UKBillFan

I presume injury hurt Charlton’s career - he seemed to do ok for the Panthers but has done very little since the back issue in October 2021.

He couldn’t be put on the exempt list for that reason. Think I’m right in saying he couldn’t be suspended or put on administrative leave because we do not have a good enough reason to do it - he has not yet been found guilty of anything.

I don’t think Moorman is seriously looking to make a comeback, to be honest.

I presume Graham was referring to the lawsuit, where it states Araiza admitted to having sex with her during the recorded phone call - albeit not in a direct quote?

Poor guy. Good to hear he is stable. Hopefully he recovers quickly with no lasting damage.

K-9's post was originally below Promo's reply. Now it has seemingly disappeared.

Apologies, that's right, it does. ETA - Think I'm finding it difficult to keep the statutory rape offence in mind as in the UK the age of consent is 16.

Yes, if I recall correctly from the lawsuit, the claim is that Arazia and the alleged victim had consensual sex outside and then he took her inside and joined in the gang rape with others.

But we know that? That has been the claim all along?

In the lawsuit for the civil case?

Thank you - so there may be a way we can keep Johnson without having him as part of the 53?

Should have noticed that! I fear for Duke Johnson, though think I would prefer to drop Stevenson to the practice squad.

Not so sure - surely that suggests she was incapcitated which implies she could not give consent? Though they'll have to rely on witnesses and the rape kit to get to the bottom of what happened. And that could be why the alleged victim's attorney actions are suggesting that Araiza is not to be issued criminal charges. If both parties agree they had consensual sex earlier in the evening, and there are no witnesses placing him in the room (which is what the defence attorney claims) then they would possibly struggle to acquire enough evidence to charge. I will add that the DA office obviously has all the evidence, and the above is piecing social media comments with the excellent post from an attorney made yesterday on here, breaking down the case. So I may be well off.

Releasing Howard would cost us more than $2.6m in dead money, and is $1.945m salary is fully guaranteed. I think he's staying.

Diontae Johnson has picked up a shoulder injury during Lions @ Steelers, and is sitting out the rest of the game.

Rumours on the Titans forum suggest he's happy to come here if he does get cut.

And that's why they made the move they did; they did not rate Haack and wanted to move on. But Beane could hardly turn around and say "We were happy to release Haack despite the other guy in his slot being implicated in a gang rape"

Thanks. To me, Kern seems the most obvious option for us unless a free agent really stands out.

Would Kern drop to us?

Yes, if they had said 'continuing' investigation or that they were taking stock of ongoing events which would shape future decisions then it would have bought them a lot more time.

There has been a lot of back and forth on the 270+ page Araiza thread since Thursday about this. General agreement, from those who have looked in to Californian law, seem to be that, if Araiza has good reason to think she was 18 then that charge may not be placed, dependant on witness statements etc. Additionally, the age gap suggested that it could be treated as a misdmeanour rather than a felony as the alleged offender is 21 or under and the alleged victim is not 16 or under.

Regarding the person or persons to take the 'fall' for this - Beane specifically said that he and McDermott needed more help. Have to wonder who that was aimed at.

One night stands when drunk happen every evening. The question will be what age he thought she was, and what is believed.

Temporarily. No criminal charges, or found not guilty in criminal court, and either settling out of court or being found not guilty in civil court and he'll have the chance to return to the NFL.

Probably? If he has found not guilty in a criminal charge setting, or none are bought, and he settles out of court then he's back. Not sure how you can deem his behaviour as being 'typically' impulsive either, unless we're going down the guilty before being proven innocent route again.