Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Billsflyer12]

8 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

But a MVP Quarterback would be worth the risk?

Rookie Punter = not worth risk and should be cut.

MVP QB = worth risk to wait thus put on Commissioners Exept List.

[Wayne Arnold]

10 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Shirley.

 

1.  You have no idea whether it was close in camp.

2.  He did not get immediately picked up like the corner that went to NYG.  He got picked up after another team’s punter got hurt.

 

I trust my sources.

[HamSandwhich]

1 minute ago, Mango said:

 

I mean this in the absolute worst way possible. You are a terrifying human being. 

For what? Reserving judgement? Pointing out that people like you make comments that are clearly not exclusive to one situation and that there can be many reasons? Using common sense? Which part makes me terrifying? 

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

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.

I think the timing is more of an indictment on Haack. Seems like the team would be fine just grabbing a guy off the street over Haack, if necessary.

[Donuts and Doritos]

4 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

Well she was 17. It’s already statutory rape…

Actually, in NY (don't know about California) "less than seventeen years old" ie 16 & under is statutory rape. (See, PL 130.05(3)(a)). So it wouldn't be statutory rape. This is either a forced rape or incapacity to consent due to being physically helpless from intoxication. The facts in this case sound horrendous, & I'm not trying to downplay them or say he didn't do anything wrong.

[ExiledInIllinois]

5 minutes ago, Draconator said:

A good point was brought up. Remember the situation with Patrick Kane? Pretty much the same thing. Girl accuses him of rape/sexual misconduct. He reputation takes a serious hit. Turns out story was made up. 

 

Not saying this girl made up the story against Arazia. But her lawyer's actions are highly unprofessional and it seems like he's begging everyone to believe her side of the story. 

I was against Kane because he was a repeat offender. He beat up cabbies to.  And who knows if it was made up, didn't she settle with confidentiality agreement?

[gobills404]

4 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Yikes 2 sleezy public lawyers and a mess of a thread, Imma head out till the facts are known and the law does what it does. May the truth come out and Justice be served! ✌️😬

Haven’t you heard? Not immediately believing every accusation means you’re victim blaming and calling all women liars. Do better.

/s

 

[Draconator]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

I was against Kane because he was a repeat offender. He beat up cabbies to.  And who knows if it was made up, didn't she settle with confidentiality agreement?

Honestly I thought she dropped the entire suit. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

I think the timing is more of an indictment on Haack. Seems like the team would be fine just grabbing a guy off the street over Haack, if necessary.

So basically, get another hack off street?

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Billsflyer12 said:

Rookie Punter = not worth risk and should be cut.

MVP QB = worth risk to wait thus put on Commissioners Exept List.

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

[JoPoy88]

1 minute ago, Donuts and Doritos said:

Actually, in NY (don't know about California) "less than seventeen years old" ie 16 & under is statutory rape. (See, PL 130.05(3)(a)). So it wouldn't be statutory rape. This is either a forced rape or incapacity to consent due to being physically helpless from intoxication. The facts in this case sound horrendous, & I'm not trying to downplay them or say he didn't do anything wrong.

NY law does not matter in the slightest. Age of consent in CA is 18.

[BarleyNY]

On 8/26/2022 at 11:01 AM, UKBillFan said:

But a MVP Quarterback would be worth the risk?

I’m not saying that it is right, because it’s not. It is how things are done though. When it’s Ben Roethlisberger raping some girl in a bar restroom (second well known incident of that kind and third if you dig deeper), then it’s different to the business owners and a substantial effort is made with regards to the public narrative. But for any punter or fairly easily replaced player or coach, that’s not going to happen. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by BarleyNY

[BillsFanSD]

Just now, Donuts and Doritos said:

Actually, in NY (don't know about California) "less than seventeen years old" ie 16 & under is statutory rape. (See, PL 130.05(3)(a)). So it wouldn't be statutory rape. This is either a forced rape or incapacity to consent due to being physically helpless from intoxication. The facts in this case sound horrendous, & I'm not trying to downplay them or say he didn't do anything wrong.

I don't think it matters morally, but in California the age of consent is 18 and they don't have a "Romeo & Juliet" exception.  Technically a 21 year old who has sex with a 17 year old in the Golden State is guilty of statutory rape regardless.

 

Again, not saying it matters, because this particular angle doesn't matter to me at all.  In most states, something like this would be legal.  CA law is just a little on the weird side. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Draconator said:

Honestly I thought she dropped the entire suit. 

Yeah... Can't remember,  that was a bizarre story like this one. 

[Wayne Arnold]

9 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

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.

 

Based on what's out there now, I can't imagine how he could be so confident. And their silence over the last 12+ hours is deafening. They should've been ready to immediately come out with a statement how they know Araiza is innocent. 

[jkirchofer]

Man, some the responses on this board are abhorrent to say the least. Some of you say he is innocent until proven guilty then proceed to drag the accuser through the mud using some very sexist, misogynistic, and down right terrible comments possible. I am dissapointed. And I am dissapointed with the Bills organization.

[4merper4mer]

3 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

I trust my sources.

Terrific.  Now do the part again about how Haack immediately got picked up.  What was your source on that?

 

Haack pretty much stinks and was probably the most replaceable player on last year’s 53.  He seems like a pretty good guy but losing out on the opportunity to keep him is the least impactful portion of this situation by a light year.

 

 

[BillsFanSD]

Just now, SirAndrew said:

I’ve always found it interesting how fans give athletes and celebrities the benefit of doubt. I agree, we don’t know the facts, he may be an innocent man. However, people never view the average Joe that way. It’s likely if this situation involves a person of little means in a random town (not a college athlete) he would have been locked up and his life is over. No one even cares to give that guy a chance. The report would be read, and people say he’s a menace. I want to wait for the all the facts to come out before I judge, but it seems like college boys get the benefit of doubt that others don’t. 

I've terminated people for sexual misconduct, and I can tell you that this is not true.  My organization (a public university, which is relevant here) does not dismiss people just because they were sued in civil court.  We need something beyond that.

[LabattBlue]

So prior to the draft, Araiza informed the NFL of the rape investigation, and the Bills still chose him.  In that case, the Bills deserve all the bad publicity & media scrutiny that will come from this mess.  

[mannc]

13 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

Well she was 17. It’s already statutory rape…

 

5 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:

For the record, I 100% do not care if a 21 year old has consensual sex with a 17 year old.  It would not matter to me if the girl showed her ID and the guy knew with certainty that she was underage.  There's nothing particularly wrong with a sexual relationship between two people of those ages, and this isn't the sort of thing that statutory rape laws were designed to prohibit.  Prosecutors generally don't bring charges in cases like that, and if I were on a jury I would be a solid vote for jury nullification.    

 

The "rape" part is extremely important.  The "statutory" part is not. 

Which is why in most states the age of consent is lower, and why the prosecution has to prove that there was no reasonable mistake about the girl’s true age, and why “statutory rape” between people of those ages is almost never prosecuted unless there are other aggravating circumstances.