Matt Araiza

[BillsFanForever19]

46 minutes ago, QCity said:

 

Yes, there is video that the DA has watched. I'm posting quotes from the articles because it's clearly obvious many are simply too lazy to read them.

 

“Prosecutors said the footage from the cell phone of the sexual encounters did not suggest any forced behavior. “There’s nothing in the videos that sound like you’re saying ‘stop’ or ‘this hurts’ or anything like that,” Ted Mansour, an investigator for the San Diego County district attorney’s office, said at the meeting.

Prosecutors also said that videos from the bedroom show that her piercings were not ripped at the time and she was not bleeding from any wounds from it. “I don’t see any elements of force being used in the sexual encounters,” Assistant District Attorney Amador said.”

 

 

Multiple witnesses at the party heard her saying “I want you to [expletive] me and if you don’t [expletive] me you’re a [expletive].” and you are bothered by the "asking for it mentality?" She wasn't asking for it, she was literally demanding it.

 

 

I was asking if the videos they have include the alleged "gang rape" incident or if they were of other encounters she had.

 

What i'm saying is just because she said those things to one person and was consenting to one or more people, doesn't mean she was openly consenting to literally anyone and everyone in whatever fashion they deemed fit at the party, whenever they wanted it.

 

That's where i'm uncomfortable with the "she was acting like a slut and asking for it" mentality floating around. Regardless of what she was saying to others, it doesn't mean she was saying "please, literally anyone here, do whatever you want, whenever you want with me". 

 

She could act promiscuous with others and still be raped by someone else (or multiple others), in the same night. One does not preclude the other from possibly happening.

Edited May 10, 2023 by BillsFanForever19

[phypon]

4 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

I was asking if the videos they have include the alleged "gang rape" incident or if they were of other encounters she had.

 

What i'm saying is just because she said those things to one person and was consenting to one or more people, doesn't mean she was openly consenting to literally anyone and everyone in whatever fashion they deemed fit at the party, whenever they wanted it. She could act promiscuous with others and still be raped by someone else (or multiple others). 

 

That's where i'm uncomfortable with the "she was acting like a slut and asking for it" mentality floating around. Regardless of what she was saying to others, it doesn't mean she was saying "please, literally anyone here, rape me". 

The information you are looking for is literally in the post you quoted.

[BillsFanForever19]

1 minute ago, phypon said:

The information you are looking for is literally in the post you quoted.

 

It says they have videos of her having encounters, in which her jewelry was in tact. It does not make clear whether or not those encounters include the multi-man gang rape she alleged to have happened. 

[phypon]

1 minute ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

It says they have videos of her having encounters, in which her jewelry was in tact. It does not make clear whether or not those encounters include the multi-man gang rape she alleged to have happened. 

They are referring to that night specifically.

[chongli]

1 hour ago, prissythecat said:

 

a sixth round pick?   thats hardly worth crying about.   

 

Gary Anderson was drafted by Buffalo in the 7th round in 1982, when they were 12 rounds. He sandbagged his way out of Buffalo and got cut in the pre-season, only to go on to Pittsburgh and become one of the greatest kickers in NFL history. But he was just a 7th round pick, so nothing to cry about. I am so glad we got Scott Norwood a few years later instead. He did so much better. He kicked the game-winning walk-off field goal for us in SB XXV!, our first of four straight Super Bowl wins!

 

Oh wait...

Edited May 10, 2023 by chongli

[BillsFanForever19]

5 minutes ago, phypon said:

They are referring to that night specifically.

 

Omg, I understand that.

 

What I'm trying to get across here is that just because she consented with one or more other people doesn't mean she consented with anyone and everyone whenever and however they wanted that night.

 

That's why I'm asking if the videos they have are of the alleged gang rape. Just because they have video of other encounters of her consenting doesn't mean she couldn't have been possibly raped by someone else in a different encounter?

 

Is the video(s) of the supposed 3 man encounter or are they of other acts. Promiscuous acts and statements with others doesn't discount the possibility of non consensual acts with someone (or multiple someone's) else.

 

That's where I'm uncomfortable with the verbage and mentality. "She was literally asking for it" doesn't make physically taking advantage of someone okay. Her words and mentality could have easily made her a prime target because "who would believe her?". It's Law and Order SVU 101.

Edited May 10, 2023 by BillsFanForever19

[NoSaint]

12 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

I was asking if the videos they have include the alleged "gang rape" incident or if they were of other encounters she had.

 

What i'm saying is just because she said those things to one person and was consenting to one or more people, doesn't mean she was openly consenting to literally anyone and everyone in whatever fashion they deemed fit at the party, whenever they wanted it.

 

That's where i'm uncomfortable with the "she was acting like a slut and asking for it" mentality floating around. Regardless of what she was saying to others, it doesn't mean she was saying "please, literally anyone here, do whatever you want, whenever you want with me". 

 

She could act promiscuous with others and still be raped by someone else (or multiple others), in the same night. One does not preclude the other from possibly happening.

she can say no at any point and have the dynamic instantly change 

 

unfortunately not only did she accuse someone falsely, she had her attorney publicly try to wreck the guy in the most destructive manner possible. 
 

