Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[ExiledInIllinois]

6 minutes ago, Malazan said:

 

 

 

 

 

I notice you have a lot to say, but don't want to elaborate on your statement about making a rape victim whole. Please, enlighten us. 

Because that's for MA to do.  Not us or the Bills. 

 

The plaintiff's attorney supposedly made an offer weeks ago, then withdrew it? Why? 

[716er]

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:

essentially demanding he be sacrificed to the bowels of hell.. 
 

 

 

Nah. 

 

Just want the Bills to cut him. He's a huge distraction and a punter to top it all off. 

 

If your boy is innocent he'll get a job with another team.

[Malazan]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

Because that's for MA to do.  Not us or the Bills. 

 

The plaintiff's attorney supposedly made an offer weeks ago, then withdrew it? Why? 

 

You believe money makes a rape victim whole?

[Solomon Grundy]

7 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

JUST FOR YOU I did that thing, and are you over there posting?  NooooooOoooooo

Many reactions though

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

2 minutes ago, BeastMaster said:

I agree, and I think that the organization does eventually give in to the mob and cuts ties. 

 

I think suspending him with pay until it's resolved is the best option. We have to pay him regardless...it keeps the heat off of the team, and it allows us to keep him if he is proven to have done nothing wrong...instead of a team scooping him up and then they get his services at our expense.

 

Would he to voluntarily agree to that otherwise a CBA grievance? Though not sure the NFLPA would want that bad press either fighting it.  If suspended does he count towards 53? 

 

Read a couple threads about putting him on exempt list.  Would Araiza have to request that?  And what exactly does that mean for roster salary, etc.?

 

As has been said too much of him being guilty in court of public opinion to keep him on roster now as too much of a distraction.

[ExiledInIllinois]

4 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

The problem is that if Araiza had sex with her it's still statutory rape even if he wasn't involved in any of the other stuff.  If they have any proof they had sex, consensual or not, he's toast.  

So so. I think this has been discussed.   Witnesses may be had that she lied about her age.  MA was only 21.  There's wiggle room with burden in California law if I read correctly. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by ExiledInIllinois

[SectionC3]

37 minutes ago, mannc said:

Very possible, but that’s a dangerous game. Employer gets scared and cuts employee, there goes your settlement fund.

Nobody said it was the first move.  If the offer is no-pay, what does one have to lose by dialing the employer? 

[BeastMaster]

3 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

The problem is that if Araiza had sex with her it's still statutory rape even if he wasn't involved in any of the other stuff.  If they have any proof they had sex, consensual or not, he's toast.  

Not really, because we have his lawyer saying they have witnesses saying she was telling people she was 18.

 

And there is a defense in that scenario where the accuser must proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did know she was a minor. Her lying to people at the party removes reasonable doubt

[ExiledInIllinois]

3 minutes ago, Malazan said:

 

You believe money makes a rape victim whole?

Maybe. Then why are they asking for it?

 

Or at very least donate the settlement. 

[stevestojan]

Never used the old F8 trick hoping to see a player got cut 

[Franco_92]

6 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

The problem is that if Araiza had sex with her it's still statutory rape even if he wasn't involved in any of the other stuff.  If they have any proof they had sex, consensual or not, he's toast.  

Man, you gotta read the thread

 

This is not true in the California legal system 

[Alphadawg7]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

The plaintiffs lawyer says the Bill have not asked to speak to her.   He contacted THEM weeks ago to give them a heads up that his client was filing a suit against Araiza. If he’s looking for big money, why would he take the chance that the Bills would cut him after hearing this? 
 

 

To be honest, I don't understand the plaintiffs lawyers choices and antics on a lot of things he has done.  

• He has posted text messages of him threatening Matt's attorney to settle or else.  
• He has posted photos of all her journal entries that were written by the plaintiff the day after and the days following that she literally does not have any memory of who took her to the room or who raped her.  Why he did this is puzzling to me because it completely contradicts his own filing and claims in the civil suit act that not only names exactly who did those things, but the exact manner it happened, all contradictory to her own journal entries before retaining a civil attorney.
• The civil attorney was direct text messaging Matt and direct contacting the Bills, all for the purpose of encouraging a settlement. 

His twitter is full of him trying to win his cases in the court of public opinion on all the cases he is involved in, obviously to create more leverage in doing his job to get the most money on behalf of his client.  And he is getting a lot of backlash over it and put out this long full page statement ranting and justifying him trying to do this all in the court of public opinion. 

 

And we do not actually know if anyone form the Bills investigation spoke to the plaintiff.  Her attorney just said the Bills directly did not call him or ask him any questions...but the Bills did not do the investigation, a 3rd party did and we do not know who he has or hasn't spoken to yet.  And quite honestly, her statement is just going to repeat what was published in the civil suit now.  

 

None of this means she wasn't assaulted or makes her less credible.  I am only discussing why the Bills did not go through her civil attorney...again civil not criminal...to conduct any investigation into the matter.  And honestly, no one doing any proper investigation would work with any civil attorney on any matter.  If he was a criminal attorney I suspect there would be more dialogue between the team and said attorney.  

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

3 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

Would he to voluntarily agree to that otherwise a CBA grievance? Though not sure the NFLPA would want that bad press either fighting it.  If suspended does he count towards 53? 

 

Read a couple threads about putting him on exempt list.  Would Araiza have to request that?  And what exactly does that mean for roster salary, etc.?

