Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Draconator]

1 minute ago, gobills404 said:

He’s a troll don’t waste you’re time. He’s been picking arguments at every chance since this thread opened.

He said "that will be a hill I'm willing to die on"

 

I'll bury him. 

[MAJBobby]

Once again a female forgoing CRIMINAL litigation (let’s start actually holding criminals accountable and put them in prison) for the CIVIL litigation for some cash. 
 

each time this happens it hurts future victims of this type of crime to pursue the criminal side of it. 
 

this post is not in defense or not for a Punter. 

[gobills404]

1 minute ago, mbossman2 said:

One thing that does not appear to have been mentioned: 

 

If the alleged victim was 17 at the time of the alleged crime (which is what news reports are saying), that puts her under the age of consent in California which immediately puts sexual contact between someone above the age of majority and someone under 18 as rape. 

This has only been mentioned a couple thousand times thanks for the info

[boyst]

1 minute ago, mbossman2 said:

One thing that does not appear to have been mentioned: 

 

If the alleged victim was 17 at the time of the alleged crime (which is what news reports are saying), that puts her under the age of consent in California which immediately puts sexual contact between someone above the age of majority and someone under 18 as rape. 

 

I was discussing this with someone this morning and he said "if this was my daughter, that kicker wouldn't have seen another sunrise"

No, it doesn't. It could be only a misdemeanor. I'll have to find someone else discussing it and paraphrase it. I cannot quote another board discussing it.

 

Basically someone smart broke it down that in this case it could be a felony or a misdemeanor because CA law is weird. It's likely a misdemeanor. 

[Rc2catch]

1 minute ago, nedboy7 said:

 

I don't mean this in a rude way.  I get what you saying.  But......

 

“His admission was the thing that, when I started reading about this case, that just jumped out,” Dallas-based attorney Michelle Simpson Tuegel told the Democrat and Chronicle on Friday afternoon. “I was like, ‘Whoa,’ because there are a lot of cases I handle where we don’t have that kind of what I would consider bombshell evidence.”

 

Based on what she has read in the lawsuit, “I think it’s enough for them to charge him with a crime,” Simpson Tuegel said. “As a criminal defense lawyer or as a lawyer who now represents victims and has for years, I would say that is an admission and a problematic statement for him. He made an admission and she’s under age. I just don’t know how you get around those facts. That’s a real problem.”

You’re good.. But she’s reading from the lawsuit not listening to the tapes right? 

[Motorin']

15 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Her lawyer warned him of that because he was using the opportunity to prevent the civil suit as leverage to both get a settlement and the most from it.  

 

Here is what I find interesting...why is her attorney ONLY attacking Matt and his attorney?  Where are all the public attacks aimed at the other men who allegedly were the ones physically hurting her and gang raping her?  Why isn't he in going after any of them who may have had a bigger role, or even the only roles in this...yet nothing.   

 

Answer:  They can't pay his client, or himself, any money.  So, not one word about them from him.  

 

On the other side...Matt's attorney is clearly quick to the cameras and seems to be wanting the publicity.  

 

Neither of these guys are doing much for the overall image of lawyers/attorneys.  

 

The victim said that she came forward publicly because she believed the case was being swept under the rug by the university and SDPD. 

 

And in coming forward she is hoping to put pressure on the police and DA to take the case seriously. 

 

I'd say by focusing on Araiza and not two underclassman that no one can name, her strategy is working. Though they are named in the Civil Suit.

 

Another reason, why so much attention on Matt? He's the one they believe brought her to the room. Whether that's true or not will be at the center of the potential criminal case.

 

But the idea that they are only focusing on Araiza for money doesn't pan out. It's not only about money, and it may be the most important reason for her.

 

It will be very interesting to see what the DA does in the coming weeks. 

 

 

[Rocky Landing]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

Once again a female forgoing CRIMINAL litigation (let’s start actually holding criminals accountable and put them in prison) for the CIVIL litigation for some cash. 
 

each time this happens it hurts future victims of this type of crime to pursue the criminal side of it. 
 

this post is not in defense or not for a Punter. 

What are you talking about? She filed a police report in October.

