nedboy7
-
Posts
8,345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by nedboy7
-
-
Just now, Fred Slacks said:
I did speculate. Sorry if that was confusing. I tried to separate that so it wouldn’t be taken out of context. I should have just kept that part out.
I have strong feelings about a 17 year old showing up to a college party. My strong feelings about that are that there’s no way you can make me believe that she was telling people she was 17. That is my strong feeling. Not a fact obviously.
High school girls don’t go to college parties and say they are in high school. I suppose that is not a fact and is speculation but I don’t feel like it’s a stretch to agree on this.
That is what I was trying to say about that point.
I hear you. It is probably not smart. I wouldn't want my daughter at a party of this type. Telling someone you are not 17 has nothing to do with being raped however. And lots of people are triggered by how these types of cases are handled. For both sides of the story. Anyways I get your point.
-
46 minutes ago, Fred Slacks said:
Just to be clear in the court of law Matt doesn’t need to prove he is innocent. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove he is guilty. I think this is why there is such a polarizing opinion. He’s not guilty of this crime until he’s proven to be guilty.
Everyone assumes he is guilty and should suffer. However the reality is unless the plaintiff can prove Araiza was in the room and raped her then it’s pretty much moot point. I do think a jury however will lean towards the plaintiff because the suit is such a disturbing claim.
In the suit though there’s a lot of speculation like it says Araiza should have known she was drunk, etc. It also says he told her to have sex with him and she did. Does it actually say he raped her? I never read it that way. The claim is that he led her back into the room where she was gang raped.
So based off her own diary she contradicts herself that she doesn’t remember who was there or who brought her to the room. But I’m the suit it says Araiza brought her to the room as well as should have known she was drunk.
I get the feeling the attorney is fishing for more information/cooperation from Araiza to help piece details together that he believes only Araiza can help confirm.
This next part is all pure speculation. The feeling I get from this whole suit is that Araiza was there, had sex with the girl (as he admitted to) and may possibly know what happened after he hooked up with her. I get the vibe that he probably knew about or became aware about what happened afterwards. That is why they are going after him.
I also have strong feelings about a 17 year old girl at a college party at a house on campus. I don’t fault him for that personally.
However if he was aware of the gang rape I think he should have informed. That’s not something to stay quiet about. If he was involved he should be prosecuted criminally. His life will be ruined. If he wasn’t involved I hope the plaintiff’s attorney loses his license for they way he destroyed this kids life. I will wait judgement until this sees it’s day in court.
I wonder why San Diego PD hasn’t moved forward or made a statement about any of this? I wonder if the civil case helps or ruins any criminal case they had been working/building.
You complain about speculations then present us with yours. You have strong feelings about a 17 year old at a party? Like what feelings? And what do you not fault him for? Some weird takes there. -
How the hell is he gonna live on that salary?
-
1
-
-
On 8/28/2022 at 12:59 PM, T master said:
Of course you follow along with something this idiotic which doesn't surprise anyone here !! I suppose you agree'd with giving hypodermic needles to herion addicts too it does fit your profile just saying ...
What an example! You made a mess. -
7 hours ago, Doc said:
It's a "I believe the headlines from my news source" mentality. They read it, get outraged and that's the end of trying to find out the truth.
Qanon is a good source of facts.
-
30 minutes ago, Wacka said:
Because... Because..... he writes mean tweets and is orange!!!
Covfefe wasn’t mean. Come on. -
3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:
One night stands when drunk happen every evening. The question will be what age he thought she was, and what is believed.
While it is unclear if the accuser was in fact raped, the crime of rape is measured differently when the accuser is a minor. This is because minors cannot consent to sex with an adult. Therefore, there is never a question of whether the accuser consented. Sex with a minor is automatically rape in most jurisdictions and particularly in San Diego where Araiza is accused. Hence why it is called statutory rape. It is rape, as a matter of law, when an adult has sex with a minor. Depending on the age difference, the rape would be a misdemeanor or a felony. If there is more than a three year age difference between perp and victim, it is generally charged as a felony. In San Diego, whether to charge the crime as a felony or misdemeanor is up to the prosecutor’s discretion. It appears at least that if the alleged victim was 17 and Araiza was in fact 21 at the time, then the four-year age difference could warrant a felony charge, depending on the evidence. A felony charge could carry up to three years in jail, if there is a conviction.
-
6 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:
Probably? If he has found not guilty in a criminal charge setting, or none are bought, and he settles out of court then he's back.
Not sure how you can deem his behaviour as being 'typically' impulsive either, unless we're going down the guilty before being proven innocent route again.
I am not. It was sarcasm. Also I was commenting on her being under age. Not the other accusations. Point is he should have been way smarter and cautious at the least. Btw the idea that he was not found guilty is not accurate from what I am reading. He could end up facing statutory rape charges if the District Attorney feels the evidence is strong enough. Based on the alleged facts in the civil complaint, the evidence may end up persuading prosecutors to file formal charges.
