Matt Araiza

[4merper4mer]

4 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Due process should be extended for employment matters. It would be nice to have ownership that exemplified American values. 

How do we do due process for punters?  Net yards per kick?  

[Chicken Boo]

4 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Due process should be extended for employment matters. It would be nice to have ownership that exemplified American values. 

 

American values?  From which century?

[Milanos Milano]

Just now, 4merper4mer said:

How do we do due process for punters?  Net yards per kick?  

Lol I dunno, maybe for starters not firing people for allegations? 

[Chaos]

14 hours ago, purple haze said:

It was the decision they needed to make.  
 

1.  We don’t know what the Bills investigation turned up but it’s always possible other information could arise that they couldn’t foresee.

 

2.  It would be a distraction that was bad for the team as a whole.  Players would be asked about it constantly and the players would have no information one way or the other.  An organization is not potentially derailing their season to keep a rookie punter they can’t definitively say is innocent (even if they think he might be).  
 

3.  There most definitely should be legal consequences for any woman who lies about sex crimes.  But I don’t fault the Bills for making the decision they did.

I don't fault them.  I just said they were the Bills decisions. And they knew the consequences of the decisions.  No one owes them anything for the decisions they made.  It appears all 32 NFL teams would have made the same decision. Certainly no one signed him. 

But there is an alternative decision reality.  Bills could have stood behind Araiza, and said, unless he is arrested or otherwise charged as a crime, this is a matter for the San Diego police, not his employer. In 2023, no employers stand up to the social justice mob, so this may not have been realistic.  But in the 50's no one stood up to the McCarthyist black listing until someone said "enough".    The Bills could have been the ones to say "enough".  They played it safe.  Not faulting them. 

 

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Geolocation. 

Geolocation as reported by Yahoo?  The article was not taken from the DA’s account.  It was taken from a person in a meeting likely representing Araiza.  
 

I could say that geolocation put you in the Lucky Charms aisle at Walmart and although there is a good chance this would be true, I still just made it up.  

[Milanos Milano]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Geolocation as reported by Yahoo?  The article was not taken from the DA’s account.  It was taken from a person in a meeting likely representing Araiza.  
 

I could say that geolocation put you in the Lucky Charms aisle at Walmart and although there is a good chance this would be true, I still just made it up.  

It’s out there. The more you know! 

[Starr Almighty]

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

There is a sex tape from these events? The only video I'm aware of is when she was "interviewed" for lack of a better term on the porch of the house party where she seems sober enough and claims to be 18.  Obviously, people who were sober earlier in the evening could be too drunk to give consent later in the evening through continual consumption of alcohol and controlled substances.  

 

EDIT: read the article and there is a lot of video evidence indicating exactly what Doc said.

The video on the porch is from the prior night not the night in question.

[K-9]

19 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Lol no. I’m simply an American that still values traditional American values like due process. 

And it was due process that ultimately proved Araiza wasn’t present at the time of the alleged gang rape. 

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, K-9 said:

As it pertains to Matt Araiza, her lawyer’s best financial target in a civil case, absolutely. The exculpatory evidence showing he wasn't even there at the time of the alleged gang rape cannot be denied and I hope the accuser’s lawyer has the good sense to drop the case against him as, even though the bar for conviction in a civil proceeding is much much lower, the DA’s report makes it a very high hurdle imo.

 

But I don’t think she was lying about the hospital visit, treatment for bruises, bleeding from her *****, the rape kit exam, and the results of that rape kit test released by the SDPD that showed the presence of DNA from multiple sources. Not even her lawyer, whom I blame entirely for the untruths put forth by her, could bull#### that aspect of the story.

 

The last paragraph is why I gave her the BOTD when it came to her allegation that she was gang raped by the other defendants.  The problem is that there is zero evidence for it and evidence to the contrary.

[UKBillFan]

10 minutes ago, Chaos said:

I don't fault them.  I just said they were the Bills decisions. And they knew the consequences of the decisions.  No one owes them anything for the decisions they made.  It appears all 32 NFL teams would have made the same decision. Certainly no one signed him. 

