Matt Araiza, The Punt God, Signs With Team in Mexico

[Mr. WEO]

54 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

We saw 1 punt that would go down as the longest in the NFL this year.. yep, that’s an indication of talent, not to mention all the bombs he cut loose in college.  How have we NOT seen talent?  You’re flat out trolling.

Lol he can retire to the HOF on that one punt.

 

he’s a Punter—who cares?? Bills don’t need a new Punter.  No team seems to want him either.  

[SCBills]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Lol he can retire to the HOF on that one punt.

 

he’s a Punter—who cares?? Bills don’t need a new Punter.  No team seems to want him either.  

*No team can come across seeming to want him 

[boyst]

8 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

When did we see that?  He had 1 punt as a Bills player (preseason).

 

 

Bills (any team) can release any player at any time.  What would be the basis for his suit? 

 

 

Why do they need him at this point?

There is no basis for my statement on legal grounds and there shouldn't be. But the principal i think is that it's reprehensible the guy was kicked to the curb because the simps of the world wanted blood over accusations and hysteria.

[nedboy7]

No need for Araiza anywhere near this team. 

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, SCBills said:

*No team can come across seeming to want him 

 

How else would they get him on their roster?

 

12 hours ago, boyst said:

There is no basis for my statement on legal grounds and there shouldn't be. But the principal i think is that it's reprehensible the guy was kicked to the curb because the simps of the world wanted blood over accusations and hysteria.

 

None of us know that the accusations were not true.  He wasn't charged because DA's like to win cases and these are notoriously difficult cases to win--especially if the victim/witness has credibility issues.  In SD County, over a 4 year span, only 1/4 of cases involving rape and sex crime related allegations resulted in charges being issued.  Therefore, that says nothing about his innocence. Teams and individuals are certainly within their rights to come to their own conclusions.  He put himself in this position.  He is owed nothing by anyone.

[boyst]

19 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

How else would they get him on their roster?

 

 

None of us know that the accusations were not true.  He wasn't charged because DA's like to win cases and these are notoriously difficult cases to win--especially if the victim/witness has credibility issues.  In SD County, over a 4 year span, only 1/4 of cases involving rape and sex crime related allegations resulted in charges being issued.  Therefore, that says nothing about his innocence. Teams and individuals are certainly within their rights to come to their own conclusions.  He put himself in this position.  He is owed nothing by anyone.

Actually, that's where you're wrong. It says everything about his Innocence. He is without a doubt innocent. In this country people forget that is the foundation on which we rely. 

 

Arguing that he put himself in this position Yes, he thought the girl was of age. That's about it. That's not illegal.

[SCBills]

Araiza was misled by a woman he had sex with about her age. 
 

All the ancillary stuff aside, that’s the only fact we have from this case.   
 

Because of that (and unproven accusations), he likely lost his career in the NFL.  As we see with some posters on this board, no NFL team can bring him back because he’s been branded by the accusation and is only a punter.  
 

It’s pretty gross what happened to him, and I think our GM knows it.  You could see it on his face when he eventually had to let him go.  Beane knew what the deal was.   Societal pressure, and likely the NFL, forced his hand. 
 

 

Edited February 18, 2023 by SCBills

[MrEpsYtown]

Now is the best time to bring him back. Everyone thinks we suck again and its the beginning of the end for the Bills  anyway. So they will just pile on. Who cares? 

I think he should get another shot and I would be pretty upset if he goes and signs with Bengals or something and becomes a game changing punter. 

 

What he was accused of is terrible. What it sound like he actually did I am guessing 85% of the NFL did in college. I think it’s fair to bring him back to compete with someone else. 

[Mr. WEO]

26 minutes ago, boyst said:

Actually, that's where you're wrong. It says everything about his Innocence. He is without a doubt innocent. In this country people forget that is the foundation on which we rely. 

 

Arguing that he put himself in this position Yes, he thought the girl was of age. That's about it. That's not illegal.

 

There is a presumption of innocence--but that is in court.  But even in court, defendant is proven guilty or not guilty, not "actually innocent"---and he didn't have to answer the charges in court.  You have no idea what he did or didn't do.  Therefore, you can't factually tell others he is "without a doubt innocent".  Your argument  is simply an opinion, which is yours to have--same as every NFL exec who feels he's not the guy for their team. 

[Doc]

59 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

None of us know that the accusations were not true.  He wasn't charged because DA's like to win cases and these are notoriously difficult cases to win--especially if the victim/witness has credibility issues.  In SD County, over a 4 year span, only 1/4 of cases involving rape and sex crime related allegations resulted in charges being issued.  Therefore, that says nothing about his innocence. Teams and individuals are certainly within their rights to come to their own conclusions.  He put himself in this position.  He is owed nothing by anyone.

