Beck Water
-
Posts
11,582 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Beck Water
-
-
Just now, YoloinOhio said:
What does all this mean. Help a yolo out
I think it means both the plaintiff's lawyer and Araiza's are too intoxicated to give legal consent
-
1 minute ago, BillsShredder83 said:
victim blaming, and not rushing to a mans guilt with a 1 sided story, are not the same thing! quit saying that, youre hurting victims by even sying stuff like this. i havent seen one person say anything blaming in here.
unreal
This
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Rc2catch said:
I will say this much. When the news first broke on here I was kinda feeling this kid is done and 99% guilty.
But that young ladies lawyer now has me thinking tonights news is a cash grab with his actions.
I still believe she was raped, and it’s all still very disgusting, I’m not trying to discredit or shame her, but I’m having doubts of his actual involvement now. I just can’t see this regime backing this guy even this far into it without having knowledge he has some innocence in this. It just doesn’t fit with anything they have done since arriving here. He’s a 6th round punter and one of the easiest cuts on the roster. They could easily released a statement and cut him and been off the hook.The Bills could easily have just cut him and said nothing about this case
"We had an open competition and Matt's a great competitor who is gonna be a fine NFL punter, but we decided we're going to go with the more experienced holder and directional kicker"
-
2
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, StHustle said:
According to his attorney, the accuser admitted to coming in already drunk and agreed to consensual sex.
I say we all sit back and wait for FACTS to come out before rushing to judgement.
Except that according to Cali law, she couldn't legally consent to sex 'cuz she wasn't 18
-
10 minutes ago, inthebuff said:
In California, it is illegal for someone 18 or older to have sex with someone younger than 18, even if the sex is consensual. This is considered statutory rape under state law. Statutory rape laws are based on the assumption that minors are incapable of giving informed consent to sexual activities.
Yeah, I went back and corrected that. Me bad, I didn't do my homework on that before posting. In NYS the age of consent is 17.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, BeastMaster said:
Exerpt from the article that I found interesting
During the call, Araiza confirmed having sex with her, the lawsuit states, but when she asked him “And did we have actual sex?” he responded “This is Matt Araiza. I don’t remember anything that happened that night” and hung up.
It's in lawsuit, the link to which I provided up-thread
https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/player-suit.pdf
-
6 minutes ago, Beck Water said:
John Wawrow/AP story on Araiza
A lot of this re-hashes the LA Times article (which I was finally able to get past the paywall and read)
Key new (to me) information:
QuoteArmstrong said the Bills were aware of the allegations and investigation of Araiza before the lawsuit was filed because he provided the team updates since he was retained by the punter about six weeks ago.
“Matt Araiza’s very upset about this, as you can imagine. He’s very disappointed,” Armstrong said. “But he’s going to get his day in court eventually.”
Armstrong said he’s been informed police have all but completed their criminal investigation, which will then be reviewed by the district attorney to determine whether to file charges.
So apparently the Bills have known about this for about 6 weeks, well prior to cutting Haack.
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
2 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:
You certainly could be correct. My Google Law Degree is worth very little.
LOL we appear to have conflicting legal opinion from people with actual law degrees so, Who knows?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Chaos said:
What is meant by "keep calling the Bills"?
Apparently the alleged victim's attorney has been contacting the Bills since the end of July.
-
8 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:
California’s Romeo and Juliet exception can change the statutory rape charge from a felony to a misdemeanor. But it’s 3 years difference in age max. Araiza was 21 and the girl was 17. Plus there’s everything else that is alleged to happen.
I don't believe that's correct. From the link in my post to which you're replying:
QuoteAs previously stated, California Penal Code 261.5 PC is a wobbler. That means it may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.14
There are three circumstances that determine how the offense will be charged and what the potential penalties are:
If you are no more than three (3) years older than the alleged victim, violating PC 261.5 is always a misdemeanor.15
If you are more than three (3) years older than the alleged victim, the offense may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.16
ANDIf you are twenty-one (21) or older and the alleged victim is under sixteen (16) at the time the intercourse occurs, you also face either a misdemeanor or a felony…but the potential felony penalties are steeper than in the situation described in #2, above.17
If #2 or #3 in the above list applies…then when deciding whether to charge you with a misdemeanor or a felony, the District Attorney will consider (1) the facts of your specific case, and (2) your criminal history.
It sounds as though if there are less than 3 years age difference, it's always a misdemeanor.
If it's more than 3 years age difference, but the alleged victim is over 16, it can be either.
Now from a criminal conviction POV obviously the difference is significant, but again - Tyrell Dodson was suspended by the NFL for 6 games when he pled guilty of a misdemeanor charge.
-
2 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:
No *****, of course the lawsuit which is 1 sided will make it sound cut and dry lol
I would think that if recorded phone calls exist, it would be pretty stupid of the lawsuit to mis-state their actual content.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Turbo44 said:
wonder what warhow (spelling) will say?
