Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

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

I think one possibility is that the lawyer was seeking cash but that the client saw cash as secondary and Araiza being held accountable as primary.  I’m not sure how we’re supposed to know motivations outside of guessing, but this is one of the possibilities.  One thing I do know: whatever the objective, her lawyer is an absolute moron and Araiza’s is at best two points higher on the IQ scale.

[Captain Caveman]

7 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

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 then 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 i 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.

 

I am saying the below article, available in June, along with the details that were included in the victim's attorney to the Bills (including details of the police led phone conversation between Araiza and the victim) should have been enough information for them to make this decision earlier.

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-03/sdsu-san-diego-state-football-players-claim-rape-girl

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

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

You are assuming MA is the only/prime target of the litigation.  I'm not so inclined. 

 

I also have no idea what assets are in play, who the parties are to litigation, whether or not there are other defendants the plaintiff may add later on or anything else.  If I were to assume cash grab--and I'm not--then the decision to supersize the lawsuit into a national story by involving a guy called "the punt God", the Buffalo Bills and an NFL not exactly known for championing women's rights cannot be underestimated.  

 

How do you reconcile the comments made by the plaintiff that an apology and donation may have solved the problem for Araiza? Does that make any sense to you given what has been alleged?  

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

6 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

It's my understanding that Araiza/family offered a settlement before he was drafted and that the victim/her attorney declined.

 

 

I believe there were settlement offers presented by each side at various points…none of the lawyers actions on either side make any sense to me though so maybe I am just confused lol 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

 

I am saying the below article, available in June, along with the details that were included in the victim's attorney to the Bills (including details of the police led phone conversation between Araiza and the victim) should have been enough information for them to make this decision earlier.

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-03/sdsu-san-diego-state-football-players-claim-rape-girl

That article contained a grand total of zero names.

 

So you’re agreeing that the only person naming Araiza was the victims’s attorney?

 

The article, unless I missed it, did not mention the police phone call.  So again, the only source was the victim’s attorney and his statement about the existence and content of the phone call?  
 

The SDPD was certainly not going to share any names or details about the above.  The school probably knew half of what the police knew and they were not at liberty to share it.  Araiza and his team apparently denied all of it.  So, it really doesn’t seem to me that the investigation would have been all that easy if they were seeking the truth.  What am I missing?  What would have made it easy or even realistically possible to discern enough objective truth to make an informed decision quickly?  

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

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. 

 

I keep hearing this.  Has Araiza admitted this?  And even if he did, unless he told his teammates where she was and/or to rape her (by them saying he did), he has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to make sure she's safe inside the house, especially since it wasn't his.  

Edited August 30, 2022 by Doc

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 hours 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?

sure lay the blame on the girl. 
 

When I was legal I dated no on under the 18.  Period. 
I made that clear to everyone. 

 

16 years old gets you 20 years in the slammer 
 

man o man. I hope you teach you daughter a valuable lesson about lying about one’s age. 
 

2 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

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

 

 

same applies to you Doc. 
 

[Captain Caveman]

11 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

That article contained a grand total of zero names.

 

So you’re agreeing that the only person naming Araiza was the victims’s attorney?

 

The article, unless I missed it, did not mention the police phone call.  So again, the only source was the victim’s attorney and his statement about the existence and content of the phone call?  
 

The SDPD was certainly not going to share any names or details about the above.  The school probably knew half of what the police knew and they were not at liberty to share it.  Araiza and his team apparently denied all of it.  So, it really doesn’t seem to me that the investigation would have been all that easy if they were seeking the truth.  What am I missing?  What would have made it easy or even realistically possible to discern enough objective truth to make an informed decision quickly?  

 

 

 

The article makes it clear that there is a credible accusation of gang rape at SDSU and that athletes (and people on the football team) knew about it.  The victim's attorney gave details about a phone conversation monitored by police where Araiza came off looking very guilty.  Did the police confirm these recordings to the Bills?  Probably not, but to me it seems exceptionally risky for the Bills to not take that claim at face value, if the attorney is claiming this was a police led phone call.

 

I'm not saying this is enough proof to convict him - I am saying IMO this should have been enough for the Bills to move on - in the end, what was the new information that came out after Thursday that they didn't have back in July?

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

sure lay the blame on the girl. 
 

When I was legal I dated no on under the 18.  Period. 
I made that clear to everyone. 

 

16 years old gets you 20 years in the slammer 
 

man o man. I hope you teach you daughter a valuable lesson about lying about one’s age. 
 

same applies to you Doc. 

 

Same what applies to me?

 

 

1 minute ago, Captain Caveman said:

The article makes it clear that there is a credible accusation of gang rape at SDSU and that athletes (and people on the football team) knew about it.  The victim's attorney gave details about a phone conversation monitored by police where Araiza came off looking very guilty.  Did the police confirm these recordings to the Bills?  Probably not, but to me it seems exceptionally risky for the Bills to not take that claim at face value, if the attorney is claiming this was a police led phone call.

 

I'm not saying this is enough proof to convict him - I am saying IMO this should have been enough for the Bills to move on - in the end, what was the new information that came out after Thursday that they didn't have back in July?

 

 

Guilty of the gang rape?  

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Just a sidebar for reference to an earlier time. 

 

Here's the famous picture from the Kent State shootings in May of 1970:

Guess how old the female that's over the deceased is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you need help... She was 14 in this picture.  Yup 14!