 

She also put herself in that position by going to a college party, getting drunk and lying about her age in order to have sex with a college guy.  Lying about telling him her real age, possibly being drugged by him and him being involved in the gang rape, which she can't even remember, is reprehensible and why her civil suit will also fail.

 

That being said, the Bills were right to cut him because they didn't need this hanging over their heads.  As it stands, the criminal aspect was only decided in early Decemeber and the civil aspect is still on-going.  If he wins the civil suit, he should be allowed to play in the NFL again.

[Mr. WEO]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

She also put herself in that position by going to a college party, getting drunk and lying about her age in order to have sex with a college guy.  Lying about telling him her real age, possibly being drugged by him and him being involved in the gang rape, which she can't even remember, is reprehensible and why her civil suit will also fail.

 

That being said, the Bills were right to cut him because they didn't need this hanging over their heads.  As it stands, the criminal aspect was only decided in early Decemeber and the civil aspect is still on-going.  If he wins the civil suit, he should be allowed to play in the NFL again.

 

I don't think anyone is supporting her decisions as completely sound.   But that is irrelevant. 

 

She may have lied about her age, but no one has determined if she lied about the rest.  SO it's not reprehensible as of yet.

 

And no one has declared that he is "not allowed to play in the NFL again".   What if, after the civil trial, no team feels any Punter is worth having this much?  It's simply not that important a position. Quick:  who's the best Punter in the league?  The worst?  Who cares? 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

I don't think anyone is supporting her decisions as completely sound.   But that is irrelevant. 

 

She may have lied about her age, but no one has determined if she lied about the rest.  SO it's not reprehensible as of yet.

 

And no one has declared that he is "not allowed to play in the NFL again".   What if, after the civil trial, no team feels any Punter is worth having this much?  It's simply not that important a position. Quick:  who's the best Punter in the league?  The worst?  Who cares? 

 

Wait, lying about telling him her real age to get him charged with statutory rape isn't reprehensible?  Are you kidding me?

 

Do you actually believe she told him she was 17?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

And what are you talking about?  Teams care about punters.  The Ravens and Bucs drafted one last year in the 4th round.  As for the best one this year, IMO is was Ryan Stonehouse.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Doc

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

There is a presumption of innocence--but that is in court.  But even in court, defendant is proven guilty or not guilty, not "actually innocent"---and he didn't have to answer the charges in court.  You have no idea what he did or didn't do.  Therefore, you can't factually tell others he is "without a doubt innocent".  Your argument  is simply an opinion, which is yours to have--same as every NFL exec who feels he's not the guy for their team. 

Well, I maintain that almost everyone who wastes the air to speak so strongly on such things to virtue signal should be shot on into space. Anyone who judges this guy on the maybes and buts is a moron of the highest class and hopefully decides to live a solitary isolated life in Asheville to never come down from the hills or disrupt the lives of functioning adults. 

[SCBills]

31 minutes ago, boyst said:

Well, I maintain that almost everyone who wastes the air to speak so strongly on such things to virtue signal should be shot on into space. Anyone who judges this guy on the maybes and buts is a moron of the highest class and hopefully decides to live a solitary isolated life in Asheville to never come down from the hills or disrupt the lives of functioning adults. 

We’ll never hear a mea culpa from the prominent Bills Twitter personalities or podcasters.  
 

They were real quick to make judgments for clout.   
 

Not a word from them since.  

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Wait, lying about telling him her real age to get him charged with statutory rape isn't reprehensible?  Are you kidding me?

 

Do you actually believe she told him she was 17?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

And what are you talking about?  Teams care about punters.  The Ravens and Bucs drafted one last year in the 4th round.  As for the best one this year, IMO is was Ryan Stonehouse.

 

It wasn't just "statutory" rape she initially alleged.......

 

Also, not providing full disclosure is "reprehensible"?   Hmmmm....see below.

 

If your Offense stinks (Titans) maybe a Punter is valuable.  Stonehouse is top 5 in yards....becasue he punted 90 times!  Otherwise not top 5 in net or %  inside  the 20.

 

And just because teams blow a 4th on a Punter doesn't mean it was a good pick (those weren't outstanding picks).. Even "The Punt God" didn't get a sniff until the 6th round. 

 

 

1 hour ago, boyst said:

Well, I maintain that almost everyone who wastes the air to speak so strongly on such things to virtue signal should be shot on into space. Anyone who judges this guy on the maybes and buts is a moron of the highest class and hopefully decides to live a solitary isolated life in Asheville to never come down from the hills or disrupt the lives of functioning adults. 

 

"So strongly"?  I was just pointing out the obvious error in your post.  I think if you knew what "virtue signaling" meant, you probably wouldn't have said that.  But then again....

