Jump to content

Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.


bill8164
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

The chiefs drafted a guy who was convicted of throwing his pregnant GF down the stairs. No one in the media cared. He’s a celebrated player now. I’m just saying, why was that. 
 

https://www.sportscasting.com/tyreek-hill-brutally-beat-and-choked-his-pregnant-girlfriend-in-college-but-never-saw-any-jail-time/

 

 

Everything changed after the Kavanaugh hearings.  

 

This is fact and not to be political.

 

Despite Duke Lacrosse and countless others - if you don't believe the woman you support rape.

 

Irrational virtue signaling and a need to sound morally superior when all they are is emotional ignorant people.  

 

Everything in this country is **s backwards.  

 

 

I understand the problem in sexual assault and how traditionally its difficult to first of all women to come forward.....and then get charges let alone convictions.  

 

That absolutely does not mean you just "believe all women."  I want to, but we need evidence. 

 

 

 

In the case of Watson, we have evidence pointing directly to him of assault and harassment.  Criminal?  I don't know.  Face of your franchise?  Nope.  

 

In the case of Araiza we have an allegation of him having sex with a woman claiming she was raped by other men at a party where apparently no one knows anything?

 

No Criminal charges.  No day in court.  Too many questions still.  

 

All this being said, it doesn't matter if McD believes they were lied to about any major detail.  

Edited by Big Blitz
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 4
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dan said:

My point with saying.. he’s just a punter, is only to imply that its immensely easier to replace him.    If this all happens with your franchise QB,  honestly I’d make the dame statement.  But you then recognize that that decisions completely tanks your season and perhaps many more seasons.   So, yes, it would be a far more impactful decision.  

 

I think it goes without saying that a team can find a serviceable punter far easier than a franchise QB. 

 

Most of the people who are taking the "wait and see" stance right now are doing so because a man's life and reputation are at stake, not because we're concerned with punting the ball in 2022. 

  • Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a random thought…

 

If the Bills cut Araiza, there’s a good chance they could stash him on their practice squad until the details are fully vetted.

 

I doubt another franchise would be willing to put him on their practice squad or active roster, given the horrible optics. 
 

If there’s a good enough chance that he DIDNT do this, that might be a preferable options vs keeping him on the active roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess over time (I obviously have no idea and want justice served above all) is that he'll be acquitted of serious charges to the point where he'd be deemed employable by an NFL team.

 

Short of something like a commissioners  exemption, I'm not sure how he'll be a Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

100% of the currently public info originated with the accuser.  It may indeed be the whole story.  If not, and somehow Araiza is telling truth to the Bills and they cut him for PR, how does that go over in the room when 3 months from now when more facts come out?  Yes, the press will drop it, but as McD pointed out there are people involved.  
 

The correct remedies are so simple to apply once the truth is known.  Personally I’d cut him even if he had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident but covered it up for his buddies.  If he lied at all to the Bills, bye.  Obviously anything beyond that he should rot in jail.  If he is exonerated but still cut, I think that is a bad look in the room.  People matter.  The truth matters.  

 

 

 

This is my concern with the Bills.  

 

If they cut him, after knowing what they knew, it looks like you did it solely because of public pressure - another reason I wanted this to play out in Court or however.  They determined that there is more then we know.  

 

We look bad.  I don't want my team to look bad.  I want it to have done the right thing.  They took the same approach with Shady but I don't know if that was Beane or Whaley.  It's not like we haven't been here before recently.  

 

 

So if they cut him it better dam well be because they learned details in the story they did not know.  

Edited by Big Blitz
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yobogoya! said:

 

I think it goes without saying that a team can find a serviceable punter far easier than a franchise QB. 

 

Most of the people who are taking the "wait and see" stance right now are doing so because a man's life and reputation are at stake, not because we're concerned with punting the ball in 2022. 


100% 

 

I don’t care if he’s the backup safety.. For me, this is about principle. 
 

Some view integrity as cutting a guy based on allegations.  Others view integrity as standing by a guy who proclaims his innocence, unless proven otherwise.  
 

We all have different moral compasses. 
 

It would have been cool to have a novelty punter who may also be an absolute weapon in Special Teams.  That’s it though … it would have been cool … not necessary, not important.. just kinda cool.  
 

We will be the same Super Bowl contender for years to come with him or without him.  

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

This is my concern with the Bills.  

 

If they cut him, after knowing what they knew, it looks like you did it solely because of public pressure - another reason I wanted this to play out in Court or however.  They determined that there is more then we know.  

 

We look bad.  I don't want my team to look bad.  I want it to have done the right thing.  They took the same approach with Shady but I don't know if that was Beane or Whaley.

 

 

So if they cut him it better dam well be because they learned details in the story they did not know.  

They (McD) have already said there is new information they did not know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rigotz said:

Just had a random thought…

 

If the Bills cut Araiza, there’s a good chance they could stash him on their practice squad until the details are fully vetted.

 

I doubt another franchise would be willing to put him on their practice squad or active roster, given the horrible optics. 
 

If there’s a good enough chance that he DIDNT do this, that might be a preferable options vs keeping him on the active roster.

No other team but the Bills would want to “stash” him on their practice squad? If it would look horrible for other teams to sign him, wouldn’t the same apply to the Bills?

Edited by BTB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Its Gonna Be Chilly said:

 

Really? In San Diego? 

 

 

9-335190DSC_6619.jpg

 

Did you see the video of the student apartment as reported, or just playing devils advocate that it may have been at some resort? 

