Jump to content

  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Holy Hell, Trevor Bauer 2.0!

rafibomb

By rafibomb
in LA Angels | MLB Daily

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Blarg
Blarg

Bauer is a fucking retard not to think he was being set up in some way. Let's review. Signs rediculously lucritive contract. Gets texts from a total stranger to beat her senseless in be

m0nkey
m0nkey

Bruin

Lou
Lou

" It's bigger than we thought" Bauer: Thank you.

Posted Images

jsnpritchett Hall of Fame

jsnpritchett

Posted
Posted

Judge just denied the request for a restraining order.

  • 'PETITIONER WANTED MORE OF A RELATIONSHIP'

    The judge said the "petitioner wanted more of a relationship with the respondent."

    "Her fear that the respondent might do something knowing she was in the hospital had no factual basis."

    In this case the court finds there is no suppotedly evidence that Baeur would cause any harm or even have content with her.

  • 'DECLARATION WAS MATERIALLY MISLEADING'

    "The court finds that the declaration was materially misleading, she claimed that the respondent was calling texting non stop for two weeks, the reality was that respondent rarely called," they judge said.

    Ms Hill testified that she was stressed and anxious when he did and didn't send messages.

    "That's not rational," judge said, adding that she pursued him.

     

    'INJURIES SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH ARE TERRIBLE'

    They were consequences of the acts which she DID consent to, including being choked, judge says.

    Judge says he didn't force her to have rough sex, and he didn't threaten her afterwards.

    "Let me be clear, the injuries shown in the photograph are terrible," the judge said. But she says Bauer didn't exceed the limits Ms Hill set.

    'WHAT DID PETITIONER CONSENT TO'

    Judge says the next question is "what did the petitioner consent to."

    In written communication she said she wanted to be choked out.

    "When a woman says no she should be believed, so what about when she says yes. Petitioner says she did not consent to being punched, having black eyes and being hospitalized," the judge said.

    IT WAS DATING RELATIONSHIP

    She said there is no research uncovered which decides what the word frequent means in the dating relationship.

    "In this case, the dating relationship was at most tenuous" the judge said.

    The court finds that while a close call, it was a dating relationship. It falls within the legislature.

    NEED TO DEFINE IF DATING RELATIONSHIP

    "Let me first start by thanking the attorneys for the quality of their presentation," the judge said.

    She said she will start the analysis by talking about the family code.

    They do not have to find a probability of future abuse, she says. And they need to define whether it was a dating relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Revad Hall of Fame

Revad

Posted
Posted

Ok, if he didn’t exceed her limits, whatever but that’s the permanent restraining order, I think.  More to come, and it does look like she was really, really kinky but as a man, even if it’s a causal lover, don’t you want what’s good for your parter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ten ocho recon scout Hall of Fame

ten ocho recon scout

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

Judge just denied the request for a restraining order.

  • 'PETITIONER WANTED MORE OF A RELATIONSHIP'

    The judge said the "petitioner wanted more of a relationship with the respondent."

    "Her fear that the respondent might do something knowing she was in the hospital had no factual basis."

    In this case the court finds there is no suppotedly evidence that Baeur would cause any harm or even have content with her.

  • 'DECLARATION WAS MATERIALLY MISLEADING'

    "The court finds that the declaration was materially misleading, she claimed that the respondent was calling texting non stop for two weeks, the reality was that respondent rarely called," they judge said.

    Ms Hill testified that she was stressed and anxious when he did and didn't send messages.

    "That's not rational," judge said, adding that she pursued him.

     

    'INJURIES SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH ARE TERRIBLE'

    They were consequences of the acts which she DID consent to, including being choked, judge says.

    Judge says he didn't force her to have rough sex, and he didn't threaten her afterwards.

    "Let me be clear, the injuries shown in the photograph are terrible," the judge said. But she says Bauer didn't exceed the limits Ms Hill set.

    'WHAT DID PETITIONER CONSENT TO'

    Judge says the next question is "what did the petitioner consent to."

    In written communication she said she wanted to be choked out.

    "When a woman says no she should be believed, so what about when she says yes. Petitioner says she did not consent to being punched, having black eyes and being hospitalized," the judge said.

    IT WAS DATING RELATIONSHIP

    She said there is no research uncovered which decides what the word frequent means in the dating relationship.

    "In this case, the dating relationship was at most tenuous" the judge said.

    The court finds that while a close call, it was a dating relationship. It falls within the legislature.

    NEED TO DEFINE IF DATING RELATIONSHIP

    "Let me first start by thanking the attorneys for the quality of their presentation," the judge said.

    She said she will start the analysis by talking about the family code.

    They do not have to find a probability of future abuse, she says. And they need to define whether it was a dating relationship.

Im surprised the court finds that not a dating relationship. (For criminal case, it is). Im also not surprised it was denied.

Well, i am and im not. Im surprised, because so many people have them that it seems like they are automatic. But Im not surprised on the basis.

I doubt bauer even knew where she lived. And she could just as easily have blocked him.  So I never saw the point of it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ten ocho recon scout Hall of Fame

ten ocho recon scout

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Lhalo said:

Best line I've ever heard from a judge.

“We consider in a sexual encounter that when a woman says no she should be believed,” Gould-Saltman said, “so what should we do when she says yes?”

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/l-a-judge-denies-woman-restraining-order-against-trevor-bauer/

Yep

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gotbeer Hall of Fame

gotbeer

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

So no restraining order issued!

Does he start for the Dodgers this weekend?

No restraining order.  But he still has to deal with the criminal complaint.  That's really the one that will determine his Doggie future.  Not that Doggies ever shied away from people with criminal past/present/futures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...