Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Its Gonna Be Chilly]

8 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

I'm also trying to imagine him being at a party with teammates and only hanging out in the yard, having outdoor sex and never entering the house. 

 

Him admitting to hooking up consensually outside, but claiming he never stepped foot inside is a little hard to believe. 

 

 

 

 

Really? In San Diego? 

 

 

[boyst]

1 minute ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I wonder if the Bills investigator(s) didn't go to Jane Doe and her attorney because they were satisfied with what they got from the police who have reportedly been very thorough in their investigation.

I'm finally being more chatty here as things settle down and I had asked this question to myself.

 

I don't think the Bills would want to, be able to, or be advised to go to the victim. I think as a legal matter the counsel would advise asking the Vic's attorney for any information voluntarily shared. The Bills seeming over interesting and invested into it could suck them into the vacuum of the civil suit.

 

The have to remain far enough away to get information clearly but not burned. 

 

I don't think that the Bills were "satisfied" but maybe the Bills were at the end of their reasonable and liable reach. 

[mead107]

New Orleans man wrongfully convicted of rape released from prison after 36 years; others could be next

[hondo in seattle]

10 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

The Bills may have just been kicking the can down the road by keeping Araiza out of the last preseason game, but one reason to do that is to prevent injury. Teams can’t release a player with a football related injury unless an injury settlement is first reached. 

 

For the sake of argument, let's say Araiza is innocent.  Imagine his level of distress.  The hurt of a false accusation.  The media storm.  The loss of reputation in the eyes of his teammates and coaches.   Going from excitement over making the team to the fear of losing his job...  

 

The kid may have been an emotional wreck at gametime.  McD may have benched him because he wasn't fully capable of playing.  

[HankBulloughMellencamp]

2 hours ago, Behindenemylines said:

Are you suggesting we dig up dead Don Knots and have him play punter a la weekend at Bernie’s?  Love the plan! 

 

your response tells me that you have not seen that movie! ☝️

I implore you to watch it at your earliest convenience. 

 

Starring Don Knotts as the embattled Head Coach,

Ed Asner as the curmudgeon GM ready to fire him,

& even Dick Butkus shows off his acting chops! 

Tim Conway is also in the cast..

 

Gus, the mascot/mule, proves to be deadly accurate as a FG kicker with unlimited range,

and *spoiler alert* ...

leads them all to the promised land 😆 

 

I would argue that Major League is basically a rip off of this plot!

 

[london_bills]

2 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

For the sake of argument, let's say Araiza is innocent.  Imagine his level of distress.  The hurt of a false accusation.  The media storm.  The loss of reputation in the eyes of his teammates and coaches.   Going from excitement over making the team to the fear of losing his job...  

 

The kid may have been an emotional wreck at gametime.  McD may have benched him because he wasn't fully capable of playing.  

Completely. Would destroy him. Aside from the truth I cant see him on the team anymore. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by london_bills

[boyst]

1 minute ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

For the sake of argument, let's say Araiza is innocent.  Imagine his level of distress.  The hurt of a false accusation.  The media storm.  The loss of reputation in the eyes of his teammates and coaches.   Going from excitement over making the team to the fear of losing his job...  

 

The kid may have been an emotional wreck at gametime.  McD may have benched him because he wasn't fully capable of playing.  

Honest question to you and anyone else...

 

When I consider this question I ask myself what the victim must have and be going through. I end up as thinking both are the victim here because some are vilifying an innocent until proven guilty man, trying to destroy his life, career, etc. based on a lot of conjecture.

 

This leaves me conflicted.  Am I alone? 

[Beck Water]

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

The way the civil lawsuit is very deliberately written to not directly accuse Araiza of participating in the gang rape, I believe there may be some truth to this. All they had to do was draw an implication between her hooking up with Araiza and later being allegedly gang raped and the media would run with that. I find it telling that Araiza's lawyer is out there publicly defending his client, while lawyers for others named in the lawsuit have said "no comment at this time."

 

I don't see the civil lawsuit as written to not directly accuse Araiza of participating in the gang rape.  To the contrary, it explicitly states that he participated in several ways (which, to be fair, are not corroborated in the young woman's alleged journal)

 

First, it alleges he gave her a spiked drink.  Then, it specifically states he led her into the room where the rape allegedly occurred and where 3 men were already waiting, and tossed her face down on the bed, where she was then allegedly gang raped for an hour and a half.  

 

I believe that makes him an accessory.  This is from a Texas law site, but Cali law likely has something similar:

Quote

Second, a under sec. 7.02 (a)(2), a person is responsible for the acts of another if “acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense.” This is the classic definition of an “accomplice”

Giving a girl a spiked drink then taking an incapacitated girl into a room where rapists are waiting and tossing her face-down onto the bed would strike me as "acting with intent to assist the offense".

 

The lawsuit says:

"He handed her a drink anyway. Doe did not see Araiza pour her drink, but she accepted the drink and began consuming it. Upon information and belief, this drink not only contained alcohol, but other intoxicating substances." and

"Araiza then led Doe inside the house, past the living room, and into a bedroom. There were at least three other men already in the bedroom, including defendants Leonard and Ewaliko. Once inside, Araiza threw Doe onto the bed face first. Doe went in and out of consciousness while she was being raped, but she does remember some moments from the horrific gang rape. During this time, her phone was also taken. The men took turns having sex with her from behind while she
lay face first on the mattress."

 

So while the lawsuit leaves vague whether Araiza was one of the men in the room who raped her, it directly accuses him of particpating as an accessory.

