Matt Araiza, The Punt God, Signs With Team in Mexico

[Success]

Putting aside the non-sports stuff:  he could have been a game-changing player for the Bills. That one punt was ridiculous - it completely changed field position for both teams.  

 

BUT, I loved the way Martin was able to pin teams deep, and do more directional kicks.  Distance isn't everything.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm good.

 

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, Success said:

Putting aside the non-sports stuff:  he could have been a game-changing player for the Bills. That one punt was ridiculous - it completely changed field position for both teams.  

 

BUT, I loved the way Martin was able to pin teams deep, and do more directional kicks.  Distance isn't everything.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm good.

 

 

He had one punt...in preseason game 1, against scrubs.   It was a touchback.

 

Martin is the perfect Punter for the Bills.  20th in % inside the 20 and 12th in net yards. Only punted 45 times.

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Cool! tell us where in the (US) Constitution, the words "innocent until proven guilty" appear.  You probably have the whole document memorized from that elementary school that gave birth to your penchant for Constitutional scholarship.

 

Let's hear it---"school" us.  

 

 

Copy paste insert 5th 6th 8th and part of 14 amendment.

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, boyst said:

Copy paste insert 5th 6th 8th and part of 14 amendment.

 

 

Took you a long time to look that up...nice try, but no.  it's not in there either.  all provided for more protections for the accused, but none presumed innocence.

 

That phrase was given birth (in terms of legal precedence by the Supreme Court) in a landmark case Coffin v US in 1894.

 

Keep looking!

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

There you go.  Obviously the more serious of the allegations....

 

Is it "unbelievable" because the Matt Araiza you know would never even consider such an act?

 

Not telling the Bills is "reprehensible"--they almost certainly would NOT have drafted him had they known.  He hid it, thus forcing them to take massive heat, looking  foolish for the entire, albeit brief, period this kid was on the team.   It was all avoidable.

 

Yes, teams have Punters----a position so valuable that every team  hopes in  every game to use as little as possible. Good point!

 

And the Matt Araiza you know would even consider such an act?  Or only because...you believe he's a statutory rapist?  See how that works?

 

The initial story sounded bad (they always do).  But I knew from the moment I heard her claim she told him she was 17 that she was a liar.  And that if she was willing to lie to get him into legal trouble for statutory rape, she most definitely could be lying about him being involved in the gang rape.  So far nothing I've seen has made me change my mind.  But rest assured, if during the civil trial the plaintiff's attorney magically produces evidence she told him she was 17 and/or that someone/anyone saw him participate in the gang rape, I'll give my mea culpa.  But I don't think I'll be needing to do that.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

And the Matt Araiza you know would even consider such an act?  Or only because...you believe he's a statutory rapist?  See how that works?

 

The initial story sounded bad (they always do).  But I knew from the moment I heard her claim she told him she was 17 that she was a liar.  And that if she was willing to lie to get him into legal trouble for statutory rape, she most definitely could be lying about him being involved in the gang rape.  So far nothing I've seen has made me change my mind.  But rest assured, if during the civil trial the plaintiff's attorney magically produces evidence she told him she was 17 and/or that someone/anyone saw him participate in the gang rape, I'll give my mea culpa.  But I don't think I'll be needing to do that.

 

Obviously, I have no idea what he's capable of, so I would not say he's actually innocent or guilty-- I (you, all of us) have no basis for such a declaration--especially regarding his involvement (or not) in a gang rape.  You have said he's innocent, based on how you feel about all this.  Ok...

 

I'm pretty sure the trouble she went to the cops about was not that he had sex with a 17 year old, but was sexually assaulted. Obviously if all that happened was consensual sex against the outside wall off the house, this would never have been a story.  I'm sure there is no shortage of underage of underage HS kids hooking up with college athletes at college parties all over the country ("reprehensible", I know!!!).

 

So if she lied about her age to get with a college football star, then everything else has to be a lie?  And if she added a year to her age, she has to be lying about being gang raped by a bunch of players?  Why should that always follow?  How does that work?

