Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[JoPoy88]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

See above.  A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent.  As a 17 year old, the law says she cannot consent.  If he says "she said she was 18", that does not make her 18 and able to consent.  But he can try to use it as a defense.  Given the alleged violence of what happened that night (perhaps after her sexual encounter with Araiza first), it might be a heavy lift for a jury to consider she lied to him and then was unfortunate too be raped by his friends.

yes. I can kinda see how Araiza’s going to approach this - there was sex, it was “consensual” (in the non-legal sense) and non-violent. Also, he reasonably believed she was of age at the time so the statutory charge is beat.

[BeastMaster]

Just now, jkirchofer said:

So because she said she was 18 she deserved it? That is what you are implying here. Jesus that is toxic.

Nobody said that

 

Try to read what was actually said

 

Saying she has no case has zero to do with saying she deserved it...which nobody here has said.

 

 

[Simon]

5 minutes ago, nkreed said:

Playing Devil's Advocate here, there's a timeline to include here. What if he didn't know he had an STI and learned about it in the 11 days between the alleged sex and the phone conversation saying the female should get tested?

 

Because 11 days is how long between the event and the police led phone call.

 

It's thin

[jkirchofer]

1 minute ago, BeastMaster said:

That's what his lawyer said on the news

 

They are running with the civil suit to try and cash in before it falls apart

When the legal system fails a victim the only recourse is civil. It fails them way too often.

[John from Riverside]

2 minutes ago, jkirchofer said:

So because she said she was 18 she deserved it? That is what you are implying here. Jesus that is toxic.

To be clear I don’t think that anybody on this board has said that she “deserves it “

Just now, Simon said:

 

It's thin

Very

[zow2]

I wouldn’t release the guy. Maybe he gets suspended for a season or two.  But if he ever punts in the NFL it should be for the Bills or nobody. I would not release him simply because the media in Buffalo is all sanctimonious and demands it.

[iccrewman112]

2 minutes ago, Since1981 said:

That “punt god” buzz was good while it lasted—-> about one punt.
 

Where’s boring Clark Kent Brian Mormon? 

no seriously where is he we need his contact info for a tryout

[BillsShredder83]

17 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

We all know that alcohol can be consumed (intoxication) without reaching the point of incapacitation. 

 

So then it becomes a question of looking for where to draw a line between merely being intoxicated - having been drinking - vs being incapacitated - so drunk you can't give meaningful consent. 

 

It's very much a judgement issue

 

 

 

araizas lawyer says there are several witnesses including alleged victims friend, saying she wasnt slurring wasnt stumbling. this wasnt some kegger ripper, more of a get together.

 

if this can be substantiated, its hard to say you were incapacitated so much that you couldnt move, and cant remember 90%.

 

this could all be false, who knows, but if this lawyer has the witnesses to back it up, it does not match victims story.

[Doc]

Just now, Mango said:

What you want and what is legal are two different things. The example you gave likely rarely happens. But when it comes to a teen pregnancy. Possible future child support. Or in instances like this, actions in the lead up to violent sexual assault, the letter of the law is more strictly followed. 

 

Sounds like it happened to Araiza. 

[UKBillFan]

Just now, JoPoy88 said:

yes. I can kinda see how Araiza’s going to approach this - there was sex, it was “consensual” (in the non-legal sense) and non-violent. Also, he reasonably believed she was of age at the time so the statutory charge is beat.

I agree. Then his defence will be that they then either parted, or she asked to lay down so he led her to a room and let her rest. He left and has no idea what happened after that. 

[John from Riverside]

1 minute ago, zow2 said:

I wouldn’t release the guy. Maybe he gets suspended for a season or two.  But if he ever punts in the NFL it should be for the Bills or nobody. I would not release him simply because the media in Buffalo is all sanctimonious and demands it.