 

Anyway, at what point in your review of all of the evidence with SDPD and the DA did you conclude he was actually innocent.  Share with us!

 

1 hour ago, SCBills said:

We’ll never hear a mea culpa from the prominent Bills Twitter personalities or podcasters.  
 

They were real quick to make judgments for clout.   
 

Not a word from them since.  

 

Mea culpa?  For what?  Before he was drafted, he said nothing about this event to the Bills (his lawyer initially lied and said he did, then retracted and said "maybe it was after the draft".

 

If this kid had been up front with the Bills before they picked him, the Bills would have saved themselves a lot of trouble.  But he wasn't-----and now they owe HIM an apology?

 

That's pretty rich.

[boyst]

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It wasn't just "statutory" rape she initially alleged.......

 

Also, not providing full disclosure is "reprehensible"?   Hmmmm....see below.

 

If your Offense stinks (Titans) maybe a Punter is valuable.  Stonehouse is top 5 in yards....becasue he punted 90 times!  Otherwise not top 5 in net or %  inside  the 20.

 

And just because teams blow a 4th on a Punter doesn't mean it was a good pick (those weren't outstanding picks).. Even "The Punt God" didn't get a sniff until the 6th round. 

 

 

 

"So strongly"?  I was just pointing out the obvious error in your post.  I think if you knew what "virtue signaling" meant, you probably wouldn't have said that.  But then again....

 

Anyway, at what point in your review of all of the evidence with SDPD and the DA did you conclude he was actually innocent.  Share with us!

 

 

Mea culpa?  For what?  Before he was drafted, he said nothing about this event to the Bills (his lawyer initially lied and said he did, then retracted and said "maybe it was after the draft".

 

If this kid had been up front with the Bills before they picked him, the Bills would have saved themselves a lot of trouble.  But he wasn't-----and now they owe HIM an apology?

 

That's pretty rich.

I don't need to prove anything. I was not on his grand jury, I did not review the evidence, I know how the system works because I've read the Constitution you know elementary school. It's been a while I guess... Has it changed?

2 hours ago, SCBills said:

We’ll never hear a mea culpa from the prominent Bills Twitter personalities or podcasters.  
 

They were real quick to make judgments for clout.   
 

Not a word from them since.  

The one time it came up on WGR after the fact the two dudes in the afternoon who were so quick to torch him said the bills have moved on and we should too as the fans because we've won a bunch of games or some crap like that. 

 

Of course yes, we need to forget about it... Because when it happens again, well, we need to have our pitchforks ready and forget all about the first time... 

[Mr. WEO]

8 minutes ago, boyst said:

I don't need to prove anything. I was not on his grand jury, I did not review the evidence, I know how the system works because I've read the Constitution you know elementary school. It's been a while I guess... Has it changed?

The one time it came up on WGR after the fact the two dudes in the afternoon who were so quick to torch him said the bills have moved on and we should too as the fans because we've won a bunch of games or some crap like that. 

 

Of course yes, we need to forget about it... Because when it happens again, well, we need to have our pitchforks ready and forget all about the first time... 

 

 

Cool! tell us where in the (US) Constitution, the words "innocent until proven guilty" appear.  You probably have the whole document memorized from that elementary school that gave birth to your penchant for Constitutional scholarship.

 

Let's hear it---"school" us.  

 

 

[SCBills]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Mea culpa?  For what?  Before he was drafted, he said nothing about this event to the Bills (his lawyer initially lied and said he did, then retracted and said "maybe it was after the draft".

 

If this kid had been up front with the Bills before they picked him, the Bills would have saved themselves a lot of trouble.  But he wasn't-----and now they owe HIM an apology?

 

That's pretty rich.

Bills Mafia Babes, most the podcast folks, most on WGR referred to him in the strongest sense as a rapist.  Zero interest in his side.  
 

Maybe someone should accuse them, ruin their reputation, and they can hope one day to regain what was taken from them. 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

It wasn't just "statutory" rape she initially alleged.......

 

Also, not providing full disclosure is "reprehensible"?   Hmmmm....see below.

 

If your Offense stinks (Titans) maybe a Punter is valuable.  Stonehouse is top 5 in yards....becasue he punted 90 times!  Otherwise not top 5 in net or %  inside  the 20.

 

And just because teams blow a 4th on a Punter doesn't mean it was a good pick (those weren't outstanding picks).. Even "The Punt God" didn't get a sniff until the 6th round.

 

Yeah, she also made the equally unbelievable claim that he went back for seconds, this time with his buddies.  The statutory rape lie was meant to bolster that claim.

 

And not telling the Bills about it isn't even in the same ballpark.  LOL!  Good one.  But it's the reason why he has no case against the Bills or NFL.