 

 

 

 

[boyst]

52 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Took you a long time to look that up...nice try, but no.  it's not in there either.  all provided for more protections for the accused, but none presumed innocence.

 

That phrase was given birth (in terms of legal precedence by the Supreme Court) in a landmark case Coffin v US in 1894.

 

Keep looking!

... The foundations of which were built by the US constitution, you goober. 

 

Road scholar, eh? 

42 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Obviously, I have no idea what he's capable of, so I would not say he's actually innocent or guilty-- I (you, all of us) have no basis for such a declaration--especially regarding his involvement (or not) in a gang rape.  You have said he's innocent, based on how you feel about all this.  Ok...

 

I'm pretty sure the trouble she went to the cops about was not that he had sex with a 17 year old, but was sexually assaulted. Obviously if all that happened was consensual sex against the outside wall off the house, this would never have been a story.  I'm sure there is no shortage of underage of underage HS kids hooking up with college athletes at college parties all over the country ("reprehensible", I know!!!).

 

So if she lied about her age to get with a college football star, then everything else has to be a lie?  And if she added a year to her age, she has to be lying about being gang raped by a bunch of players?  Why should that always follow?  How does that work?

 

 

 

 

See, you take this personal. Doc nor I do. We don't give a ***** about Matt Araiza. I barely know if that's his name. We care about the values and system for which our society should work. 

 

We are tired of the #woke #cancel #metoo.

[Mr. WEO]

21 minutes ago, boyst said:

... The foundations of which were built by the US constitution, you goober. 

 

Road scholar, eh? 

See, you take this personal. Doc nor I do. We don't give a ***** about Matt Araiza. I barely know if that's his name. We care about the values and system for which our society should work. 

 

We are tired of the #woke #cancel #metoo.

So a concept which entered legal status over 100 years after the Constitution was signed means it’s “in the Constitution” (which you “read in elementary school”). 
 

Lol, yeah, that’s what I figured…

[QCity]

22 minutes ago, boyst said:

 

Road scholar, eh? 

 

 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Obviously, I have no idea what he's capable of, so I would not say he's actually innocent or guilty-- I (you, all of us) have no basis for such a declaration--especially regarding his involvement (or not) in a gang rape.  You have said he's innocent, based on how you feel about all this.  Ok...

 

I'm pretty sure the trouble she went to the cops about was not that he had sex with a 17 year old, but was sexually assaulted. Obviously if all that happened was consensual sex against the outside wall off the house, this would never have been a story.  I'm sure there is no shortage of underage of underage HS kids hooking up with college athletes at college parties all over the country ("reprehensible", I know!!!).

 

So if she lied about her age to get with a college football star, then everything else has to be a lie?  And if she added a year to her age, she has to be lying about being gang raped by a bunch of players?  Why should that always follow?  How does that work?

 

Look, the DA refused to press any charges, even statutory rape against Araiza, when he easily could have been charged since he admitted to having sex with her and she was 17 at the time.  That tells me that anything she claimed about the encounter outside being rape, statutory or otherwise, was refuted by witnesses.  And no it doesn't mean that everything else also has to be a lie (nice try), but puts the burden of proof on her to prove her claim that he was involved in the gang rape.

 

We may learn more during the civil trial.  But if not, I'm sure Araiza's attorney will present the proof he has that Araiza wasn't even at the house when the gang rape occurred.  But again if proof exists that he participated in it, I'll admit it was wrong.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Doc

[boyst]

4 hours ago, QCity said:

 

Tbdism

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Look, the DA refused to press any charges, even statutory rape against Araiza, when he easily could have been charged since he admitted to having sex with her and she was 17 at the time.  That tells me that anything she claimed about the encounter outside being rape, statutory or otherwise, was refuted by witnesses.  And no it doesn't mean that everything else also has to be a lie (nice try), but puts the burden of proof on her to prove her claim that he was involved in the gang rape.

