4merper4mer

I erased the first part of your quote because I mostly agree, have no major exceptions or think certain parts are moot. To the parts I left in: 1. We have no idea if Araiza admitted to having sex with her. The only information pointing at that comes from the plaintiff’s attorney’s account of a phone call that he says took place between Araiza and the victim. That is not an admission of anything by Araiza whether some reporter asking Beane stupid questions thinks so or not. 2. To me a 17 year old going to a party like that is bad judgement and neither 17 year old nor college campus partygoers exactly have reputations for good judgement but if I’m passing out blame for what may have happened the 17 year old gets .0000000000000000000000000004000000003%. 3. If he had nothing to do with a gang rape that actually occurred but was aware of it and did nothing, I agree that he is someone to be held in very low regard regardless of his young age or the circumstances. He should also be charged with obstruction of justice and/or anything else that applies and get a 400 pound cell mate. I also agree on the lawyer’s fate if these assertions prove untrue. No one except the involved parties…..and even some of them may not remember…..may EVER know the whole truth there. Yet the reporter mob expects the Bills “investigative skills” to be better. It’s. A. Joke. 4. I’m not absolving the police but at the same time I think the expectations here are a bit unrealistic. I certainly understand the frustration of the victim wrt the timeline but the press/public stomping their feet three minutes after they find out….and have no verifiable context….is absurd. SDPD is in no place to share any details of anything so we’re simply left with people’s ignorant theories and conspiracies piling up and SDPD, Beane, campus police, Araiza, McD, and I’m sure a longer list are defined as somewhere between totally incompetent and the devil incarnate by reporters who went to journalism school for years but never learned the meaning of the two word phrase “direct quote”. The above things don’t point to a heathy society.

The full truth is what matters most in this. That should always be the case. If he is guilty of what is alleged then IMO there is no punishment harsh enough. If he is guilty of parts…such as knowing about it and saying Nothing, I’d think he’d deserve whatever outcome came his way. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume he wasn’t involved at all and has been completely accurate and forthcoming behind the scenes……this seems like a stretch to me personally but let’s just go with it for a minute…..now let’s say he is able to prove that. Do you think the lingering effects from this on his career/life will magically disappear? That no one will remember his name or it will have no impact? How about if he is truly innocent but has no way to prove it? It won’t have any impact? All this stuff is no biggie and should be seen as how society should treat people? I don’t know about woke or how it has come to be defined but I can see that we have become a culture that needs immediate answers and resolution to any issue so we feel we can move on to the next thing. If it takes a while to gather actual facts? Screw that, just take a guess. The things you point out are facts and thus irrelevant. Emotions only please.

CJ Whoewer?

Obscure reference of the day week month year decade century who knows how long.

So sayeth the Skurski, so sayeth the flock. One reporter in that presser asked Beane about “the direct quote from Araiza”. That was either monumentally incompetent or monumentally antagonistic. Either way, that reporter has no credibility whatsoever.

They scout hundreds of people. To expect nothing like this to ever happen is unreasonable. Could they have caught something here? Maybe. Can any team catch everything every time? No. They could employ 100 detectives full time and something could still happen. Actually maybe it did, we can’t really know. They could very well have had guys off their board based on research but Araiza was not one. Holding other people to unreasonable standards is simple so perfection in vetting is no place to stop. Cold fusion would provide green energy forever.

They sure should make sure something like this could never happen again. Maybe right after they finish up cold fusion and the weather machine.

Who would you consider the top three RBs in the NFL? In what round were these guys drafted? Who would you consider the top 3-5 teams in the NFL. In what round were their RBs drafted? I can think of one RB on one top team that you might be able to cite in those parameters but it is a bit of a stretch for both the player and the team. Good luck.

Point 1. There are stupid people in the world but I have always found it counterproductive to try and make an argument by calling people stupid before I lay out the points of the argument. I make an exception to this only when Canadians are involved. Point 2. I believe if that you feel there was a simple and elegant way it could have been handled you need to explain that in detail, not in broad strokes. You can’t just wish something true. Point 3. Although flattered, I’ll have to pass.

You’re not going to go digging? You’re just going to list 37 things the Bills should have done even though zero of them were viable? Why not propose that you get to win Powerball every week even if you pick the wrong number?. Then don’t go digging around for reasons why you won’t win. Boom: Billionaire Technical procedures for Brady being granted personal leave: 1. He won 6 Superbowls 2. He asked for personal leave 3. Leave was granted

You just re-read that and you don’t think it looks like you’re calling people stupid? Shirley. I’ll grant you that “ many of you” doesn’t equal “all of you” but come on. Now you’re implying I don’t want to understand what you’re saying…another shot at my intelligence and/or honesty. I do understand what you’re saying though. You’re just wrong. To the July 31 comment: In the worldview you just described, any lawyer with any story could call any team and target any player at any time. You’d have that player go away for a while. Can you see any circumstances where this approach might not work out all that well? In this case at this time there appears to be something very real at the root. But even now it is not fully understood from any objective source of information anywhere. Just in Araiza’s case….McDermott walks into the locker room on August 1 to a few questions like: where’s Matt? His answer? Well a lawyer called with a story that we have no objective information about but we told Matt to stay away for a while anyway. Fast forward two weeks and for the sake of argument say the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. You’re McDermott: let’s hear what you tell the team. Oh also let’s hear what you told the NLFPA in the first place when Araiza complained and you had just broken 717 union rules. Seriously dude you sound like the professor in Back to School trying to explain business to Thornton Mellon.