[nedboy7]

1 minute ago, Rc2catch said:

You’re good.. But she’s reading from the lawsuit not listening to the tapes right? 

 

I would assume so. 

[MAJBobby]

Just now, Rocky Landing said:

What are you talking about? She filed a police report in October.

Where is the criminal lawsuit then?  

[K-9]

18 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

On the other side...Matt's attorney is clearly quick to the cameras and seems to be wanting the publicity.  

 

Neither of these guys are doing much for the overall image of lawyers/attorneys.  

This is often the nature of civil litigation before settlements are reached, if they are reached at all. I doubt Araiza’s lawyer would be seeking the publicity had the plaintiff’s attorney not already fired the first salvo in the court of public opinion. 

[eball]

Just now, Boyst62 said:

No, it doesn't. It could be only a misdemeanor. I'll have to find someone else discussing it and paraphrase it. I cannot quote another board discussing it.

 

Basically someone smart broke it down that in this case it could be a felony or a misdemeanor because CA law is weird. It's likely a misdemeanor. 

 

My understanding is that in CA, reasonable belief that a 16 or 17 yo was 18 is a valid defense to the charge of statutory rape (presuming the sex was consensual).

 

I still think Araiza’s future in Buffalo is all about what he told McD and Beane when they first became aware of the incident, and what they have now learned to be true.  If he lied to them, he’s toast.  If he did not, and there is no evidence he participated in the alleged assault, it’s a different story.

 

McD’s press conference last night gave many of us the impression Araiza may not have been forthcoming with the Bills.

 

[boyst]

7 minutes ago, NickelCity said:

 

I'm not super interested in the tangential argument on here that seems to be dripping with pseudo-partisan culture war language. 

 

What I'm saying is the press that comes with this is untenable for a massive brand like the Buffalo Bills. To simply trot out Matt Araiza for the duration of this litigation is not an actual option. I think that notion is more of a hypothetical being used on a message board for folks (not necessarily you) to take their argument to the extreme.

I also think we are way too close to the fire of this.

 

I fully believe that if left on the team and simply suspended by the team for a few weeks to make a determination the 15 second tic toc attention span of the average American would forget this issue as soon as the next headline breaks.

 

And most Bills fans will forget it quickly when we win a few ball games. Whether he's on the team or not I don't think the average fan will care. They'll get their jollies settled with a few fist pumps at the clouds, an angry tweet, and changing their profile picture on Facebook for 3 days.

 

The sooner we win ball games the better and I think this can be managed with him on the team. 

 

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

If araiza is charged the situation changes. He maybe actionable by the commish since the action of the charge occured while an NFL employee.  That's speculation.

 

Actually, that's pretty well spelled out in the NFL Players Code of Conduct.  Criminal charges -> Commissioner's Exempt List while it sorts out.

 

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Further, Hernandez was specifically charged with first degree murder. Araiza is a suspect for what we know to be at worst having sex with a minor

 

Really?  You know what the police consider him a suspect for "at worst"?  We know nothing about what charges (if any) the DA is considering - only what Araiza's attorney publicly says he believes, and what the civil lawsuit alleges. 

 

And no, that is not the worst that is alleged in the civil suit - it's merely the part that he is alleged to have admitted to in a recorded phone conversation.

 

I'm not saying charges are coming, or that he IS a suspect - I'm just pointing out that No, you don't know what you state you know.

 

[Rc2catch]

Just now, nedboy7 said:

 

I would assume so. 

So it’s two things. 
Either the police are probably in trouble if he’s admitting to this stuff and they didn’t handle it properly

Or there’s more on the tapes that’s not listed in the lawsuit and that’s why the police did not act swiftly. 
Either way though we can’t take what’s in the lawsuit as fact 

[boyst]

1 minute ago, eball said:

 

My understanding is that in CA, reasonable belief that a 16 or 17 yo was 18 is a valid defense to the charge of statutory rape (presuming the sex was consensual).

 

I still think Araiza’s future in Buffalo is all about what he told McD and Beane when they first became aware of the incident, and what they have now learned to be true.  If he lied to them, he’s toast.  If he did not, and there is no evidence he participated in the alleged assault, it’s a different story.

