caulfield12 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 4:39 AM, Balta1701 said: as is the belief that he was exonerated. What I can tell you is that no other team wanted him at any price, he managed to drag the organization and even his fellow players into his personal matters all before Getz signed him, all of which should be sickening. The fact that Colas was somehow roped into this as a rookie should be completely disqualifying even if Clevinger was falsely accused. Furthermore, in terms of the actual allegation, there was at least one other woman we found out about last year who had issues with Clevinger as is commonly the case with domestic abusers - they don’t do it only once. Furthermore, in terms of him not being suspended, an investigation conducted 6 months or more after the event is challenging and basically set up to fail, as memory doesn’t work that way. Finally, it takes a ton of bravery for a woman to come forwards and publicly make an abuse accusation against a rich public figure, because the deck will be stacked against them and people will claim that their accuser is “exonerated” even if it’s a he-said she said case and she’s fully telling the truth but it can’t be fully proven. Thus, I see zero reason to believe that a lack of charges is an actual exoneration, and I find the accuser much more credible. Expand See where Trevor Bauer stands today. Some on here were convinced he'd fractured her skull and should be locked up for life according to initial reports that were later proven false. Creepy tastes...but that's society for you. At any rate, it's not the Duke rape case or Kavanaugh...but the winds have definitely shifted where the likes of the Tate Brothers have gone from child traffickers to "empowering women entrepreneurially." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChetLemon77 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 4:39 AM, Balta1701 said: as is the belief that he was exonerated. What I can tell you is that no other team wanted him at any price, he managed to drag the organization and even his fellow players into his personal matters all before Getz signed him, all of which should be sickening. The fact that Colas was somehow roped into this as a rookie should be completely disqualifying even if Clevinger was falsely accused. Furthermore, in terms of the actual allegation, there was at least one other woman we found out about last year who had issues with Clevinger as is commonly the case with domestic abusers - they don’t do it only once. Furthermore, in terms of him not being suspended, an investigation conducted 6 months or more after the event is challenging and basically set up to fail, as memory doesn’t work that way. Finally, it takes a ton of bravery for a woman to come forwards and publicly make an abuse accusation against a rich public figure, because the deck will be stacked against them and people will claim that their accuser is “exonerated” even if it’s a he-said she said case and she’s fully telling the truth but it can’t be fully proven. Thus, I see zero reason to believe that a lack of charges is an actual exoneration, and I find the accuser much more credible. Expand But his exoneration is not my "belief." It's based on the conclusion of the investigations. If you accuse me of stealing your beer & the proper authorities investigate & conclude there's no (or not sufficient) evidence to support your accusation, I am not guilty of stealing your beer. At least not in this country... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 4:51 AM, ChetLemon77 said: But his exoneration is not my "belief." It's based on the conclusion of the investigations. If you accuse me of stealing your beer & the proper authorities investigate & conclude there's no (or not sufficient) evidence to support your accusation, I am not guilty of stealing your beer. At least not in this country... Expand No, that means you have not been proven to have stolen my beer at the appropriate legal standard. It is entirely possible that you 100% did steal my beer and did so in a way where I couldn't prove it. You could be 100% guilty of stealing my beer, but for whatever reason it did not meet the legal standard required. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) On 1/28/2025 at 4:51 AM, ChetLemon77 said: But his exoneration is not my "belief." It's based on the conclusion of the investigations. If you accuse me of stealing your beer & the proper authorities investigate & conclude there's no (or not sufficient) evidence to support your accusation, I am not guilty of stealing your beer. At least not in this country... Expand Except abuse (especially psychological vs. physical) and sexual assault is always going to be a shade of grey with two contrasting perspectives. Men from let's say certain hyper-masculine cultures might have a totally different understanding. It's going to rely on concepts like a preponderance of evidence and 50%+1 vs. all jury members must be convinced to vote guilty in a civil trial situation, which would be different yet again from criminal codes. Edited January 28 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChetLemon77 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 5:00 AM, Balta1701 said: No, that means you have not been proven to have stolen my beer at the appropriate legal standard. It is entirely possible that you 100% did steal my beer and did so in a way where I couldn't prove it. You could be 100% guilty of stealing my beer, but for whatever reason it did not meet the legal standard required. Expand Exactly. Which means I am not guilty. Which is what I said. It doesn't matter what you believe. If you cannot prove it, I am not guilty. Dude, we can go on forever. Take it up with the Forefathers...they set up the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 5:05 AM, ChetLemon77 said: Exactly. Which means I am not guilty. Which is what I said. It doesn't matter what you believe. If you cannot prove it, I am not guilty. Dude, we can go on forever. Take it up with the Forefathers...they set up the system. Expand And at least for now, it's 100% my right to say that Mike Clevinger is obviously a domestic abuser, MLB conducted a shoddy investigation that they wouldn't have run at all had she not come forward in public because they were trying to bury it, and Chris Getz signing him was disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) On 1/28/2025 at 4:07 AM, Balta1701 said: Nothing you cited supports your opinion that the accusations were proven false. Expand edit Edited January 28 by WestEddy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 6:40 AM, WestEddy said: It's weird that people get a half dozen mods fighting with them for "defending Getz", but people defending an abuser get to post ad infinitum. I don't know, maybe set a rule that posting BS assault-apologism gets a time out? If only this douche would say something in support of the front office, then that would certainly get 5 moderators flogging this a-hole. Expand Uh-oh... