to be true). There were some funny videos of guys yelling mutual combat before fighting and cops watching.
Edit:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_combat
Notable examplesEdit
In 2012, MMA fighter Phoenix Jones hit the headlines for engaging in mutual combat.[5] A video of the fight went viral.[6] The Seattle Police Department later defended their officers for not intervening.[3] The Seattle Municipal Code 12A.06.025 states that "It is unlawful for any person to intentionally fight with another person in a public place and thereby create a substantial risk of: 1. Injury to a person who is not actively participating in the fight; or 2. Damage to the property of a person who is not actively participating in the fight."[7] Thus since the fight did not injure a third party or damage property, it was allowed by this law.
I know I'm way out over my skis here, but there is something about this whole issue of consent to potentially dangerous/deadly sexual behavior that I've been wondering about. Suppose for a moment their kink was gun fantasies, I'm sure that fetish must exist. Similar texts are discovered along with any other evidence describing that sexual aspect of the relationship. There is some sort of previous activity where a gun was place to either of their heads, threats made and then eventually the harmless "click" or series of clicks as the chamber empties. Lets say the gun had been used since the last encounter for target practice and thought to have been emptied before the next tryst, except one bullet was in advertently left in the chamber. Obviously you see where I'm going with this. Negligent homicide? Apples to oranges in some respects I'm sure, but my point is there have to be responsibilities and consequences to certain things that are deemed "mutual"I have some knowledge of this in a different context; it’s probably less dangerous than you are imagining but not without risk.
Blading (aka knife play) isn't all that uncommon a kink either that is ridiculously dangerous.I know I'm way out over my skis here, but there is something about this whole issue of consent to potentially dangerous/deadly sexual behavior that I've been wondering about. Suppose for a moment their kink was gun fantasies, I'm sure that fetish must exist. Similar texts are discovered along with any other evidence describing that sexual aspect of the relationship. There is some sort of previous activity where a gun was place to either of their heads, threats made and then eventually the harmless "click" or series of clicks as the chamber empties. Lets say the gun had been used since the last encounter for target practice and thought to have been emptied before the next tryst, except one bullet was in advertently left in the chamber. Obviously you see where I'm going with this. Negligent homicide? Apples to oranges in some respects I'm sure, but my point is there have to be responsibilities and consequences to certain things that are deemed "mutual"
Or worse. It could be made to look like an accident.yeah, I mean any of these can go terribly wrong and without notice one participant can take things beyond what may have been agreed to as mutual. I mean the idea being I would think that if X is amazing, what if we took it to Y or Z?
Wow, what a terrifying story. And I'm not talking about Bauer's.So, apparently Bauer's camp sent unredacted medical records of the victim out to media agencies in an attempt to exonerate him. Cool cool.
https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2021/7/6/22563919/trevor-bauer-domestic-abuse-medical-records
Not a lawyer, but a law school grad studying for the bar. It varies by jurisdiction but I remember being assigned some old cases during Crim regarding BDSM-esque activity and consent. Some of them were a bit old (I remember a 1960s one in CA called People v. Samuels?) but the main takeaway was (1) that Courts are generally skeptical of the notion of consent to bodily harm and (2) many jurisdiction‘s statutes nowadays explicitly limit consent to harm to harm that is not serious.Are you speaking as a lawyer here or just a person on the internet?
Let's create a hypothetical. You and I are best friends and I say hey "I bet you can't punch me and knock me out. I give you permission to try" You punch me and then I press charges, get a restraining order, and sue you for punching and fracturing my skull. Thoughts?
This is not the same as TB and the victim, but I'm challenging your point on consent and the law, which I think is more grey than you're assuming.
Yes, that. Thanks.I think the point McDrew was making is with regard to scheduling. The Bauer case isn't moving faster because there are loads of other cases the courts (and law enforcement) are dealing with on a day-to-day basis. Nothing specific, just that it's not a matter of the judge or the prosecutor dragging his or her feet.
Don't have a lawyer's opinion on this except to say that I heard a radio therapist counseling a woman on what a bad idea her "loaded gun in vagina" kink was. Caller could have been making it up of course, but I'd wager that gun-as-literal-sex-device does exist.I know I'm way out over my skis here, but there is something about this whole issue of consent to potentially dangerous/deadly sexual behavior that I've been wondering about. Suppose for a moment their kink was gun fantasies, I'm sure that fetish must exist. Similar texts are discovered along with any other evidence describing that sexual aspect of the relationship. There is some sort of previous activity where a gun was place to either of their heads, threats made and then eventually the harmless "click" or series of clicks as the chamber empties. Lets say the gun had been used since the last encounter for target practice and thought to have been emptied before the next tryst, except one bullet was in advertently left in the chamber. Obviously you see where I'm going with this. Negligent homicide? Apples to oranges in some respects I'm sure, but my point is there have to be responsibilities and consequences to certain things that are deemed "mutual"
Seems like the Dodgers are distancing themselves from Bauer.The Dodgers have canceled the Trevor Bauer Bobblehead Night promotion scheduled for Aug. 19. Bauer merchandise is also no longer available for purchase at the team store, on the team’s website or the MLB website.
A Dodgers spokesman said the decision was made because the team “did not feel it was appropriate” to have the promotion or continue to sell the merchandise “while investigations continue by Major League Baseball and the Pasadena Police Department.”
Bauer was placed on administrative leave by MLB on Friday while it investigates sexual assault allegations against the Dodgers pitcher. The leave will theoretically expire this week. MLB can extend it but only with the agreement of the MLB Players Association. Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said he does not expect Bauer to be reinstated this week.
August 19th, ehh. Doesn't sound like this is going to be a case of two adults having "brief and wholly consensual sexual relationship."https://www.ocregister.com/2021/07/07/dodgers-cancel-trevor-bauer-bobblehead-night-remove-merchandise-from-team-store/
Well, there's this.
Seems like the Dodgers are distancing themselves from Bauer.
Even if that is some how what is decided, I think Bauer is beyond being celebrated.August 19th, ehh. Doesn't sound like this is going to be a case of two adults having "brief and wholly consensual sexual relationship."
Yeah, there were witnesses within MLB (I think teammates but maybe also MLB officials), so he was suspended very quickly.Domingo German was added to the list during the first week of investigation in 2019. The incident involved a team party and other team members, so that might have affected punishment.
On top of that, it looks like his own teammates don’t want him back. Things aren’t going particularly well for himAdministrative leave extended for a third time to August 6. The restraining order civil hearings are next Monday and Tuesday.
Ya, I heard this too when I watched this videoOn top of that, it looks like his own teammates don’t want him back. Things aren’t going particularly well for him
this reference means more to me than you, but this reminds me of what happened with the Syracuse lacrosse team this yearOn top of that, it looks like his own teammates don’t want him back. Things aren’t going particularly well for him
There are 3 hearing days scheduled - Aug 2, 3, and 19. https://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/story/2021-07-23/trevor-bauer-restraining-order-hearingAdministrative leave extended for a third time to August 6. The restraining order civil hearings are next Monday and Tuesday.
Probably just a quirk of scheduling. EIther that or the judge is really encouraging the parties to finish up the hearing in 2 days.Why the long lay-off between the 2nd day of the hearing and the 3rd?