Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

that’s right. There’s also this:

 

“Private citizens are also allowed to utilize these exceptions in a much more limited capacity. In order to use this exception 2 circumstances must be met:

The person recording must be a part of the conversation, this essentially changes California law from an all-party consent state into a single-party consent state.

They must be recording conversations in order to gather evidence that the other party committed one of the following crime: Extortion, kidnapping, bribery, harassing phone calls, or any felony involving violence against another person. This allows you to record conversations in most instances where you feel threatened.”

 

7 minutes ago, mannc said:

Not if it was illegally obtained; can’t be used for any purpose, and in most states an illegal recording is itself a crime.

 

4 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

 

As well as two-party consent.

 

Eleven states require two-party consent, however. In other words, everyone involved in a conversation must agree to be recorded. Those states are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington

 

 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

1 minute ago, SCBills said:

All these people saying “cut him for the culture” not realizing cutting Araiza because Bills podcasters are trying to earn Twitter social justice credits is going to potentially destroy the culture. 
 

Why would anyone want to work for an org that fires people based off allegations?  Well, aside, from a handful of people here who would apparently be ecstatic to do that. 

That’s what I’ve been saying 

[JoPoy88]

3 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

 

As well as two-party consent.

 

Eleven states require two-party consent, however. In other words, everyone involved in a conversation must agree to be recorded. Those states are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington

 

one more time for the peeps in the back:

 

“Law enforcement personnel are allowed to legally record conversations that they are not a party to. Police officers may then legally use this evidence for criminal prosecutions.

 

Private citizens are also allowed to utilize these exceptions in a much more limited capacity. In order to use this exception 2 circumstances must be met:

The person recording must be a part of the conversation, this essentially changes California law from an all-party consent state into a single-party consent state, [and,]

They must be recording conversations in order to gather evidence that the other party committed one of the following crime: Extortion, kidnapping, bribery, harassing phone calls, or any felony involving violence against another person. This allows you to record conversations in most instances where you feel threatened.”

 

exceptions to every law…

[Ghs24mike]

Just now, YoloinOhio said:

That’s what makes this so bizarre. We know the SOP of this regime. Either it’s not what we thought it was or there is more to this story. 

This. The Bills don’t make mistakes like this. They wouldn’t risk their entire organizations reputation for a rookie punter.

 

They must be iron clad in his innocence.

[Cheektowaga Chad]

8 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Yea what the *****? He’s a ***** punter. Should’ve cut bait then.

Agree with this, innocent or guilty

 

The guys a punter

 

On the other hand the bills must believe in him character wise 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Cheektowaga Chad

[BeastMaster]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

No it really isn't. I never suggested taking any of his rights away. I don't think he should be in prison, but he doesn't have an inalienable right to be on a football team either.

 

It's a pretty ***** up perspective you have to have to play devil's advocate here. At a bare minimum he admitted to a felony that would make him a registered sex offender.

 

During the call, Araiza confirmed having sex with her, the lawsuit states, but when she asked him “And did we have actual sex?” he responded “This is Matt Araiza. I don’t remember anything that happened that night” and hung up.

 

This doesn't sound like he admitted to anything

[K D]

Cut him. Who cares? Nobody is going to sign him. If he clears it up bring him back at a later time

[Warcodered]

10 minutes ago, Steel City Mafia said:

 

Seriousness of the case aside Dan Gilleon made himself look like a ***** idiot right here.

[Mrbojanglezs]

After listening to his lawyer and the fact that the bills knew about this for a while and how her lawyer is throwing ***** at the fan on Twitter. I will reserve judgement. Sounds like his lawyer has a lot of contradictory witness testimony. But it does sound like she was raped by someone that night. 

[mannc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

Ok, but if it falls under one of those exceptions, then it wasn’t illegally obtained.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, JoPoy88 said:

one more time for the peeps in the back:

 

“Law enforcement personnel are allowed to legally record conversations that they are not a party to. Police officers may then legally use this evidence for criminal prosecutions.

 

Private citizens are also allowed to utilize these exceptions in a much more limited capacity. In order to use this exception 2 circumstances must be met:

The person recording must be a part of the conversation, this essentially changes California law from an all-party consent state into a single-party consent state, [and,]

They must be recording conversations in order to gather evidence that the other party committed one of the following crime: Extortion, kidnapping, bribery, harassing phone calls, or any felony involving violence against another person. This allows you to record conversations in most instances where you feel threatened.”

 

exceptions to every law…

 

this thread is filled with posters plowing through everything just to make the same errors over and over

[PromoTheRobot]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

That could take hours.  What did I miss?

[Mango]

14 minutes ago, StHustle said:

According to his attorney, the accuser admitted to coming in already drunk and agreed to consensual sex. 
 

I say we all sit back and wait for FACTS to come out before rushing to judgement.

Let me start by saying that I am not a lawyer. Times have changed in many ways for the better. I have a lot of contacts in college athletics and academics. The predominant verbiage I hear is “you can’t give consent when you are drunk”

[sodbuster]

3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

Is it me or do those texts imply the defence attorney wanted to settle out of court?

I thought it was the other way around. The defense had zero intent to settle. 

[YoloinOhio]

4 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I think it means both the plaintiff's lawyer and Araiza's are too intoxicated to give legal consent

Well I know I am *hic*
 

listen I had a long week and was looking for a nice, calm thirsty Thursday night watching the chefs and hoping they suck. Not prepared for Law and Order: San Diego, Bills punter edition 

Edited August 26, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[UKBillFan]

Just now, KDIGGZ said:

Cut him. Who cares? Nobody is going to sign him. If he clears it up bring him back at a later time

If cleared a number of teams will be looking to sign him. Would he return to the one who cut him rather than stand by him?

[John from Riverside]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Seriousness of the case aside Dan Gilleon made himself look like a ***** idiot right here.

It’s making him look like an amateur lawyer

[PromoTheRobot]

1 minute ago, KDIGGZ said:

Cut him. Who cares? Nobody is going to sign him. If he clears it up bring him back at a later time

 

Oh yeah. That'll happen.

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

Is it me or does those texts imply the defence attorney wanted to settle out of court?

 

They seem to imply the plaintiff's (which would be the alleged victim) attorney (which would be Gilleon) wanted to settle out of court

and that Araiza's (the defendent) attorney said "not interested" but then later "well his parents asked me to enquire what figure your client had in mind"

 

I don't see this coming to a good end.

[YoloinOhio]

Just now, UKBillFan said:

If cleared a number of teams will be looking to sign him. Would he return to the one who cut him rather than stand by him?