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46DidIt Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 4:39 AM, Balta1701 said: as is the belief that he was exonerated. What I can tell you is that no other team wanted him at any price, he managed to drag the organization and even his fellow players into his personal matters all before Getz signed him, all of which should be sickening. The fact that Colas was somehow roped into this as a rookie should be completely disqualifying even if Clevinger was falsely accused. Furthermore, in terms of the actual allegation, there was at least one other woman we found out about last year who had issues with Clevinger as is commonly the case with domestic abusers - they don’t do it only once. Furthermore, in terms of him not being suspended, an investigation conducted 6 months or more after the event is challenging and basically set up to fail, as memory doesn’t work that way. Finally, it takes a ton of bravery for a woman to come forwards and publicly make an abuse accusation against a rich public figure, because the deck will be stacked against them and people will claim that their accuser is “exonerated” even if it’s a he-said she said case and she’s fully telling the truth but it can’t be fully proven. Thus, I see zero reason to believe that a lack of charges is an actual exoneration, and I find the accuser much more credible. Expand Exoneration is an impossible standard for him to reach when prosecutors didn’t find ample evidence to even put him on trial. So by your logic any person accused can be presumed guilty. How do we know you haven’t beaten your wife and she is simply too dominated by you and the patriarchy to make an accusation? I’d have to assume that is the case since you can’t prove otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46DidIt Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 4:39 AM, Balta1701 said: as is the belief that he was exonerated. What I can tell you is that no other team wanted him at any price, he managed to drag the organization and even his fellow players into his personal matters all before Getz signed him, all of which should be sickening. The fact that Colas was somehow roped into this as a rookie should be completely disqualifying even if Clevinger was falsely accused. Furthermore, in terms of the actual allegation, there was at least one other woman we found out about last year who had issues with Clevinger as is commonly the case with domestic abusers - they don’t do it only once. Furthermore, in terms of him not being suspended, an investigation conducted 6 months or more after the event is challenging and basically set up to fail, as memory doesn’t work that way. Finally, it takes a ton of bravery for a woman to come forwards and publicly make an abuse accusation against a rich public figure, because the deck will be stacked against them and people will claim that their accuser is “exonerated” even if it’s a he-said she said case and she’s fully telling the truth but it can’t be fully proven. Thus, I see zero reason to believe that a lack of charges is an actual exoneration, and I find the accuser much more credible. Expand Exoneration is an impossible standard for him to reach when prosecutors didn’t find ample evidence to even put him on trial. So by your logic any person accused can be presumed guilty. How do we know you haven’t beaten your wife and she is simply too dominated by you and the patriarchy to make an accusation? I’d have to assume that is the case since you can’t prove otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 7:09 PM, 46DidIt said: Exoneration is an impossible standard for him to reach when prosecutors didn’t find ample evidence to even put him on trial. So by your logic any person accused can be presumed guilty. How do we know you haven’t beaten your wife and she is simply too dominated by you and the patriarchy to make an accusation? I’d have to assume that is the case since you can’t prove otherwise. Expand I swear I remember reading that the accuser refused to cooperate with the investigation because they were worried about their kid being cut off from support and other vindictive actions, and nothing to do with the accuracy of their statement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46DidIt Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 7:12 PM, southsider2k5 said: I swear I remember reading that the accuser refused to cooperate with the investigation because they were worried about their kid being cut off from support and other vindictive actions, and nothing to do with the accuracy of their statement. Expand So there is no way for him to be exonerated, if true. Like I said an impossible standard that your side of argument demands in order to maintain position that he is guilty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 7:17 PM, 46DidIt said: So there is no way for him to be exonerated, if true. Like I said an impossible standard that your side of argument demands in order to maintain position that he is guilty Expand I mean exoneration is a legal term with a very specific meaning. You literally can't be exonerated by a private investigation, just like you can't be proven guilty by one. The terms being throw around here casually aren't correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) On 1/28/2025 at 7:17 PM, 46DidIt said: So there is no way for him to be exonerated, if true. Like I said an impossible standard that your side of argument demands in order to maintain position that he is guilty Expand I don’t believe it ever got that far to a court case. Edited January 28 by WhiteSox2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 7:22 PM, WhiteSox2023 said: Through Expand Thorough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 7:09 PM, 46DidIt said: Exoneration is an impossible standard for him to reach when prosecutors didn’t find ample evidence to even put him on trial. So by your logic any person accused can be presumed guilty. How do we know you haven’t beaten your