Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[george c]

17 year old? No excuse period .

Cut, move on.

 

[CountDorkula]

Just now, BeastMaster said:

But you are saying people need to not put themselves into situations where they can be accused of a crime, and I'm telling you that people can throw out accusations out of the blue.

 

I'm not debating you on whether her allegations have merit

Sure people can throw it accusations but there are extreme consequences for that like falsifying police documents defamation and slander lawsuits and if that was the case Araiza would’ve already had those in place. 

[Yobogoya!]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

This above statement presumes innocence but infers he made bad choices that led to being falsely accused of sexual assault.  So if he is innocent, what was the bad choice?  Having consensual sex while in college at a college party where he was living?  Are you alluding that college kids should just abstain while in college in fear they could be accused of sexual assault later?  

 

 

 

 

Honestly in this current age we live in that would probably be the smart thing to do, yes. 

 

In reality it will never happen, of course. But if I was a kid in college right now -- and especially if I was an athlete with a shot at turning pro -- man I struggle with willpower but I'd have to be thinking twice at every opportunity. 

[SCBills]

1 minute ago, CountDorkula said:

Most of us had sex in college i presume. I guarantee you none of us were in a position where we could be accused of sexual assault and gang rape so……..

If you had sex with someone, you were in position to be accused of sexual assault. 
 

Gang rape.. sure, we can agree that is a bit of an outlier. 

[hondo in seattle]

3 minutes ago, jkirchofer said:

She is not going to put herself through the trauma and scrutiny for an allegation of this type. This kind of thinking is toxic, representative of entitlement, and is the exact reason more victims do not come forward.

 

 

I don't know this young lady but Brian Bank's false accuser didn't shy away from the scrutiny.

 

Maybe 90% of rape allegations are true but not all are.  Araiza's lawyer says it's a money-grab.   Maybe so, maybe not.   I'd love to see what the police have.

[SectionC3]

10 minutes ago, hemma said:

 

Probably should ask the Bills attorneys.

The Bills are now in the position of doing next to nothing without firm input/approval from their attorneys.

I would not doubt that only the Pegulas can override.

I don’t know what this means. The bills can nuke Araiza right now inasmuch as he’s an at will employee.  That of course impedes his ability to settle. But that ship has sailed.  It also impedes his ability to procure top flight criminal representation.  Which, of course, may help P get justice. 

[CountDorkula]

2 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

 

I don't know this young lady but Brian Bank's false accuser didn't shy away from the scrutiny.

 

Maybe 90% of rape allegations are true but not all are.  Araiza's lawyer says it's a money-grab.   Maybe so, maybe not.   I'd love to see what the police have.

With all due respect to his lawyer, law 101 is never admit guilt. Also it is his job now as his lawyer to drag this girl’s name through the mud as much as he can to prove his  innocence

[fergie's ire]

The dots don't connect for me and I don't see a lot of discussion on that.  Sitting the only punter on the roster (even though for a pre-season game) seems to be a more drastic move than cutting him.  They said they had conducted an investigation and they knew about the accusation before they released Haack, but suddenly "it seemed wrong" for McDermott to play him?  They could have trotted him out for a few punts, waited until Tuesday, said they had learned more or thought more and just released him then.  But why did McDermott lose sleep, not play him, and seem visibly shaken? That seems weird to me.  In thinking about it, I came up with a scenario that WOULD connect the dots but it is rampant speculation with zero evidence.  I know some people hate that kind of thing, so if you are one quit reading.  Imagine the Bills here what the plaintiff is claiming and find the story unbelievable (in both senses of the word).  They decide that there's nothing there and cut Haack.  Meanwhile, Araiza has bragged to his teammates about pulling a train on some high school chick.  I know that it sounds crazy that someone would do that, but there are those who think even their monstrous acts should be admired by "those who get it" and that it is locker room talk.  Given the character of guys on this team, they don't get it, are appalled, but are conflicted about sharing something from the locker room.  But then it comes out and a player feels compelled to go to McDermott and now those "unbelievable" acts are confirmed and he just can't put a player who would do that out there.  Again, rampant speculation, but their are some weird dots here and such a scenario would connect them.

[Alphadawg7]

Just now, CountDorkula said:

Most of us had sex in college i presume. I guarantee you none of us were in a position where we could be accused of sexual assault and gang rape so……..