 

Araiza's attorney said he wouldn't go as far to charecturize the evening as a "party" it was more like a small gathering of friends.

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

7 minutes ago, Rigotz said:

Just had a random thought…

 

If the Bills cut Araiza, there’s a good chance they could stash him on their practice squad until the details are fully vetted.

 

I doubt another franchise would be willing to put him on their practice squad or active roster, given the horrible optics. 
 

If there’s a good enough chance that he DIDNT do this, that might be a preferable options vs keeping him on the active roster.

That’s an interesting thought.  I don’t think he’d clear waivers, but who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike in Horseheads said:

They (McD) have already said there is new information they did not know.

 


If I had to guess .. it’s likely not having to do with whether they believe he’s innocent or guilty, but ancillary stuff they may feel misled on.  
 

Maybe they thought this was wrapped up.  Maybe they didn’t know she was 17 at the time.  Maybe there are details they feel Araiza should have informed them of that he didn’t.  
 

But I highly doubt they went from “we believe he’s innocent” to “holy **** we have a rapist on our team” overnight. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mrbojanglezs said:

Could the Bills be at risk of a libel lawsuit if they cut him for this and he is in fact innocent. 

 

 

 

Sure.  Anyone can sue anyone for anything.  But that's a lawsuit that undoubtedly would be quickly dismissed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Yobogoya! said:

 

I think it goes without saying that a team can find a serviceable punter far easier than a franchise QB. 

 

Most of the people who are taking the "wait and see" stance right now are doing so because a man's life and reputation are at stake, not because we're concerned with punting the ball in 2022. 

Which is why my thought would be a suspension.   He can concentrate on his personal life, while the team concentrates on a game.  When it is all resolved and him and the players around him are able to focus entirely on football; then you make a determination about his future with the Bills.   ...and presumably at that point, they would know the more complete details of the situation and could more clearly sypport their decision.
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Everything changed after the Kavanaugh hearings.  

 

This is fact and not to be political.

 

Despite Duke Lacrosse and countless others - if you don't believe the woman you support rape.

 

Irrational virtue signaling and a need to sound morally superior when all they are is emotional ignorant people.  

 

Everything in this country is **s backwards.  

 

 

I understand the problem in sexual assault and how traditionally its difficult to first of all women to come forward.....and then get charges let alone convictions.  

 

That absolutely does not mean you just "believe all women."  I want to, but we need evidence. 

 

 

 

In the case of Watson, we have evidence pointing directly to him of assault and harassment.  Criminal?  I don't know.  Face of your franchise?  Nope.  

 

In the case of Araiza we have an allegation of him having sex with a woman claiming she was raped by other men at a party where apparently no one knows anything?

 

No Criminal charges.  No day in court.  Too many questions still.  

 

All this being said, it doesn't matter if McD believes they were lied to about any major detail.  

That will be the reason for firing him when they get around to it later this weekend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

100% of the currently public info originated with the accuser.  It may indeed be the whole story.  If not, and somehow Araiza is telling truth to the Bills and they cut him for PR, how does that go over in the room when 3 months from now when more facts come out?  Yes, the press will drop it, but as McD pointed out there are people involved.  
 

The correct remedies are so simple to apply once the truth is known.  Personally I’d cut him even if he had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident but covered it up for his buddies.  If he lied at all to the Bills, bye.  Obviously anything beyond that he should rot in jail.  If he is exonerated but still cut, I think that is a bad look in the room.  People matter.  The truth matters.  

I just find it absolutely gross people have different standards based on positional importance. It truly is a sign of a sick culture we live in aka certain "lives" matter while others dont.

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

22 minutes ago, CEN-CAL17 said:

100% speculation here….

 

But the thing I find the most interesting is the recorded phone call. Supposedly he admits to hooking up. This call came 10 days after. But he also makes the comments that she should be tested for STDs.

 

As guys we know that type of comment is made after the fact. Meaning Matt did hook up with her, but then later found out she slept with other guys…. That’s where things went bad. 

 

If it was a g@ngg b@ng he lead supposedly, is it more likely he telling her to get tested for STDs cause he has STDs? Or basically telling her yeah we hooked up, but I know you hooked up with more dudes that night you should get tested. Like a yeah we hooked up, but you hooked up with a bunch of guys and (he didn’t like that) told her to get tested.
 

Remember this call was 10 days after the night in question, Matt was more than willing to answer the phone and talk. Most guys I’d assume would not even answer if they truly knew what had happened.

 

I think that is Matt’s side of this…. I just don’t know why someone would “lead a gng bng” then tell someone to go get tested for diseases……

 

I think that's an assumption you're making based on being a normal dude who does normal dude things and has normal dude feelings - you want some, but you're not committing assault and you would feel guilty and avoid the victim if you did something wrong.

 

I don't think that people who commit gang rapes think the same way.  Note I am not saying that MA committed a gang rape, just that your assumptions about a ***** rapist being unwilling to talk to his victim on the phone afterwards are provably invalid.

https://www.si.com/college/2015/02/09/vanderbilt-rape-case-brandon-vandenburg-cory-batey

Quote

When the police contacted the woman on June 26, three days after the assault, she says that she at first told them what Vandenburg had told her had happened: In the afternoon on the day of the assault, she testified that “he told me that I had gotten sick in his room and he had to clean it up and that it was horrible and that he had to spend the night taking care of me and it was horrible.” In response to hearing this, she said, “I apologized. I was embarrassed.”

This is a young woman whose brutal gang rape was captured live on surveillance and cell phone videos.  The trial left pretty much no question about what happened and who was involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Simon locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...