The media, like anything else, is made up of individuals. You wrote a dissertation about how the world is a better place because of the media and how we are all too stupid to understand this basic fact. I pointed out how egregiously unprofessional some members of the media have been. You can easily access the press conference if you’d like. I haven’t read every article. I’m sure some are well done. Not all of them are. Even your answers above, stated as remedies for what the Bills could or should have done are factually impossible. The Bills could not approach the league wrt administrative leave for Araiza as the incident in question happened before he was in the NFL. Araiza apparently told the Bills he had nothing to do with anything….they can’t force him to take a personal leave. In fact there is NOT ALWAYS a work around even if you think there should be. Maybe there was one in this case but so far nothing you have proposed is viable. There is a union involved, The police cannot share anything with the Bills, there are likely things the Bills know but cannot share and on and on. The press has not highlighted these things as near as I can tell yet they are happy to be critical of the Bills because all of these answers should have been easy. It’s a joke.

That’s a bit one sided wouldn’t you say? One of the reporters cited a “direct quote” from Araiza in phrasing a question to Beane. I think it was Tim Graham. The “direct quote” he referenced was from the plaintiff’s lawyer’s description of phone call he says took place between the plaintiff and Araiza with police listening in. In what journalistic world would that be considered a “direct quote”? How is a question like that in any way professional? On what planet should Beane take a statement from an adversarial lawyer as admission of guilt by Araiza as the reporter seemed to expect? There are countless other examples of questions asked, articles written and spoken opinions by reporters that simply lack not only context, but factual premises. One example is the new host of GMFB saying some teams had “police reports” before the draft that should have been shared league wide. While I agree with her premise that info like this should be shared, the FACT is that no police report exists even today. There may have been rumors or stories, but calling them police reports is incorrect. Unlike the dishonorable reporter at the Bills presser, she seemed to be trying to get to the truth, but she was still wrong on facts. Do people really expect an organization that takes actions at the whim of lying or ignorant reporters because they are reporters? Shirley. A free press does contribute to society and they are permitted to be biased, as they should be, but when they base their spin on inaccuracies or flat out falsehoods, they should be called on it. The Bills have stated they wanted to base their decision on facts but that it was difficult to gather all facts on this timeline and that Araiza has more to worry about than football. Although skepticism is warranted on any topic like this, nothing they have done publicly has proven their statement false. They are also constrained in how much they can share about what they did and how. Their track record is strong as well. They weren’t perfect and they stated this, but the skewering they are getting is beyond unwarranted.

September is always extended pre-season for the Pats. Reason: No cheatin’ tapes yet.

It’s right there on the recording of the presser. A “direct quote” if there ever was one.

Right. But the reporter….who I think was Graham…..EXPLICITLY called it a direct quote in an attempt to “gotcha” Beane. It was weak, dishonest, and contemptible.

But but but the journalist’s journalist Tim Graham said it was a “direct quote” from Araiza. How dare you question the almighty arbiter or all that is true, Timmy?

The time frame is not unusual for a case like this…..as sad as that seems…..the theories about protecting the university….while not proven false…..are lazy conjecture.

Shirley

The reporters in the presser asked some good questions and some bad ones. One of the last questions, I believe from Graham, was demonstrably antagonistic and ridiculous. I don’t know how Beane just didn’t flat out call him an idiot on the spot. The reporter asked why “direct quotes” from Araiza weren’t taken into account and enough to cut him on the spot…or something along those lines. The “direct quotes” in question were paraphrased from the plaintiff’s lawyer’s third hand account of a phone call that took place after the fact between the victim and Araiza. Beane is in no position to know whether the conversation actually took place and if so, whether the lawyer’s account was accurate. He could have and probably did ask Araiza about it, but for Graham…if it was Graham’s voice….to call them direct quotes is highly unprofessional and irresponsible. He’s a reporter. He is supposed to know the definition of “direct quote”.

Agreed. Maybe they were and maybe they were not. The victim probably doesn’t know whether they were. The SDPD is not going to share any of this with a football team.

The Bills decision and timing should be based on as much truth as they can find. Your impression of what constitutes truth or your perception of how long it should take to find are utterly meaningless. Sorry. No organization operates to 100% efficiency….ever. Im sure the Bills did not. There are people implying SDPD is corrupt in this matter. The sad truth is that these cases take a long time to investigate and are difficult. The timeline on this case isn’t unusual…..that doesn’t make it optimal. Sure, maybe SDPD is covering up but it’s more likely that it was a difficult process. One thing is for sure…..they would never and should never share the results of their objective analysis with a football team while the case is ongoing. That left the Bills with two conflicting parties feeding them diametrically opposed information starting three weeks ago. The accusing party had not taken any formal legal action whatsoever until two days ago. If you think things were easy for the Bills, you’re living in a dreamworld.

What is your overall point here? They should have cut him the minute they heard something because the is evidence in the form of an allegation that was contained in neither a criminal nor a civil filing at the time? Do you think the NFLPA might not have liked that? Do you think the process for something like that is simple?

Section C3 stole my kittens is evidence?