 

Tell that to all the people who have been falsely accused.  Not saying he is or isn't, remember I replied to someone who presumed innocence and reference poor choices made him vulnerable.  

[Dr. K]

After seeing McDermott's post-game comments, the spiritless play of the team last night, and considering non-football circumstances, I think that Araiza must go, regardless of his degree of guilt or innocence. 

[BeastMaster]

5 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Most of us had sex in college i presume. I guarantee you none of us were in a position where we could be accused of sexual assault and gang rape so……..

So if he had sex with a drunk girl (typical college experience) and she then goes on to later go in a house and get attacked, this is a position that none of us could be put into?

 

[SCBills]

4 minutes ago, fergie's ire said:

The dots don't connect for me and I don't see a lot of discussion on that.  Sitting the only punter on the roster (even though for a pre-season game) seems to be a more drastic move than cutting him.  They said they had conducted an investigation and they knew about the accusation before they released Haack, but suddenly "it seemed wrong" for McDermott to play him?  They could have trotted him out for a few punts, waited until Tuesday, said they had learned more or thought more and just released him then.  But why did McDermott lose sleep, not play him, and seem visibly shaken? That seems weird to me.  In thinking about it, I came up with a scenario that WOULD connect the dots but it is rampant speculation with zero evidence.  I know some people hate that kind of thing, so if you are one quit reading.  Imagine the Bills here what the plaintiff is claiming and find the story unbelievable (in both senses of the word).  They decide that there's nothing there and cut Haack.  Meanwhile, Araiza has bragged to his teammates about pulling a train on some high school chick.  I know that it sounds crazy that someone would do that, but there are those who think even their monstrous acts should be admired by "those who get it" and that it is locker room talk.  Given the character of guys on this team, they don't get it, are appalled, but are conflicted about sharing something from the locker room.  But then it comes out and a player feels compelled to go to McDermott and now those "unbelievable" acts are confirmed and he just can't put a player who would do that out there.  Again, rampant speculation, but their are some weird dots here and such a scenario would connect them.

I doubt any of that occurred, but I do think there’s two explanations for McDermott seeming visibly shaken:

 

1). He now believes Araiza may have done this.  Based on either new info about the alleged rape or new info on the outskirts of the claim that was hidden or led to believe differently that now erodes their trust in Araiza. 
 

2). He believes Araiza and feels for how this is affecting some members of the community, while knowing he may have to look a man in the eye that he thinks is innocent and destroy his dream. 

The entire ordeal is awful, but in terms of not being able to sleep and looking visibly upset .. that’s what I’m thinking is going on in his head. 
 

Edited August 27, 2022 by SCBills

[AuntieEm]

44 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I'm tired of the gaslighting by WGR

 

The mantra of "the Bills won't cut him so we are forced to talk about him" is hilarious.

 

The afternoon guys doing pre-game said " as long as he is on the team this is the only thing we will be able to talk about. They need to do something" was the biggest example of how piss-poor the media is on the connection to reality.

 

These doofs have the mic. They can literally talk about anything.

 

Maybe he just means he's too ignorant to be able to hold any other thoughts in his head when he's got some sex story on his mind.  Maybe wgr should finally cut dead weight in their radio personality room.

[YoloinOhio]

2 minutes ago, fergie's ire said:

The dots don't connect for me and I don't see a lot of discussion on that.  Sitting the only punter on the roster (even though for a pre-season game) seems to be a more drastic move than cutting him.  They said they had conducted an investigation and they knew about the accusation before they released Haack, but suddenly "it seemed wrong" for McDermott to play him?  They could have trotted him out for a few punts, waited until Tuesday, said they had learned more or thought more and just released him then.  But why did McDermott lose sleep, not play him, and seem visibly shaken? That seems weird to me.  In thinking about it, I came up with a scenario that WOULD connect the dots but it is rampant speculation with zero evidence.  I know some people hate that kind of thing, so if you are one quit reading.  Imagine the Bills here what the plaintiff is claiming and find the story unbelievable (in both senses of the word).  They decide that there's nothing there and cut Haack.  Meanwhile, Araiza has bragged to his teammates about pulling a train on some high school chick.  I know that it sounds crazy that someone would do that, but there are those who think even their monstrous acts should be admired by "those who get it" and that it is locker room talk.  Given the character of guys on this team, they don't get it, are appalled, but are conflicted about sharing something from the locker room.  But then it comes out and a player feels compelled to go to McDermott and now those "unbelievable" acts are confirmed and he just can't put a player who would do that out there.  Again, rampant speculation, but their are some weird dots here and such a scenario would connect them.