 

McD’s press conference last night gave many of us the impression Araiza may not have been forthcoming with the Bills.

 

Yeah but do you like know law or something? 🙄

[NickelCity]

Just now, Boyst62 said:

I also think we are way too close to the fire of this.

 

I fully believe that if left on the team and simply suspended by the team for a few weeks to make a determination the 15 second tic toc attention span of the average American would forget this issue as soon as the next headline breaks.

 

And most Bills fans will forget it quickly when we win a few ball games. Whether he's on the team or not I don't think the average fan will care. They'll get their jollies settled with a few fist pumps at the clouds, an angry tweet, and changing their profile picture on Facebook for 3 days.

 

The sooner we win ball games the better and I think this can be managed with him on the team. 

 

 

Well, sure. But the trick there is to find a way where he is officially "set aside" and not playing. 

 

It sounds like you think a suspension would do it. I think that requires a roster spot, but I could be mistaken. Either way it's not playing Ariza through litigation.

[BullBuchanan]

12 minutes ago, Yobogoya! said:

 

Big difference between formal, criminal murder charges from the state and a civil lawsuit being filed by an attorney whose actions to this point have been dubious at best. 

 

Anyone can file a civil lawsuit about anything and allege whatever they want in the summary. 

Not a legal expert, but I'm guessing alleging that you have a police-recorded tape of a public person admitting to a felony and it's a lie, then you would be liable to significant legal retaliation. I'm going to air on the side that they probably didn't make it up out of thin air. The fact that Araiza's camp hasn't denied it behind "this isn't what it seems" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Still my position has always and will always be that I don't care if he's innocent or guilty with respect to his future on the Buffalo Bills, because I don't think he should have one unless he can prove he wasn't even there.

[boyst]

1 minute ago, Beck Water said:

 

Actually, that's pretty well spelled out in the NFL Players Code of Conduct.  Criminal charges -> Commissioner's Exempt List while it sorts out.

 

 

Really?  You know what the police consider him a suspect for "at worst"?  We know nothing about what charges (if any) the DA is considering - only what Araiza's attorney publicly says he believes, and what the civil lawsuit alleges. 

 

And no, that is not the worst that is alleged in the civil suit - it's merely the part that he is alleged to have admitted to in a recorded phone conversation.

 

I'm not saying charges are coming, or that he IS a suspect - I'm just pointing out that No, you don't know what you state you know.

 

I know that you can indict a ham sandwich. If there was reasonable suspicion he could be indicated, warrants attained and more evidence collected. Of course, it could have been done voluntarily. 

 

Regardless, it must be assumed the police and DA have his phone and messages during that time. Have his alibis, whereabouts and details of his life pretty well covered during that time.

 

That it has been almost 11 months without charge is telling. This could up pressure during an election year now to charge him. But that's because America is one messed up country that has lost its way... I digress.

Regardless, 10 months without an indictment to charge is very powerful. 

 

[Motorin']

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

I know that you can indict a ham sandwich. If there was reasonable suspicion he could be indicated, warrants attained and more evidence collected. Of course, it could have been done voluntarily. 

 

Regardless, it must be assumed the police and DA have his phone and messages during that time. Have his alibis, whereabouts and details of his life pretty well covered during that time.

 

That it has been almost 11 months without charge is telling. This could up pressure during an election year now to charge him. But that's because America is one messed up country that has lost its way... I digress.

Regardless, 10 months without an indictment to charge is very powerful. 

 

 

10 months without charges could mean two things. The police did a theo

[Draconator]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Not a legal expert, but I'm guessing alleging that you have a police-recorded tape of a public person admitting to a felony and it's a lie, then you would be liable to significant legal retaliation. I'm going to air on the side that they probably didn't make it up out of thin air. The fact that Araiza's camp hasn't denied it behind "this isn't what it seems" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Still my position has always and will always be that I don't care if he's innocent or guilty with respect to his future on the Buffalo Bills, because I don't think he should have one unless he can prove he wasn't even there.

Show me where Arazia admitted raping the girl on tape.  You're talking out of your ass again.  Learn to read.