Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[george c]

17 year old? No excuse period .

Cut, move on.

 

[CountDorkula]

Just now, BeastMaster said:

But you are saying people need to not put themselves into situations where they can be accused of a crime, and I'm telling you that people can throw out accusations out of the blue.

 

I'm not debating you on whether her allegations have merit

Sure people can throw it accusations but there are extreme consequences for that like falsifying police documents defamation and slander lawsuits and if that was the case Araiza would’ve already had those in place. 

[Yobogoya!]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

This above statement presumes innocence but infers he made bad choices that led to being falsely accused of sexual assault.  So if he is innocent, what was the bad choice?  Having consensual sex while in college at a college party where he was living?  Are you alluding that college kids should just abstain while in college in fear they could be accused of sexual assault later?  

 

 

 

 

Honestly in this current age we live in that would probably be the smart thing to do, yes. 

 

In reality it will never happen, of course. But if I was a kid in college right now -- and especially if I was an athlete with a shot at turning pro -- man I struggle with willpower but I'd have to be thinking twice at every opportunity. 

[SCBills]

1 minute ago, CountDorkula said:

Most of us had sex in college i presume. I guarantee you none of us were in a position where we could be accused of sexual assault and gang rape so……..

If you had sex with someone, you were in position to be accused of sexual assault. 
 

Gang rape.. sure, we can agree that is a bit of an outlier. 

[hondo in seattle]

3 minutes ago, jkirchofer said:

She is not going to put herself through the trauma and scrutiny for an allegation of this type. This kind of thinking is toxic, representative of entitlement, and is the exact reason more victims do not come forward.

 

 

I don't know this young lady but Brian Bank's false accuser didn't shy away from the scrutiny.

 

Maybe 90% of rape allegations are true but not all are.  Araiza's lawyer says it's a money-grab.   Maybe so, maybe not.   I'd love to see what the police have.

[SectionC3]

10 minutes ago, hemma said:

 

Probably should ask the Bills attorneys.

The Bills are now in the position of doing next to nothing without firm input/approval from their attorneys.

I would not doubt that only the Pegulas can override.

I don’t know what this means. The bills can nuke Araiza right now inasmuch as he’s an at will employee.  That of course impedes his ability to settle. But that ship has sailed.  It also impedes his ability to procure top flight criminal representation.  Which, of course, may help P get justice. 

[CountDorkula]

2 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

 

I don't know this young lady but Brian Bank's false accuser didn't shy away from the scrutiny.

 

Maybe 90% of rape allegations are true but not all are.  Araiza's lawyer says it's a money-grab.   Maybe so, maybe not.   I'd love to see what the police have.

With all due respect to his lawyer, law 101 is never admit guilt. Also it is his job now as his lawyer to drag this girl’s name through the mud as much as he can to prove his  innocence

[fergie's ire]

The dots don't connect for me and I don't see a lot of discussion on that.  Sitting the only punter on the roster (even though for a pre-season game) seems to be a more drastic move than cutting him.  They said they had conducted an investigation and they knew about the accusation before they released Haack, but suddenly "it seemed wrong" for McDermott to play him?  They could have trotted him out for a few punts, waited until Tuesday, said they had learned more or thought more and just released him then.  But why did McDermott lose sleep, not play him, and seem visibly shaken? That seems weird to me.  In thinking about it, I came up with a scenario that WOULD connect the dots but it is rampant speculation with zero evidence.  I know some people hate that kind of thing, so if you are one quit reading.  Imagine the Bills here what the plaintiff is claiming and find the story unbelievable (in both senses of the word).  They decide that there's nothing there and cut Haack.  Meanwhile, Araiza has bragged to his teammates about pulling a train on some high school chick.  I know that it sounds crazy that someone would do that, but there are those who think even their monstrous acts should be admired by "those who get it" and that it is locker room talk.  Given the character of guys on this team, they don't get it, are appalled, but are conflicted about sharing something from the locker room.  But then it comes out and a player feels compelled to go to McDermott and now those "unbelievable" acts are confirmed and he just can't put a player who would do that out there.  Again, rampant speculation, but their are some weird dots here and such a scenario would connect them.

[Alphadawg7]

Just now, CountDorkula said:

Most of us had sex in college i presume. I guarantee you none of us were in a position where we could be accused of sexual assault and gang rape so……..

 

Tell that to all the people who have been falsely accused.  Not saying he is or isn't, remember I replied to someone who presumed innocence and reference poor choices made him vulnerable.  

[Dr. K]

After seeing McDermott's post-game comments, the spiritless play of the team last night, and considering non-football circumstances, I think that Araiza must go, regardless of his degree of guilt or innocence. 

