Matt Araiza

[LeviF]

25 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Yup. That's the defense, and it seems to have worked.

I don't need it explained to me. I'm well aware of the details of the case. He's not going to be held legally liable, but he still did it.


 

 

I understand some amount of your reasoning here. Laws are laws and are on the books a certain way for a reason. But that goes for jury instructions as well (which is where the mistake of age question actually appears). Whether he "did it" is a question for a jury as they would be instructed by a judge.

 

I don't mind people taking a hard line stance on sexual relations with minors, in fact I prefer it. But there's still some reality to be dealt with when prosecutors make decisions. I don't mind if you hate the guy, but intimating that police or prosecutorial misconduct is somehow the reason for the decision ignores a significant amount of reality here.

[BullBuchanan]

18 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

It was a genius response to ignore the fact that the girl lied about her age and try to cast everyone else as a pedo.  You got the response you deserve but I edited it anyway.

 

Apparently its on Araiza to be able to intuit everyone's age like some kind of carnival barker and ignore the girl announcing to the party that shes 18.  Calling your stance on Araiza a crusade might be an understatement.

Yes, it typically on adults to know whether or not they're having sexual relations with high schoolers. if you can't tell that from interacting with a person, you probably shouldn't be having sexual relations with them. I don't have any reason to believe that this was some masterful con on behalf of the girl. If his defense is to be taken at 100%, he left shortly after having sex with her and didn't know her prior. So in the span of an hour or two, met a high schooler, hooked up and left.

That all just sounds totally normal to you? You feel like he did a modicum of due diligence to know who he's about to hook up with is or that diligence was no longer required because the "I'm 18" is a get out of jail free card? I think he was an opportunist.

It only seems like a crusade because of how cavalier everyone is around here about sexual crimes.

Edited June 21, 2023 by BullBuchanan

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

Yes, it typically on adults to know whether or not they're having sexual relations with high schoolers. if you can't tell that from interacting with a person, you probably shouldn't be having sexual relations with them. I don't have any reason to believe that this was some masterful con on behalf of the girl. If his defense is to be taken at 100%, he left shortly after having sex with her and didn't know her prior. So in the span of an hour or two, met a high schooler, hooked up and left.

That all just sounds totally normal to you? You feel like he did a modicum of due diligence to know who he's about to hook up with is or that diligence was no longer required because the "I'm 18" is a get out of jail free card? I think he was an opportunist.

It only seems like a crusade because of how cavalier everyone is around here about sexual crimes.

Is it highschool thats your issue or age?  Be consistent.  I don't think its a leap to assume that a girl who is at a college party and telling people on video that shes 18 is a college freshman. If she was a freshman, apparently you'd have no issue.  Mind you the age of consent is different state to state so the statutory age is hardly a hard and fast rule on morality.  How many months or weeks decided the difference between an egregious crime and a college hookup, in your view?

 

Yes, it strikes me as normal that a girl who was walking up to dudes and telling them "f@#$ me or you're a [homosexual slur]" engaged in a consensual sex act with a guy who believed she was 18 and then he left the party rather than spend the night cuddling with the new love of his life. 

 

"Sexual crimes" is an interesting term to use when consensual sex with a 17 year old who lied about her age does not constitute a crime.  Calling a guy a serial child predator based on nothing other than your capacity for outrage is rather "cavalier" in my opinion.  

[BullBuchanan]

8 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

I understand some amount of your reasoning here. Laws are laws and are on the books a certain way for a reason. But that goes for jury instructions as well (which is where the mistake of age question actually appears). Whether he "did it" is a question for a jury as they would be instructed by a judge.

 

I don't mind people taking a hard line stance on sexual relations with minors, in fact I prefer it. But there's still some reality to be dealt with when prosecutors make decisions. I don't mind if you hate the guy, but intimating that police or prosecutorial misconduct is somehow the reason for the decision ignores a significant amount of reality here.

And it's also ignoring reality when people say things like "if he did it why wasn't he charged?" when we have a long, long history in this country of a failure to prosecute and convict sex criminals in this country. Unprocessed rape kits, shoddy police work, DA backlogs, celebrity/institutional cover ups, etc are all relevant here.

A lot of common folk get upset whenever someone's past gets dredged up in allegations. We hear things like "Why didn't she come out 20 years ago if that's true?" but then we see examples like Cosby, Weinstein, and Masterson, where people did come out decades before - they were just ignored. Eventually people relent in those cases because it becomes clear that they're actual monsters and no one wants to be a stan for a serial predator. If they avoid prosecution or are found not guilty for whatever reason though, the tide immediately shifts to victim blaming. See Araiza and even Watson to an extent.

There is clearly a public bias to label women as liars, gold-diggers, and whores in these cases. It's a pretty extreme mountain to climb for women who suffer physical and/or sexual assault to get justice. I don't understand why it isn't a mainstream opinion that this is a major problem.

