Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Beast]

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted of statutory rape. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

Edited August 26, 2022 by Beast

[Arkady Renko]

4 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Considering he's posting these all over twitter I'm guessing the plan all along was to try and piss off Ariaza's attorney to get good clips to post down the line.

Yeah, unprofessional.  

[StHustle]

4 minutes ago, mannc said:

The constitution.  States get to make their own laws regarding most criminal offenses. It’s a power the federal govt can’t take away, much as they try.

In some states 16 is perfectly legal…in some it’s 18. This isn’t like carrying a gun that puts everyone at risk. It’s a personal relationship between people that doesn’t endanger the public. My point is it doesn’t make sense regardless of laws in place. Defend the actual laws and not simply the fact the law exists!

[Simon]

1 minute 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.

 

I am on board with all of this but am pretty uncomfortable with the allegation he had unprotected sex with her while knowing he had chlamydia.

That's pretty ***** up.

[appoo]

Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Lawyers being lawyers. I should know, my sister is a lawyer.

I would bet dollars to donuts your sister thinks these two lawyers are morons 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Just now, 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

Yes, I’m theory. If what Araiza’s lawyer said is true and he didn’t know, historically the NFL doesn’t care. Mark Sanchez bedded a 17 year who lied about her age when he was 25 or 26 and there were no suspensions or legal actions. 
 

Bigger deal, obviously, is the violent gang rape and if it did happen, did he know/participate. I’ve seen conflicting reports.

[JoPoy88]

1 minute ago, Beast said:

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

that’s exactly why his lawyer is making those statements - he’s setting up that defense.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, appoo said:

I would bet dollars to donuts your sister thinks these two lawyers are morons 

Probably lol. I haven’t discussed this with her yet. 

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, jkirchofer said:

She was intoxicated. Right there she is incapable of providing consent.

 

 

Her age makes consent issue irrelevant.  She is incapable of providing consent by law, given her age.

 

He doesn't have to be charged with "gang rape".  If he had sex with her, he can be charged with felony statutory rape.  

[mannc]

1 minute ago, StHustle said:

In some states 16 is perfectly legal…in some it’s 18. This isn’t like carrying a gun that puts everyone at risk. It’s a personal relationship between people that doesn’t endanger the public. My point is it doesn’t make sense regardless of laws in place. Defend the actual laws and not simply the fact the law exists!

I’ll stand by the US Constitution.  It’s worked pretty well.

[appoo]

1 minute ago, Beast said:

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted of statutory rape. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

And this is probably what Matt told the Bills. 
 

Along with the evidence of violence it would not be enough for me, personally.

 

But it’s also reasonable to think that it would be enough for other reasonable, smart and empathetic people.

 

I’m not a moral cop and I don’t care how much you slept around in college so long as you weren’t hurting others while doing so

[StHustle]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Her age makes consent issue irrelevant.  She is incapable of providing consent by law, given her age.

 

He doesn't have to be charged with "gang rape".  If he had sex with her, he can be charged with felony statutory rape.  

Wrong!

 

California is a state that got it right and this should be the case in EVERY state. If it’s proven a minor is lying about her age then why should they become a victim! What was the motive for lying about her age?? 🤔 Stop being a buffoon and taking up for liars that selfishly make themselves out to be of legal age in a way that can ruin someone’s life who had ZERO ill intent???

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by StHustle

[nkreed]

2 minutes ago, Beast said:

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

That's an interesting angle that covers the stat Rape charge, and likely where the Bills and other lawyers are landing. Because, from your link,

 

Contrary to the law in some states, mistake of age is not an affirmative defense in California.[8] This means that the defendant does not have the burden of proving their mistake of age defense. Instead, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually mistaken the alleged victim’s age

[BillsShredder83]

17 minutes ago, Behindenemylines said:

Are you high?

username checks out lol

[BeastMaster]

11 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Again what she is telling people does not matter

 

for another example would if I walked into a grocery store or bar to buy beer and said I was 21. if they sold it to me and I wasn’t 21 that store  or bar would get in a lot of trouble it doesn’t matter what I say. 

A judge or a jury may look at the accuser differently if she was lying about her age the night this apparently took place

 

What else was she not being truthful about if she is lying about her age? There's no telling what her motives could have been.

 

I'm not arguing the legal ramifications of her saying she was 18

 

Not sure why you keep trying to state that I'm saying it matters. I never said that.

