Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

6 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

His criminal attorney said Matt did not want to settle and that it was his parents who wanted to offer money. 

 

Also, if you violently gang rape a girl are you going to answer the phone and talk to her?  I feel like you wouldn't answer that phone call. Let alone warn her she may have an std.  Did the other two guys have the phone calls as well?

what IDIOT brings a High School girl to. Party with legal ages college students?

 

 

[Captain Caveman]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

Bills receive unsubstantiated allegation against their Hispanic descent punter and decide to get his side/investigate as best they can before cutting him

 

 

 

1. What does him being hispanic have to do with it?

2. The issue is they didn't investigate as best they could. 

 

No one is saying they should have immediately cut him, but they had most of the details, and could have easily followed up to get more, but hoped that it wasn't true or would go away.   
 

There were stories published in the LA Times as early as June with many details of the assault, all they had to do was a quick google search for San Diego State Rape and it would have been on the top page.  So either they did no investigation, or they did, they knew many of the details, and still hoped it might stay quiet.  They should have performed an actual thorough investigation, and at that time should have had enough details to part ways with him - it shouldn't have needed to go public for that to happen.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Captain Caveman

[aristocrat]

3 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

what IDIOT brings a High School girl to. Party with legal ages college students?

 

 

 

Araiza didn't bring the girl there. She came with friends as I understand it and apparently told people she was in college. What high schooler goes to a college party and would claim to be in high school?

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

Araiza didn't bring the girl there. She came with friends as I understand it and apparently told people she was in college. What high schooler goes to a college party and would claim to be in high school?

Maybe she was on a fall campus tour, senior in high school. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

25 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

It would show two things:

 

1.  The Araiza camp tried to pay for this to go away.

2.  This isn't a money grab by the accuser.

Point 1:   It would indeed show they tried to pay to make it go away.  My issue was with that being "damning" from his perspective;

 

Point 2:  It would not show that at all, though that is a possible interpretation and may be correct.  However, it's also possible the plaintiff attorney is considering whether or not Araiza may avoid prosecution, it's also possible he's weighing whether or not he will be  held liable for damages to his client in civil court.   In that case, perhaps team Araiza offers a $10,000 settlement to avoid embarrassment, scrutiny, and death threats to simply be done with it, while plaintiff sees the cost to exit under those terms at closer to $75,000.  

 

 

19 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

If it were true that Araiza tried to settle a pending civil suit pre-draft in March or April, it would show that he was aware there were pending allegations against him (criminal and civil)

and

That he (per Beane) did not disclose them to the NFL or to teams

 

Araiza's lawyer has been presenting his client as transparent, truthful, up-front, and timely in his disclosures with the Bills.

 

It would contradict that

 

Note that I don't believe it to be true.  I think Araiza knew there was an investigation last October, but hadn't heard anything (criminal or civil) in months, and (somewhat naively) figured that it had been completed with no charges or other fallout during the draft process.

 

Ah, I see you meant from the perspective of his involvement with the Bills.  Ty. 

 

[Gugny]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Point 1:   It would indeed show they tried to pay to make it go away.  My issue was with that being "damning" from his perspective;

 

Point 2:  It would not show that at all, though that is a possible interpretation and may be correct.  However, it's also possible the plaintiff attorney is considering whether or not Araiza may avoid prosecution, it's also possible he's weighing whether or not he will be  held liable for damages to his client in civil court.   In that case, perhaps team Araiza offers a $10,000 settlement to avoid embarrassment, scrutiny, and death threats to simply be done with it, while plaintiff sees the cost to exit under those terms at closer to $75,000.  

 

 

 

Ah, I see you meant from the perspective of his involvement with the Bills.  Ty. 

 

 

Yeah ... heaven forbid this embarrasses the Araizas.  That would be super inconvenient.

[Buffalo716]

10 hours ago, QCity said:

 

CTE is real, but it has nothing to do with the Antonio Brown clown 

 

Football has a 100% Brain injury rate.. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise

 

If you played any serious amount of football especially through college you don’t escape it 

 

I’ve dealt with the problems from a lot of concussions over my football career… Antonio Brown has been knocked out cold by an NFL linebacker and taken thousands of hits

 

He 100% has brain injuries… It effects  everybody differently

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Buffalo716

[4merper4mer]

20 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

 

1. What does him being hispanic have to do with it?

2. The issue is they didn't investigate as best they could. 

 

No one is saying they should have immediately cut him, but they had most of the details, and could have easily followed up to get more, but hoped that it wasn't true or would go away.   
 

