Jump to content

Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.


bill8164

Recommended Posts

Just now, That's No Moon said:

Oh well. Then go play for someone else.


Yep, who gives a damn eh? Guilty before proven innocent and all that.

 

I have to admit, I am all over the place with this. Think my feeling is we should have cut him on ‘experience’ grounds over Haack but, as we stood by him then, we should continue to do so on grounds that he has not yet been charged or found guilty UNLESS something has been revealed which was deliberately kept from us, has been proven to be true, and is detrimental to Araiza’s case. In that case we should cut and move on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

I can't believe I'm seeing people slam Sean McDermott on here this morning. That is a man who is suffering, angry, and deeply committed to doing the right thing.

What do you mean? From what I've seen, people seem to be pretty sympathetic towards him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are loads of comments here so if this was already mentioned in some way, I apologize for the redundancy.

 

Araiza's lawyer said that Matt acknowledged that he didn't think that this would go anywhere until the Times article came out.

 

That is enough of a confession of enough wrongdoing to me to cut him, and to cut him TODAY.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve seen enough, I hope the Bills cut Araiza immediately. 
 

It would helpful if Kim Pegula, Brandon Beane and McDermott would conduct a thorough and soul bearing (and soul cleansing) press conference. A mea Culpa that makes it clear that mistakes were made and they want the team and fans to know these matters will be taken seriously. 
 

On the football side, I’m curious who is available to punt. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OrtonHearsaWho said:

There are loads of comments here so if this was already mentioned in some way, I apologize for the redundancy.

 

Araiza's lawyer said that Matt acknowledged that he didn't think that this would go anywhere until the Times article came out.

 

That is enough of a confession of enough wrongdoing to me to cut him, and to cut him TODAY.

can you elaborate or provide a link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:


Yep, who gives a damn eh? Guilty before proven innocent and all that.

 

I have to admit, I am all over the place with this. Think my feeling is we should have cut him on ‘experience’ grounds over Haack but, as we stood by him then, we should continue to do so on grounds that he has not yet been charged or found guilty UNLESS something has been revealed which was deliberately kept from us, has been proven to be true, and is detrimental to Araiza’s case. In that case we should cut and move on.

 

You have to decide which side you'd rather be wrong on. That's the side I chose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OrtonHearsaWho said:

There are loads of comments here so if this was already mentioned in some way, I apologize for the redundancy.

 

Araiza's lawyer said that Matt acknowledged that he didn't think that this would go anywhere until the Times article came out.

 

That is enough of a confession of enough wrongdoing to me to cut him, and to cut him TODAY.


How’s that a confession of wrongdoing? Surely, if anything, it suggests he thought there was nothing to answer until the Times published their article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:


Yep, who gives a damn eh? Guilty before proven innocent and all that.

 

I have to admit, I am all over the place with this. Think my feeling is we should have cut him on ‘experience’ grounds over Haack but, as we stood by him then, we should continue to do so on grounds that he has not yet been charged or found guilty UNLESS something has been revealed which was deliberately kept from us, has been proven to be true, and is detrimental to Araiza’s case. In that case we should cut and move on.

 


What Ariaza said to the accuser is more than enough to cut him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:


What Ariaza said to the accuser is more than enough to cut him. 


Was this something in the lawsuit?

 

ETA - You mean the telephone call? Don’t think there is anything in there which is bad enough to suggest being cut without hearing the defence first.

Edited by UKBillFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Max Fischer said:


What Ariaza said to the accuser is more than enough to cut him. 

what was that?

 

And so far we have nothing but an account from the accuser, right? Have the SCU detectives/DA released the conversation? Has Araiza laid out his timeline and details of the events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

People need to understand cutting Araiza isn't that simple in regards to the NFLPA. My guess is they wait until Kern or another punter comes available and then they just swap him out. 


sure it is. What do you find complicated about it?

 

I don’t think they need to race to do it before they feel they have a grasp on situation. I’m sure they are reviewing all we see, and likely some we don’t know about yet. But they could cut him literally whenever they want with regards to the nflpa.
 

What is the worst consequence? They cant pursue his signing bonus?

Edited by NoSaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NoSaint said:


sure it is. What do you find complicated about it?

 

I don’t think they need to race to do it before they feel they have a grasp on situation. I’m sure they are reviewing all we see, and likely some we don’t know about yet. But they could cut him literally whenever they want with regards to the nflpa


If we do cut, I presume it will be on Tuesday when we name the 53 man squad, so it isn’t separate or stands out from the rest? And then pick up someone on waivers, possibly whoever Tennessee decides to release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

You have to decide which side you'd rather be wrong on. That's the side I chose. 

 

Why does anyone need to “pick a side” before the facts are known?  If the facts show that Araiza had consensual sex at a college party with a girl he thought was 18 and played no part in any alleged assault, does he deserve to lose his job?

 

I don’t understand the need to rush to judgment.  From what I’ve read, I think both of the lawyers involved have acted pretty terribly.

 

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:


Was this something in the lawsuit?


Yes.
 

At the request of police, she made pretext calls — recorded by detectives — with the men named in the lawsuit whom police “had determined were present in the room when the rape occurred.” Araiza, the complaint alleged, confirmed on a call in late October that they had sex and recommended she get tested for a sexually transmitted disease. Later in the conversation, she asked him, “And did we have actual sex?” Araiza allegedly changed his tone and replied, “This is Matt Araiza. I don’t remember anything that happened that night.”


San Diego police detectives guided the young woman during her pretext calls, a Times review of text messages shows. The woman’s attorney, Daniel Gilleon, said police have not provided recordings of those calls or his client’s police report. The results of the rape exam have also not been disclosed, he said.

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-25/nfl-matt-araiza-sdsu-football-players-accused-rape-lawsuit
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...