Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

"  A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent. "  He can claim mistaken age.  But that's not consent.

 

It's a fact, that's all.

You left out the part where that defense compels the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is lying.  Why?

[JoPoy88]

2 minutes ago, Mango said:

Tell me you haven’t read anything about this case without telling me you’ve put forth zero effort. 

par for the course for ol’ T

[RiotAct]

1 minute ago, julian said:

Man I don’t want to agree with you on this, but I want that super bowl badly so I’m waffling but leaning towards let’s just move on and stay focused on the goal

and really, is it going to make TOO much of a difference to our expected Pts Against if we grab a slightly-below-average punter vs having Araiza hang around?

 

He’s a tantalizing talent, but hasn’t (officially) played a snap in the NFL yet.

[Mango]

18 minutes ago, nkreed said:

Playing Devil's Advocate here, there's a timeline to include here. What if he didn't know he had an STI and learned about it in the 11 days between the alleged sex and the phone conversation saying the female should get tested?

 

Because 11 days is how long between the event and the police led phone call.

That is solved by pharmacy or health center records. 

[wppete]

56 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Doesn’t matter. 

Nope, it doesn’t matter. 
 

 

What’s scary is how many people on here don’t understand what she said her age is doesn’t matter and her actually age does. Scary! 
 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by wppete

[Doc]

Just now, 4merper4mer said:

You left out the part where that defense compels the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is lying.  Why?

 

He's all about "providing a defense" for non-Bills.  It's very odd.

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, nkreed said:

If his criminal attorney, who has spoken with the DA, can produce multiple witnesses saying she was purposely inflating her age, combined with the mistaken age ruling, a DA would need to prove that she didn't misrepresent beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can't, the likelihood of the charge goes down the drain.

 

I still believe the blow up of this case now is because the DA needs to make a decision, and the Jane Doe lawyer is using the court of public opinion to make the DA charge Ariza. (No statement made on if that's a good or a bad thing, just a statement of facts)

But not implausible. I think that we are keyboard warriors who are making decisions without evidence. I am not defending Ariza, just wanted to offer out a plausible explanation without calling him sketchy.

 

 

The "mistaken identity" defense will be tough when he is on tape claiming he remembers nothing about that night.

 

How will he support his defense?  First question he will be asked is "at what point did you ask her how old she was and what did she tell you?"  He can't answer credibly.

[jkirchofer]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

"  A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent. "  He can claim mistaken age.  But that's not consent.

 

It's a fact, that's all.

Consent can be revoked at any time.

[mannc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

"  A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent. "  He can claim mistaken age.  But that's not consent.

 

It's a fact, that's all.

If Araiza had nothing to do with any gang rape, he’s very unlikely to be in serious criminal trouble for having sex with a 17-year old who was telling people she was 18, if that’s what happened, of course.

[Victory Formation]

Just now, 4merper4mer said:

I haven’t read the whole thing but if true it certainly makes him a dirt bag.  It doesn’t help build his credibility, but it also doesn’t prove guilt.

 

IMO doing something like that should probably be a crime or at least civilly actionable, but I doubt that is the case.

Of course it proves guilt! The man slept with a woman whilst he had an STD. You certainly cannot trust his character at this point unless he was unaware that he had an STD in the first place.

[Doc]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

The "mistaken identity" defense will be tough when he is on tape claiming he remembers nothing about that night.

 

How will he support his defense?  First question he will be asked is "at what point did you ask her how old she was and what did she tell you?"  He can't answer credibly.

 

By witnesses that overheard them talking.  Like the detectives listening in on the phone call.

[nkreed]

2 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

also those context calls the police had her make had her bringing up STDs, it's possible that had something to do with it.

You're right, it's possible, and both of us don't know. That's all I wanted to say and not immediately assume that Ariza is a sketchy dude.

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

He's all about "providing a defense" for non-Bills.  It's very odd.

It’s really strange.

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It doesn't matter.  If she lied and there are witnesses, she has no claim.

 

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

You left out the part where that defense compels the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is lying.  Why?

