Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, BeastMaster said:

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

 

And likely have witnesses to attest to Arazia not being in the room where the non-statutory rape occurred.

[TheBrownBear]

5 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.

Deserved what?  That she deserved to be raped?  No one is implying that.  People are merely saying that her affirmatively stating that she was 18 weakens the prosecutor's case and strengthens Araiza defense against a statutory rape charge.  

[BillsShredder83]

19 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Again what she said doesn’t matter though. 
 

like I mentioned previous it’s no different than any under age person trying to pretend to be 21 or over to buy alcohol if they are served alcohol by the establishment and that establishment is caught they are charged not the person who lied about their age

might be a criminal thing at that point on  a technicality, but morally a 21 yr old guy, having non forceful sex, that she was wanting to partake in.... is a moral judgement i can live with. thats on her at that point and the courts to decide his punishment. i dont believe thats the bills place to say, you dont fit our culture. im not talking about a 34 and 17 yr old.... 21 and 17, and the girls lying saying shes in college, i can stand behind that, flame away, 

[strive_for_five_guy]

I’m very curious how the story of others at the party contradicts at least parts of the lawsuit….

[Mr. WEO]

6 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.

 

 

lol come on...did you just wake up?

[Niagara Dude]

Alaina Getzenberg

@agetzenberg

· 4h

From the Bills: “We were recently made aware of a civil complaint involving Matt from October 2021. Due to the serious nature of the complaint, we conducted a thorough examination of this matter. As this is an ongoing civil case, we will have no other comment at this point.”

[ghostwriter]

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

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?

Innocent until proven guilty indeed. But should we trust the innocence of a man who knowingly gave a woman an STD?

[BeastMaster]

Just now, Doc said:

 

And likely have witnesses to attest to Arazia not being in the room where the non-statutory rape occurred.

Which would lend credence to the theory that the Bills investigated this and came to the conclusion that this isn't anything to part with Araiza over at this point.

 

We can only hope this is the case

[nkreed]

5 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.

If his criminal attorney, who has spoken with the DA, can produce multiple witnesses saying she was purposely inflating her age, combined with the mistaken age ruling, a DA would need to prove that she didn't misrepresent beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can't, the likelihood of the charge goes down the drain.

 

I still believe the blow up of this case now is because the DA needs to make a decision, and the Jane Doe lawyer is using the court of public opinion to make the DA charge Ariza. (No statement made on if that's a good or a bad thing, just a statement of facts)

1 minute ago, Simon said:

 

It's thin

But not implausible. I think that we are keyboard warriors who are making decisions without evidence. I am not defending Ariza, just wanted to offer out a plausible explanation without calling him sketchy.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

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

 

 

He cannot makes the argument that she consented.  Not legally possible.

[Mango]

16 minutes ago, T master said:

Isn't it amazing how long people sit around with this information & don't press charges but then when they sign a fairly large NFL contract all of the sudden this guy did this ...

 

Innocent until proven guilty  !! 

Tell me you haven’t read anything about this case without telling me you’ve put forth zero effort. 

[julian]

2 hours ago, Mango said:

If he isn’t released I think the Bills try and keep themselves away from punting and have Keenum/Barkley holding. 
 

He should be released. None of this is worth it. I think he should be charged with a crime. Even if innocent it’s not worth it to have him on a roster that’s trying to go to the super bowl. 

Man I don’t want to agree with you on this, but I want that super bowl badly so I’m waffling but leaning towards let’s just move on and stay focused on the goal

[Rc2catch]

4 minutes ago, Beast said:

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.

Question.. So if they used these phone calls as part of their criminal investigation and now snippets are being released publicly because of the civil suit, aren’t they possibly ruining some of the best evidence in a criminal case? I’m learning a lot about law tonight 

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

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?

 

"  A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent. "  He can claim mistaken age.  But that's not consent.

 

It's a fact, that's all.

[Warcodered]

Just now, nkreed said:

But not implausible. I think that we are keyboard warriors who are making decisions without evidence. I am not defending Ariza, just wanted to offer out a plausible explanation without calling him sketchy.

also those context calls the police had her make had her bringing up STDs, it's possible that had something to do with it.

[4merper4mer]

Just now, Victory Formation said:

Innocent until proven guilty indeed. But should we trust the innocence of a man who knowingly gave a woman an STD?

I haven’t read the whole thing but if true it certainly makes him a dirt bag.  It doesn’t help build his credibility, but it also doesn’t prove guilt.

 

IMO doing something like that should probably be a crime or at least civilly actionable, but I doubt that is the case.

[Buffalo03]

26 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

Legality does not constitute morality.

 

Do you think it’s okay for a 70 year old to be  involved with a 19 year old? It’s legal, but is it moral?

 

My true feelings are simple. Araiza was 21, she was 17 and he thought she was 18, that does not make Araiza a predator in my eyes, BUT if this man is knowingly implicit in any way whether directly or indirectly in terms of this young girls rape, he should be charged with the fullest extent of the law.

Who cares about moral? If both people are adults, morality doesn't mean sh*t

[BeastMaster]

8 minutes ago, jkirchofer said:

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

But we haven't even reached that point where we know if there will be charges, so the system hasn't even had a chance to fail.

 

Civil suit at this point is indeed a red flag. Having charges and evidence to produce in court would bolster her chances of winning

 

They are proceeding with neither 

[Beck Water]

24 minutes ago, lookylookyherecomescookie said:

this attorney says Araiza didn't force her-doesn't matter

says she claimed to be 18-doesn't matter

says it was consensual-not possible, a 17 year old minor cannot legally consent to sex

this attorney is spouting nonsense defenses

I don't know if araiza had sex with this person, but if it can be proven that he did, he's guilty of either felony statutory rape, or misdemeanor statutory rape, depending on the DA's choice of charge

His only hope is that the investigators found none of his DNA in her at the time of the alleged incident, or that if they did, he can buy her off, and in so doing, purchase her non-cooperation with the DA. In that case, it's possible the DA drops the case.

 

Apparently the bolded may matter in California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_California_v._Hernandez

 

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

He cannot makes the argument that she consented.  Not legally possible.

 

It doesn't matter.  If she lied and there are witnesses, she has no claim.