sparky wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:11 am This got weird immediately.

No-one’s advocated paedophilia here, have they?

Outright advocating, no, just plain reductive, apologist nonsense.

Thursday marked the conclusion of a four-day hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order that was obtained against Trevor Bauer should be dismissed or made permanent, which in California can last up to five years. The woman's attorneys asked for a five-year protective order and that Bauer enter a 52-week battery program.

In making her decision, the judge noted that the woman invited rough sex by asking Bauer to choke her out and texting him to "gimme all the pain" leading up to the second encounter.

"When a woman says 'no,' she should be believed," Gould-Saltman said. "So what about when she says 'yes'?"

sounds like this judge went straight to law school right out of the womb. has she never met another woman before?

The woman gave emotional testimony on Monday, describing how her "soul left my body" while Bauer punched her closed-fisted in the face, body and near her vagina after being choked unconscious on May 16. She described being in such shock that she couldn't bring herself to tell Bauer to stop. The woman testified for more than nine hours over the course of three days.

"The evidence has shown [the woman] was sexually and physically assaulted by Trevor Bauer -- that this was not rough sex between two consenting adults," Helfend Meyer told the judge on Thursday. "A person in her right mind would never have consented to what Trevor had done to her."
The nurse, who testified on Tuesday, said she had never seen bruising around the vagina like what the woman exhibited in the early morning of May 18, calling it "alarming."

i don't know. this case itself may have been decided correctly but those judge's comments really struck me as naive.

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:40 am

Thursday marked the conclusion of a four-day hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order that was obtained against Trevor Bauer should be dismissed or made permanent, which in California can last up to five years. The woman's attorneys asked for a five-year protective order and that Bauer enter a 52-week battery program.

In making her decision, the judge noted that the woman invited rough sex by asking Bauer to choke her out and texting him to "gimme all the pain" leading up to the second encounter.

"When a woman says 'no,' she should be believed," Gould-Saltman said. "So what about when she says 'yes'?"

sounds like this judge went straight to law school right out of the womb. has she never met another woman before?

The woman gave emotional testimony on Monday, describing how her "soul left my body" while Bauer punched her closed-fisted in the face, body and near her vagina after being choked unconscious on May 16. She described being in such shock that she couldn't bring herself to tell Bauer to stop. The woman testified for more than nine hours over the course of three days.

"The evidence has shown [the woman] was sexually and physically assaulted by Trevor Bauer -- that this was not rough sex between two consenting adults," Helfend Meyer told the judge on Thursday. "A person in her right mind would never have consented to what Trevor had done to her."
The nurse, who testified on Tuesday, said she had never seen bruising around the vagina like what the woman exhibited in the early morning of May 18, calling it "alarming."

i don't know. this case itself may have been decided correctly but those judge's comments really struck me as naive.

first, what makes you an expert, and the judge "niave".

Second, what is wrong with what the judge said?

Third, this whole post comes across as very misogynistic, whether you intended it to or not.

motorbike guy wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 7:29 am

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 5:40 am

Thursday marked the conclusion of a four-day hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order that was obtained against Trevor Bauer should be dismissed or made permanent, which in California can last up to five years. The woman's attorneys asked for a five-year protective order and that Bauer enter a 52-week battery program.

In making her decision, the judge noted that the woman invited rough sex by asking Bauer to choke her out and texting him to "gimme all the pain" leading up to the second encounter.

"When a woman says 'no,' she should be believed," Gould-Saltman said. "So what about when she says 'yes'?"

sounds like this judge went straight to law school right out of the womb. has she never met another woman before?

The woman gave emotional testimony on Monday, describing how her "soul left my body" while Bauer punched her closed-fisted in the face, body and near her vagina after being choked unconscious on May 16. She described being in such shock that she couldn't bring herself to tell Bauer to stop. The woman testified for more than nine hours over the course of three days.

"The evidence has shown [the woman] was sexually and physically assaulted by Trevor Bauer -- that this was not rough sex between two consenting adults," Helfend Meyer told the judge on Thursday. "A person in her right mind would never have consented to what Trevor had done to her."
The nurse, who testified on Tuesday, said she had never seen bruising around the vagina like what the woman exhibited in the early morning of May 18, calling it "alarming."

i don't know. this case itself may have been decided correctly but those judge's comments really struck me as naive.

first, what makes you an expert, and the judge "niave".

