Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Beast]

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted of statutory rape. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

Edited August 26, 2022 by Beast

[Arkady Renko]

4 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Considering he's posting these all over twitter I'm guessing the plan all along was to try and piss off Ariaza's attorney to get good clips to post down the line.

Yeah, unprofessional.  

[StHustle]

4 minutes ago, mannc said:

The constitution.  States get to make their own laws regarding most criminal offenses. It’s a power the federal govt can’t take away, much as they try.

In some states 16 is perfectly legal…in some it’s 18. This isn’t like carrying a gun that puts everyone at risk. It’s a personal relationship between people that doesn’t endanger the public. My point is it doesn’t make sense regardless of laws in place. Defend the actual laws and not simply the fact the law exists!

[Simon]

1 minute ago, Victory Formation said:

Legality does not constitute morality.

 

Do you think it’s okay for a 70 year old to be  involved with a 19 year old? It’s legal, but is it moral?

 

My true feelings are simple. Araiza was 21, she was 17 and he thought she was 18, that does not make Araiza a predator in my eyes, BUT if this man is knowingly implicit in any way whether directly or indirectly in terms of this young girls rape, he should be charged with the fullest extent of the law.

 

I am on board with all of this but am pretty uncomfortable with the allegation he had unprotected sex with her while knowing he had chlamydia.

That's pretty ***** up.

[appoo]

Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Lawyers being lawyers. I should know, my sister is a lawyer.

I would bet dollars to donuts your sister thinks these two lawyers are morons 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Just now, CountDorkula said:

Again what she said doesn’t matter though. 
 

like I mentioned previous it’s no different than any under age person trying to pretend to be 21 or over to buy alcohol if they are served alcohol by the establishment and that establishment is caught they are charged not the person who lied about their age

Yes, I’m theory. If what Araiza’s lawyer said is true and he didn’t know, historically the NFL doesn’t care. Mark Sanchez bedded a 17 year who lied about her age when he was 25 or 26 and there were no suspensions or legal actions. 
 

Bigger deal, obviously, is the violent gang rape and if it did happen, did he know/participate. I’ve seen conflicting reports.

[JoPoy88]

1 minute ago, Beast said:

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

that’s exactly why his lawyer is making those statements - he’s setting up that defense.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, appoo said:

I would bet dollars to donuts your sister thinks these two lawyers are morons 

Probably lol. I haven’t discussed this with her yet. 

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, jkirchofer said:

She was intoxicated. Right there she is incapable of providing consent.

 

 

Her age makes consent issue irrelevant.  She is incapable of providing consent by law, given her age.

 

He doesn't have to be charged with "gang rape".  If he had sex with her, he can be charged with felony statutory rape.  

[mannc]

1 minute ago, StHustle said:

In some states 16 is perfectly legal…in some it’s 18. This isn’t like carrying a gun that puts everyone at risk. It’s a personal relationship between people that doesn’t endanger the public. My point is it doesn’t make sense regardless of laws in place. Defend the actual laws and not simply the fact the law exists!

I’ll stand by the US Constitution.  It’s worked pretty well.

[appoo]

1 minute ago, Beast said:

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted of statutory rape. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

And this is probably what Matt told the Bills. 
 

Along with the evidence of violence it would not be enough for me, personally.

 

But it’s also reasonable to think that it would be enough for other reasonable, smart and empathetic people.

 

I’m not a moral cop and I don’t care how much you slept around in college so long as you weren’t hurting others while doing so

[StHustle]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Her age makes consent issue irrelevant.  She is incapable of providing consent by law, given her age.

 

He doesn't have to be charged with "gang rape".  If he had sex with her, he can be charged with felony statutory rape.  

Wrong!

 

California is a state that got it right and this should be the case in EVERY state. If it’s proven a minor is lying about her age then why should they become a victim! What was the motive for lying about her age?? 🤔 Stop being a buffoon and taking up for liars that selfishly make themselves out to be of legal age in a way that can ruin someone’s life who had ZERO ill intent???

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by StHustle

[nkreed]

2 minutes ago, Beast said:

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

That's an interesting angle that covers the stat Rape charge, and likely where the Bills and other lawyers are landing. Because, from your link,

 

Contrary to the law in some states, mistake of age is not an affirmative defense in California.[8] This means that the defendant does not have the burden of proving their mistake of age defense. Instead, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually mistaken the alleged victim’s age

[BillsShredder83]

17 minutes ago, Behindenemylines said:

Are you high?

username checks out lol

[BeastMaster]

11 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Again what she is telling people does not matter

 

for another example would if I walked into a grocery store or bar to buy beer and said I was 21. if they sold it to me and I wasn’t 21 that store  or bar would get in a lot of trouble it doesn’t matter what I say. 

A judge or a jury may look at the accuser differently if she was lying about her age the night this apparently took place

 

What else was she not being truthful about if she is lying about her age? There's no telling what her motives could have been.

 

I'm not arguing the legal ramifications of her saying she was 18

 

Not sure why you keep trying to state that I'm saying it matters. I never said that.

 

Just putting out what his lawyer has been saying

[Aaronthebaron]

According to the plaintiff’s attorney, they contacted the Bills about this in late July; that the Bills still cut Haack makes me think this case doesn’t have much merit. Not accusing anyone of lying, just saying there must not be much evidence. 
 

or Haack sucks that bad and they thought a scrub could do the job. Regardless, they knew about this and still cut Haack.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, mannc said:

Apparently not the case in California 

 

You are conflating a mistake of age defense with age of consent.  She cannot consent in the eyes  of the law in California at age 17. 

[T master]

Isn't it amazing how long people sit around with this information & don't press charges but then when they sign a fairly large NFL contract all of the sudden this guy did this ...

 

Innocent until proven guilty  !! 

[Simon]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Her age makes consent issue irrelevant.  She is incapable of providing consent by law, given her age.

 

He doesn't have to be charged with "gang rape".  If he had sex with her, he can be charged with felony statutory rape.  

 

I can't confirm it's correct but this is from the Shouse law group in California :

 

In some states, mistake of age is an affirmative defense. In others, it is not.

Contrary to the law in some states, mistake of age is not an affirmative defense in California.[8] This means that the defendant does not have the burden of proving their mistake of age defense. Instead, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually mistaken the alleged victim’s age.

[ghostwriter]

3 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

I am on board with all of this but am pretty uncomfortable with the allegation he had unprotected sex with her while knowing he had chlamydia.

That's pretty ***** up.

I think it’s great that you point that out Simon, because that shows malicious intent and bad moral character. So if we put two and two together here, Matt Araiza is pond scum.