 

Just putting out what his lawyer has been saying

[Aaronthebaron]

According to the plaintiff’s attorney, they contacted the Bills about this in late July; that the Bills still cut Haack makes me think this case doesn’t have much merit. Not accusing anyone of lying, just saying there must not be much evidence. 
 

or Haack sucks that bad and they thought a scrub could do the job. Regardless, they knew about this and still cut Haack.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, mannc said:

Apparently not the case in California 

 

You are conflating a mistake of age defense with age of consent.  She cannot consent in the eyes  of the law in California at age 17. 

[T master]

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  !! 

[Simon]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Her age makes consent issue irrelevant.  She is incapable of providing consent by law, given her age.

 

He doesn't have to be charged with "gang rape".  If he had sex with her, he can be charged with felony statutory rape.  

 

I can't confirm it's correct but this is from the Shouse law group in California :

 

In some states, mistake of age is an affirmative defense. In others, it is not.

Contrary to the law in some states, mistake of age is not an affirmative defense in California.[8] This means that the defendant does not have the burden of proving their mistake of age defense. Instead, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually mistaken the alleged victim’s age.

[Victory Formation]

3 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

I am on board with all of this but am pretty uncomfortable with the allegation he had unprotected sex with her while knowing he had chlamydia.

That's pretty ***** up.

I think it’s great that you point that out Simon, because that shows malicious intent and bad moral character. So if we put two and two together here, Matt Araiza is pond scum.

[BigDingus]

"A day after the party, Doe reported the rape to San Diego police, who opened an investigation."

 

"We were recently made aware of a civil complaint involving Matt from October 2021," the Bills said in a statement on Thursday"

 

Ok, how tf was this a "civil complaint" & not a criminal investigation immediately?

 

Also, if an investigation was opened the day following the assault, how did this not come up pre-draft, or did the Bills & other teams just not care? This isn't some vague complaint or something people can pass off as a date gone wrong. These accusations aren't even unwanted sexual misconduct like Deshaun Watson... It's straight up accused r*pe, over the period of an hour & a half, with multiple people involved against a SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD, HIGH SCHOOL girl! 

 

No matter how I look at it, I can't see this going well for Araiza. And getting involved with a high schooler is even worse. This was in October, so first couple months of a school year, the girl was still in the early stages of her senior year still too... essentially 4 months out of being a junior in HS. Given the years of police reports I've handled working at the county jail, this just shocks me it's only a "civil" matter.

 

Given the details about the damage suffered, it makes even less sense if ANY examination was done by a medical professional following the event.

[JoPoy88]

1 minute ago, StHustle said:

Wrong!

he’s not wrong -he’s addressing the consent defense -there is none in statutory rape cases. 
 

there is the reasonable and honest belief defense in statutory cases, which is entirely another thing

[mannc]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

You are conflating a mistake of age defense with age of consent.  She cannot consent in the eyes  of the law in California at age 17. 

Yes, you’re right.  But prosecutors would have to prove there was no reasonable mistake about her age.

[appoo]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Her age makes consent issue irrelevant.  She is incapable of providing consent by law, given her age.

 

He doesn't have to be charged with "gang rape".  If he had sex with her, he can be charged with felony statutory rape.  

There’s also the DA’s discretion that counts for quite a bit here. 
 

California law doesn’t say anything about intent but I can’t imagine most DAs not considering what a reasonable person would think about age in that situation.

 

if it turns out she was wasted that’s an entirely different situation.  Girls have the right to get drunk without being raped, and rape isn’t the punishment for girls going out and having fun 

[BeastMaster]

1 minute ago, nkreed said:

That's an interesting angle that covers the stat Rape charge, and likely where the Bills and other lawyers are landing. Because, from your link,

 

Contrary to the law in some states, mistake of age is not an affirmative defense in California.[8] This means that the defendant does not have the burden of proving their mistake of age defense. Instead, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually mistaken the alleged victim’s age

That definitely plays into his lawyers investigators that have witnesses that have her saying she was telling people she was 18

 

The only way this thing has legs is if his DNA was found

[nkreed]

4 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

I am on board with all of this but am pretty uncomfortable with the allegation he had unprotected sex with her while knowing he had chlamydia.

That's pretty ***** up.

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.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Simon said:

 

I can't confirm it's correct but this is from the Shouse law group in California :

 

In some states, mistake of age is an affirmative defense. In others, it is not.

Contrary to the law in some states, mistake of age is not an affirmative defense in California.[8] This means that the defendant does not have the burden of proving their mistake of age defense. Instead, the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually mistaken the alleged victim’s age.