[BeastMaster]

5 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Most of us had sex in college i presume. I guarantee you none of us were in a position where we could be accused of sexual assault and gang rape so……..

So if he had sex with a drunk girl (typical college experience) and she then goes on to later go in a house and get attacked, this is a position that none of us could be put into?

 

[SCBills]

4 minutes ago, fergie's ire said:

The dots don't connect for me and I don't see a lot of discussion on that.  Sitting the only punter on the roster (even though for a pre-season game) seems to be a more drastic move than cutting him.  They said they had conducted an investigation and they knew about the accusation before they released Haack, but suddenly "it seemed wrong" for McDermott to play him?  They could have trotted him out for a few punts, waited until Tuesday, said they had learned more or thought more and just released him then.  But why did McDermott lose sleep, not play him, and seem visibly shaken? That seems weird to me.  In thinking about it, I came up with a scenario that WOULD connect the dots but it is rampant speculation with zero evidence.  I know some people hate that kind of thing, so if you are one quit reading.  Imagine the Bills here what the plaintiff is claiming and find the story unbelievable (in both senses of the word).  They decide that there's nothing there and cut Haack.  Meanwhile, Araiza has bragged to his teammates about pulling a train on some high school chick.  I know that it sounds crazy that someone would do that, but there are those who think even their monstrous acts should be admired by "those who get it" and that it is locker room talk.  Given the character of guys on this team, they don't get it, are appalled, but are conflicted about sharing something from the locker room.  But then it comes out and a player feels compelled to go to McDermott and now those "unbelievable" acts are confirmed and he just can't put a player who would do that out there.  Again, rampant speculation, but their are some weird dots here and such a scenario would connect them.

I doubt any of that occurred, but I do think there’s two explanations for McDermott seeming visibly shaken:

 

1). He now believes Araiza may have done this.  Based on either new info about the alleged rape or new info on the outskirts of the claim that was hidden or led to believe differently that now erodes their trust in Araiza. 
 

2). He believes Araiza and feels for how this is affecting some members of the community, while knowing he may have to look a man in the eye that he thinks is innocent and destroy his dream. 

The entire ordeal is awful, but in terms of not being able to sleep and looking visibly upset .. that’s what I’m thinking is going on in his head. 
 

Edited August 27, 2022 by SCBills

[AuntieEm]

44 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.

 

Maybe he just means he's too ignorant to be able to hold any other thoughts in his head when he's got some sex story on his mind.  Maybe wgr should finally cut dead weight in their radio personality room.

[YoloinOhio]

2 minutes ago, fergie's ire said:

The dots don't connect for me and I don't see a lot of discussion on that.  Sitting the only punter on the roster (even though for a pre-season game) seems to be a more drastic move than cutting him.  They said they had conducted an investigation and they knew about the accusation before they released Haack, but suddenly "it seemed wrong" for McDermott to play him?  They could have trotted him out for a few punts, waited until Tuesday, said they had learned more or thought more and just released him then.  But why did McDermott lose sleep, not play him, and seem visibly shaken? That seems weird to me.  In thinking about it, I came up with a scenario that WOULD connect the dots but it is rampant speculation with zero evidence.  I know some people hate that kind of thing, so if you are one quit reading.  Imagine the Bills here what the plaintiff is claiming and find the story unbelievable (in both senses of the word).  They decide that there's nothing there and cut Haack.  Meanwhile, Araiza has bragged to his teammates about pulling a train on some high school chick.  I know that it sounds crazy that someone would do that, but there are those who think even their monstrous acts should be admired by "those who get it" and that it is locker room talk.  Given the character of guys on this team, they don't get it, are appalled, but are conflicted about sharing something from the locker room.  But then it comes out and a player feels compelled to go to McDermott and now those "unbelievable" acts are confirmed and he just can't put a player who would do that out there.  Again, rampant speculation, but their are some weird dots here and such a scenario would connect them.

It is because, as he said, they learned more in the 24 hours leading up to the game than they knew previously. That’s why he was in Carolina, expecting to play, and no other punter on the roster. It was a last minute decision to not play him. That’s why McD couldn’t sleep. It was the details in the civil suit that they didn’t have until Thursday evening 

[Freddie's Dead]

If I read another post about "consensual sex", my head will explode.  That is nothing more than slut shaming the victim.  SHE WAS 17 AND DRUNK.  UNDER EITHER PREMISE, SHE CANNOT CONSENT, AND THAT CONSTITUTES RAPE.  STOP SAYING SHE "CONSENTED" OR THAT THEY HAD "CONSENSUAL SEX", THAT IS A LIE!

 

There, I feel better.