-
So ironic that Garland will be the one to end the Trump cult.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, K-9 said:
I don’t know how many times I’ve addressed the issue and linked the legal info, but California law allows defendants to prove they had a reasonable and actual reason to believe the victim was 18 or over at the time. It’s not cut and dried at all that Araiza admitted to felony statutory rape.
is it reasonable if the victim said she was 18 in your opinion? Btw don’t you think an NFL bound dude should have enough brain cells to protect himself from such a situation? He is an idiot regardless. -
4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
And you believe what exactly? Let me guess….Trump was keeping the nuclear codes in his basement amidst his personal mementos just in case the border was opened, crime and inflation got out of hand, and war broke out in Eastern Europe? Oh wait….
It is hard to think he is that smart. We can argue forever. I always thought your posts were intelligent and reasonable over the years. So I am going with that and we dont agree at some level in politics. Much respect.
-
I miss when Beasley was the distraction.
-
2
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, TC in St. Louis said:
I don't believe anybody right now. Least of all the alleged victim. I just read something in her "journal" where she says that, after several people took turns having sex with her, she was flipped over and someone performed oral sex on her.
First of all, I don't know any people who would take turns having sex with anybody. But I don't know that there is a person on the planet who would have oral sex with a woman who has been having sex with several men. That particular embellishment, in my opinion, is nonsense.
Her lawyer strikes me as a scumbag. He's blaming everybody. Is it possible that his client is lying?
This whole thing is funky.
Gang rape is usually funky. I suggest not posting.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Rc2catch said:
You’re good.. But she’s reading from the lawsuit not listening to the tapes right?
I would assume so.
-
5 minutes ago, Rc2catch said:
When did he admit that?
I don't mean this in a rude way. I get what you saying. But......
“His admission was the thing that, when I started reading about this case, that just jumped out,” Dallas-based attorney Michelle Simpson Tuegel told the Democrat and Chronicle on Friday afternoon. “I was like, ‘Whoa,’ because there are a lot of cases I handle where we don’t have that kind of what I would consider bombshell evidence.”
Based on what she has read in the lawsuit, “I think it’s enough for them to charge him with a crime,” Simpson Tuegel said. “As a criminal defense lawyer or as a lawyer who now represents victims and has for years, I would say that is an admission and a problematic statement for him. He made an admission and she’s under age. I just don’t know how you get around those facts. That’s a real problem.”
-
2
-
-
Well said by Eisen...
-
1
-
2
-
-
“His admission was the thing that, when I started reading about this case, that just jumped out,” Dallas-based attorney Michelle Simpson Tuegel told the Democrat and Chronicle on Friday afternoon. “I was like, ‘Whoa,’ because there are a lot of cases I handle where we don’t have that kind of what I would consider bombshell evidence.”
Based on what she has read in the lawsuit, “I think it’s enough for them to charge him with a crime,” Simpson Tuegel said. “As a criminal defense lawyer or as a lawyer who now represents victims and has for years, I would say that is an admission and a problematic statement for him. He made an admission and she’s under age. I just don’t know how you get around those facts. That’s a real problem.”
Time to move on.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
I still say he runs away to Russia to avoid jail
Where he will continue to drain the swamp......
-
1
-
-
-
13 hours ago, B-Man said:
Repeating misinformation.
Standard response.
.
I wonder if Trump will be able to get McDonalds delivery in prison.
-
13 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:
I guess so. Another stupid story about absolutely nothing.
Is that what you got out of that? Unreal. Like Jan 6 was too?
-
3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
And so now that the government has them back…crisis averted.
The End.Yeah for Trump.
-
3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Your first sentence was good. After that it was all baseless speculation and wild imagination. I've mentioned the Presidential Records Act a few times. I recommend reading it.
that’s why he said who knows what’s going on. My god. -
56 minutes ago, Beach said:
im not sure you're mentally strong enough for political debate forums. it seems alot of you guys who dont like Trump resort to name calling and insults, you're all kinda just like TRUMP!
Ever watch Klepper interview Trumpers on comedy central? It is one of the funniest things. Maybe sad actually. That such dumb humans exist.
What a Mess!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
When all of that failed, Giuliani and others pushed a false claim that the law allowed the Georgia legislature to replace its members of the electoral college with a slate that would vote for the defeated president. Legislators refused to play along and the Trump campaign instead sent 16 “fake electors” using false election certificates – another failed attempt to overturn the election replicated in six other states lost by Trump.
Willis has told some of those involved in the fake electors plot that they are the target of criminal investigation by the grand jury, including the Georgia Republican party chair, David Shafer, and a state senator, Brandon Beach.
Carlson said the combination of Trump’s actions potentially amount to a substantial body of evidence of wide wrongdoing.
“The focus for this grand jury is solicitation of election fraud. Presumably most of the evidence that they’re receiving will focus on that. Then there will be making false statements to state or other governmental bodies. The creation of a slate of electors, which took the position that Trump had won the election, will come under that sort of umbrella. Then we’ll probably have the grand jury looking at criminal conspiracy and violation of oath of office,” he said.