 

And whether or not he participated in the rape itself - decent human beings have a moral imperative to #### block rapists.  They take inebriated young women to find their friends and get taken home.  They don't dump inebriated young women on a bed in front of teammates like dumping out a bag of snacks, then leave and shut the door and say "I Know Nothing About Those Snacks Being Eaten"

 

=====>=====>To be fair, the young woman's alleged journal does not state that Araiza is the one who led her to the room where "they were already waiting".  It does not mention him tossing her face first on the bed, and as far as interactions with Araiza outside only mentions "gave me a drink and flirted/introduced ourselves" then "not really sure what happened next". 

 

There are several regards in which the journal does not support the statements in the civil lawsuit.

 

[london_bills]

Just now, Boyst62 said:

Honest question to you and anyone else...

 

When I consider this question I ask myself what the victim must have and be going through. I end up as thinking both are the victim here because some are vilifying an innocent until proven guilty man, trying to destroy his life, career, etc. based on a lot of conjecture.

 

This leaves me conflicted.  Am I alone? 

Not alone. 

[DapperCam]

Absent some place to park him while his legal issues get sorted out, they need to cut him.

[BarleyNY]

2 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

For the sake of argument, let's say Araiza is innocent.  Imagine his level of distress.  The hurt of a false accusation.  The media storm.  The loss of reputation in the eyes of his teammates and coaches.   Going from excitement over making the team to the fear of losing his job...  

 

The kid may have been an emotional wreck at gametime.  McD may have benched him because he wasn't fully capable of playing.  

His emotional state could certainly have been a reason to sit him. And I’m also sure that a person would be upset about what has come out publicly regardless of their guilt or innocence. 

[cd1]

1 hour ago, arcane said:

Man, you gotta read the thread

 

This is not true in the California legal system 

Quote

"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."

https://www.cwsdefense.com/blog/2020/june/exceptions-to-californias-statutory-rape-laws/#:~:text=In California%2C it is illegal,informed consent to sexual activities.

[Fleezoid]

3 minutes ago, jkeerie said:

They will have no choice but to release him because the court system is not going to move that fast.   That can't go into the season with him as an active member of the team.  It's too much of a distraction and a huge cloud hanging over the team.

 

Yes. Between yesterday and today, I read alot of these posts, not all (who's got that kinda time?), and I was originally waiting for more info before forming an opinion. But now, it's clear to me that the Bills need to let him go. Just a bad, bad situation. Way too much of a negative distraction going into week 1. 

[LabattBlue]

30 minutes ago, mannc said:

Again, it’s not at all clear that Araiza knew in April that there was any kind of legal issue to be concerned about, especially if you believe he had nothing to do with the alleged gang rape.

So, he had sex with her, took her to a room, and his teammates raped her, but his buddies or anyone else at this gathering, didn’t share the end result with him in the days or weeks afterwards.  
 

okee dokie

Edited August 27, 2022 by BTB

[MPT]

2 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Honest question to you and anyone else...

 

When I consider this question I ask myself what the victim must have and be going through. I end up as thinking both are the victim here because some are vilifying an innocent until proven guilty man, trying to destroy his life, career, etc. based on a lot of conjecture.

 

This leaves me conflicted.  Am I alone? 

 

You are not alone. Which is why it's absurd to have 200+ pages of conjecture before anyone knows what really happened. Gotta let the full truth come out before I make any comments about his future with the team. Clearly the victim in the case deserves justice and sympathy but nobody on the outside knows the extent of Araiza's involvement in the crime.

[NickelCity]

I have to imagine the reason he's not already cut is because the Bills realize they'll need to prepare more than a single statement to weather the questions. 

 

[CaliBills]

1 hour ago, Boyst62 said:

You must be under 30, maybe 35.  

 

http://youtu.be/FElfV-2H5vU

haha sorry I was being funny (well trying to).  but thanks for the link

[NickelCity]

1 minute ago, MPT said:

 

You are not alone. Which is why it's absurd to have 200+ pages of conjecture before anyone knows what really happened. Gotta let the full truth come out before I make any comments about his future with the team. Clearly the victim in the case deserves justice and sympathy but nobody on the outside knows the extent of Araiza's involvement in the crime.

 

Season starts in 12 days.

[Beck Water]

5 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

For the sake of argument, let's say Araiza is innocent.  Imagine his level of distress.  The hurt of a false accusation.  The media storm.  The loss of reputation in the eyes of his teammates and coaches.   Going from excitement over making the team to the fear of losing his job...  

 

The kid may have been an emotional wreck at gametime.  McD may have benched him because he wasn't fully capable of playing.  

 

You could be correct, but my personal take on what McDermott said in his presser was that he made the decision because he felt he and the other team decision makers needed time to re-visit and sort through all the information that is available and make their best judgement - but in the meantime, it would be a hideous look to be putting a player potentially involved in something like that on the field in a Bills uniform.

 

I think McDermott is well aware of the possibility that Araiza is not guilty or possibly not involved at all in the more heinous aspects of the civil complaint, and has compassion for his distress and the distress of his family.  Concern that he was "not capable" may have been one reason to not play him, but these guys compartmentalize all the time and contrarily, if the Bills intend to stand by Araiza and keep him on the team they would need to evaluate just how well he can compartmentalize and perform.

[london_bills]

3 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

You are not alone. Which is why it's absurd to have 200+ pages of conjecture before anyone knows what really happened. Gotta let the full truth come out before I make any comments about his future with the team. Clearly the victim in the case deserves justice and sympathy but nobody on the outside knows the extent of Araiza's involvement in the crime.

You are right but the team won't do that.