 

[CountDorkula]

2 minutes ago, BeastMaster said:

So if he had sex with a drunk girl (typical college experience) and she then goes on to later go in a house and get attacked, this is a position that none of us could be put into?

 

Well considering there are thousands of members on this site and not one of them has come forward to say I was wrongly accused of something very similar to this I’d say it’s a pretty safe no

[boyst]

Just now, YoloinOhio said:

It is because, as he said, they learned more in the 24 hours leading up to the game than they knew previously. That’s why he was in Carolina, expecting to play, and no other punter on the roster. It was a last minute decision to not play him. That’s why McD couldn’t sleep. It was the details in the civil suit that they didn’t have until Thursday evening 

The only thing they could have "learned" is from the accusations. The accusations the white knights proclaim to be part of a sworn affidavit present enough evidence for them to caste judgement and call it justice.

[Bob in STL]

49 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

So you’re ok with people losing their jobs for allegations? Are you a fan of the Salem witch trials way of life or something? 

Very funny, and NO, I am not.  I am also not ok with someone not fully disclosing the facts around potential criminal and civil charges they could be facing.   If his non-disclosure violated terms of the contract that he signed then his contract can be voided.   This is how I think it will play out.   

 

 

He still gets his day in court, which is a right I believe in and take seriously.  

 

 

[CSBill]

17 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.

 

 

It seems to me, this situation is exactly what the Exempt List was created for, even if the incident happened before he was officially an NFL player.

 

This situation will not be resolved in a few days, there are too many variables that have to be sorted out. If he is guilty, he deserves whatever punishment the judicial system can give him. But, if he is innocent, this gives him appropriate time to clear his name and then return to his football career. .... The verdict is not going to come this week, it could take months. For that reason, it seems to me this is where the exempt list helps everyone--it protects the league and team from having to give a half-informed verdict, and allows the legal system to do it's job with the accused.

 

Moreover, I think (I do not know with any certainty) that the Commissioner has authority to do this when there is just cause.

[BuffaloBud17]

45 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Again I think what makes it tough is that they don’t know if he raped her. It’s easy to say just cut him because he’s named as an accomplice but he may be innocent. There were other players there and she didn’t remember anything. He’s saying the details in the suit are not accurate.  It’s tough to separate the emotion. 

 

If anyone of us were accused of this, we would be put on leave the next day until we proved our innocence. The perception is just cause they are professional athletes they are above that.

[BeastMaster]

1 minute ago, Freddie's Dead said:

If I read another post about "consensual sex", my head will explode.  That is nothing more than slut shaming the victim.  SHE WAS 17 AND DRUNK.  UNDER EITHER PREMISE, SHE CANNOT CONSENT, AND THAT CONSTITUTES RAPE.  STOP SAYING SHE "CONSENTED" OR THAT THEY HAD "CONSENSUAL SEX", THAT IS A LIE!

 

There, I feel better.

 

But according to his lawyers investigators...she was telling people she was 18 YO.

 

That changes things...but you can still go ahead and make bolded posts and be outraged if you like.

[CountDorkula]

2 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

It is because, as he said, they learned more in the 24 hours leading up to the game than they knew previously. That’s why he was in Carolina, expecting to play, and no other punter on the roster. It was a last minute decision to not play him. That’s why McD couldn’t sleep. It was the details in the civil suit that they didn’t have until Thursday evening 

I find it highly coincidental that a team that had won 10 straight preseason games wasn’t even competitive in this one and got shut out by Panthers back ups. Coupling that with the McDermott press conference something doesn’t sit right. 

[CountDorkula]

1 minute ago, BeastMaster said:

But according to his lawyers investigators...she was telling people she was 18 YO.

 

That changes things...but you can still go ahead and make bolded posts and be outraged if you like.

And according to Araiza he doesn’t remember anything about that night so he wouldn’t have known she was saying she was 18…..

[SCBills]

2 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

If I read another post about "consensual sex", my head will explode.  That is nothing more than slut shaming the victim.  SHE WAS 17 AND DRUNK.  UNDER EITHER PREMISE, SHE CANNOT CONSENT, AND THAT CONSTITUTES RAPE.  STOP SAYING SHE "CONSENTED" OR THAT THEY HAD "CONSENSUAL SEX", THAT IS A LIE!

 

There, I feel better.

 

Ive seen nobody call her a slut or imply she’s such.. until you brought it up with your caps lock venting. 

 

I have seen people say the other side of the story, which is allegedly backed up, is that she told or led others to believe that she was 18.  
 

Seems context, legally, is very important there. 

[Freddie's Dead]

1 minute ago, BeastMaster said:

But according to his lawyers investigators...she was telling people she was 18 YO.