 

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

The "mistaken identity" defense will be tough when he is on tape claiming he remembers nothing about that night.

 

How will he support his defense?  First question he will be asked is "at what point did you ask her how old she was and what did she tell you?"  He can't answer credibly.

 

I covered that....

[Beck Water]

10 minutes ago, lookylookyherecomescookie said:

I am not assigning blame, I am not recommending what somebody does before sex, I'm merely stating that someone lying about their age does not clear a defendant of a statutory rape charge. If you think I'm wrong, say so. It's not necessary to be insulting to me because you don't like  or agree with a particular law.

 

I think you may be mistaken that someone lying about their age can not clear a defendant of a statutory rape charge in the State of California.  Apparently "mistake of age" is a Thing there.

[mannc]

2 minutes ago, wppete said:

What’s scary is how many people on here don’t understand what she said doesn’t matter and her actually age does. Scary! 

What she said matters

[JohnBonhamRocks]

I’d be shocked if this isn’t quickly settled with the season so close. Also:

 

”Defenses To Statutory Rape Under CPC §261.5

The two basic defenses to a conviction under California's Penal Code §261.5 are:

You Didn't Have Sexual Intercourse With The Minor

Example: Twenty-three-year old Defendant Darnell is attracted to his neighbor's seventeen-year old daughter, Victim Vicki. Darnell makes a pass at Vicki but she rejects him. Darnell, embarrassed, tells friends at a local tavern that he had sex with Vicki anyway. Bartender overhears Darnell's story and calls Vicki's parents. The parents report Darnell for Statutory Rape. Darnell is arrested and charged under CPC §§261.5(a) and (c). Should Darnell be convicted of the crime?

Conclusion: While Darnell may have attempted to develop a relationship with Vicki, he didn't succeed. He then lied about it rather than admit the truth. Therefore, while Darnell did not behave at all well, he can't be convicted of Statutory Rape because he actually didn't have sexual intercourse with the minor.   

You Honestly, Reasonably Didn't Think The Minor Was Under Eighteen

Example:  Seventeen-year old Victim Vernon takes his very realistic-looking fake driver's license to a bar, where he meets twenty-one-year old Defendant Don. Vernon uses his illegal license to buy several alcoholic drinks for Don and for himself. He tells Don that he's a twenty-two-year-old college student (which his license seems to confirm) and that he wants to take Don back to his apartment but can't because he lives with other students. Don invites Vernon back to Don's apartment. They have sex and Vernon leaves. Don, however, is shocked to be arrested for violating CPC §§261.5(a) and (c) after Vernon goes home and admits to his parents what happened. Don says he honestly didn't think Vernon was under eighteen and doesn't see why he should've thought otherwise. Should Don be convicted?

Conclusion: Don had sexual intercourse with someone who wasn't his spouse. Vernon wasn't eighteen when he had sex with Don. Vernon, however, used an expensive false identification card to represent himself as being a legal adult. He then bought alcohol several times for Don and himself and represented that he was a college student with roommates, which would reasonably explain why Vernon wouldn't take Don to his own home (where, of course, Vernon's parents would actually await   his return). Vernon, therefore, repeatedly represented through words and acts that he was old enough to have sex with Don and presented physical evidence to prove it. Since Don could honestly and reasonably believe that Vernon was years older than eighteen under the circumstances, Don shouldn't be convicted of Statutory Rape.”

 

Source: https://www.kannlawoffice.com/statutory-rape.html

[strive_for_five_guy]

12 minutes ago, zow2 said:

I wouldn’t release the guy. Maybe he gets suspended for a season or two.  But if he ever punts in the NFL it should be for the Bills or nobody. I would not release him simply because the media in Buffalo is all sanctimonious and demands it.

Apparently the league currently can’t punish Araiza here, because the incident happened before the NFL draft.  Obviously doesn’t clear him of being a POS if guilty, but I thought that was an interesting tidbit.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

By witnesses that overheard them talking.  Like the detectives listening in on the phone call.

