Araiza, accuser agree to dismiss civil lawsuits against each other

[Doc]

15 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

NOPE, that is not what happened.  You see, you LITERALLY continue to IGNORE the actual facts of the case...shocker (said no one ever).  Never cleared of anything?  LMAO, he was 100% proven to have left the property over an HOUR before the next encounter took place.  He was 100% cleared of ANY involvement in the 2nd encounter through a number of factually proven pieces of evidence.

Furthermore, the police determined through VIDEO FOOTAGE of the 2nd encounter that there was no signs of force or assault involved in the 2nd encounter either.  You know the video footage of her banging a guy in the living room before moving upstairs and continuing with more than one guy absent force or assault. 

 

And get off your soap box about a college guy having sex with a high school girl, it's so ridiculous.   I had sex with a college girl I met at a party when I was a junior in high school...I assure you I wasn't raped.  

 

News flash...high school girls (and guys) lie about their age to sleep with college students consensually every single day at every single college on earth.  Their encounter is not even illegal in all states based on age.  That doesn't make every one of those college students "rapists" because a girl (or guy) lies to them about their age and they consensually have sex. 

 

All some people care to know is that she was 17 (which, as below, is legal in 80% of the country) and that's the end of it for them.  Never mind that she was responsible for and a willing participant in what happened to her, as it pertains to what happened between her and Araiza.

 

15 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

100 years ago, what Araiza did wouldn't have been a crime.  Or a thousand years ago.  Or a million years ago.  History is filled with young people having sex.

 

It also wouldn't have been a crime in most states.  From what I just found on the internet, the age of consent is 16 in 32 states.  It's 17 in 8 more.  

 

New morality?  Sexual morality is highly variable from culture to culture.  What Araiza did wouldn't be considered immoral in many places on the earth today.  

 

I have two daughters and I'm glad we have age-of-consent laws in the U.S.  I just think Araiza has been punished enough.

 

Yup.  Been saying for awhile that in 80% of the country 17 is legal.  It's absurd to think that in California they mature at a slower rate, but that's probably why they have the "mistake of age" defense.  She's not the type of person the statutory rape laws were meant to protect. 

 

Again I have 2 boys and this case, beyond it involving a (former) Bills player hit home because I could envision something similar happening to them (my younger son's college actually is right next to a high school).

Edited December 16, 2023 by Doc

[dickleyjones]

18 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

100 years ago, what Araiza did wouldn't have been a crime.  Or a thousand years ago.  Or a million years ago.  History is filled with young people having sex.

 

It also wouldn't have been a crime in most states.  From what I just found on the internet, the age of consent is 16 in 32 states.  It's 17 in 8 more.  

 

New morality?  Sexual morality is highly variable from culture to culture.  What Araiza did wouldn't be considered immoral in many places on the earth today.  

 

I have two daughters and I'm glad we have age-of-consent laws in the U.S.  I just think Araiza has been punished enough.

 

 

I agree that based on the info we have, Araiza has very likely been punished enough. We will never know.

 

But something being legal or acceptable in the past does not make it ok today. At all. Wtf kind of argument is that? Slavery (and many other terrible things) was legal 200 years ago, and is acceptable in some countries today, so it's ok?

 

The law is the law, cross the line don't be surprised if you get burned.

 

[billsintaiwan]

47 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

 

I agree that based on the info we have, Araiza has very likely been punished enough. We will never know.

 

But something being legal or acceptable in the past does not make it ok today. At all. Wtf kind of argument is that? Slavery (and many other terrible things) was legal 200 years ago, and is acceptable in some countries today, so it's ok?

 

The law is the law, cross the line don't be surprised if you get burned.

 

Slavery! Ha. Fine example. Making a great deal of sense. Understanding this guy's point. A one year age difference in the age of consent is exactly the same as slavery. Exactly!

[Mynamemike]

Wow.  

[Augie]

Keep at it long enough, and some wild turns are inevitable. 

[Don Otreply]

21 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

And luckily for him, he was in a state that protects such an act under those circumstances from a charge of Statutory. In other states, he wouldn't have been so lucky.

 

And this is a major part of it. Things like this may fall under the category of "boys will be boys" and surely, similar uncouth, if you will, situations happen all the time with NFL players. But they aren't released to the general public in blow by blow (no pun intended) details.

 

Even if technically, no crime was committed because of jurisdiction - the party and how he behaved is public knowledge and it doesn't look good on his character. And when it comes to a position like Punter, there's no room for ANY character question.

 

I watched the Real Sports episode on him and it included Andrea Kramer quoting a GM saying something along the lines of "I have daughters, I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole". And I was confused at first, because this was said after knowledge of no crime being committed was released. But I think him having slept with an underage girl within minutes of meeting her, not knowing who she was, or her age is a turn off to some GM's.

Hypocrisy is pretty active in the nfl, that unnamed GM will likely sign players of questionable reputation with no hesitation…, 

 

Look at Tyreek Hill, he beat a pregnant woman and broke a child’s arm, for gods sake, yet he is employable in the NFL.
   The league is a one legged man in an azs kicking contest, it has no leg to stand on when it comes to morality. 
 

What is being left out in all this is that girls will be girls to get what they want to, just as boys will be boys…, is it pretty? No, but it is human nature, and neither party should have their lives permanently ruined because of this. 
 

 

[Saint Doug]

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

the Bills aren't 7-6 because of the guy who has punted the second fewest times in the league.

 

 

 

It’s a game of inches. You never know.

[Mr. WEO]

49 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:

It’s a game of inches. You never know.

unresponsive

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Don Otreply said:

Hypocrisy is pretty active in the nfl, that unnamed GM will likely sign players of questionable reputation with no hesitation…, 

 

Look at Tyreek Hill, he beat a pregnant woman and broke a child’s arm, for gods sake, yet he is employable in the NFL.
   The league is a one legged man in an azs kicking contest, it has no leg to stand on when it comes to morality. 
 

What is being left out in all this is that girls will be girls to get what they want to, just as boys will be boys…, is it pretty? No, but it is human nature, and neither party should have their lives permanently ruined because of this.

 

It was obvious something was fishy when her scumbag lawyer filed civil charges before criminal charges were announced, and only after Araiza had made the team.

[BillsFanForever19]

8 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

Hypocrisy is pretty active in the nfl, that unnamed GM will likely sign players of questionable reputation with no hesitation…, 

 

Look at Tyreek Hill, he beat a pregnant woman and broke a child’s arm, for gods sake, yet he is employable in the NFL.
   The league is a one legged man in an azs kicking contest, it has no leg to stand on when it comes to morality. 
 

What is being left out in all this is that girls will be girls to get what they want to, just as boys will be boys…, is it pretty? No, but it is human nature, and neither party should have their lives permanently ruined because of this. 

 

In a vacuum, there is hypocrisy there. But the difference boils down to the crux of the problem for Araiza.

 

Tyreek Hill is an Elite #1 Wide Receiver. Araiza's... a Punter.

 

Even if he's the greatest Punter that's ever lived - it's far and away the least valued position in Football. And by a large margin. 

 

If Araiza were a QB or a WR, he'd have been playing this season. But even being cleared, his being signed by a team would bring attention to them and alert the fanbase and community of said signing team to the tale.

 

And no one wants to deal with ANY sort of distraction for a Punter. 

 

I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying I'd be against him signing with the Bills or any other team. I'm just pointing out why he hasn't been signed yet.