No criminal charges against Araiza

[BillsShredder83]

19 hours ago, Airseven said:

One wonders if this outcome will be widely and intensely reported🤔🤔

Dont wonder, it wont, thats not news in 2022. News is to tear people down, and when its done, discarded regardless of what happens

[ExiledInIllinois]

46 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Plenty of men have spent a decade or more in prison for crimes they never committed due to this type of crap. Sometimes they are proven innocent by DNA evidence, but sometimes because the witness admitted they gave false testimony...in once case it was because she admitted she "was mad" at the guy in jail and claimed he raped her.  Could you imagine?  Dude sits in jail for 15 years and only gets out because a new defense attorney starts taking a deeper look and noticing the inconsistencies of the statements the accuser made, but only once she is questioned again does she admit they were lies...she would have happily let that man sit in jail the rest of his life and just pretended it didn't happen! Probably never even apologized to him for it.  Of course she doesn't go to jail because the statute of limitations had ran out. And even if she did, what is she going to get? 3 months?

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

[Big Turk]

6 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

 

You got that right...

13 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

Dont wonder, it wont, thats not news in 2022. News is to tear people down, and when its done, discarded regardless of what happens

 

And don't forget...still refuse to believe they are innocent, and still convict them.

[muppy]

Matt Araiza has a tremendous ability to punt a football. Which in the NFL is a commodity teams will  covet. From all I had read publicly the Buffalo Bills as an organization were themselves devastated for not only the circumstances of he being their draft pick. But also for  the alleged victim. I got that impression especially from McDermott during one of his pressers. Giving Araiza time to settle his personal affairs and Not cause an extreme distraction to the football organization was to me a very logical and prudent decision. And Martin was signed and then the issue went off the grid until just now.

 

IMO the Bills releasing him wasn't a pronouncement of his innocence or guilt. It was acting in the best interests of the football team to avoid the constant distraction these allegations would cause.  Th debate isnt wether or not he being on the team would have indeed been a huge distraction. Its a given in view of the state of our media currently correct?

 

Looking forward now that no charges have been filed we shall see if he himself has remained in good physical shape and can be signed to an NFL roster somewhere. He will have to earn it and put this horrible event behind him. I personally dont think allegations however distasteful where no charges are filed will derail his football career.   Since when has the NFL not been able to look past abhorrent activity if the player is good enough on the field? Right? Right.

 

Civil case upcoming. I have no idea how that lands. Maybe I'll be called to be a juror in that case HA. I'd be kicked off the jury. 😏

 

m

[muppy]

19 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Lets not get this twisted.. There are women scorned. And there are women raped. Those 2 descriptions should have nothing to do with each other. IMO  A woman lying about being sexually assaulted is as bad an offense towards a man as being raped is for a woman. It is a Horrible violation both ways.

 

😞

Edited December 8, 2022 by muppy

[BullBuchanan]

10 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

that’s simply not true according to California law but yet you keep pushing it. 
 

i don’t know what happened, just like you don’t know. Yes, on one of the context calls he admitted to sexual contact with the accuser. Doesn’t mean he’s guilty of statutory rape in California. 

He had sex with a minor as an adult. Him not being charged with that crime doesn't change that fact.

[BullBuchanan]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

 

Plenty of men have spent a decade or more in prison for crimes they never committed due to this type of crap. Sometimes they are proven innocent by DNA evidence, but sometimes because the witness admitted they gave false testimony...in once case it was because she admitted she "was mad" at the guy in jail and claimed he raped her.  Could you imagine?  Dude sits in jail for 15 years and only gets out because a new defense attorney starts taking a deeper look and noticing the inconsistencies of the statements the accuser made, but only once she is questioned again does she admit they were lies...she would have happily let that man sit in jail the rest of his life and just pretended it didn't happen! Probably never even apologized to him for it.  Of course she doesn't go to jail because the statute of limitations had ran out. And even if she did, what is she going to get? 3 months?

And hundreds of thousands or even millions more guilty roam free. Look at Danny Masterson. He's definitely guilty, gets a mistrial. Deshaun Watson, definitely guilty, gets a quarter billion dollars instead of going to prison. It took decades - decades - before cases against Weinstein and Cosby were given their due and especially in the case of Cosby there was no shortage of "witch hunt" defenses using the same line of logic you are now.

The criminal justice system is absolutely, without question flawed, but more often than not it's flawed to the benefit of the rich and powerful. Just the other day there was a case about a very famous organization guilty on all 17 counts of fraud and conspiracy over a 15 year reign of crime and they walked away with a $1.6m fine - just a cost of doing business.

This world is filled to the brim with monsters, and many of them never have to face justice.

[Big Turk]

16 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

And hundreds of thousands or even millions more guilty roam free. Look at Danny Masterson. He's definitely guilty, gets a mistrial. Deshaun Watson, definitely guilty, gets a quarter billion dollars instead of going to prison. It took decades - decades - before cases against Weinstein and Cosby were given their due and especially in the case of Cosby there was no shortage of "witch hunt" defenses using the same line of logic you are now.

