Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Cut anyone whose accused of gang raping a minor? Sure. I'll die on that hill gladly.

There is a difference between accused and being found guilty.

 

Put him on admin leave, best option would be to ask the commissioner to add him to the exempt list, and cut if found guilty. Though, as I said before, morally I’d happily cut him if he admitted to having unprotected sex despite being diagnosed with Chlamydia.

[BIGFOOTspaceman]

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Cut anyone whose accused of gang raping a minor? Sure. I'll die on that hill gladly.

This is a very short sighted opinion.  People are so quick to take others rights away but if it were you in this situation and you were innocent... You'd be defending the very system of law you are currently disregarding.  

[hemma]

1 minute ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Could be, she could also be trying to rile up public opinion to apply pressure to make them settle. 

Her father seems to be pretty active in the background.

 

[SCBills]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Cut anyone whose accused of gang raping a minor? Sure. I'll die on that hill gladly.

Not even “credibly accused”.. just “accused”.. 

[Beck Water]

6 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

John Wawrow/AP story on Araiza

 

https://apnews.com/article/nfl-sports-lawsuits-matt-araiza-zavier-leonard-ec9db235a1698da15d9a474ac385f19e

 

 

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:

Quote

Armstrong 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.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Beck Water

[BeastMaster]

5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

John Wawrow/AP story on Araiza

 

https://apnews.com/article/nfl-sports-lawsuits-matt-araiza-zavier-leonard-ec9db235a1698da15d9a474ac385f19e

 

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.

[4merper4mer]

2 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Is a punter really worth this?

That’s not really the question.  He is a player on the team.  If the accusations are false and management knows this but still cuts him, that is a bad look for an enterprise which needs the trust of its players.  A QB, DB, LB or any other player would wonder how the Bills would treat an allegation thrown their way.  “Just a punter”  is not a reason to cut him.

 

I want to be clear that I’m not saying he is innocent or guilty.  If the Bills find there is credibility to the woman’s story, they should absolutely dump him, but not because he is a punter.  They should handle all situations like this exactly the same, regardless of the position or stature of the individual player.  Personally my impression of Beane is that he is highly professional and will handle it properly.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

2 hours ago, appoo said:

What I want to know is if the Bills knew if there was an ongoing criminal case

 

Reading the article sounds like the whole thing was out in the open on San Diego State campus, so can't believe the Bills

didn't know.

 

It could explain though why he lasted all the way till the 6th round and two other punters were picked prior.

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Just now, 716er said:

No, but cutting a player on the least important position on the team who is accused is a great way to run an organization. The team and city is going to be dragged through the mud just like Cleveland deservedly was for Watson.

Your missing the human aspect of this. You cut a kid because he was accused, that will speak volumes to agents. You have to do the due diligence.

[CountDorkula]

Just now, SCBills said:

Not even “credibly accused”.. just “accused”.. 

if this were any of us and someone called our work saying that we raped them  and then we were sued, we would’ve been fired already

[78thealltimegreat]

8 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

Califirnia is a two party consent state so the calls recorded can’t be used as evidence that should apply in civil cases too

I do believe if police coached her a defense attorney can view that as entrapment. 
This case just seems so odd on so many levels. The Bills knew at the end of July of a civil suit yet still kept him. Something here doesn’t add up.   

[Mr. WEO]

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.

 

 

That was lifted from the LAT article.

[JoPoy88]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The cops did the recording.

 

If the tapes aren't admissible, their description of the conversation they heard in real time is.  Wouldn't need the tapes.

that’s right. There’s also this:

 

“Private citizens are also allowed to utilize these exceptions in a much more limited capacity. In order to use this exception 2 circumstances must be met:

The person recording must be a part of the conversation, this essentially changes California law from an all-party consent state into a single-party consent state.

They must be recording conversations in order to gather evidence that the other party committed one of the following crime: Extortion, kidnapping, bribery, harassing phone calls, or any felony involving violence against another person. This allows you to record conversations in most instances where you feel threatened.”

[Alphadawg7]

1 minute ago, jkirchofer said:

You have issues with court of public opinion when it comes to the accused, but have no problem when it comes to victims. "Maybe he isn't as guilty" as if any of it is ok.

 

You don't even know if he is guilty first of all, so stop.  Second, I did not say anything whatsoever about the victim.  But you do realize that you literally have zero qualifications here to even establish who is a victim and who is not?  You haven't done any investigation, conducted any eyewitness interviews, etc.  You read a story, and maybe like most only read a headline, and got online and decided to establish who is a victim and who is guilty. 

 

So don't come at me with accusations of what I have a problem, because the only thing I have problem with is people jumping to conclusions before they even know the facts.   I mean it's possible both her and Araiza are victims even.  For example, how do you know that her and Matt didn't have consensual sex earlier in the night before she was raped by the other players after Matt left?  I mean there are several eyewitnesses who said Matt wasn't even there when the alleged attack happened, including one of her own friends.  

 

Everyone is 100% in support of cutting him and jail time if he is guilty without hesitation.  

[716er]

Just now, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Your missing the human aspect of this. You cut a kid because he was accused, that will speak volumes to agents. You have to do the due diligence.

You cut him and say you kept Haack because you want the veteran presence and veteran holder.

 

Bills knew this weeks ago. Stupid move. Laying on a sword for a punter.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

The cops did the recording.

 

If the tapes aren't admissible, their description of the conversation they heard in real time is.  Wouldn't need the tapes.

 

Does it matter?  Anyone with a legal degree know the answer?

 

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.

 

So then he didn't admit to having sex with her.

[TheyCallMeAndy]

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.

“The lawsuit states” isn’t proof, thats speculation. The next quote confirms nothing. Why not quote the part where he admits it?

[John from Riverside]

10 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Put him on administrative leave if you can and just send him away from the team he doesn’t need to be cut right now but he shouldn’t be around the team until resolved. 

So I agree with this I don’t know if I would immediately cut him with things so foggy on what the facts actually are but until those facts or no put him on some lists where he can be brought back after the dust settles if he is innocent

[Beck Water]

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

 

[El Guapo]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The detectives will have made notes of what they heard on the calls.  

The recording doesn’t even have to be admitted. The accuser and the detectives listening can testify about the conversation. And before you all start screaming hearsay, read Rule 801(d) of Federal Evidence. I practice in Alabama, but I assume CA has similar exceptions.