 

We may learn more during the civil trial.  But if not, I'm sure Araiza's attorney will present the proof he has that Araiza wasn't even at the house when the gang rape occurred.  But again if proof exists that he participated in it, I'll admit it was wrong.

 

In California, he couldn't charge that is she is on tape lying about her age, doc.  You already knew this.  Why mention it?

 

As you well know, the burden is on the DA, and as is true in 75% of such cases in that particular county, the DA didn't see a way to a clear win for the office so it didn't charge.  You and I have no idea as to how they came to that decision, but they did--it has nothing to do with innocence.  You know this. 

 

Do you conclude, given this data, that 75% of allegations  of sexual assault in that county are determined by the DA to be simply fabrications against actually innocent defendants?  

[StHustle]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

In California, he couldn't charge that is she is on tape lying about her age, doc.  You already knew this.  Why mention it?

 

As you well know, the burden is on the DA, and as is true in 75% of such cases in that particular county, the DA didn't see a way to a clear win for the office so it didn't charge.  You and I have no idea as to how they came to that decision, but they did--it has nothing to do with innocence.  You know this. 

 

Do you conclude, given this data, that 75% of allegations  of sexual assault in that county are determined by the DA to be simply fabrications against actually innocent defendants?  

There is also a thing called common sense. How was she gang raped with her friends patiently waiting on her to finish getting raped before they take her where? Home. Not to the police, not to the hospital. Instead that happens the next day.

 

I’ve heard of too many cases where kids get caught in sexual acts and lie saying they were raped to avoid getting in trouble. The girl is a proven liar and underage drinker who went to a college party open to hooking up with grown men. Does that mean she deserves to be raped? Of course not. But it certainly calls her character into question and the validity of any of her claims. She later admitted to consensually having sex OUTSIDE. Her actions scream young lying slut. How anyone can give her the benefit of the doubt and believe her claims over college kids who had no record of such behavior is beyond me. I can see if Araiza lied about even having sex with her but from all I heard, he didn’t lie about a thing nor did anything knowingly illegal. Yet she has proven to be a liar and willing to break the law, yet some people insist on believing her. How does that make sense???

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, StHustle said:

There is also a thing called common sense. How was she gang raped with her friends patiently waiting on her to finish getting raped before they take her where? Home. Not to the police, not to the hospital. Instead that happens the next day.

 

I’ve heard of too many cases where kids get caught in sexual acts and lie saying they were raped to avoid getting in trouble. The girl is a proven liar and underage drinker who went to a college party open to hooking up with grown men. Does that mean she deserves to be raped? Of course not. But it certainly calls her character into question and the validity of any of her claims. She later admitted to consensually having sex OUTSIDE. Her actions scream young lying slut. How anyone can give her the benefit of the doubt and believe her claims over college kids who had no record of such behavior is beyond me. I can see if Araiza lied about even having sex with her but from all I heard, he didn’t lie about a thing nor did anything knowingly illegal. Yet she has proven to be a liar and willing to break the law, yet some people insist on believing her. How does that make sense???

 

 

How unusual is that?  Probably not very.

 

As for Araiza, in a pretext phone call, her first admitted having sex with her (telling her he may have given her chlamydia, even), then, later in the call he lied and said "I don't remember anything that happened that night".  There's your boy...

 

DA doesn't charge or not charge based on your "common sense"---your conclusion is that the DA and the cops got together, reviewed al the evidence and concluded she's just a "you lying slut"?

 

look at you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StHustle]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

How unusual is that?  Probably not very.

 

As for Araiza, in a pretext phone call, her first admitted having sex with her (telling her he may have given her chlamydia, even), then, later in the call he lied and said "I don't remember anything that happened that night".  There's your boy...

 

DA doesn't charge or not charge based on your "common sense"---your conclusion is that the DA and the cops got together, reviewed al the evidence and concluded she's just a "you lying slut"?

 

look at you!

