Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Logic]

1 minute ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

For a guy called "Logic," I find it odd that you've created a false binary choice.  I don't want the Bills to "stand by Araiza" nor do I want them to ditch the guy because he's not worth the headache.  Both options you present are noxious.  I want the Bills to investigate the matter and then do the right thing.

 

It's flat out morally, ethically wrong to pull a Brian Banks on Araiza and crap on him because of a false accusation.  But if the accusation turns out to be true, the right thing to do is cut him.  At this point it doesn't seem the Bills - or police - know enough to make an informed decision based on the preponderance of evidence.  

The issue I see is that it's very difficult to get to the real "truth of the matter" in these types of cases, and during the entire period of time that the team is in the process of attempting to do so, there is a giant distraction hanging over their heads, and a lot of damage being done to their reputation. 

Suppose this ends the way these things so often do -- with a settlement out of court and an NDA being signed. No real answer of what happened or didn't happen, no real closure. Meanwhile, weeks of national discussion, distraction, outrage, and damage to the Bills' image of "family and culture" has been done. But now their punter is "free and clear" legally and they get to keep him. Was it worth it? 

[ddaryl]

5 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

She wrote in her journal the day after the incident that she told him she went to high school. 

 

 

Because she wrote that in journal that is now been released by a Civil Suit lawyer looking to get her some money. 

 

Lets see what the defense  has because from what I read she was not telling people this, and suppposedly has witnesses for this

Edited August 26, 2022 by ddaryl

[Tanoros]

3 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

For a guy called "Logic," I find it odd that you've created a false binary choice.  I don't want the Bills to "stand by Araiza" nor do I want them to ditch the guy because he's not worth the headache.  Both options you present are noxious.  I want the Bills to investigate the matter and then do the right thing.

 

It's flat out morally, ethically wrong to pull a Brian Banks on Araiza and crap on him because of a false accusation.  But if the accusation turns out to be true, the right thing to do is cut him.  At this point it doesn't seem the Bills - or police - know enough to make an informed decision based on the preponderance of evidence.  

This right here. The Bills have to exercise their own due diligence and determine if he did it or not. They might not get a 100% definitive answer, however, they should be able to get enough information to make an informed decision one way or the other. 
 

However, the Bills should NOT act on an accusation alone. Too many people in this country jump to conclusions based solely on headlines and quick sound bites. Fortunately, the Bills organizations seems to be beyond that. 
 

Whatever the outcome, hopefully the truth prevails. 

[UKBillFan]

5 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Or he didn’t have all of the information he has now.

If that is the case then surely there would be room for Araiza to be cut on those grounds, rather than line up against the Panthers tonight?

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, pocoboy said:

 

Yes and all of this plays straight with Mr. Greaseball Lawyer doing a Twitter dump trying to get the Buffalo media to order up the public square flogging.

Ah yes, it's the victim who's to blame. Right, right.

Disgusting.

[HamSandwhich]

1 minute ago, jkirchofer said:

How else would you describe it?

Not in those terms, that’s for sure. I haven’t read through all of them but I question what you think is dragging through the mud. I’d guess your threshold is quite low.

[Bill from NYC]

6 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

I understand what you mean - an outcome in court is always on the basis of probability off the back of the evidence even, in criminal cases, it should be beyond all doubt. But guilty people have no doubt walked free ad innocent people have definitely spent time behind bars. Or even executed.

"Beyond all doubt."  That would be insane. If even only one of 12 jurors had a 1% doubt, the case would be dismissed.  Virtually no criminal would be convicted.

 

In the USA, the standard is "reasonable doubt." What are they doing in the UK?

[BarleyNY]

4 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

If that is the case then surely there would be room for Araiza to be cut on those grounds, rather than line up against the Panthers tonight?

Unless they’re waiting for the last round of cuts when they could pick up one of those punters.  Also they’d want to get the new information and that could take a little time. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by BarleyNY

[quinnearlysghost88]

Bills fans are just evolving into this 

 

[hondo in seattle]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

The Buffalo Bills aren’t the justice system. They have no obligation to wait. They’ll act based on what’s best for the organization.

 

"Innocent-until-proven-guilty" isn't just a judicial concept, it's an American value. 