wife and she is simply too dominated by you and the patriarchy to make an accusation? I’d have to assume that is the case since you can’t prove otherwise. Expand You, and a few others refuse to acknowledge that most crimes are not prosecuted or even reported. Not reporting a crime, or law enforcement deciding to not commit resources to pursuing a case they probably won't win in court - does not mean that the crime didn't happen. Yes, anybody can accuse anybody else of anything. In your example, you would then have to present any evidence that whomever you're accusing has abused their spouse. Olivia Finestead has photographs of bruises; she has told a full, detailed story consistently, and under oath to investigators. She told friends at the time, and they corroborated the consistency of her story. So do you have any evidence close to what Ms. Finestead had to prove your ridiculous accusation that somebody here "beats their wife"? If you don't, then most sane people would consider the case closed. Law enforcement wouldn't pursue because you don't have standing to file any charges. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a tenet for our justice system to attain. It does not mean that if you witness somebody committing a crime, you have to pretend they didn't and lie about it until a court finds them guilty. Of course, you will ignore all of this, or descend down an idiot hole, making even more wild examples. Either you're trolling for attention, or you think partner abuse is funny, unserious, or both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 7:22 PM, WhiteSox2023 said: I don’t believe it ever got that far to a court case. Expand MLB investigated Clevenger, and I believe that Finestead participated in that investigation. There was no court case. A big part of her claim was that she left with their kid, and he won't give her access to retrieve hers and her child's property that is at his house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46DidIt Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 I’ll acknowledge that many crimes are unreported. Now what? My point is, that to claim some one may be presumed guilty, as your side of argument is doing, until they have been exonerated when that person hasn’t gone to trial and therefore can never be exonerated, is an irrational argument that can never be defeated on its own merit because it is a fallacy. Point of my claim that you beat your wife and cannot prove otherwise since we can presume that according to your own argument she may too intimidated to come forward is that you can not disprove my claim. you witnessed nothing so not sure why you even brought that up. Those photos showing a couple light marks on some unknown person’s skin means absolutely nothing. You can’t even reasonably demonstrate the origin or actual nature of those photos. It is possible he did in fact commit the abuse, and youre free to believe what you wish. But to act as if your conclusion is based on sound premises that should be accepted on the face of it is entirely absurd. Given that both police and mlb investigation found lacking evidence, to conclude that he is not necessarily guilty is actually the reasonable position. yet here you are arguing people should be banned for stating a reasonable position, which just further illustrates the irrationality of your position. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46DidIt Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 7:22 PM, WhiteSox2023 said: I don’t believe it ever got that far to a court case. Expand That’s my point. One can not to be acquitted, ie exonerated, in a case which never went to trial in first place. Therefore it is irrational to conclude he should be considered guilty due to lack of exoneration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46DidIt Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 And let’s face it. We all know if I wanted to scour the history of Soxtalk, that I would find plenty of evidence that those taking this position of guilt no matter what had an extremely strong bias against Clevinger’s “type” before any accusations were ever leveled against him. Don’t even try to deny it because I don’t want to waste any more of my time with your horseshit position when we all know it is true 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46DidIt Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Also, 46 did it. And by it, I mean IT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/04/06/cleveland-indians-pitcher-makes-controversial-social-media-post-then-deletes-it/ The weird thing is we can't seem to get away from the story of Covid-19/vaccines and the Guardians...Clevinger Plesac (well his father through Cubs' broadcasting) Trevor Bauer and now Karinchak. All but Karinchak were pretty much banished by Francona from the organization...oh well I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 8:26 PM, 46DidIt said: Also, 46 did it. And by it, I mean IT. Expand Not sure we need to bring presidential politics into this...our Filibuster section has long since passed away into oblivion with numerous casualties and hurt feelings left by the wayside. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46DidIt Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 The fact you bring up unreported crime further shows the irrationality of your opinion. This case WAS reported to police and investigated by police Yet somehow you think it was a valid counterargument to say I don’t acknowledge unreported crime. That literally makes no sense. How can you not see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2025 at 8:12 PM, 46DidIt said: Point of my claim that you beat your wife and cannot prove otherwise since we can presume that according to your own argument she may too intimidated to come forward is that you can not disprove my claim. Expand You have no standing to say a person commits abuse on their partner. Unless you're saying they told you. Then you would have to present any evidence of that. You're pretending Ms. Finestead (and other women Finestead alluded to) made up her story, produced pictures of somebody else's bruises, when she actually submitted all of that under oath during an investigation. If you made that accusation, and couldn't back it up with evidence, you could be found liable for slander. Ms. Finestead made the accusation, then presented evidence under oath. That holds much more weight than the ridiculous claim you're making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.