UKBillFan

Rape convictions are at a historical low, in the U.K. at least. I think most people leave it up to the legal system to decide whether someone is innocent or guilty.

And yet Beane didn’t take the easy route out which I kind of respect him for - as long as his judgement is proved correct. He’s put a lot in the investigation undertaken by the Bills.

Rookie but exceptionally promising QB who is basically the franchise’s future but, like Araiza, the exempt list is not an available route?

But a MVP Quarterback would be worth the risk?

Makes me think we’re planning to go into the season with him as punter so want to get the “first game since…” out of the way.

He must have done, unless he thought it’d be settled out of court or dismissed like Miller.

Did Araiza cause it?

Though do we have explicit evidence that he knew she was a child? She says she told him he was 17; defence witnesses state she told many people present that she was 18.

Then that shows everything that is wrong in the NFL.

So the decision shouldn’t be based on innocent or guilt but his role in the team? If this was Josh, for example, he should be given more support by the franchise?

Nothing had happened with the civil case for over a month? I thought the alleged victim only launched it yesterday, hence the press attention?

Maybe I should say a punter should be treated no different to any other position on the team.

A punter is still a human being. Decisions being made shouldn’t be based on the role on the team.

Problem is they’ve already released a press release stating that an investigation has been done. Something else will have to come out for them to go down the misled route, especially if, for the moment, the majority of the roster support the stance taken.

The key thing is the Bills we’re aware of this at the end of July, carried out an internal investigation and still decided to cut Haack over Araiza. They think they know something we don’t know and, like I said last night, they’re staking the culture and process on it. For their sakes, they better be right.

It feels like to me that the alleged victim’s attorney has a real issue with Araiza’s attorney. And he’s making a big thing about money, in the tweets and published texts, if it has nothing to do with it! Not saying you’re wrong but, in my mind, he’s letting his client down badly at the moment.

And also claiming two previous people who allegedly committed rape were guilty despite either charges never being brought or being found not guilty at trial. It says it all when attorneys do not accept the binding edict of law, which is innocent until proven guilty.

Have to say, this is a new one on me, where the prosecution basically posts all of it’s evidence on Twitter. I’m not hot on US law but I’m pretty sure in the U.K. it’s open up a risk of a mistrial and the defence arguing their client won’t get a fair trial if put in front of a jury. Though, in that case, a trial could go ahead with a judge alone deciding, I guess.

Great, cut everyone who gets accused of something whether guilty or not guilty. Wonder if the same would be said by the majority if this was about Josh? I do stick by my previous comment, though, that I would prefer him not to turn out for us until this sorted. Best solution would be if we can get him placed on the exempt list.

Lying about everything or just the NFL knowing?

So you know he’s guilty of the alleged offences then? Brilliant, what’s the legal system needed for?

The issue for me is the defence attorney is making it come across as a shakedown money grab. It may be that it’s anything but the text messages he’s posting and the stance he’s taking… the obsession with Araiza hiring a civil lawyer to take the case, perhaps Araiza prefers a criminal lawyer because he wants to be sure that he is represented by someone who knows criminal law inside and out should it get that far, rather than looking at a civil angle? It feels like he’s making it easier for Araiza to defend himself and creating doubt towards the alleged victim’s true intentions. If I was the alleged victim I think I’d feel like hiring someone else to take the case on.

He has not been found guilty of giving her a drugged drink. He has not been found guilty of taking advantage of an incapacitated 17 year old. He has not been found guilty of leading her to be gang-raped. He has not been found guilty of knowingly giving her chlamydia. As others indicated, it could be he found out after the event he had it, as the phone call took place eleven days later. Just as you seem to be speaking as if the trial has taken place and verdict has been handed down.

From a statutory rape point of view I think you may be right in this case, going on the claims which are circulating. But there is a bigger charge potentially in the offing than that. For all the arguments about awaiting due process, the Bills have almost said that they believe he is innocent by not cutting him. The issue they had is, if they had cut him and this came out, it’d look like they thought he was guilty. Once this leaked they were caught in a difficult situation where both decisions would tactically imply something. My favoured solution would be to put him on the exempt list until this is sorted. Get him out of the public eye and, if he’s not charged or found not guilty then he can return to play whilst, if found guilty, he can be cut and dealt with to the full extent of the law. I feel very uncomfortable at the idea of him playing for us until this is sorted.

I understand from what you’ve written where you have been on the wrong end of a made up allegation which affected you badly, so you have vested interest in this, but, whilst I’m sorry for what you went through and can appreciate how this must make you feel, most people don’t act the way those in question did against you and lying about age does not automatically result in open season on a person, whether it be allegations of shakedown or crimes of a violent nature. Of course, in Araiza’s case it MAY lead to the charge of statutory rape being dropped but it is too early to know this.