Bills show what a class organization they are

[Fabio9000]

9 hours ago, HamSandwhich said:

Even if what you’re asserting is true. What did they actually say? He admits to having sex with her but does he know she’s underage? Is she someone who would lie about her age? Do you think people need to card everyone they have sex with? It’s not that cut and dry and you know that. 
 

Also, you’re never presumed guilty and then have to prove innocence in the court of law. It’s always the accuser that carry’s the weight of proving guilt. 

What you are pointing out just doesn't matter in the law. It is illegal, period, to have sex with someone under 18 in this instance, regardless of whether you knew the age of the minor. So yes, you're right...presume innocence, always. But it appears that in this case he admitted to statutory, and that's that. What else do we need to know when we have an audio admission of a crime? 

[Niagara Dude]

39 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Hopefully, but the way the plaintiff's lawyer is acting he seems to want to drag the Bills into it, accusing them of negligence and such. I wonder if they file a separate suit against the Bills.

It is possible because her lawyer will get very little from Matt now,  below are his words after Matt was cut,  calling them an enabler but the Bills cut ties so

 

that is not an enabler in my opinion

 

 

Attorney Dan Gilleon, who filed suit on behalf of “Jane Doe,” said in a statement to Times of San Diego:

The Buffalo Bills had no choice but to cut their young punter after so badly botching their response to our claim: they ignored us, as though what I warned them would happen could be avoided if they just kept their heads in the sand. This is what enablers do. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Niagara Dude

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

38 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Hopefully, but the way the plaintiff's lawyer is acting he seems to want to drag the Bills into it, accusing them of negligence and such. I wonder if they file a separate suit against the Bills.

That’s why i don’t understand how people are faulting the bills for not calling back the victim’s lawyer as part of the investigation.
 

 There was no purpose for him to contact the team except to somehow get the team involved in paying to settle the case. The Bills lawyers had to be concerned about any additional communications with him. 

[Fabio9000]

10 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

That’s why i don’t understand how people are faulting the bills for not calling back the victim’s lawyer as part of the investigation.
 

 There was no purpose for him to contact the team except to somehow get the team involved in paying to settle the case. The Bills lawyers had to be concerned about any additional communications with him. 

This probably gets too deep into the nature of corporations and how they behave, but just look at this from a criminal perspective: would you ever conduct a "thorough investigation" of an alleged crime without talking to the alleged victim? I mean, the answer is completely and utterly NO, but in the context of being a corporation that just needs to not look like monsters in the press, I suppose they did the bare minimum that would have avoided additional skewering in the national press. But yeah, if you want to know what happened in a crime you might do well to talk to the people who alleged the crime. 

[Beerball]

10 hours ago, BigDingus said:

I mostly agree, but I'd still pump the breaks just a tiny bit, as we can't confirm for sure what they knew before even drafting him, or how much they knew the past couple months.

 

Some reports suggest other teams were aware of certain things about this case pre-draft (hence the best punting prospect in ages being the 3rd off the board), and others say the Bills were made aware of aspects as early as June.

 

I really don't know, but I'd just caution heaping too much praise right away. Still, they do deserve credit for moving on this quickly, and that is something I 100% support.

So, you’re calling Beane a liar because of “some reports.?”

10 hours ago, UKBillFan said:

The only misstep for me is cutting Haack over Araiza. If they knew this was hanging over the latter, why cut the former when they did?

Only thing I got is that they trusted their guy and the story they gave him. Poor judgement on their part? Oh, yes & Beane admitted as much.

[machine gun kelly]

55 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Hopefully, but the way the plaintiff's lawyer is acting he seems to want to drag the Bills into it, accusing them of negligence and such. I wonder if they file a separate suit against the Bills.

The Bills attorneys will take care of that as they have much deeper pockets.  He’s just trying to increase the noise and  increase the pot of $.  I don’t think they will get Anything from the Bills.    How could they prove the Bills knew anything?  I seriously doubt the Bills put anything in writing, and they can prove they investigated even if it was a

peripheral investigation.

 

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

5 minutes ago, Fabio9000 said:

This probably gets too deep into the nature of corporations and how they behave, but just look at this from a criminal perspective: would you ever conduct a "thorough investigation" of an alleged crime without talking to the alleged victim? I mean, the answer is completely and utterly NO, but in the context of being a corporation that just needs to not look like monsters in the press, I suppose they did the bare minimum that would have avoided additional skewering in the national press. But yeah, if you want to know what happened in a crime you might do well to talk to the people who alleged the crime. 

if you are the cops and are investigating a crime, I agree with you— you talk to the victim And her lawyer.

 

if you are a company that gets a call from a lawyer who is going to file a lawsuit, you probably go on the defensive. I think that’s what happened here. It’s not like that lawyer was calling to be a friend— I suspect he wanted the bills to pay some of the money towards a settlement. 

[marck]

10 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

 

There two well-established, well-moderated threads for discussing this subject. Yours is what's known as a LAMP: "Look At My Post!"

In your opinion.  I was looking at how this front office and coaching staff handled this situation.

 

Since it solicited conversation on the board isnt that the intent.

 

But, you are welcome to never read another topic I start as it so offends you.

[oldmanfan]

The use of the words “thorough investigation” in the original statement was wrong.  Beane admitted as much.  Other than that I don’t  know what could or should have been done differently.

Edited August 28, 2022 by oldmanfan

[Lfod]

It really wasn't that hard for them to move on from this guy. This guy wasn't face of the franchise huge contract commitment. 

 

Glad everyone's popping that victory champagne but pump the brakes on how big of a deal it really was letting him go. 