Second, what is wrong with what the judge said?

Third, this whole post comes across as very misogynistic, whether you intended it to or not.

i didn't mean to offend her honor. i went to law school too, but i was also raised to see the facts.
there are two schools of thought: mechanical jurisprudence and critical legal studies. this judge is way too into the mechanics and not dealing with real life. she probably thought she was saying the right thing, but it came across wrong. i thought the victim's testimony was disgusting but like i said, a restraining order was probably unnecessary. bad lawyering on her part.

more on the misogynist thing. we are talking about sex so i can hold a 27 year old woman to a different standard than a major league baseball player.

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:07 pm
i didn't mean to offend her honor. i went to law school too, but i was also raised to see the facts.

welcome to the club. you clearly haven't practiced very long. or been before a lot of judges.
the facts are that the woman wanted "rough sex" - she did not ask to have the shit beat out of her. these are different things. was she deposed? did she explain what she asked for and what that meant?

there are two schools of thought: mechanical jurisprudence and critical legal studies.

like i said, you are a newbie. trial courts deal in the facts, as presented, and the law as they understand it. CLS has no relevance to this discussion.

this judge is way too into the mechanics and not dealing with real life. she probably thought she was saying the right thing, but it came across wrong.

what the fuck are you talking about? did the victim consent to being nearly beat to death? Or did she consent to something else?

I thought the victim's testimony was disgusting

do you mean that it was disgusting what he did to her? or something else?

but like i said, a restraining order was probably unnecessary. bad lawyering on her part.

the victim asked for a restraining order to keep the dude away from her. after he beat the shit out of her. seems necessary to me, counsel. where is the bad lawyering? by the judge? victim's counsel?

more on the misogynist thing. we are talking about sex so i can hold a 27 year old woman to a different standard than a major league baseball player.

i thought your attitude towards the judge was misogynistic. I haven't even figured out what you think about the female victim.

motorbike guy wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:51 pm

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:07 pm i didn't mean to offend her honor. i went to law school too, but i was also raised to see the facts.

welcome to the club. you clearly haven't practiced very long. or been before a lot of judges.
the facts are that the woman wanted "rough sex" - she did not ask to have the shit beat out of her. these are different things. was she deposed? did she explain what she asked for and what that meant?

there are two schools of thought: mechanical jurisprudence and critical legal studies.

like i said, you are a newbie. trial courts deal in the facts, as presented, and the law as they understand it. CLS has no relevance to this discussion.

this judge is way too into the mechanics and not dealing with real life. she probably thought she was saying the right thing, but it came across wrong.

what the fuck are you talking about? did the victim consent to being nearly beat to death? Or did she consent to something else?

I thought the victim's testimony was disgusting

do you mean that it was disgusting what he did to her?

yes absolutely that's what i meant! glad i could clarify, jesus.

but like i said, a restraining order was probably unnecessary. bad lawyering on her part.

the victim asked for a restraining order to keep the dude away from her. after he beat the shit out of her. seems necessary to me, counsel. where is the bad lawyering? by the judge? victim's counsel?

the woman's lawyer messed up. it sounds like trevor bauer wanted nothing to do with her.

more on the misogynist thing. we are talking about sex so i can hold a 27 year old woman to a different standard than a major league baseball player.

i thought your attitude towards the judge was misogynistic.

that's good (that you specified). i do think she should resign. she clearly has trouble seeing this case from the woman's POV.
i think the victim definitely has a case. apparently you agree and we just misread each other.

One of the originals, Connie Hamzy, has just passed away. Here she is talking about being a groupie to Joan Rivers.

i've never seen joan rivers rendered speechless before

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:16 pm i've never seen joan rivers rendered speechless before

Yeah that part kinda stuck out, she was never someone who didn't have much to say.

M.H wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 4:24 amGuys want to fuck. Girls want to be fucked.

Staggeringly atavistic.