 

They concluded she has zero credibility and even the facts they uncovered aren’t enough to overcome this in the court of law. No jury would believe her story. How is that not enough to give Araiza the benefit of the doubt is beyond me. False accusations are a real thing and this plaintiff surely fits the profile.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

In California, he couldn't charge that is she is on tape lying about her age, doc.  You already knew this.  Why mention it?

 

As you well know, the burden is on the DA, and as is true in 75% of such cases in that particular county, the DA didn't see a way to a clear win for the office so it didn't charge.  You and I have no idea as to how they came to that decision, but they did--it has nothing to do with innocence.  You know this. 

 

Do you conclude, given this data, that 75% of allegations  of sexual assault in that county are determined by the DA to be simply fabrications against actually innocent defendants?  

 

Why mention that if she's a proven liar about statutory rape that she could be lying about his involvement in the gang rape?  Gee, I don't know WEO.  It's a puzzler...

 

As for sexual assault in general, many are cases where there are no witnesses or video of the event and it's a "he-said, she-said" thing, which yes, are hard to prove and not worth the DA's time.  But again, in this case, we have evidence of her lying about the statutory rape part, and I'll bet there is evidence he wasn't even at the house when the rape occurred, which we'll find out later.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Doc

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

19 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

He had one punt...in preseason game 1, against scrubs.   It was a touchback.

 

Didn’t we punt it from inside our own 20? Just saying there are times where a touchback is okay. That would be one of those times. 
 

 

[Mr. WEO]

4 hours ago, StHustle said:

They concluded she has zero credibility and even the facts they uncovered aren’t enough to overcome this in the court of law. No jury would believe her story. How is that not enough to give Araiza the benefit of the doubt is beyond me. False accusations are a real thing and this plaintiff surely fits the profile.

 

 

Zero?  This is what they said?  She's a lying slut therefore has zero credibility?

 

Link?

 

Anyway, you're not giving him "the benefit of the doubt", you and your bro doc are declaring actually innocent, without a doubt.

 

 

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Why mention that if she's a proven liar about statutory rape that she could be lying about his involvement in the gang rape?  Gee, I don't know WEO.  It's a puzzler...

 

As for sexual assault in general, many are cases where there are no witnesses or video of the event and it's a "he-said, she-said" thing, which yes, are hard to prove and not worth the DA's time.  But again, in this case, we have evidence of her lying about the statutory rape part, and I'll bet there is evidence he wasn't even at the house when the rape occurred, which we'll find out later.

 

Is there a "statutory rape kit"?  Is that what was administered?

 

Anyway, the only reason he was not charged with statutory rape it that it is his good fortune to live in a state that allows for a "hey, she told me she was of age!!" defense.  For a guy with nothing to worry about, wouldn't his lawyer reach out for a settlement amount at the beginning of August?  If this was just a shakedown, why did this happen (from texts released by the plaintiff's lawyer)?

 

"Armstrong then says that Araiza’s parents had inquired about the monetary amount Gilleon's client wanted and warns that if Gilleon “keeps calling the Bills and he gets cut, there will be no money to get.”

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

Didn’t we punt it from inside our own 20? Just saying there are times where a touchback is okay. That would be one of those times. 
 

 

 

I mean, I guess. 

[StHustle]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

Anyway, the only reason he was not charged with statutory rape it that it is his good fortune to live in a state that allows for a "hey, she told me she was of age!!" defense.  For a guy with nothing to worry about, wouldn't his lawyer reach out for a settlement amount at the beginning of August?

Dude what alternate reality do you live in??? You’re a college kid at a college party and a girl who looks like all the other college girls wants to have sex with you (and it was proven she was telling people she attended a nearby college)…WHO ASKS FOR PROOF??? I could see if she looked really young. Nobody felt the need to assume she was lying. You think he should be labeled a sexual predator and have to register as a sex offender for life because of this??? What is wrong with you man???

 

And because of people like YOU is exactly why people like to settle out of court and hush false accusers because they know if their false accusations go public then it ends up like exactly what happened to Araiza. Guilty or not. So to assume guilt cause they tried to settle shows how naive you are and have little grip on the real world and what being fair as possible means.