Punt God gets to go live his life now, and even that's not enough for some people. Because he wasn't prosecuted, some people feel he's entitled to more - and so does he apparently.

[K-9]

12 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

I'm sure cops spending nine months to process a report had no bearing on the quality of the case presented to the prosecution, nor was their insistence that the school not investigate and the schools decision to comply with that request. Oh, and lest we forget that over 94% of incidents involving sexual assault in this country actually lead to even an arrest. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/06/less-than-percent-rapes-lead-felony-convictions-least-percent-victims-face-emotional-physical-consequences/

When it comes to investigating crimes by college students on or near college campuses and depending on the seriousness of the offense, it is quite common for local police authorities to request schools to refrain from their own investigations until their (the police) investigation is completed. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is the sheer experience and expertise of local police vs. that of college campus law enforcement enforcement entities. 

[Saxum]

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

In your expertise in the field, can you often tell the difference between a 17 year old and 18 year old just by looking at them? Do you ID everybody you suspect of being under the age of 25 before you interact with them? Whats your process?

 

Well that is what he does at cashier at gas station so why should it be different here?

[BullBuchanan]

28 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Well that is what he does at cashier at gas station so why should it be different here?

you're hilariously incorrect in your assumption of my profession and level - by about 10 fold.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

And it's also ignoring reality when people say things like "if he did it why wasn't he charged?" when we have a long, long history in this country of a failure to prosecute and convict sex criminals in this country. Unprocessed rape kits, shoddy police work, DA backlogs, celebrity/institutional cover ups, etc are all relevant here.

A lot of common folk get upset whenever someone's past gets dredged up in allegations. We hear things like "Why didn't she come out 20 years ago if that's true?" but then we see examples like Cosby, Weinstein, and Masterson, where people did come out decades before - they were just ignored. Eventually people relent in those cases because it becomes clear that they're actual monsters and no one wants to be a stan for a serial predator. If they avoid prosecution or are found not guilty for whatever reason though, the tide immediately shifts to victim blaming. See Araiza and even Watson to an extent.

There is clearly a public bias to label women as liars, gold-diggers, and whores in these cases. It's a pretty extreme mountain to climb for women who suffer physical and/or sexual assault to get justice. I don't understand why it isn't a mainstream opinion that this is a major problem.

Punt God gets to go live his life now, and even that's not enough for some people. Because he wasn't prosecuted, some people feel he's entitled to more - and so does he apparently.

 

Except I wasn't talking about the cases that are "he said, she said" situations (many of which I agree go unprosecuted): I was talking about this particular case.  From the beginning we knew the sex was consensual and she was lying about her age.  Video of her at another party and recently finding out there were witnesses at that party prove she told people she was of legal age (for obvious reasons) and her friends said she appeared to be having fun after returning from her tryst with Araiza.  Speaking of the video, if you saw it, there's no way you can reasonably say that you knew she wasn't 18.  So his defense is legal and valid. 

 

The only question was whether he participated in the "gang rape," which I thought could have occurred.  I felt it was highly unlikely he was involved and we recently learned that videos taken of the activities inside the house didn't show him present.  And judging by her lawyer now claiming that even if he wasn't present, he's still responsible, it tells me there is proof he left the party beforehand.

 

 

[BurpleBull]

Bump.

 

You know what time it is.

 

 

Missed this thread when it originally posted...how crazy is the title. Smh

 

 

F the world...bring back Araiza!!!!!!!!!!!

[Milanos Milano]

30 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

Bump.

 

You know what time it is.

 

 

Missed this thread when it originally posted...how crazy is the title. Smh

 

 

F the world...bring back Araiza!!!!!!!!!!!

Let’s do it! Break the curse and make the universe right. 

[BurpleBull]

8 minutes ago, Araiza Curse said:

Let’s do it! Break the curse and make the universe right. 

 

They need to stop playing around and just do it. We know McD is a 2nd chances guy, we just need to do what's right.

[Milanos Milano]

1 minute ago, BurpleBull said:

 

They need to stop playing around and just do it. We know McD is a 2nd chances guy, we just need to do what's right.

For as much as this franchise teaches family and 1 Buffalo BS, they bailed on their family the first sign of trouble. Without a real trial mind you. That’s bad juju that can only be reversed by making things whole with the universe. Do the right thing. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Araiza Curse

[BurpleBull]

6 minutes ago, Araiza Curse said:

For as much as this franchise teaches family and 1 Buffalo BS, they bailed on their family the first sign of trouble. Without a real trial mind you. That’s bad juju that can only be reversed by making things whole with the universe. Do the right thing. 

 

Yeah, I remember how bad I felt for Araiza. They just abandoned the guy to clear up the image of the org. when standing by him would have solidified the org. and fanbase as tight-knit: Buffalo vs. Everybody.