But there is an alternative decision reality.  Bills could have stood behind Araiza, and said, unless he is arrested or otherwise charged as a crime, this is a matter for the San Diego police, not his employer. In 2023, no employers stand up to the social justice mob, so this may not have been realistic.  But in the 50's no one stood up to the McCarthyist black listing until someone said "enough".    The Bills could have been the ones to say "enough".  They played it safe.  Not faulting them. 

 

 

They had to. They had no choice. If Araiza was taken to court mid season, leaving them to scrabble for a punter whilst under pressure from perhaps within as well as from the media and fans, it would be another curveball in a season of horrendous ones (not that they knew how 2022 would pan out). It's a shame rookies cannot go on the exempt list as that would have been the most obvious solution, and perhaps it's something the NFL should look at moving forward.

[4merper4mer]

10 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

It’s out there. The more you know! 

The Araiza thing or the Lucky Charms aisle?  Link for either?

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

The last paragraph is why I gave her the BOTD when it came to her allegation that she was gang raped by the other defendants.  The problem is that there is zero evidence for it and evidence to the contrary.

As it pertains to the defendants in the civil case yes, absolutely. My only point she didn’t seem to lie about going thru a traumatic sexual assault given the hospital report and rape kit results released by the SDPD. 

[BrooklynBills]

17 hours ago, Warcodered said:

I mean if his story from the article is completely accurate and he was taking a leak, and she was BSing her friends when she went back inside, then all he really did was be a name in the general area.

I think the insinuation is that he still had sex with her, only the context is way different than her story of being dragged to the side of the house and forced into a sexual situation.  She's also 17 (or was at the time), although she was lying about her age at the party (apparently this also is on video), which is problematic as far as PR is concerned.

 

I think if he had had no interaction with this woman then the Bills likely do not cut him as he would have been quickly removed from the criminal investigation.  The issue always was that he couldn't remove himself from being investigated and the Bills cut him to be rid of the distraction.

[Real McClappy]

 

3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

 

They had to. They had no choice. If Araiza was taken to court mid season, leaving them to scrabble for a punter whilst under pressure from perhaps within as well as from the media and fans, it would be another curveball in a season of horrendous ones (not that they knew how 2022 would pan out). It's a shame rookies cannot go on the exempt list as that would have been the most obvious solution, and perhaps it's something the NFL should look at moving forward.

The Bills knew about the case before handing Matt a 4yr, 4mill contract though after winning the starting job.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Real McNasty

[birdo67]

5 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

 

They had to. They had no choice. If Araiza was taken to court mid season, leaving them to scrabble for a punter whilst under pressure from perhaps within as well as from the media and fans, it would be another curveball in a season of horrendous ones (not that they knew how 2022 would pan out). It's a shame rookies cannot go on the exempt list as that would have been the most obvious solution, and perhaps it's something the NFL should look at moving forward.

Once again, I just love the use of "whilst."

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Real McNasty said:

 

The Bills knew about the case before handing Matt a 4yr, 4mill contract though after winning the starting job.

 

 

 

True - plus it was in the public domain. Have to wonder about their thought process.

 

The Bills got lucky that Martin was released when he was.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, NUT said:

After his career was ruined by the believe all women mob. They got what they wanted, and it wasn't justice for the "victim".

Certainly his career has been put on hold, but we can’t yet say it’s been ruined forever. Given the DA’s report, there’s good reason for him to be hopeful once the civil suit is either dropped or resolved. 

[Real McClappy]

3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

 

True - plus it was in the public domain. Have to wonder about their thought process.

 

The Bills got lucky that Martin was released when he was.

My guess is the Pegulas cut the cord here? It initially seemed like FO was willing to work through it? Just speculation on my end.

 

I don't fault the Bills for making the cut at that time. I really hope Matt rebounds and has a very special NFL career somewhere. That 82yard preseason bomb is still pretty to watch. 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Real McNasty

[gjv]

If he has been fully exonerated, why not invite him back to compete for the position?

[Doc]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

As it pertains to the defendants in the civil case yes, absolutely. My only point she didn’t seem to lie about going thru a traumatic sexual assault given the hospital report and rape kit results released by the SDPD. 

 

It could be a lie.  It's also possible she may have been roofied.  I don't know but again, there is evidence disproving what she claimed.