There were stories published in the LA Times as early as June with many details of the assault, all they had to do was a quick google search for San Diego State Rape and it would have been on the top page.  So either they did no investigation, or they did, they knew many of the details, and still hoped it might stay quiet.  They should have performed an actual thorough investigation, and at that time should have had enough details to part ways with him - it shouldn't have needed to go public for that to happen.

Out of curiosity why would a member of the Bills front office wake up in the morning in early June in Western NY and randomly type “San Diego State Rape” in Google?  Should it have come to them in a dream?  Should they randomly search topics on Google every day?  Should they have also searched “Terrel Bernard murder investigation “ just in case?  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Yeah ... heaven forbid this embarrasses the Araizas.  That would be super inconvenient.

That's how you read my reply?  Interesting. 

[Beck Water]

40 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

what IDIOT brings a High School girl to. Party with legal ages college students?

 

Three other High School Girls who learned about it on the SnapChats.  They came in through the side yard, saw a lot of people drinking and chatting in the backyard, and strolled right on in, "Single and Ready to Mingle"

[Gugny]

13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That's how you read my reply?  Interesting. 

 

Only this part: "In that case, perhaps team Araiza offers a $10,000 settlement to avoid embarrassment, scrutiny, and death threats to simply be done with it, while plaintiff sees the cost to exit under those terms at closer to $75,000."

[Captain Caveman]

21 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Out of curiosity why would a member of the Bills front office wake up in the morning in early June in Western NY and randomly type “San Diego State Rape” in Google?  Should it have come to them in a dream?  Should they randomly search topics on Google every day?  Should they have also searched “Terrel Bernard murder investigation “ just in case?  

 

Not sure if I was unclear or if this is just crayonz type stuff, but just to clarify - they should have done this on the day that the victim's attorney contacted them, and should have quickly had enough information to make an informed decision.

[Doc]

2 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

AND she was led to the gang rape by Araiza... 

Allegedly. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

Allegedly. 

Well... MA showed her to the room.  That's where it happened.  So he led her there.  Seems negligent to me because he wasn't thinking of her safety all that well. Did he get one of her friends to be with her? She was in a vulnerable state. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by ExiledInIllinois

[DrDawkinstein]

35 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

Football has a 100% Brain injury rate.. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise

 

If you played any serious amount of football especially through college you don’t escape it 

 

I’ve dealt with the problems from a lot of concussions over my football career… Antonio Brown has been knocked out cold by an NFL linebacker and taken thousands of hits

 

He 100% has brain injuries… It effects  everybody differently

 

 

Specifically the Vontaze Burfict hit. Brown would say the concussion effects lingered for "only" 2 weeks. TWO WEEKS! That is a looooooong time to be feeling those effects.

 

 

[Buffalo716]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Specifically the Vontaze Burfict hit. Brown would say the concussion effects lingered for "only" 2 weeks. TWO WEEKS! That is a looooooong time to be feeling those effects.

 

 

Yes that hit definitely did real damage

 

You can’t escape brain damage from a Hit like that

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Captain Caveman said:

1. What does him being hispanic have to do with it?

 

In the context of my post....which was shaking my damned head at a National Newspaper OP ed.....the writer of the OP ed compared the "moral suckitude" of a BYU AD and coach literally hearing racist taunts at an opposing player - first hand knowledge of racist behavior right in their ears with no immediate action - and the Buffalo Bills response to hearing second -hand allegations of criminal conduct from the alleged victim's lawyer, which was not to immediately cut the punter.

 

Rolled into that poor analogy  is an additional irony. It's claimed that minorities and immigrants are treated differently by the criminal justice system, employers, and authorities in general.  They are more likely to be arrested/charged with small offenses; they are more likely to have their employment terminated vs. being given discipline or a warning.  (I believe statistics bear this out; the reasons can be argued).

 

Araiza, in fact, qualifies as a minority...his father is an immigrant from Mexico, he is Hispanic if he chooses to identify as such. 

 

So here is an Op-Ed writer waiving a pitchfork at the Bills because, in response to second-hand allegations of criminal conduct, they held back from a summary dismissal that is legitimately complained about as a social inequity experienced by minorities.

 

Sorry for the long winded answer.  Hope it makes sense.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Caveman said:

2. The issue is they didn't investigate as best they could. 

 

No one is saying they should have immediately cut him, but they had most of the details, and could have easily followed up to get more, but hoped that it wasn't true or would go away.   
 