The criminal justice system is absolutely, without question flawed, but more often than not it's flawed to the benefit of the rich and powerful. Just the other day there was a case about a very famous organization guilty on all 17 counts of fraud and conspiracy over a 15 year reign of crime and they walked away with a $1.6m fine - just a cost of doing business.

This world is filled to the brim with monsters, and many of them never have to face justice.

 

So it's OK to put away innocent people because it all evens out? Bet you'd think differently if you were the innocent person being locked up.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Big Turk

[UKBillFan]

17 hours ago, TC in St. Louis said:

Civil suit appears to be next.  We have a pretty good punter right now.

 

It may be me, and this may result in a strong response, but I loathe something as serious as rape and sexual assault going through civil court. Someone being found 'guilty' of such a serious offence on the balance of probability doesn't sit right with me.

[Gugny]

Just now, Big Turk said:

 

So it's OK to put away innocent people because it all evens out?

 

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, Big Turk said:

 

So it's OK to put away innocent people because it all evens out? Bet you'd think differently if you were the innocent person being locked up.

Never said that, but don't let that stop you starting your strawman argument.

[Doc]

28 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

He had sex with a minor as an adult. Him not being charged with that crime doesn't change that fact.

 

Then why wasn't he charged with statutory rape?

[UKBillFan]

11 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

This is not correct. For any criminal offence in the UK you are liable to be named once you are charged. The argument on sexual assault is should the accused be named given that the alleged victim now has a right to anonymity which remains beyond trial, even in cases where the accused is acquitted. 

 

Given my new role I have to be a little more careful than before about what I say in public fora about elements of UK justice policy, but my views on the slight wrong turn we have made in turning the criminal justice system into what I describe as the victim justice system are well known even on these boards. A lot of well-intentioned policy pursued by Governments of both colours for reasons that are understandable but have ultimately left us with a less objective, more emotionally-charged and ultimately more flawed system. 

 

Thanks for that - was in the right area but not spot on.

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Then why wasn't he charged with statutory rape?

See below:
 

20 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

And hundreds of thousands or even millions more guilty roam free. Look at Danny Masterson. He's definitely guilty, gets a mistrial. Deshaun Watson, definitely guilty, gets a quarter billion dollars instead of going to prison. It took decades - decades - before cases against Weinstein and Cosby were given their due and especially in the case of Cosby there was no shortage of "witch hunt" defenses using the same line of logic you are now.

The criminal justice system is absolutely, without question flawed, but more often than not it's flawed to the benefit of the rich and powerful. Just the other day there was a case about a very famous organization guilty on all 17 counts of fraud and conspiracy over a 15 year reign of crime and they walked away with a $1.6m fine - just a cost of doing business.

This world is filled to the brim with monsters, and many of them never have to face justice.

 

[UKBillFan]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

See below:
 

 

 

Rubbish - he's not rich. Anything but as he's been relased by the Bills.

 

He was acquitted because it was deemed that there was not enough evidence under Californian law to charge him of statutory rape. And there's enough evidence in the public domain to deem at least that decision as fair.

[JoPoy88]

32 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

He had sex with a minor as an adult. Him not being charged with that crime doesn't change that fact.

Sure okay. A 21 year old had sex with a 17 year old. In 40 states that’s perfectly fine by the way. But in California you’re right he could have been charged with statutory rape. Doesn’t mean he’s automatically guilty of it though. Context matters in CA. 

[Big Turk]

10 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Never said that, but don't let that stop you starting your strawman argument.

 

And don't let it stop you from convicting people in the court of public opinion. The law is innocent until proven guilty.  And it's like that precisely because when it's guilty until proven innocent people get railroaded by default most times like in so many other countries with their kangaroo courts.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Big Turk

[BullBuchanan]

9 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

And don't let it stop you from convicting people in the court of public opinion. The law is innocent until proven guilty.  And it's like that precisely because when it's guilty until proven innocent people get railroaded by default most times like in so many other countries with their kangaroo courts.

I won't, just like I'm sure you won't. I'm not sure where you learned this, but the laws that apply to the government are to a higher standard than those held by individuals and private businesses. It's like that on purpose.

Getting away with a crime because there isn't sufficient evidence to get a conviction doesn't make you innocent.

16 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

Sure okay. A 21 year old had sex with a 17 year old. In 40 states that’s perfectly fine by the way. But in California you’re right he could have been charged with statutory rape. Doesn’t mean he’s automatically guilty of it though. Context matters in CA. 

There's been way too much justification of having sex with minors on this board for my taste. You guys keep really hammering on the defense of this that it really makes me question the moral fabric of the people that support this team.

[Big Turk]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

I won't, just like I'm sure you won't. I'm not sure where you learned this, but the laws that apply to the government are to a higher standard than those held by individuals and private businesses. It's like that on purpose.

Getting away with a crime because there isn't sufficient evidence to get a conviction doesn't make you innocent.

 

And being convicted of a crime just because you can't prove you are innocent is preposterous, since that is many times impossible.

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, Big Turk said:

 

And being convicted of a crime just because you can't prove you are innocent is preposterous, since that is many times impossible.

And that's why the law is what it is, so that's unlikely to happen.