It is because, as he said, they learned more in the 24 hours leading up to the game than they knew previously. That’s why he was in Carolina, expecting to play, and no other punter on the roster. It was a last minute decision to not play him. That’s why McD couldn’t sleep. It was the details in the civil suit that they didn’t have until Thursday evening 

[Freddie's Dead]

If I read another post about "consensual sex", my head will explode.  That is nothing more than slut shaming the victim.  SHE WAS 17 AND DRUNK.  UNDER EITHER PREMISE, SHE CANNOT CONSENT, AND THAT CONSTITUTES RAPE.  STOP SAYING SHE "CONSENTED" OR THAT THEY HAD "CONSENSUAL SEX", THAT IS A LIE!

 

There, I feel better.

 

[CountDorkula]

2 minutes ago, BeastMaster said:

So if he had sex with a drunk girl (typical college experience) and she then goes on to later go in a house and get attacked, this is a position that none of us could be put into?

 

Well considering there are thousands of members on this site and not one of them has come forward to say I was wrongly accused of something very similar to this I’d say it’s a pretty safe no

[boyst]

Just now, YoloinOhio said:

It is because, as he said, they learned more in the 24 hours leading up to the game than they knew previously. That’s why he was in Carolina, expecting to play, and no other punter on the roster. It was a last minute decision to not play him. That’s why McD couldn’t sleep. It was the details in the civil suit that they didn’t have until Thursday evening 

The only thing they could have "learned" is from the accusations. The accusations the white knights proclaim to be part of a sworn affidavit present enough evidence for them to caste judgement and call it justice.

[Bob in STL]

49 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

So you’re ok with people losing their jobs for allegations? Are you a fan of the Salem witch trials way of life or something? 

Very funny, and NO, I am not.  I am also not ok with someone not fully disclosing the facts around potential criminal and civil charges they could be facing.   If his non-disclosure violated terms of the contract that he signed then his contract can be voided.   This is how I think it will play out.   

 

 

He still gets his day in court, which is a right I believe in and take seriously.  

 

 

[CSBill]

17 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I believe if the Bills suspend him he counts towards the 53 man roster, yes.  Whether it's an NFLPA grievance or not depends upon exactly what the suspension is for.  If Araiza lied to or misled the Bills about having an interview with police this summer in an active rape investigation, or about what happened, I think that would come under the "conduct detrimental" clause and they can suspend him.  I don't think they can suspend him for something that happened last October without a grievance.

 

The exempt list has to come from the Commissioner.  He would not count towards the 53 if he's on that list.   Normally it wouldn't happen for something occurring before he was drafted, but, again if Araiza or his rep lied to or misled the Bills this summer, Goodell might oblige out of understanding that this is a very bad look for the NFL as a whole.

 

 

It seems to me, this situation is exactly what the Exempt List was created for, even if the incident happened before he was officially an NFL player.

 

This situation will not be resolved in a few days, there are too many variables that have to be sorted out. If he is guilty, he deserves whatever punishment the judicial system can give him. But, if he is innocent, this gives him appropriate time to clear his name and then return to his football career. .... The verdict is not going to come this week, it could take months. For that reason, it seems to me this is where the exempt list helps everyone--it protects the league and team from having to give a half-informed verdict, and allows the legal system to do it's job with the accused.

 

Moreover, I think (I do not know with any certainty) that the Commissioner has authority to do this when there is just cause.

[BuffaloBud17]

45 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Again I think what makes it tough is that they don’t know if he raped her. It’s easy to say just cut him because he’s named as an accomplice but he may be innocent. There were other players there and she didn’t remember anything. He’s saying the details in the suit are not accurate.  It’s tough to separate the emotion. 

 

If anyone of us were accused of this, we would be put on leave the next day until we proved our innocence. The perception is just cause they are professional athletes they are above that.