 

That changes things...but you can still go ahead and make bolded posts and be outraged if you like.

 

The stories about her lying about her age is slut shaming, plain and simple.  Following the Koby Bryant playbook step by step.

[YoloinOhio]

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

The only thing they could have "learned" is from the accusations. The accusations the white knights proclaim to be part of a sworn affidavit present enough evidence for them to caste judgement and call it justice.

I agree they are only accusations at this point but it appears that they could have talked to araiza, his attorney, etc after reading the civil suit and learned more from them as well (then had been previously disclosed). Maybe araiza said he never had sex with the girl and now admits he did. We just don’t know what he said to them previously. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[Alphadawg7]

8 minutes ago, george c said:

17 year old? No excuse period .

Cut, move on.

 

 

Thats a bit dramatic lol.  I mean a 17 year old hooked up with a college kid, happens every day in every state in this country.  Of all the things with this case, this is the least of the concerns.  Not like he was 35 years old or something here.  Not to mention, there are sworn statements from eyewitnesses stating she said she was 18 and went the local college that had the same name as her HS.  

[Freddie's Dead]

Just now, SCBills said:

Ive seen nobody call her a slut or imply she’s such.. until you brought it up with your caps lock venting. 

 

I have seen people say the other side of the story, which is allegedly backed up, is that she told or led others to believe that she was 18.  
 

Seems context, legally, is very important there. 

 

This is the Koby Bryant playbook.  You keep saying "consensual", even when not possible in a legal sense.  I vented because the number of posts saying she consented is simple slut shaming.

[BeastMaster]

2 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

And according to Araiza he doesn’t remember anything about that night so he wouldn’t have known she was saying she was 18…..

Witnesses say she was saying it.

 

That means reasonable doubt if they go the route of claiming he didn't know she was underage...which is certainly a possibility.

[CountDorkula]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Thats a bit dramatic lol.  I mean a 17 year old hooked up with a college kid, happens every day in every state in this country.  Of all the things with this case, this is the least of the concerns.  Not like he was 35 years old or something here.  Not to mention, there are sworn statements from eyewitnesses stating she said she was 18 and went the local college that had the same name as her HS.  

I agree with this people need to really stop focusing on the age part of this and more focus on the forceable sex rape and gang rape allegations

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

3 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

 

I don't know this young lady but Brian Bank's false accuser didn't shy away from the scrutiny.

 

Maybe 90% of rape allegations are true but not all are.  Araiza's lawyer says it's a money-grab.   Maybe so, maybe not.   I'd love to see what the police have.

Both these lawyers are clowns.  When people hear ‘money grab’ they assume its an accusation that the victim is making the whole story up.  But it seems like he meant it’s a ‘money grab’ on behalf of the lawyer because the victim truly doesn’t know who attacked her so they’re going after the person she interacted with earlier in the night who happens to have some money.

 

no idea why he used the phrase money grab though this girl was unquestionably attacked by someone.   
On the flip side the action of the victims lawyer comes off that they likely know Matt wasn’t present for the gang rape but they are trying hard to bully him into a settlement because he is in the public eye. Really strange he leaked the diary that confirms Matt may have had reason to believe she was college age and that she didn’t know who was present for the gang rape.   the civil suit mentions her and Matt had sex earlier in the night which makes the rape kit meaningless as far as evidence against Matt goes. 
 

I’d definitely still cut him but the bills will likely face a wrongful termination suit from the nflpa on this one…it seems like he’s not going to be charged. 

[Motorin']

3 hours ago, Max Fischer said:

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. 

 

I can't agree more... I know I'm going to get eye roll emojis for this. But I could see Brandon Beane resigning over this. 

 

While innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is the law of the land, it has nothing to do with the immense damage that has been done to the organization.  

 

Anyone that thinks this hasn't been soul crushing for the team is seriously out of touch. 

 

The fact is, no one knows Araiza is innocent for certain. Of course he very well may be. But the idea of taking the risk of drafting a guy that may be guilty of this type of allegation should have been a complete non-starter.

 

The fact that they missed this when the San Diego St football team gang rape allegations were floating around pre-draft, and the fact that they spoke to the accusers attorney prior to naming him starter and went ahead and did it anyways is exactly why this will hang over the organization ***** a black cloud for a very long time. 

 

Yes, McD said he's in solution mode and there's a lot of work to do. I really respect the way he stood their and bared his soul, as painful as that was for him and as painful as it was to watch. But that was just the tip of the ice berg of what needs to happen to make this right. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

14 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Tell that to all the people who have been falsely accused.  Not saying he is or isn't, remember I replied to someone who presumed innocence and reference poor choices made him vulnerable.  