 

I don't expect businesses to require the same burden of proof necessary in a court of law.  But I think that, morally and ethically, they shouldn't terminate employees without a preponderance of evidence. 

 

I don't think the Bills should cut Araiza because of the media storm.  I do think they should cut him if their investigation concludes Araiza is probably guilty.  

[4merper4mer]

4 minutes ago, cv05 said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but check this interview out at 1:07:00 of McDermott from a few days ago:

 

 

 

"...He's a great kid" This is all after the Bills are said to know about it. I think the Bills knew before the draft (i.e. 3rd punter selected (why?), discussions online of it back in December). The Bills just don't actually care. He'll bomb a couple 80 yarders tonight and McDermott and company will sleep well.

It wouldn’t be great but it’s not impossible that Beane knew but McD did not.

[SCBills]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

Ah yes, it's the victim who's to blame. Right, right.

Disgusting.

You really want to go to bat for this lawyer?

 

You do know that you can have an opinion of this story, and independently think the lawyer is trash.  In fact, if you support the woman, you probably should hope she gets a new lawyer. 

 

Unhinged screenshot guy who follows a bunch of OnlyFans girls on Twitter doesn’t scream “serious rape lawyer”. 

[Yobogoya!]

5 minutes ago, Logic said:

You're right.

Watson was never accused of participating in a violent gang rape for 90 minutes.

 

Was Araiza?

 

I read the initial article and didn't see where he was accused of participating in the actual gang rape in the house bedroom, yet a lot of people seem to be making that statement in this gargantuan thread. 

[pennstate10]

7 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

She wrote in her journal the day after the incident that she told him she went to high school. 

Did you look at that journal entry closely?  It really looks like a word had been erased, and Grossmont written in. 
 

Im not saying her entire story is untrue. But that is a little fishy. 

[hondo in seattle]

3 minutes ago, Logic said:

The issue I see is that it's very difficult to get to the real "truth of the matter" in these types of cases, and during the entire period of time that the team is in the process of attempting to do so, there is a giant distraction hanging over their heads, and a lot of damage being done to their reputation. 

Suppose this ends the way these things so often do -- with a settlement out of court and an NDA being signed. No real answer of what happened or didn't happen, no real closure. Meanwhile, weeks of national discussion, distraction, outrage, and damage to the Bills' image of "family and culture" has been done. But now their punter is "free and clear" legally and they get to keep him. Was it worth it? 

 

Azaira apparently already turned down that option.  Look at the texts exchanged between the two lawyers.  

[aceman_16]

6 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

She wrote in her journal the day after the incident that she told him she went to high school. 

Didn't she write she went to Grossmont? Which there is both a high school and a college near by with that name. I'm guessing if she (or anyone going to that party) would say grossmont and imply the college. Most college students would just turn away high schoolers and high schoolers know that. Either way...lying, implying or misleading where one goes to school, their age etc is NO REASON to be raped.

[BillsFanSD]

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Ah yes, it's the victim who's to blame. Right, right.

Disgusting.

You don't actually know that there is a victim in this story.  

 

I mean, maybe there is.  But you can't possibly know that.

[SectionC3]

40 minutes ago, Draconator said:

Against Araiza or Kane?

At this point, both. 

[Tanoros]

2 minutes ago, Logic said:

The issue I see is that it's very difficult to get to the real "truth of the matter" in these types of cases, and during the entire period of time that the team is in the process of attempting to do so, there is a giant distraction hanging over their heads, and a lot of damage being done to their reputation. 

Suppose this ends the way these things so often do -- with a settlement out of court and an NDA being signed. No real answer of what happened or didn't happen, no real closure. Meanwhile, weeks of national discussion, distraction, outrage, and damage to the Bills' image of "family and culture" has been done. But now their punter is "free and clear" legally and they get to keep him. Was it worth it? 

Consider the counter to what you say. Who wants to sign with a team that dumps a player the second there are accusations made against that player? There are never easy choices in these situations. At the end of the day, the right answer is to follow plans put in place for these kind of things and NOT make off the cuff decisions based on emotion. 

[pocoboy]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

Ah yes, it's the victim who's to blame. Right, right.

Disgusting.

