HappyDays

Lewis has to make that play if he wants any shot of making this roster. Probably will be back on the PS.

Bernard seems like an outstanding blitzer but he has been lost in coverage throughout the preseason.

Elam's click and close is excellent

She also says in that journal that she told people at the party she was a college student. That directly contradicts what is stated in the lawsuit. Releasing images of that journal entry is a really bizarre strategy.

It has been months since he supposedly admitted to having sex with her and the DA has not brought those charges against him.

It is up to the DA. Personally I would be surprised if a DA charged a 21 year old with statutory rape for having sex with a 17 year old at a college party when the 17 year old admitted that she lied about being in college, especially several months after the alleged act.

1) There is a mistaken age defense. If he reasonably believed she was 18 or older that is a mitigating factor. 2) In most states, including New York, 17 is the age of consent. One state's version of statutory rape is not a cuttable offense in the NFL. The mere act of him having sex with her will not and should not cost him his career. If it turns out he had anything to do with the gang rape, or even knew it was going on, his career is over.

Keeping Araiza off the field tonight is the best decision for everybody involved. We have two weeks before we need him to take snaps. That should give the situation enough time to develop and the Bills to respond properly to the numerous question marks.

It has not been proven that Araiza knew she was too drunk to consent, or that she was too drunk to consent, at that part of the night. There's no timeline listed in the lawsuit at all. All we know for sure is that they had sex, and then at some point she was allegedly raped by a group of men while blackout drunk. Nothing about that framing tells us that Araiza committed a crime or did anything wrong at all. The issue I have with a lot of these title IX cases in general is that a lot of times it involves two individuals who are both very drunk and I don't think it's fair that one party is automatically guilty in that scenario. That kind of logic implies that sex is something men do, and something women have done to them. I don't think that's a fair standard. If Araiza and the girl were both drunk and hooked up and she ended up regretting it, I don't believe that is a crime. And obviously we don't know for sure exactly how malicious it was. It is entirely possible that she was clearly blackout drunk and he took advantage of her in which case of course he committed a crime, but there is no evidence of that assertion. The focus really should be on the gang rape and how culpable Araiza was in participating or knowing that it happened. Those are the facts that need to come out before a decision is made.

They clearly knew it would come out and had already done their own investigation on it before cutting Haack. They must be very confident in the facts they have gathered. If they're wrong it's going to look really bad for them.

This is true. But even in the court of public opinion there is enough evidence to convict him yet. The allegation itself doesn't even directly accuse him of raping her.

Anyone trying to compare this is to the allegations against Watson is being disingenuous and I don't really feel the need to spell out the reasons why.

Stop. The Watson situation played out over 18 months with two dozen accusers stepping forward. The Araiza situation hasn't even made it to 18 hours yet.

This is the part I am waiting for more facts on. His attorney is claiming he wasn't even in the house. If there is evidence that he brought her up there specifically to be used by his friends, or even knew what was happening before or after the fact, I obviously want him cut immediately. But based solely on the wording in the lawsuit it is also possible that he took her to bed after seeing how intoxicated she was, left the house, and then several other men at the party took advantage of her. I'm not trying to ascribe likelihood to any scenario. I'm just saying there are not enough facts yet for me to feel confident that Araiza did anything that should end his career today. I don't automatically believe that every single person present at a party where a rape took place is guilty of a crime.

The lawsuit says the girl "thinks" she "might" have been given a spiked drink. That is the most tenuous claim made in the lawsuit. Women unknowingly ingesting date rape drugs is much less common than the public perception. Much more common is men or women drinking more alcohol than they realize, or drinking on an empty stomach, and blacking out as a result. I'm inclined to believe her when she says non-consensual sexual activity occurred in that bedroom, but I would be very surprised if a date rape drug was involved.

Yes and I think the plaintiff's attorney was rather intentional in how he implied the highest profile member of the allegation was involved, without directly coming out and saying it. Meanwhile there are supposedly witnesses that can attest to Araiza not being in the room. This is a really gross situation. More facts will come out. We'll have to be patient.

See my post above. He is not mentioned as one of the men that allegedly gang raped her. I can see how someone reading that text would pick up that implication. But legal text is very very specific. What's not said is equally important to what is said. Nowhere in that lawsuit is Araiza directly accused of participating in the gang rape. If his attorney isn't lying, there are witnesses from the party that can corroborate Araiza's version of events that he was not in the room when any alleged rape took place.

There is no allegation made in that text that Araiza participated in the rape. And let's keep in mind this is the plaintiff's wording. A phrase like "Araiza threw her onto the bed face first" is very specifically worded to make his actions look worse. I'm not going to sit here and act like I know how much of the girl's story is true. I'm usually inclined to believe the victim in cases like this. To me, if Araiza even knew that a gang rape was happening and didn't do anything that is more than enough for me to want him gone yesterday. But the civil suit doesn't directly allege that he participated or knew anything was going on.

It actually is not clear to me that Araiza is being accused of participating in the alleged gang rape. That was my initial perception too, but the LA Times story doesn't make that connection. It seems like he is being accused of statutory rape with a 17 year old, and others at the party were responsible for anything else that allegedly happened. Is a 21 year old unknowingly having sex with a 17 year old at a college party an unspeakable crime? I don't think it is. At the very least Araiza put himself in a really bad situation, but everyone who went to college knows that drunk sex between strangers happens all the time. I will wait for more facts to come out before I decide if Araiza should lose his career over this. I think the Bills should at least sideline him for the final preseason game and give the story a couple weeks to develop before putting him in front of fans.

The only possible saving grace is if he can reasonably claim that he didn't know her age. A lot of title IX cases involve drunken sex at parties. It's really hard to prove wrongdoing in those cases. Obviously a lot more facts will have to come out before we have any idea what happened here.

If he knew she was 17, even in a best case scenario he is guilty of statutory rape. I don't think he'll be a Bill much longer, and more importantly I hope the claim is investigated fully and the wrongdoers are punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Then he is guaranteed to make the roster.

I get why there are Bills homers on here that twist facts to be optimistic about our team. I don't get why there are people like you, anti-homers that perform mental gymnastics to make the Bills look worse and our rivals look better. No the Chiefs did not prioritize offense when they traded away their best skill position player and replaced him with two lesser players, then drafted a pass rusher and a CB with their top 2 picks. Before you try to argue against that, stop. Think. Nobody except Chiefs homers and weird anti-homers like you would try to make that argument.