 I was falsely accused about 10 years ago.  She told her ex that I raped her.  The ex finds me on Facebook and starts threatening me.

 

I gave him my number and he called.  He believed me after about a minute.  Then we screen shot both of our conversations with her at the same time.

 

She kept asking me to hang out again.  She was texting him at the same time how much she’s traumatized by me.  Then we set up a group chat….she disappeared.

 

The guy followed up with me a week later and told me she admitted to lying about it to get his attention because she wanted him back. 

[NoSaint]

8 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I doubt any of that occurred, but I do think there’s two explanations for McDermott seeming visibly shaken:

 

1). He now believes Araiza may have done this.  Based on either new info about the alleged rape or new info on the outskirts of the claim that was hidden or led to believe differently that now erodes their trust in Araiza. 
 

2). He believes Araiza and feels for how this is affecting some members of the community, while knowing he may have to look a man in the eye that he thinks is innocent and destroy his dream. 

The entire ordeal is awful, but in terms of not being able to sleep and looking visibly upset .. that’s what I’m thinking is going on in his head. 
 

ultimately, there’s no happy outcomes once the grenade is thrown. Either she was victimized or it’s untrue and that’s awful too. 
 

all we can hope for is that the justice served matches closely to the truth of the events. Unfortunately in these situations it’s often you can’t be certain and there’s a degree of faith that the decision makers have to go with. For a man like Sean I’m sure he’s wrestling with that unknown now. 

[YoloinOhio]

4 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

I agree with this people need to really stop focusing on the age part of this and more focus on the forceable sex rape and gang rape allegations

I agree with that in the sense of if he’s guilty ONLY of having sex with her under the guise that she was in college, he shouldn’t be cut. He’s saying he was not involved in the rape. I think it’s  possible that he wasn’t. But we don’t know. That’s why McDermott wants to know the truth. But this is the worst possible time to have to deal with this situation and not to mention he is shook by the details as a human being. Someone did that to her, we just don’t know who. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[Herc11]

20 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Most of us had sex in college i presume. I guarantee you none of us were in a position where we could be accused of sexual assault and gang rape so……..

 

 

You can guarantee it? This is ignorant. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean you can guarantee you were never, or never are, vulnerable to someone accusing you of something you didn't do.

[BeastMaster]

5 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

The stories about her lying about her age is slut shaming, plain and simple.  Following the Koby Bryant playbook step by step.

Stories?

 

If the lawyer claims they have witnesses so will testify to her claiming to be eighteen, that's not "slut shaming".

 

This is now reaching the point where I need not to respond to some of these posts

[SCBills]

3 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Well considering there are thousands of members on this site and not one of them has come forward to say I was wrongly accused of something very similar to this I’d say it’s a pretty safe no

I shared a story earlier in the thread where a girl in my high school had sex with a group of guys at a party.  
 

The next day, when it made its rounds around school, she made allegations that they raped her.  
 

It went nowhere because her friends at the party immediately told the police that she was lying and it was consensual.  
 

———

 

I feel for women who come forward.  I know most don’t and it’s because people, historically, would drag them.  That’s awful.  
 

I also know guys who have had the word thrown around at them after a one night stand to one person was thought to be a potential relationship to the other.   Nothing police involved, but it’s still not a word to throw around casually. 

[NoSaint]

3 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

Both these lawyers are clowns.  When people hear ‘money grab’ they assume its an accusation that the victim is making the whole story up.  But it seems like he meant it’s a ‘money grab’ on behalf of the lawyer because the victim truly doesn’t know who attacked her so they’re going after the person she interacted with earlier in the night who happens to have some money.

 

no idea why he used the phrase money grab though this girl was unquestionably attacked by someone.   
On the flip side the action of the victims lawyer comes off that they likely know Matt wasn’t present for the gang rape but they are trying hard to bully him into a settlement because he is in the public eye. Really strange he leaked the diary that confirms Matt may have had reason to believe she was college age and that she didn’t know who was present for the gang rape.   the civil suit mentions her and Matt had sex earlier in the night which makes the rape kit meaningless as far as evidence against Matt goes. 
 

I’d definitely still cut him but the bills will likely face a wrongful termination suit from the nflpa on this one…it seems like he’s not going to be charged. 

that last paragraph isn’t a real thing.

[QLBillsFan]

2 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

I agree with this people need to really stop focusing on the age part of this and more focus on the forceable sex rape and gang rape allegations

Actually no people don’t. The acts regardless of age are agreed the key issue. But if that can’t be proven, age then becomes the issue. So yes it’s important.