 

As has been said too much of him being guilty in court of public opinion to keep him on roster now as too much of a distraction.

The team cannot place him on the exempt list. Only the NFL can, and they won’t here because the conduct occurred prior to the draft.

 

[YoloinOhio]

8 minutes ago, Bermuda Triangle said:

It's probably been asked, but where are Kim Pegula and Beane on all of this?  Why is McDermott being hung out to dry by the organization?

I don’t really see it that he was hung out to dry. McDermott speaks to the media after every game, not Beane and not ownership. The timing of the presser being right after the game led to him handling the questioning. He’s capable of representing the organization, he has done so many times with and without Beane. Beane himself has never shied from the media and I  expect will address soon. Not sure why Kim would need to face the media, we don’t even know her medical condition. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[Behindenemylines]

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I don’t know that it would be, tbh. 
 

Arazia just happens to be the first guy after Watson’s ordeal to get hit with a sexual assault related accusation.

 

Seeing how media has covered the story, and how the Twitter crowd has reacted.. essentially demanding he be sacrificed to the bowels of hell.. I honestly don’t know if ANYONE in the league stands a chance if they get hit with a sexual assault allegation right now. 
 

 

I agree everyone is guilty until proven otherwise it seems and maybe as more facts come out things change.  However I keep reading “he’s just a punter so cut him to remove the distraction”.  I question how many would be saying the same thing at this point if it was WR#1. 
 

I was one to crucify Watson and still am based on the mountain of evidence and volume of plaintiffs etc. I struggle a bit here because I don’t fully see it as painted right now.  

[jkirchofer]

9 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I don’t know that it would be, tbh. 
 

Arazia just happens to be the first guy after Watson’s ordeal to get hit with a sexual assault related accusation.

 

Seeing how media has covered the story, and how the Twitter crowd has reacted.. essentially demanding he be sacrificed to the bowels of hell.. I honestly don’t know if ANYONE in the league stands a chance if they get hit with a sexual assault allegation right now. 
 

 

He should have made better choices and not put himself in a situation to be accused of sexual assault. It's not hard to do.

[Beck Water]

2 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

Would he to voluntarily agree to that otherwise a CBA grievance? Though not sure the NFLPA would want that bad press either fighting it.  If suspended does he count towards 53? 

 

Read a couple threads about putting him on exempt list.  Would Araiza have to request that?  And what exactly does that mean for roster salary, etc.?

 

As has been said too much of him being guilty in court of public opinion to keep him on roster now as too much of a distraction.

 

I believe if the Bills suspend him he counts towards the 53 man roster, yes.  Whether it's an NFLPA grievance or not depends upon exactly what the suspension is for.  If Araiza lied to or misled the Bills about having an interview with police this summer in an active rape investigation, or about what happened, I think that would come under the "conduct detrimental" clause and they can suspend him.  I don't think they can suspend him for something that happened last October without a grievance.

 

The exempt list has to come from the Commissioner.  He would not count towards the 53 if he's on that list.   Normally it wouldn't happen for something occurring before he was drafted, but, again if Araiza or his rep lied to or misled the Bills this summer, Goodell might oblige out of understanding that this is a very bad look for the NFL as a whole.

2 minutes ago, jkirchofer said:

He should have made better choices and not put himself in a situation to be accused of sexual assault. It's not hard to do.

 

Dude, do you have kids?  How old are they?

[SCBills]

7 minutes ago, Bermuda Triangle said:

It's probably been asked, but where are Kim Pegula and Beane on all of this?  Why is McDermott being hung out to dry by the organization?

McDermott is a great human being and is also the face of the team that can plausibly not know some of the answers he needs to be “not knowing the answers to” right now. 
 

Beane will surely speak, at least, after they make a roster decision on Araiza.  Not sure why he needs to be out there right now.  
 

They released a statement. (Wasn’t the greatest).  McD went out there and showed that they care about how this looks to some of the fanbase.  And honestly, maybe he’s better at showing empathy.  Beane is good dude, but he’s also way more free wheeling and joking in his vibe than McDermott. 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

24 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I'm tired of the gaslighting by WGR

 

The mantra of "the Bills won't cut him so we are forced to talk about him" is hilarious.

 

The afternoon guys doing pre-game said " as long as he is on the team this is the only thing we will be able to talk about. They need to do something" was the biggest example of how piss-poor the media is on the connection to reality.

 

These doofs have the mic. They can literally talk about anything.

Screw WGR, there are some GREAT podcasts on Spotify with actually intelligent insight.

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by TheyCallMeAndy

[jkirchofer]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I believe if the Bills suspend him he counts towards the 53 man roster, yes.  Whether it's an NFLPA grievance or not depends upon exactly what the suspension is for.  If Araiza lied to or misled the Bills about having an interview with police this summer in an active rape investigation, or about what happened, I think that would come under the "conduct detrimental" clause and they can suspend him.  I don't think they can suspend him for something that happened last October without a grievance.

 

The exempt list has to come from the Commissioner.  He would not count towards the 53 if he's on that list.   Normally it wouldn't happen for something occurring before he was drafted, but, again if Araiza or his rep lied to or misled the Bills this summer, Goodell might oblige out of understanding that this is a very bad look for the NFL as a whole.

 

Dude, do you have kids?  How old are they?

You can't chalk up being accused of sexual assault as a life experience. It's not hard to make good decisions. The fact that he put himself in this situation speaks volumes about his character as a whole.