Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[phypon]

So this girl already has a lie under her belt by saying she was older than she actually was at the time...good start to her case....

[billieve420]

Not good no matter how anyone looks at it. Seems like this was kind of known news around San Diego. If the Bills missed this during the draft process and before releasing Haack definitely huge mistake by them. Now that the news is out team needs to bring in punters for workouts and have someone ready to go as a replacement if needed.

 

Will wait for this to play out but if Araiza was involved he needs to be gone from team.
 

 

[JohnBonhamRocks]

2 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

I don’t think that’s going to  play into it at all.  Unless you meant the Bills coming to a decision to just cut bait, perhaps?

My reason for thinking it will settle quickly is not what I posted about the legal defenses. That was just for a general FYI. These things just sadly tend to get fairly easily resolved and/or underpunished. 

[BeastMaster]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

How does he assert the mistaken age defense?  What evidence does he provide?  Fake ID?

 

Witnesses that can attest to her claiming she was 18

 

Thanks for playing

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Extraordinarily poorly.

 

The state would have to prove he knew her age.  How would they do that?

 

Because...well...she should just know.

[JoPoy88]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

How does he assert the mistaken age defense?  What evidence does he provide?  Fake ID?

 

it’s a very fuzzy defense but in CA it does apparently work from time to time. It doesn’t require direct evidence like a fake ID - setting and circumstance can be used as well.

[chongli]

8 minutes ago, wppete said:

What’s scary is how many people on here don’t understand what she said her age is doesn’t matter and her actually age does. Scary! 
 

 

 

I think many do understand, but it is going to be hard for a jury to convict on statutory rape if they found out she lied about her age. Doesn't seem right to be to convict in that case, no matter what the law says.

[BillsShredder83]

21 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.

twisting rational peoples words into terrible things they didnt say. this is virtue signaling. victim blaming is toxic. you know what else is EQUALLY toxic, assuming 100% of people accused of things, are guilty of them. justice is justice is truth... 

 

are you saying all the women of the salem witch trials had it coming, they were accused after all

 

^^^ see what i did there? thats not a very nice thing to do (let alone morally superior) is it???

[nkreed]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I think he's trolling.

Not trolling Doc. If fact BillShredder83 and I were saying the exact same thing. There have been a few on this thread who are assuming that Ariza purposefully gave the Jane Doe an STI. I was just pointing out that there was 11 days between the party and the phone call.

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

He doesn’t have to claim it; state has to prove no reasonable mistake.

 

How does such a defense get entered if he doesn't even claim it?  She was clearly underage.  He can claim he reasonably thought she was of age without stating so in court?  

[4merper4mer]

Just now, Victory Formation said:

Why would you take the word of the accused over said victim when the accused demonstrated unethical and unquestionably immoral behavior to begin with?

I wouldn’t.  But I also realize that the burden of proof in a criminal trial involves more than the accused being a jerk.

[BeastMaster]

1 minute ago, Victory Formation said:

Why would you take the word of the accused over said victim when the accused demonstrated unethical and unquestionably immoral behavior to begin with?

What about her lying about her age and drinking while underage?

 

Is that ethical and moral behavior on her part?

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, BeastMaster said:

Witnesses that can attest to her claiming she was 18

 

Thanks for playing

 

 

That she told Araiza this?

[Doc]

Just now, nkreed said:

Not trolling Doc. If fact BillShredder83 and I were saying the exact same thing. There have been a few on this thread who are assuming that Ariza purposefully gave the Jane Doe an STI. I was just pointing out that there was 11 days between the party and the phone call.

 

Not you, Victory Formation.  It's entirely plausible that she gave him chlamydia.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I bet he's pissed.   Probably kick it 90 yards now! 😏 

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

it’s a very fuzzy defense but in CA it does apparently work from time to time. It doesn’t require direct evidence like a fake ID - setting and circumstance can be used as well.

 

Can it be asserted by a defendant with no context or circumstances being stated by him?  

[JohnBonhamRocks]

10 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Did anyone witness Araiza carding her before he had sex with her?  How will he "honestly and reasonably" claim he thought she was of age?  A drunk girl hanging at a college boy party told him so?

I agree and doubt any carding took place. Although many high schoolers do have fake IDs. But mostly his defense would be based on eyewitness affidavits swearing she said she was of age and not drunk. So long as those aren’t hearsay.
 

This is of course without considering whatever will be made of the blood and bruises part. That is wack and could be very bad. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by JohnBonhamRocks

[Victory Formation]

Just now, BeastMaster said:

What about her lying about her age and drinking while underage?

 

Is that ethical and moral behavior on her part?

If sex between Araiza and the 17 year old was consensual, I personally would not press charges unless Araiza was aware that he had an STD before relations. That has to be a crime.

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

That she told Araiza this?

 

You think she told him she was 17 and/or a HS'er? 

[nkreed]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

How does he assert the mistaken age defense?  What evidence does he provide?  Fake ID?

 

If you have a background in law, then you know that the DAs decision isn't made in a vacuum. If the DA can find plausible witnesses to the victim misrepresenting her age, combined with California case law, the DA will not bring that charge to court, understanding it's on them to prove she didn't. Ariza doesn't need to do a damn thing in that scenario.