 

He has no recollection of any of those conversations

[Beast]

7 minutes ago, Rc2catch said:

Question.. So if they used these phone calls as part of their criminal investigation and now snippets are being released publicly because of the civil suit, aren’t they possibly ruining some of the best evidence in a criminal case? I’m learning a lot about law tonight 

I can’t imagine the police actually releasing those…..But the victim could tell her attorney they exist and put it in an affidavit. Plus, those phone calls aren’t anything that would surprise a suspects attorney. They are what they are. They will remain the same the day they were made until the case is disposed of.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Beast

[BillsShredder83]

22 minutes ago, nkreed said:

Playing Devil's Advocate here, there's a timeline to include here. What if he didn't know he had an STI and learned about it in the 11 days between the alleged sex and the phone conversation saying the female should get tested?

 

Because 11 days is how long between the event and the police led phone call.

he couldve chose to get the test due to the sexual encounter (pretty responsible), found out he had it, and told her. we dont know who gave it to who.

Edited August 26, 2022 by BillsShredder83

[Doc]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

I covered that....

 

No, you didn't.  As I said, if there are witnesses to what she said, he doesn't have to remember anything.

[Believer]

The Pegulas will not stand for this… Araiza will be cut within days… 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, BillsShredder83 said:

he couldve chose to get the test due to the sexual encounter, found out he had it, and told her. we dont know who gave it to who.

 

I think he's trolling.

[mannc]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

The "mistaken identity" defense will be tough when he is on tape claiming he remembers nothing about that night.

 

How will he support his defense?  First question he will be asked is "at what point did you ask her how old she was and what did she tell you?"  He can't answer credibly.

He doesn’t have to testify. Prosecutors have to prove there was no reasonable mistake as to her age.

[Doc]

Just now, Believer said:

The Pegulas will not stand for this… Araiza will be cut within days… 

 

Nope.  He would have been cut instead of Haack.

[RiotAct]

Just now, JohnBonhamRocks said:

I’d be shocked if this isn’t quickly settled with the season so close.

 

I don’t think that’s going to  play into it at all.  Unless you meant the Bills coming to a decision to just cut bait, perhaps?

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, JohnBonhamRocks said:

I’d be shocked if this isn’t quickly settled with the season so close. Also:

 

”Defenses To Statutory Rape Under CPC §261.5

The two basic defenses to a conviction under California's Penal Code §261.5 are:

You Didn't Have Sexual Intercourse With The Minor

Example: Twenty-three-year old Defendant Darnell is attracted to his neighbor's seventeen-year old daughter, Victim Vicki. Darnell makes a pass at Vicki but she rejects him. Darnell, embarrassed, tells friends at a local tavern that he had sex with Vicki anyway. Bartender overhears Darnell's story and calls Vicki's parents. The parents report Darnell for Statutory Rape. Darnell is arrested and charged under CPC §§261.5(a) and (c). Should Darnell be convicted of the crime?

Conclusion: While Darnell may have attempted to develop a relationship with Vicki, he didn't succeed. He then lied about it rather than admit the truth. Therefore, while Darnell did not behave at all well, he can't be convicted of Statutory Rape because he actually didn't have sexual intercourse with the minor.   

You Honestly, Reasonably Didn't Think The Minor Was Under Eighteen

Example:  Seventeen-year old Victim Vernon takes his very realistic-looking fake driver's license to a bar, where he meets twenty-one-year old Defendant Don. Vernon uses his illegal license to buy several alcoholic drinks for Don and for himself. He tells Don that he's a twenty-two-year-old college student (which his license seems to confirm) and that he wants to take Don back to his apartment but can't because he lives with other students. Don invites Vernon back to Don's apartment. They have sex and Vernon leaves. Don, however, is shocked to be arrested for violating CPC §§261.5(a) and (c) after Vernon goes home and admits to his parents what happened. Don says he honestly didn't think Vernon was under eighteen and doesn't see why he should've thought otherwise. Should Don be convicted?