There’s gotta be something that that you can be placed on that doesn’t allow him to play but doesn’t cut him until the facts come out

[Haze_21]

So going off the lawyer interview its a he said she said about her drunk level and being able to consent. But the issue is with the bruises and blood. I kind of got the sense the lawyer implied one of the other men later may have actually raped her...then there is the statutory issue.

 

This is messy and will take a long while to play out. I dont see why the team will allow this to hang over us all season when we are super bowl favorites and the player in question is a punter. They will be showing a lot of faith in him if he isn't cut.

 

 

[lookylookyherecomescookie]

15 minutes ago, StHustle said:

So if a minor is proven to have told people she was of legal age then it turns out she wasn’t…she should just be deemed a victim in the case and all blame goes on the person who believed her? Are they supposed to require ID verification before sex? It disgusts me how people let a liar off the hook and act like a defendant should have known the difference despite the person straight up lying! These are not liquor store clerks legally obligated to ask for ID. Get your head out your ass and be real!

I am not assigning blame, I am not recommending what somebody does before sex, I'm merely stating that someone lying about their age does not clear a defendant of a statutory rape charge. If you think I'm wrong, say so. It's not necessary to be insulting to me because you don't like  or agree with a particular law.

[BeastMaster]

1 minute ago, JoPoy88 said:

yes. I can kinda see how Araiza’s going to approach this - there was sex, it was “consensual” (in the non-legal sense) and non-violent. Also, he reasonably believed she was of age at the time so the statutory charge is beat.

And they have the witnesses to attest to her claiming she was 18

 

 

[Simon]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

See above.  A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent.  As a 17 year old, the law says she cannot consent.  If he says "she said she was 18", that does not make her 18 and able to consent.  But he can try to use it as a defense.  Given the alleged violence of what happened that night (perhaps after her sexual encounter with Araiza first), it might be a heavy lift for a jury to consider she lied to him and then was unfortunate too be raped by his friends.

 

I have zero legal experience so that kind of strikes me as a distinction without a difference, at least in a legal sense.

[Kirby Jackson]

This will play out. I’ve been ALL IN on him as a talent. This is disgusting. 

[chongli]

42 minutes ago, StHustle said:

So if a minor is proven to have told people she was of legal age then it turns out she wasn’t…she should just be deemed a victim in the case and all blame goes on the person who believed her? Are they supposed to require ID verification before sex? It disgusts me how people let a liar off the hook and act like a defendant should have known the difference despite the person straight up lying! These are not liquor store clerks legally obligated to ask for ID. Get your head out your ass and be real!

 

If I am on the jury and he is being charged with statutory rape, I am not convicting if I find out she lied about being 17. I don't care what the law is.

Edited August 26, 2022 by chongli

[Beast]

4 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

California is a two-party consent state. Meaning, you can not record a phone call without both parties consenting. I'm curious if the police had a warrant for taping the phone call. If not it could bite them in the ass.

They don’t need a warrant. Though it is a two party consent state, law enforcement is allowed to record phone calls within the scope of their investigation.

[4merper4mer]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

See above.  A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent.  As a 17 year old, the law says she cannot consent.  If he says "she said she was 18", that does not make her 18 and able to consent.  But he can try to use it as a defense.  Given the alleged violence of what happened that night (perhaps after her sexual encounter with Araiza first), it might be a heavy lift for a jury to consider she lied to him and then was unfortunate too be raped by his friends.

Dude I’m no fan of what may have happened here but your ability to twist words into unfavorable shapes for the Bills and exculpatory shapes for the Pats is amazing.  Comparing this to your takes in the Kraft thread is just silly.  180 degrees.

 

Make no mistake, if Araiza participated in, or had knowledge of and hid a gang rape in any way I hope he gets the max both criminally and civilly.  But what Simon posted puts the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden on the State, not the accused.  Your post above attempts to flip that.  Why?

[Mattymafia]

2 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

There’s gotta be something that that you can be placed on that doesn’t allow him to play but doesn’t cut him until the facts come out

Yeah they did that for Tyrel Dodson