Sep 28, 2011, 4:30 PM EST
Former Los Angeles Dodgers outfielder Milton Bradley was arrested for the second time in less than a year, this time for an alleged battery in the San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles police said Wednesday.
Bradley, 33, was booked Tuesday afternoon on suspicion of felony battery at the Van Nuys jail, authorities said. The details of the incident were not immediately available, but officials said he was arrested by officers with the LAPD’s West Valley Division at a residence in the 5300 block of Oak Park Court.
That’s his home, and it was the site where he was arrested after making threats against a woman back in January. L.A. prosecutors declined to file charges in that case, though there was a post-arrest resolution process that suggested that there was something amiss.
I was going to say something about how it’s an open question as to how much coverage to give Bradley’s arrests given that he hasn’t played for a long time. Then I remembered, holy crap, he actually played for the Mariners this year before being DFA’d. I could have swore that was last year.
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 22
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 26
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 145
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 374
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (374)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (145)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)