Wawrow. He posts here, btw: @john wawrow
Some of the tweets are replies, so it's worth taking a look at the originals as I'm not savvy enough to figure out how to capture them
But from what Wawrow is tweeting, it sounds as though the case may be less cut-and-dried than the lawsuit makes it seem.
People have different opinions, but I personally have a lot of respect for John Wawrow as a journalist working for AP and required to have two independent sources for everything he writes.
So I'll be interested to read his story.
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, UKBillFan said:
The issue with rape, and why it’s so difficult to press criminal charges, is a lot of it is down to the alleged victim claiming one thing and the defendant saying something else. This is the allegation - Araiza’s statement will say something very different. Then there will probably be differing witness statements about her state of inebriation too, some saying she was in no state to give consent and others saying she was fully aware and capable of making decisions.So initially this was also my take.
But at the time, I was not aware of California's statutory rape law, which sets the age of consent at 18.
So it doesn't matter if she consented or not or was too inebriated to give consent or not
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:
Or could be that he was aware that she had sex with numerous people (in his mind, either with consent or aware than she was raped) so advised her to be checked, rather than meaning he had a STD himself.In the lawsuit, it alleges that Araiza told her he tested positive for chlamydia:
-
21 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:
You’re the 2nd person to comment about this general statement. I was responding to a statement about how Araiza brought her to his friends for their turn. It’s common behavior. It’s sickening and gets covered up everyday.
OK, the way you originally wrote it, it wasn't clear that you felt it was sickening.
-
Not to trouble the discourse with injection of facts, but here is the actual lawsuit, courtesy of the San Diego Times
https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/player-suit.pdf
It's not pretty reading. Sounds like Araiza is toast under Cali statutory rape law.
Matt Araiza's epitaph with the Bills:
"From Punt God
to Hold God
to Oh God"
-
1
-
-
Just now, CountDorkula said:
I mean the school not cooperating and trying to hide it might have something to do with that….
Where do you get the school was not cooperating?
-
5 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:
Still a felony. If he had been up to three years older, it would be misdemeanor statutory rape.
We have one lawyer being interview by Cali news saying 3 years.
We have a law firm (I linked upthread) saying no fixed rule, but under 16 and over 21 tends to be charged as a felony. Here's another
QuoteAs previously stated, California Penal Code 261.5 PC is a wobbler. That means it may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.14
There are three circumstances that determine how the offense will be charged and what the potential penalties are:
If you are no more than three (3) years older than the alleged victim, violating PC 261.5 is always a misdemeanor.15
If you are more than three (3) years older than the alleged victim, the offense may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.16
ANDIf you are twenty-one (21) or older and the alleged victim is under sixteen (16) at the time the intercourse occurs, you also face either a misdemeanor or a felony…but the potential felony penalties are steeper than in the situation described in #2, above.17
He was over 21, she was 17. So it sounds as though it could go either way.
-
14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:
This stuff happens at probably every high school and college house party ever.
Jesus, WTF are you getting at? IF the allegation is true, would it somehow make it better if it's common?
-
29 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:
If she was 17, and he was 22, it is felony statutory rape. Consent does not apply.
He was 21.
-
2 minutes ago, K-9 said:
All potential draft picks are investigated by both league and team private investigators during the draft process. I’m confident the Bills did their due diligence given the information available at the time. My concern is that information was less than candid and reliable.
This.
There's also the point that even if the Bills decided there was no evidence of a crime, there can still be league consequences.
For example, the Bills investigated Tyrell Dodson and concluded he was not guilty of domestic violence, which is why they signed him.
But Dodson was still suspended for 6 games by the NFL after he pled guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
-
2 minutes ago, aristocrat said:
Look at the video the local news did. Bad bruises around neck and on legs plus her Halloween costume covered in blood.
Yes, marks were shown although the Halloween costume was blurred out
But it's still a question: who put the bruises there?
I don't like the idea that in this day and age, it can be 10 months between an alleged sexual assault crime and only just now are decisions being made about charges.
But I also don't like the idea that in the absence of criminal charges, the mere filing of a lawsuit causes people decide guilt and call for immediate consequences.
-
Just now, Chris farley said:
The fact it's civil and not criminal is telling.
Not necessarily. Like was said upthread, two things can both be true:
1) cash grabs involving accusations against millionaire athletes are a thing
2) coverups/slow-tracking investigations of assaults involving star athletes by police departments are also a thing
Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.
in Off the Wall
Posted
They seem to imply the plaintiff's (which would be the alleged victim) attorney (which would be Gilleon) wanted to settle out of court
and that Araiza's (the defendent) attorney said "not interested" but then later "well his parents asked me to enquire what figure your client had in mind"
I don't see this coming to a good end.