 

[LeGOATski]

14 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

That’s why i don’t understand how people are faulting the bills for not calling back the victim’s lawyer as part of the investigation.
 

 There was no purpose for him to contact the team except to somehow get the team involved in paying to settle the case. The Bills lawyers had to be concerned about any additional communications with him. 

From the Bills standpoint, all they're lawyers needed to do was say to the victim's lawyer "give us everything you have." It sounds like the victim's lawyer was happy to provide it all and there would've been no reason to get into a room with them.

[Chewmylegoff]

5 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

From the Bills standpoint, all they're lawyers needed to do was say to the victim's lawyer "give us everything you have." It sounds like the victim's lawyer was happy to provide it all and there would've been no reason to get into a room with them.

Why would they need to do this?  The allegations have been set out in detail in the civil suit. 
 

The team wasn’t conducting a criminal investigation, that is for the police to do. The was conducting due diligence on an employee.  I imagine they were essentially assessing whether his account of the incident amounted to sufficient reason to cut him regardless of what he is alleged to have done. 

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, Chewmylegoff said:

Why would they need to do this?  The allegations have been set out in detail in the civil suit. 
 

The team wasn’t conducting a criminal investigation, that is for the police to do. The was conducting due diligence on an employee.  I imagine they were essentially assessing whether his account of the incident amounted to sufficient reason to cut him regardless of what he is alleged to have done. 

Sounds like we're on the same page. All the Bills lawyers needed to do was information gathering.

[DCofNC]

9 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Yeah, it’s real good for Matt.  Lol.  That’s such a bad lie.  

It might be best for MA, if there’s no NFL money to go after, her lawyer may give up a whole lot quicker and it will all be over.  He can then get on with his life or back to the NFL.

[ganesh]

9 hours ago, Mango said:

I don’t think it was a lie. I think Beane actually wants to give him space to manage his legal issues. I get the sense Beane is only releasing Matt because of public perception.
 

McD is the only one in the org who has talked about how horrific this could be. McD seemed legitimately shook the other night. I’d imagine having daughters makes this one difficult for him. 

The 1st assertion is incorrect.  Beane clearly stated that there were additional things in the 11-page Civil suit that was far more serious in nature and that led them to part ways so that Matt could focus on getting his name cleared.    I don't believe any public perception forced them to make this cut (At least I hope that was not the case)

 

Sean definitely was far more shook up than Beane.  I would have expected it the other way around as the hiring of the players is the GM's responsibility

[fergie's ire]

1 hour ago, Fabio9000 said:

What you are pointing out just doesn't matter in the law. It is illegal, period, to have sex with someone under 18 in this instance, regardless of whether you knew the age of the minor. So yes, you're right...presume innocence, always. But it appears that in this case he admitted to statutory, and that's that. What else do we need to know when we have an audio admission of a crime? 

This is from a Callifornia legal blog:  "One of the common defenses is to make an argument you had a belief the victim was not a minor at the time of sexual intercourse. Maybe you believed they were over 18 but were wrong. A good-faith belief the alleged victim was over 18 is a defense to statutory rape."  link   So, the issue is "good faith belief."  If you pick someone outside of high school as classes let out and you claim, "Well, I didn't know she was 18, you would lose.  The example is typically given of a venue that requires entrants to be 18.  If you pick someone up there, it is reasonable to believe they are 18, even if they aren't.  OR, a college party where you expect participants to be college students and you expect college students to be 18....would seem reasonable.  Now, I think the Bills made the right decision and there is a lot troubling about the case.  However, to see that under CA law he is automatically guilty if she was under 18 is factually incorrect.

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, Mango said:

I don’t think it was a lie. I think Beane actually wants to give him space to manage his legal issues. I get the sense Beane is only releasing Matt because of public perception.
 

McD is the only one in the org who has talked about how horrific this could be. McD seemed legitimately shook the other night. I’d imagine having daughters makes this one difficult for him. 

 

He knew a month ago.  Maybe he's shook up because the public heard this story and reacted to them knowing a month ago?

 

7 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

No disrespect, but this is my point.  People keep posting stuff like this that is inaccurate.  Your post here is not accurate, its not your fault, but its not correct.  Your outrage is being guided at incorrect info.  

 

What pat are you claiming is inaccurate?  She went to the cops, then the hospital then the cops had her make a pretext call and they taped it. 

 

27 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

It might be best for MA, if there’s no NFL money to go after, her lawyer may give up a whole lot quicker and it will all be over.  He can then get on with his life or back to the NFL.

 

You think the plaintiff will withdraw the suit now that he's been cut??  If that was true, why did he give the Bills a heads out the suit a month ago, knowing there was a strong possibility the outcome of that was Araiza getting cut?

 

The suit was likely filed to prompt the SDPD, SDC DA to move the criminal case along after a lot of foot dragging.

[CoudyBills]

12 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

 

There two well-established, well-moderated threads for discussing this subject. Yours is what's known as a LAMP: "Look At My Post!"

Are not all posts "look at my post" posts?  Do you have any don't look at my post,  posts?

[hondo in seattle]

As Beane said, they're human and make mistakes.  I'm sure if some reporter does a deep dive into this, they'll find them.  And if it turns out Araiza is 100% innocent, there will be some second-guessing.

In the army we used to talk about the "fog of war."  Even when the situation is cloudy and you don't have all the information you want, you still have to act. 

 

While I may have sought additional intel, I think Beane and McD are good guys who truly tried to do the "right thing" in a bad situation.  I'm personally thankful this duo is in charge of the Bills.

 

[AlCowlingsTaxiService]

I am pleased that they didn’t make their judgements based on the social media justice model and gave a bit more thought to the unfortunate situation