There were stories published in the LA Times as early as June with many details of the assault, all they had to do was a quick google search for San Diego State Rape and it would have been on the top page.  So either they did no investigation, or they did, they knew many of the details, and still hoped it might stay quiet.  They should have performed an actual thorough investigation, and at that time should have had enough details to part ways with him - it shouldn't have needed to go public for that to happen.

 

With respect, I'm not sure that 2. is true.  The articles detail the allegations.  The Bills may have verified any witness accounts Araiza and his attorney had which would disprove them.  They may have sent investigators to learn what they could from police contacts and around campus.  They would not have had access to evidence known to the police.

 

It's possible that they investigated as well as they could and decided that the allegations were more likely than not false, that criminal charges against Araiza were unlikely minor and defensible (misdemeanor statutory rape/mistake in age defense).  We just don't know.

 

I do think that they believed the motivation behind the threat of the civil suit was desire for money, in which case they did expect the suit to stay quiet as the attorney and his client sought the best financial settlement.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Beck Water

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

27 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Only this part: "In that case, perhaps team Araiza offers a $10,000 settlement to avoid embarrassment, scrutiny, and death threats to simply be done with it, while plaintiff sees the cost to exit under those terms at closer to $75,000."

"In that case" are critical words in that sentence.  In that case involved a plaintiff who viewed the outcome as in question, that is to say, a chance exists that a jury might determine no liability exists on Araiza's part, or on the lower end of the spectrum. If Araiza feels he's being extorted, settlement might well be to avoid "embarrassment, scrutiny and death threats", which from his perspective would be a cash grab.  

 

My point only was that in the case against Araiza, cash may ultimately be the goal.  

 

As I said, it's also possible it's not a cash grab at all, though I would wonder why the plaintiff suggested an apology and donation might have solved his problems.  

 

 

[4merper4mer]

42 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

 

Not sure if I was unclear or if this is just crayonz type stuff, but just to clarify - they should have done this on the day that the victim's attorney contacted them, and should have quickly had enough information to make an informed decision.

Ok well that clears it up a little.  
 

Was Araiza’s name…or anyone’s named in the article?  Did the article have actual information from the internal real police report of an ongoing investigation or just third party information about what was supposedly in the report?  Are you aware of an organization called the NFLPA and rules of engagement to which teams are bound in similar situations?  
 

You are essentially saying, and please tell me if I’m wrong, that the accusations on their own were enough to let him go or at least it would be easy to get to the truth once the allegations triggered the start of the investigation.  Correct?  Yet, the SDPD cannot share information and the college didn’t seem to have a lot because they had to defer to SDPD.  So all information came from either the victim’s lawyer, or Araiza’s lawyer both of whom have proven themselves to be idiots and clearly neither is objective.  Add NFL rules, NFLPA issues, whatever relationship had developed with Araiza and their impression of him as a person, what is certain to be their disgust with the underlying topic and tell me again how this was supposed to be a simple thing to handle?  
 

And please don’t bring up Haack because Araiza or no Araiza it is very possible that he was a goner anyway.

 

In the end, they released him in a way that did not communicate any of their underlying feelings……which would be based on very limited objective information….about his guilt or innocence.  They stated they thought it was best, not only for the team, but for Araiza and all involved to part ways.  They stated that resolving this should be more important for Araiza than football.  If they had communicated their underlying feelings of his guilt or innocence in any way THAT would have been an egregious error.  The mob of moron reporters simply wanted either inside information that the Bills either did not know or are not at liberty to share, or blood.  Giving in to that crap would have been dumb.  
 

Beane did say they made a mistake saying “thorough” when it should have been “ongoing”.  Just guessing here but they may have actually thought they were thorough but they found out they weren’t, or nothing revealed in their initial investigation has been proven wrong at this point.  It is impossible to know here.  What is easy to know is that the press pool has stated several easily refutable things as facts and prescribed what they saw as appropriate remedies based on those supposed facts.  They are idiots.

Edited August 30, 2022 by 4merper4mer

[Gugny]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

"In that case" are critical words in that sentence.  In that case involved a plaintiff who viewed the outcome as in question, that is to say, a chance exists that a jury might determine no liability exists on Araiza's part, or on the lower end of the spectrum. If Araiza feels he's being extorted, settlement might well be to avoid "embarrassment, scrutiny and death threats", which from his perspective would be a cash grab.  

 

My point only was that in the case against Araiza, cash may ultimately be the goal.  

 

As I said, it's also possible it's not a cash grab at all, though I would wonder why the plaintiff suggested an apology and donation might have solved his problems.  

 

 

 

If cash was the goal, wouldn't it have made more sense to do this after he signed a contract with the Bills?