 

 

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.

[Doc]

9 minutes ago, Beast said:

OK, mistake of age could possibly keep Araiza from being charged or convicted of statutory rape. California is a state that recognizes mistake of age. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/mistake-of-age-defense/

 

Interesting.  If they have witnesses that say she claimed she was 18, she has no case. 

[UKBillFan]

1 minute ago, BigDingus said:

"A day after the party, Doe reported the rape to San Diego police, who opened an investigation."

 

"We were recently made aware of a civil complaint involving Matt from October 2021," the Bills said in a statement on Thursday"

 

Ok, how tf was this a "civil complaint" & not a criminal investigation immediately?

 

Also, if an investigation was opened the day following the assault, how did this not come up pre-draft, or did the Bills & other teams just not care? This isn't some vague complaint or something people can pass off as a date gone wrong. These accusations aren't even unwanted sexual misconduct like Deshaun Watson... It's straight up accused r*pe, over the period of an hour & a half, with multiple people involved against a SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD, HIGH SCHOOL girl! 

 

No matter how I look at it, I can't see this going well for Araiza. And getting involved with a high schooler is even worse. This was in October, so first couple months of a school year, the girl was still in the early stages of her senior year still too... essentially 4 months out of being a junior in HS. Given the years of police reports I've handled working at the county jail, this just shocks me it's only a "civil" matter.

 

Given the details about the damage suffered, it makes even less sense if ANY examination was done by a medical professional following the event.

A rape kit was carried out by the police on the day of the report. Seems that the Bill’s were unaware of the allegation at time of draft but found out at the end of July. They’re awaiting a response from the DA about whether criminal charges are to be bought. Araiza’s defence is either he didn’t have sex with her or it was consensual and he believed she was 18 because she was saying as such.

[strive_for_five_guy]

15 minutes ago, Arkady Renko said:

Doe’s lawyer is unprofessional.  

His messages also make it clear why they waited until Haack was cut to file the lawsuit…

[Beck Water]

11 minutes ago, Cheektowaga Chad said:

Reading those texts, I feel like the lawyers could be posting in this thread too 

 

Yeah, I'm left with an uncomfortable feeling that neither the Bills nor Araiza should be putting much confidence in his lawyer

[UKBillFan]

Just now, Beck Water said:

 

Yeah, I'm left with an uncomfortable feeling that neither the Bills nor Araiza should be putting much confidence in his lawyer

Though I don’t think Jane Doe should be putting much faith in hers either.

[jkirchofer]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Interesting.  If they have witnesses that say she claimed she was 18, she has no case. 

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

[BeastMaster]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Interesting.  If they have witnesses that say she claimed she was 18, she has no case. 

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

[Since1981]

10 minutes ago, mannc said:

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

Where’s boring Clark Kent Brian Mormon? 

[Doc]

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.

 

Deserved what?  Rape?  LOL, not even close to what I was saying.

[Beast]

9 minutes ago, appoo said:

And this is probably what Matt told the Bills. 
 

Along with the evidence of violence it would not be enough for me, personally.

 

But it’s also reasonable to think that it would be enough for other reasonable, smart and empathetic people.

 

I’m not a moral cop and I don’t care how much you slept around in college so long as you weren’t hurting others while doing so

Yeah, there is still a big question of what went on in that bedroom and was Araiza involved? And if he led her to that bedroom and left, or stayed and watched and didn’t participate, is he an accomplice?

 

His attorney made mention of something to the effect of someone could be in trouble for that….just not Araiza.

 

I guess we’ll see. Isn’t one of those other two players mentioned no longer on the football team or at school? I wonder why?

 

From the Op’s article; “Ewaliko was on the team last year as a freshman but is not on the current roster.”

 

Hmmmmm.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Beast

[UKBillFan]

1 minute ago, jkirchofer said:

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

I think Doc is just referring to the statutory rape allegation.

[Mango]

17 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I have 2 sons, ages 21 and 19.  I'd be pissed if a girl, who witnesses admit was claiming to be 18+ but was really underage, got them to have sex and then cried about actually being 17.

 

 

Not worth the blowback.

 

 

That part where he says "I don't remember anything that night" says he didn't admit to anything.  And if they have no DNA, they have no case.

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. 

[Herc11]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The suit alleges the cops prompted her to call and taped it.  This would be easy to prove.  It's evidence.

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.