I don’t know if at some point she said no. I don’t feel comfortable giving her carte Blanche to accuse without more concrete information either though. It’s an unfortunate situation all around. 

[ScorpionZero]

24 minutes ago, Bills Bud said:

 

He admitted to having sex with a minor. No thanks.

Have you ever id'd a girl before hooking up. Cause I'm guessing if you did, you didn't hook up. Maybe they should have an app that uses the NFC in phones to check peoples ages you come in close enough contact with. 

[BillsFanForever19]

3 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

she can say no at any point and have the dynamic instantly change 

 

unfortunately not only did she accuse someone falsely, she had her attorney publicly try to wreck the guy in the most destructive manner possible. 
 

I don’t know if at some point she said no. I don’t feel comfortable giving her carte Blanche to accuse without more concrete information either though. It’s an unfortunate situation all around. 

 

Thank you!

 

I'm not saying she isn't a liar. But I'm not comfortable saying nothing could have possibly happened to her simply based on her "acting like a slut", as many have so eloquently put it.

 

As you said, she could have acted like that, but if she said "no" at any time with anyone and if they didn't, recorded or not, she was raped. Regardless of how she was acting with others.

 

That's where I'm uncomfortable with the totality of calling her a liar simply based on other instances that happened throughout the night and my questioning of whether or not the videos they do have are of THE alleged incident or of others.

Edited May 10, 2023 by BillsFanForever19

[phypon]

5 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

Omg, I understand that.

 

What I'm trying to get across here is that just because she consented with one or more other people doesn't mean she consented with anyone and everyone whenever and however they wanted that night.

 

That's why I'm asking if the videos they have are of the alleged gang rape. Just because they have video of other encounters of her consenting doesn't mean she couldn't have been possibly raped by someone else in a different encounter?

 

Is the video(s) of the supposed 3 man encounter or are they of other acts. Promiscuous acts and statements with others doesn't discount the possibility of non consensual acts with someone (or multiple someone's) else.

 

That's where I'm uncomfortable with the verbage and mentality. "She was literally asking for it" doesn't make physically taking advantage of someone okay. Her words and mentality could have easily made her a prime target because "who would believe her?". It's Law and Order SVU 101.

“Prosecutors said the footage from the cell phone of the sexual encounters did not suggest any forced behavior. “There’s nothing in the videos that sound like you’re saying ‘stop’ or ‘this hurts’ or anything like that,” Ted Mansour, an investigator for the San Diego County district attorney’s office, said at the meeting.

Prosecutors also said that videos from the bedroom show that her piercings were not ripped at the time and she was not bleeding from any wounds from it. “I don’t see any elements of force being used in the sexual encounters,” Assistant District Attorney Amador said.”

 

I don't know how this isn't clear to you.  The actual prosecutors that saw the video from the alleged gang activity have said there was no indication of her claims.  Based on the video they saw of that specific incident there is no evidence that she ever said "no".  It doesn't get anymore cut and dry then that.  The actual prosecutors have said this. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

25 minutes ago, chongli said:

 

Gary Anderson was drafted by Buffalo in the 7th round in 1982, when they were 12 rounds. He sandbagged his way out of Buffalo and got cut in the pre-season, only to go on to Pittsburgh and become one of the greatest kickers in NFL history. But he was just a 7th round pick, so nothing to cry about. I am so glad we got Scott Norwood a few years later instead. He did so much better. He kicked the game-winning walk-off field goal for us in SB XXV!, our first of four straight Super Bowl wins!

 

Oh wait...

AND Gary Anderson never sniffed a SB except for one NFC Conference Title that would have sent his team to the SuperBowl AND he choked!

 

"...Minnesota then drove to the Falcons' 20-yard line, setting up a 38-yard field goal attempt for Anderson, who had not missed a field goal all season. Another successful kick would have wrapped up the NFC title for Minnesota, but Anderson's kick sailed wide left, giving the ball back to Atlanta with 2:07 left and new life.  ..."

 

Karma is sure a muthaphu...!!

[Doc Brown]

Forty-two pages over a punter.  Gotta love this place.

[Doc Brown]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/05/09/matt-araiza-expresses-gratitude-to-prosecutors-for-his-exoneration/

 

“I am aware that the facts of this case have been made public,” Araiza said in a statement provided to PFT on Tuesday night.  “I am deeply gratified for the thorough work of the DA’s office in San Diego and for all the witnesses that were willing to come forward and tell the truth.  I am thankful that the facts of this case as provided by the witnesses will prove that what I have been saying from the beginning is, in fact, the truth.

 

“I can only hope that now people will assess me on the facts and not what was falsely claimed in both the civil suit and in the press.

 

“I am beyond thankful for the unwavering support of both my family and friends.  They have been a rock in what has been a very dark eight months for me.  However, now that the truth is out, I am amazed by the thousands of emails and tweets supporting me.  It has truly been a blessing to know so many people have now judged me by the facts.”