 

Just a weak move on the FO's part and Matt hasn't even been proven to have done any wrong.  

 

Seeing how long the Nathan Peterman saga was allowed to last (oh, and I was a big supporter of Peterman) via McDermott, I know he has to think about how Matt was discarded the way he was.

[Doc]

8 hours ago, Araiza Curse said:

For as much as this franchise teaches family and 1 Buffalo BS, they bailed on their family the first sign of trouble. Without a real trial mind you. That’s bad juju that can only be reversed by making things whole with the universe. Do the right thing. 

 

They had to do it.  It was and would have continued to be major distraction if they kept him on the roster.  The DA didn't make his decision until December.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Doc

[boyst]

9 hours ago, BurpleBull said:

 

Yeah, I remember how bad I felt for Araiza. They just abandoned the guy to clear up the image of the org. when standing by him would have solidified the org. and fanbase as tight-knit: Buffalo vs. Everybody.

 

Just a weak move on the FO's part and Matt hasn't even been proven to have done any wrong.  

 

Seeing how long the Nathan Peterman saga was allowed to last (oh, and I was a big supporter of Peterman) via McDermott, I know he has to think about how Matt was discarded the way he was.

No. The majority of the fanbase is weak-kneed, knee jerk, NPC who bought this hook like and sinker.

 

They drank the WGR Kool aid and everyone else's fantasies of this.

 

It just proves people are stupid af.

[Beck Water]

15 hours ago, BurpleBull said:

 

Yeah, I remember how bad I felt for Araiza. They just abandoned the guy to clear up the image of the org. when standing by him would have solidified the org. and fanbase as tight-knit: Buffalo vs. Everybody.

 

Just a weak move on the FO's part and Matt hasn't even been proven to have done any wrong.  

 

Seeing how long the Nathan Peterman saga was allowed to last (oh, and I was a big supporter of Peterman) via McDermott, I know he has to think about how Matt was discarded the way he was.

 

I dunno about the "image of the organization".

 

Shady McCoy spelled it out with regard to Kaepernick years ago: the amount of distraction or nuisance a team will tolerate from a player is proportional to their talent and value to the team.  If the player is uber-talented like Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady or Shady McCoy himself, the tolerance is higher.  If he's mediocre or questionable, the tolerance is low.

 

Every team needs a punter, but there are 32 spots on a roster and probably more than 32 talented players; yes, Araiza had a king leg but his FG holding was a work in progress.  The So any distraction, "time to move on".

 

As far as I know, Nate Peterman had a distraction factor of Zero, and he's still in the league for the same reason he stayed with the Bills as long as he did - his knowledge of the game and his ability to diagnose defense and understand offense - OFF the field.  People forget that he genuinely did look like the best QB on the roster in the summer of 2018, over AJ Mcwhatsis

Edited September 12, 2023 by Beck Water

[AlCowlingsTaxiService]

12 hours ago, Doc said:

 

They had to do it.  It was and would have continued to be major distraction if they kept him on the roster.  The DA didn't make his decision until December.

What’s the difference. Just another distraction to place our playoff failure on 

[davefan66]

At this point the Bills could spin it however they want.  There is plenty of info out there for them to refer to and say Matt is clear and they welcome him back.  Most fans would be fine with it.  Those with a problem would be few and forget soon enough.

 

I wonder how the game would have been different if MA booted that last punt?  My concern is him out kicking coverage.  
 

I’m not personally saying bring him back or not, but if the bills wanted to, they could.

[ExiledInIllinois]

He takes forever to get ball off his foot and is a step closer to line.

 

Even Martin makes me cringe before the punt... It seems the rush is getting in there fast.

 

No thanks... Wasn't there a blocked punt last year... AND boy, Jets almost got one on Monday Night!

 

 

 

5 hours ago, davefan66 said:

At this point the Bills could spin it however they want.  There is plenty of info out there for them to refer to and say Matt is clear and they welcome him back.  Most fans would be fine with it.  Those with a problem would be few and forget soon enough.

 

I wonder how the game would have been different if MA booted that last punt?  My concern is him out kicking coverage.  
 

I’m not personally saying bring him back or not, but if the bills wanted to, they could.

Interesting point. But that was a penalty. 15 yards this year. Puts them at 40 and having to make plays.  Anything could have happened.

 

My concern... Is blocks. He's a step closer than normal punters and Jets almost blocked one on Martin.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by ExiledInIllinois

[4merper4mer]

On 9/12/2023 at 12:09 AM, Araiza Curse said:

For as much as this franchise teaches family and 1 Buffalo BS, they bailed on their family the first sign of trouble. Without a real trial mind you. That’s bad juju that can only be reversed by making things whole with the universe. Do the right thing. 

False