 

"Hi, my name is Bull Buchanan, welcome to my illiterate world"

 

Blame is tough. I'd blame him and his buddies for being stupid and screwing everything this side of Luxembourg. If that's your life, drinking & ****ing, there are a host of problems that may come your way.

[Mango]

3 minutes ago, pocoboy said:

 

Yes and all of this plays straight with Mr. Greaseball Lawyer doing a Twitter dump trying to get the Buffalo media to order up the public square flogging.

 

Meh. I guess. It isn't greaseball lawyer specific. The SOP for NFL franchises for stuff like this is: 

1. Pay to make this go away before it reaches the public. 

2. Make sure local police provide reasonable protection. 

Araiza didn't pay to make it go away. Police haven't released results of the victims rape kit to the victim. They are certainly doing their part. 

There is no special "process" or "culture" in Buffalo. The Bills are an NFL franchise doing NFL things. Same stink, different poop. 

[Captain Caveman]

7 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Watson can be punished under the CBA. Why are you believing just one side of the story? 

 

The League can't touch Araiza. The Bills knew about this and it appears they are backing his innocence. Let it play out. Watson's complaint played out.

Watson didn't play for a year and has been suspended for another 11 games while it was "playing out"

 

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Logic said:

The issue I see is that it's very difficult to get to the real "truth of the matter" in these types of cases, and during the entire period of time that the team is in the process of attempting to do so, there is a giant distraction hanging over their heads, and a lot of damage being done to their reputation. 

Suppose this ends the way these things so often do -- with a settlement out of court and an NDA being signed. No real answer of what happened or didn't happen, no real closure. Meanwhile, weeks of national discussion, distraction, outrage, and damage to the Bills' image of "family and culture" has been done. But now their punter is "free and clear" legally and they get to keep him. Was it worth it? 

Dare I say it but the Steelers reputation didn’t seem to be overly harmed long term despite the presence of Roethlisberger, who was instead affectionately called Big Ben. I’m not saying that’s right for a moment and I seriously hope Beane and co have good grounds for sticking by Araiza, otherwise their feet should be held to the metaphorical fire. But will it have that much of an impact?

[What a Tuel]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Why do people have such a hard time understanding the difference between laws of the state and the practice of private industry when it comes to things like rights? He was no right to be treated as "innocent" by his employer until someone proves that he's guilty. His behavior has negatively impacted the franchise. That's reason enough for termination.

 

I mean if you want to live in a dystopian world where mega corps take away your livelihood because it affected their reputation and not based on truth then sure.

 

I am for cutting him if the tape is as it says it is and he admitted to statutory rape on the phone, but you are saying just the mere accusation causing the reflection of a poor image on your company? Dystopian nightmare and we are already living it.

[Solomon Grundy]

5 minutes ago, pocoboy said:

 

Yes and all of this plays straight with Mr. Greaseball Lawyer doing a Twitter dump trying to get the Buffalo media to order up the public square flogging.

The lawyer apparently knows that Jerry Sullivan is a Bills beat writer😎

[UKBillFan]

3 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

"Beyond all doubt."  That would be insane. If even only one of 12 jurors had a 1% doubt, the case would be dismissed.  Virtually no criminal would be convicted.

 

In the USA, the standard is "reasonable doubt." What are they doing in the UK?

Apologies, you’re right, beyond reasonable doubt.

[Beck Water]

7 hours ago, StHustle said:

lol…if men started being offended when referred to as “males” what would you say?

 

I'll say, I'll believe it when I see it.  I've never heard "males" used as a noun to describe men.

 

Look, I believe you've mentioned you have a public-facing position - some sort of event management?  Just be aware of how some people see that usage and why.

 

To some people, "’Ive been around this stuff and no very well how females get in these situations" is like the warning rattle of a rattlesnake, signalling a critter that could bite you; it correlates in their experience, to a man who has certain demeaning attitudes about girls and women.  Note that I'm not saying you yourself have those attitudes, but if you have a public-facing position, you get to knowledgeably decide whether or not that's baggage you choose to attach to yourself, or whether you want to "pick your fights" and change your speech pattern to not match that warning rattle.