Conclusion: Don had sexual intercourse with someone who wasn't his spouse. Vernon wasn't eighteen when he had sex with Don. Vernon, however, used an expensive false identification card to represent himself as being a legal adult. He then bought alcohol several times for Don and himself and represented that he was a college student with roommates, which would reasonably explain why Vernon wouldn't take Don to his own home (where, of course, Vernon's parents would actually await   his return). Vernon, therefore, repeatedly represented through words and acts that he was old enough to have sex with Don and presented physical evidence to prove it. Since Don could honestly and reasonably believe that Vernon was years older than eighteen under the circumstances, Don shouldn't be convicted of Statutory Rape.”

 

Source: https://www.kannlawoffice.com/statutory-rape.html

 

 

Did anyone witness Araiza carding her before he had sex with her?  How will he "honestly and reasonably" claim he thought she was of age?  A drunk girl hanging at a college boy party told him so?

[4merper4mer]

2 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

Of course it proves guilt! The man slept with a woman whilst he had an STD. You certainly cannot trust his character at this point unless he was unaware that he had an STD in the first place.

Guilt as in shameful behavior?  Sure.  

 

Guilt of gang rape?  How?  
 

Shameful behavior is not criminal act.  

[wppete]

Just now, Believer said:

The Pegulas will not stand for this… Araiza will be cut within days… 

Kim Pegula who stands for women equality and rights did not a say word about Deshaun Watson 24 civil cases of sexual assault. That is very telling. 

[mannc]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Did anyone witness Araiza carding her before he had sex with her?  How will he "honestly and reasonably" claim he thought she was of age?  A drunk girl hanging at a college boy party told him so?

He doesn’t have to claim it; state has to prove no reasonable mistake.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, mannc said:

He doesn’t have to testify. Prosecutors have to prove there was no reasonable mistake as to her age.

 

How does he assert the mistaken age defense?  What evidence does he provide?  Fake ID?

 

[4merper4mer]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

I covered that....

Extraordinarily poorly.

 

The state would have to prove he knew her age.  How would they do that?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Doesn't a civil suit come AFTER a criminal... Can there be a criminal charges after a civil suit?

 

The burden is less in a civil suit... Wouldn't that taint a criminal investigation?

 

[BeastMaster]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

If Araiza had nothing to do with any gang rape, he’s very unlikely to be in serious criminal trouble for having sex with a 17-year old who was telling people she was 18, if that’s what happened, of course.

This is pretty much the way I am leaning based upon everything I've heard and read.

 

They're going to need DNA, along with witnesses to say he was in that room when the attack occurred in order to find him guilty of anything except possibly having a sexual encounter with a 17 YO that was telling people she was 18.

 

I'm also guessing they don't have that...which is why they dropped the Civil suit at the time it can cause the most damage to Araiza.

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

Did anyone witness Araiza carding her before he had sex with her?  How will he "honestly and reasonably" claim he thought she was of age?  A drunk girl hanging at a college boy party told him so?

 

LOL "carding her."  Again if there were witnesses who said she claimed to be 18, it's all over for her rape suit, against him at least.

[Motorin']

7 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

also those context calls the police had her make had her bringing up STDs, it's possible that had something to do with it.

 

8 minutes ago, Rc2catch said:

Question.. So if they used these phone calls as part of their criminal investigation and now snippets are being released publicly because of the civil suit, aren’t they possibly ruining some of the best evidence in a criminal case? I’m learning a lot about law tonight 

 

The aspects of the alleged conversation described in the LA Times article come entirely from what the young women has said. The calls themselves have not been released or vetted. 

 

The big question I have in all of this is if the Bills only knew about this a month ago, does that mean Ariaza withheld info during the pre-draft interview process? 

[mannc]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

How does he assert the mistaken age defense?  What evidence does he provide?  Fake ID?

 

It’s not a defense. No reasonable mistake as to age is an element of the crime that has to be proven by the state.

[Victory Formation]

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

Guilt as in shameful behavior?  Sure.  

 

Guilt of gang rape?  How?  
 

Shameful behavior is not criminal act.  

Why would you take the word of the accused over said victim when the accused demonstrated unethical and unquestionably immoral behavior to begin with?

[The Wiz]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

Who cares about moral? If both people are adults, morality doesn't mean sh*t

That's usually when most people abandon their morals, adulthood.