Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Spun]

SDSU has a wild nightlife culture on campus, near-campus and throughout town.  I hope this story is not true.  It sounds bad.  The local media coverage has been very low key until today.  Mostly, the LA Times and affiliate San Diego Tribune have given this story much attention.  The university has been celebrating their brand new home stadium (in place of the former home of the SD Chargers, Qualcomm Stadium).  Now this story is blowing up locally.  Many seemingly have lawyered up.

 

https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/san-diego-news/lawsuit-alleges-rape-by-sdsu-football-players-and-buffalo-bills-punter

[StHustle]

According to his attorney, the accuser admitted to coming in already drunk and agreed to consensual sex. 
 

I say we all sit back and wait for FACTS to come out before rushing to judgement.

Edited August 26, 2022 by StHustle

[BigDingus]

Well... that escalated quickly 😲

[Watkins90]

Yeah, this dude has got to go. Having him on the roster is just going to be a distraction. Get rid of him and find someone else. Is good Ole Corey available? 

[Hsker4life]

9 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Cut anyone whose accused of gang raping a minor? Sure. I'll die on that hill gladly.

There has to be more than an accusation. Google “Duke lacrosse rape scandal” for a huge reason why. 

[BIGFOOTspaceman]

2 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

if this were any of us and someone called our work saying that we raped them  and then we were sued, we would’ve been fired already

That's actually not true.  

[TheyCallMeAndy]

1 minute ago, 716er said:

You cut him and say you kept Haack because you want the veteran presence and veteran holder.

 

Bills knew this weeks ago. Stupid move. Laying on a sword for a punter.

Unless they think he’s innocent, there’s that part too. 

[mbs]

14 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Is a punter really worth this?

No but the principle is. If the team feels he's innocent and cut bait anyway due to the filing of a lurid allegation by a plantiffs' attorney, then that shows a lack of loyalty on the part of management. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by mbs

[JGMcD2]

1 minute ago, 716er said:

No, but cutting a player on the least important position on the team who is accused is a great way to run an organization. The team and city is going to be dragged through the mud just like Cleveland deservedly was for Watson.

Standing by your people is a really good way to run your organization. I would imagine there is evidence that hasn’t come out, but the Bills have seen, which paints this situation much differently and favorably towards Araiza. 
 

If there isn’t evidence that paints Araiza favorably, yeah, it’s reasonable to question the organization.
 

At this present moment, we have every reason to believe they’re acting with a conscience. They’re jeopardizing their reputation for a punter… nobody is doing that haphazardly. 

[Mango]

16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

The only reason for the victims lawyer to pressure the Bills is to get more money. That part sounds pretty bad for the victims lawyer.

I don’t know, if somebody raped my daughter, and that guy was about to embark on an NFL career, I would certainly be flooding them (and/or asking my attorney to)  information on what a POS he is. 
 

Imagine your daughter gets raped and he is on every sports show being referred to as “The Punt God”. Not to mention he is on a team like the Bills built on “culture” and “process”. 

[78thealltimegreat]

3 minutes ago, BeastMaster said:

Exerpt from the article that I found interesting 

 

During the call, Araiza confirmed having sex with her, the lawsuit states, but when she asked him “And did we have actual sex?” he responded “This is Matt Araiza. I don’t remember anything that happened that night” and hung up.

Ah now I can see why there’s disagreement he never actually admits on the call to having sex with her 

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Does it matter?  Anyone with a legal degree know the answer?

 

 

So then he didn't admit to having sex with her.

 

Does what matter?  A detective's testimony?  They wouldn't even need the tapes.  But, as JoPoy points out, they can record without consent in this instance.

[Watkins90]

2 minutes ago, Hsker4life said:

There has to be more than an accusation. Google “Duke lacrosse rape scandal” for a huge reason why. 

He admitted he had sex with her. Get him the ***** off the team. 

[MiltonWaddams]

 For those of you who are jumping on board the “cut Matt Araiza immediately” bandwagon, I hope you never make a terrible mistake in your life. You will automatically be cancelled and should feel that you yourself deserve it.

You have to let due process happen. We should all hope that we are treated that way. Things happen that are out of your control in your life that could put you in a terrible position. This may or may not be the case, but this is why the justice system exists.

[YoloinOhio]

Just now, Watkins90 said:

He admitted he had sex with her. Get him the ***** off the team. 

So did he or didn’t he admit it?

[mannc]

46 minutes ago, lookylookyherecomescookie said:

It is felony statutory rape, he was 21, she was 17. Doesn't matter if he knew her age or not, doesn't matter if she lied about her age, doesn't matter if she consented to everything, it is STILL felony statutory rape if he had sex with her, anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances, except if they were married. Then it could be rape, depending on the circumstances.

What is the source of your information?

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

Ah now I can see why there’s disagreement he never actually admits on the call to having sex with her 

 

his lawyer is less convincing on that...

[BillsShredder83]

33 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

Going off Warwow’s tweets, Araiza is possibly claiming never to have had sex with her, even with consent? But what about the detetive guided phone call?

 

I can start to see what the Bills meant by a thorough investigation though still feel uncomfortable about the whole thing.

to this point, wonder if he got oral, but never had sex, and therefore wont be dna to be had

[Beck Water]

10 minutes ago, inthebuff said:

In California, it is illegal for someone 18 or older to have sex with someone younger than 18, even if the sex is consensual. This is considered statutory rape under state law. Statutory rape laws are based on the assumption that minors are incapable of giving informed consent to sexual activities.

 

Yeah, I went back and corrected that.  Me bad, I didn't do my homework on that before posting.  In NYS the age of consent is 17.

[Mango]

17 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Again remember there are two parts in this that appear to be separate:

 

19 hooking up with JD who wound up being underage.

 

The gang rape that allegedly happened after. 
 

One can be true, both, or neither. 

The AP article implies that the beer she believes was spiked was given to her by Araiza. And that he is the one that brought her to the room to be repeatedly raped. 
 

Araiza is much more apart of the night than a separate consensual encounter.