 

LOL shades of "The Talk" I had to have with my Girl Kid.  And I'm sorry you faced a situation of false accusations, that had to have had a big life impact on you.  I do think it biases your viewpoint on this situation quite a bit.

 

 

[LeGOATski]

The Bills could trade Araiza, right? I know there's an owner/GM out there dumb enough.

[Bill from NYC]

Just now, UKBillFan said:

Apologies, you’re right, beyond reasonable doubt.

It's all cool Bro!  

[Draconator]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

At this point, both. 

I made a post earlier with a link where the then Erie County DA found a number of inconsistencies with her statements, and the accuser no longer wanting to cooperate with the DA or police, thus the case being dropped. So that would lead me to believe that Kane would be more innocent than guilty. 

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:

You don't actually know that there is a victim in this story.  

 

I mean, maybe there is.  But you can't possibly know that.

Oh so now she (maybe) wasn't even raped?

[aceman_16]

1 minute ago, Captain Caveman said:

Watson didn't play for a year and has been suspended for another 11 games while it was "playing out"

 

Wrong...he didn't play a year due to his legal issues (he held out BEFORE he was out). The team kept him out and paid him.

[dje85]

27 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:

I don't think it matters morally, but in California the age of consent is 18 and they don't have a "Romeo & Juliet" exception.  Technically a 21 year old who has sex with a 17 year old in the Golden State is guilty of statutory rape regardless.

 

Again, not saying it matters, because this particular angle doesn't matter to me at all.  In most states, something like this would be legal.  CA law is just a little on the weird side. 

Just looked this up since I am seeing a lot of misinformation..

 

What is the law in California?

In California, the age of consent is 18 years old.18 Unlike most other states, California does not have a close-in-age exception or Romeo and Juliet Law for its statutory rape laws.

However, California allows defendants facing sex crimes involving a minor to raise a mistake of fact defense. They can present evidence that they had a reasonable and actual belief that the minor was 18 or older.19 If there is sufficient evidence to prove this reasonable and actual belief, the burden shifts to law enforcement to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it did not exist at the time of the offense.20

 

Essentially, they don't have the Romeo and Juliet law in California but they do have this " I didn't know they were underage law. " If you can reasonably argue you didn't know the person was under age (which he was drunk and obviously didn't card her and there are claims she told people she was 18.) it is on her / law enforcement / her legal team for burden of proof in regards to  this. 

[Process]

I hate to do this but I've been busy past two days and haven't been able to really keep up and this is now 100+pages. 

 

Has ariza or his lawyers issued an official statement denying the allegations?

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Captain Caveman said:

Watson didn't play for a year and has been suspended for another 11 games while it was "playing out"

 

Because he can be disciplined.  Araiza can't be suspended right now according to CBA. It's a civil case. 

[BillsFanSD]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

Oh so now she (maybe) wasn't even raped?

Yes, that's possible.  We don't know whether the girl in question was raped, and we don't know by who.  Yet.  

[Captain Caveman]

Just now, aceman_16 said:

Wrong...he didn't play a year due to his legal issues (he held out BEFORE he was out). The team kept him out and paid him.

I'd be willing to bet he would have been traded and played last year if not for those legal issues

[jkirchofer]

1 minute ago, What a Tuel said:

 

I mean if you want to live in a dystopian world where mega corps take away your livelihood because it affected their reputation and not based on truth then sure.

 

I am for cutting him if the tape is as it says it is and he admitted to statutory rape on the phone, but you are saying just the mere accusation causing the reflection of a poor image on your company? Dystopian nightmare and we are already living it.

It really isn't hard to not put yourself in a situation where accusations could be made. For an organization that preaches culture and has passed on talent for character issues in the past, it is really dissapointing.

[aceman_16]

1 minute ago, Process said:

I hate to do this but I've been busy past two days and haven't been able to really keep up and this is now 100+pages. 

 

Has ariza or his lawyers issued an official statement denying the allegations?

Yes...and videos

[UKBillFan]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

Oh so now she (maybe) wasn't even raped?

In the eyes of the law, at this point an alleged rape took place. If they press charges, then they do believe it took place and, probably more importantly, they feel they have enough evidence for a conviction. Officially if some or all are found guilty, then a rape did take place; if all are found not guilty then it didn’t.