[QCity]

34 minutes ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

 

I'm not saying she isn't a liar.

 

She went to the police and told them Matt Araiza threw her face down on a bed and then gang raped her.

 

She's a liar.

[Doc Brown]

53 minutes ago, chongli said:

 

Gary Anderson was drafted by Buffalo in the 7th round in 1982, when they were 12 rounds. He sandbagged his way out of Buffalo and got cut in the pre-season, only to go on to Pittsburgh and become one of the greatest kickers in NFL history. But he was just a 7th round pick, so nothing to cry about. I am so glad we got Scott Norwood a few years later instead. He did so much better. He kicked the game-winning walk-off field goal for us in SB XXV!, our first of four straight Super Bowl wins!

 

Oh wait...

Vikings fans know we could've relied on Gary Anderson in a pressure situation.

 

 

 

[HappyDays]

5 hours ago, BillsFanSD said:

Think about it from a practical standpoint.  The anti-Araiza people have staked out that position because they got snookered into this "believe women" business.  If we want to persuade those folks over to our side -- and I do -- we need to show them that you can support women while also supporting due process rights, including and especially the presumption of innocence.  People from all across the political spectrum, ranging from Ted Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, would have agreed that those two values belong together and should not be placed in conflict.

 

The problem with posts like yours is that woke anti-Araiza types desperately want to believe that they're the good guys in this story.  They just learned that they railroaded an innocent person, so they're feeling some cognitive dissonance and looking for a way to regain their lost sense of moral superiority. Your post is the equivalent of tossing them a lifeline.  It helps them believe that people like you and me are just misogynists.  It makes it more difficult to win them over.  We're clearly winning this argument -- don't fumble at the goal line. 

 

This is the unfortunate reality of these conversations. On one hand you have very reasonable people who say "maybe we should let due process run its course before jumping to conclusions" and on the other hand you have people saying "BURN THE WH*RE!" People in that second group apparently don't understand the irony that they've become the very thing they're supposedly fighting against.

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by HappyDays

[Bills Bud]

56 minutes ago, ScorpionZero said:

Have you ever id'd a girl before hooking up. Cause I'm guessing if you did, you didn't hook up. Maybe they should have an app that uses the NFC in phones to check peoples ages you come in close enough contact with. 

Yes I have

[chongli]

30 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Forty-two pages over a punter.  Gotta love this place.

 

In just over a day. Gotta be an all-time record for TBD!

[What a Tuel]

6 hours ago, BillsFanSD said:

Think about it from a practical standpoint.  The anti-Araiza people have staked out that position because they got snookered into this "believe women" business.  If we want to persuade those folks over to our side -- and I do -- we need to show them that you can support women while also supporting due process rights, including and especially the presumption of innocence.  People from all across the political spectrum, ranging from Ted Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, would have agreed that those two values belong together and should not be placed in conflict.

 

The problem with posts like yours is that woke anti-Araiza types desperately want to believe that they're the good guys in this story.  They just learned that they railroaded an innocent person, so they're feeling some cognitive dissonance and looking for a way to regain their lost sense of moral superiority. Your post is the equivalent of tossing them a lifeline.  It helps them believe that people like you and me are just misogynists.  It makes it more difficult to win them over.  We're clearly winning this argument -- don't fumble at the goal line. 

 

I dont think the Bills railroaded Araiza. I think she did. The Buffalo Bills have every right to let the investigation play out and distance their organization from accusations of gang rape and minor sex. Araiza shouldn't assume his employer of 4 months (or 3 days?) needs to go to bat for him and put their reputation at risk under this pressure and serve as a distraction from their ultimate goal.

 

So to win us all over to the side of Araiza (which technically we are), you also need to stop implying that Araiza was wronged by anyone except his accuser and her lawyer.

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, QCity said:

She went to the police and told them Matt Araiza threw her face down on a bed and then gang raped her.

 

She actually did not! Or at least it wasn't part of the official complaint issued by her attorney. This is the weirdest part of the whole situation that everyone glosses over. The complaint very specifically does not implicate Araiza as one of the alleged rapists. It says he "threw her face down on the bed" where the alleged rape eventually took place but there is no specific allegation that Araiza himself raped her. The attorney very carefully chose his words. As soon as I caught that missing detail in the complaint I knew something was up. My read on it at the time (and now I feel even more strongly about it) was that they were basically trying to use Araiza's name to bring attention to the case without ever actually alleging that he raped her, which indicated to me that they knew there was no evidence Araiza had anything to do with the alleged rape. He was just a convenient buzzy name they used to get the media interested. This was completely missed by everybody that reported on it, a reminder that almost no media outlet can be trusted to report on complicated legal matters.

 

If you read the original complaint to the letter the only thing Araiza is directly accused of is statutory rape, and an offhand baseless suggestion by the plaintiff that she "thinks Araiza might have spiked her drink." He was never directly accused of gang raping her. I've seen no one else pick up on this and it's making me lose my mind.

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by HappyDays