Lightweight! 😉 😜 😘 

not atoll 

 

now I can comment on people w/o having posts deleted or be put on vacation  

[Captain Caveman]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

Guilty of the gang rape?  

 

 

Guilty of having sex with an underage girl who said she was drunk beyond the point of consent and raped.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Same what applies to me?

 

 

 

 

Guilty of the gang rape?  

 

 

for boys. Keep it in your pants 

 

for girls. HS’ers messing with college boys = trouble 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by SlimShady'sSpaceForce

[Doc]

31 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

Guilty of having sex with an underage girl who said she was drunk beyond the point of consent and raped.

 

He admitted to having sex with her, but not that she was drunk beyond the point of consent or that she admitted to being underage.

 

30 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

for boys. Keep it in your pants 

 

for girls. HS’ers messing with college boys = trouble 

 

Araiza was 21.  When should boys stop keeping it in their pants? 

 

And a 17-year old HS girl going to a college party, drinking and telling people she's 18 is looking for something.  In no way am I saying she deserved to be gang raped, but trying to hide behind statutory rape laws to get him into trouble for consensual sex is unacceptable.  If he took part in the gang rape though, he deserves to be prosecuted.

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Doc

[Gugny]

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He admitted to having sex with her, but not that she was drunk beyond the point of consent or that she admitted to being underage.

 

 

Araiza was 21.  When should boys stop keeping it in their pants? 

 

And a 17-year old HS girl going to a college party, drinking and telling people she's 18 is looking for something.  In no way am I saying she deserved to be gang raped, but trying to hide behind statutory rape laws to get him into trouble for consensual sex is unacceptable.  If he took part in the gang rape though, he deserves to be prosecuted.

 

 

I don't understand what you mean by this and am asking for clarification, please.

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, Gugny said:

I don't understand what you mean by this and am asking for clarification, please.

 

I'm talking about the consensual encounter outside the house only.  Not the gang rape.  It's obvious she/her lawyer are trying to nail him for statutory rape.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Doc

[aristocrat]

1 hour ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

sure lay the blame on the girl. 
 

When I was legal I dated no on under the 18.  Period. 
I made that clear to everyone. 

 

16 years old gets you 20 years in the slammer 
 

man o man. I hope you teach you daughter a valuable lesson about lying about one’s age. 
 

same applies to you Doc. 
 

can you point to where I blamed the girl?  I did no such thing.  

[Captain Caveman]

28 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

trying to hide behind statutory rape laws

 

 

WTF

 

 

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 It's obvious she/her lawyer are trying to nail him for statutory rape.

 

Her claim is that she was ordered to perform a sex act, was too drunk to consent, and was then passed around by multiple attackers afterwards.  The statutory rape is a part of it, but I don't really understand why you're focusing on it.

[4merper4mer]

58 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

 

The article makes it clear that there is a credible accusation of gang rape at SDSU and that athletes (and people on the football team) knew about it.  The victim's attorney gave details about a phone conversation monitored by police where Araiza came off looking very guilty.  Did the police confirm these recordings to the Bills?  Probably not, but to me it seems exceptionally risky for the Bills to not take that claim at face value, if the attorney is claiming this was a police led phone call.

 

I'm not saying this is enough proof to convict him - I am saying IMO this should have been enough for the Bills to move on - in the end, what was the new information that came out after Thursday that they didn't have back in July?

The new information Thursday, as stated explicitly multiple times by Beane, was that a formal civil case had now actually been filed.  It was an 11 page document.  Before this they had accusations, which were apparently denied by Araiza and no formal legal filing of civil or criminal nature.  
 

So by your standards an informal unverified report from an adversarial attorney should be enough to part ways with a player?  And that is supposed to hold up against NFLPA scrutiny?  And it will have no impact if these things turn out false?  If so, where do you draw the line?  
 

Do you still support the Bills drafting of Allen?  He was accused of saying some incredibly racist things on the eve of the draft.  They turned out to be 100% false but who’s to say the Bills knew they were false when they picked him?  Even if they were as bad as advertised, gang rape is obviously worse, I’ll grant you that.  So where is the line drawn?  Somewhere between racist tweets and gang rape for sure, but where?

[Captain Caveman]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

The new information Thursday, as stated explicitly multiple times by Beane, was that a formal civil case had now actually been filed.  It was an 11 page document.  Before this they had accusations, which were apparently denied by Araiza and no formal legal filing of civil or criminal nature.  
 

So by your standards an informal unverified report from an adversarial attorney should be enough to part ways with a player?  And that is supposed to hold up against NFLPA scrutiny?  And it will have no impact if these things turn out false?  If so, where do you draw the line?  
 

Do you still support the Bills drafting of Allen?  He was accused of saying some incredibly racist things on the eve of the draft.  They turned out to be 100% false but who’s to say the Bills knew they were false when they picked him?  Even if they were as bad as advertised, gang rape is obviously worse, I’ll grant you that.  So where is the line drawn?  Somewhere between racist tweets and gang rape for sure, but where?

 

If that's the case why did they come out on Thursday and say they had already performed a thorough investigation and made it seem like they intended to keep him on the team?

[Gugny]

9 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

 So where is the line drawn?  Somewhere between racist tweets and gang rape for sure, but where?

 

Craigslist masseuse handys?