 

As for the punter part, take the loss.  Again teams, and good ones at that, value them.  Obviously more than you do. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, SCBills said:

Bills Mafia Babes, most the podcast folks, most on WGR referred to him in the strongest sense as a rapist.  Zero interest in his side.  
 

Maybe someone should accuse them, ruin their reputation, and they can hope one day to regain what was taken from them. 

 

His side is "I didn't do it".  He has had plenty of time to elaborate publicly on that.  

 

"Bills Mafia Babes" didn't create the accusations, they responded to them.  They said "if they are false, go on with your business. If they are true, cut him immediately".  

 

 

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, she also made the equally unbelievable claim that he went back for seconds, this time with his buddies.  The statutory rape lie was meant to bolster that claim.

 

And not telling the Bills about it isn't even in the same ballpark.  LOL!  Good one.

 

As for the punter part, take the loss.  Again teams, and good ones at that, value them.  Obviously more than you do. 

 

There you go.  Obviously the more serious of the allegations....

 

Is it "unbelievable" because the Matt Araiza you know would never even consider such an act?

 

Not telling the Bills is "reprehensible"--they almost certainly would NOT have drafted him had they known.  He hid it, thus forcing them to take massive heat, looking  foolish for the entire, albeit brief, period this kid was on the team.   It was all avoidable.

 

Yes, teams have Punters----a position so valuable that every team  hopes in  every game to use as little as possible. Good point!

 

 

 

 

[Success]

Putting aside the non-sports stuff:  he could have been a game-changing player for the Bills. That one punt was ridiculous - it completely changed field position for both teams.  

 

BUT, I loved the way Martin was able to pin teams deep, and do more directional kicks.  Distance isn't everything.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm good.

 

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, Success said:

Putting aside the non-sports stuff:  he could have been a game-changing player for the Bills. That one punt was ridiculous - it completely changed field position for both teams.  

 

BUT, I loved the way Martin was able to pin teams deep, and do more directional kicks.  Distance isn't everything.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm good.

 

 

He had one punt...in preseason game 1, against scrubs.   It was a touchback.

 

Martin is the perfect Punter for the Bills.  20th in % inside the 20 and 12th in net yards. Only punted 45 times.

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Cool! tell us where in the (US) Constitution, the words "innocent until proven guilty" appear.  You probably have the whole document memorized from that elementary school that gave birth to your penchant for Constitutional scholarship.

 

Let's hear it---"school" us.  

 

 

Copy paste insert 5th 6th 8th and part of 14 amendment.

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, boyst said:

Copy paste insert 5th 6th 8th and part of 14 amendment.

 

 

Took you a long time to look that up...nice try, but no.  it's not in there either.  all provided for more protections for the accused, but none presumed innocence.

 

That phrase was given birth (in terms of legal precedence by the Supreme Court) in a landmark case Coffin v US in 1894.

 

Keep looking!

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

There you go.  Obviously the more serious of the allegations....

 

Is it "unbelievable" because the Matt Araiza you know would never even consider such an act?

 

Not telling the Bills is "reprehensible"--they almost certainly would NOT have drafted him had they known.  He hid it, thus forcing them to take massive heat, looking  foolish for the entire, albeit brief, period this kid was on the team.   It was all avoidable.

 

Yes, teams have Punters----a position so valuable that every team  hopes in  every game to use as little as possible. Good point!

 

And the Matt Araiza you know would even consider such an act?  Or only because...you believe he's a statutory rapist?  See how that works?

 

The initial story sounded bad (they always do).  But I knew from the moment I heard her claim she told him she was 17 that she was a liar.  And that if she was willing to lie to get him into legal trouble for statutory rape, she most definitely could be lying about him being involved in the gang rape.  So far nothing I've seen has made me change my mind.  But rest assured, if during the civil trial the plaintiff's attorney magically produces evidence she told him she was 17 and/or that someone/anyone saw him participate in the gang rape, I'll give my mea culpa.  But I don't think I'll be needing to do that.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

And the Matt Araiza you know would even consider such an act?  Or only because...you believe he's a statutory rapist?  See how that works?

 

The initial story sounded bad (they always do).  But I knew from the moment I heard her claim she told him she was 17 that she was a liar.  And that if she was willing to lie to get him into legal trouble for statutory rape, she most definitely could be lying about him being involved in the gang rape.  So far nothing I've seen has made me change my mind.  But rest assured, if during the civil trial the plaintiff's attorney magically produces evidence she told him she was 17 and/or that someone/anyone saw him participate in the gang rape, I'll give my mea culpa.  But I don't think I'll be needing to do that.

 

Obviously, I have no idea what he's capable of, so I would not say he's actually innocent or guilty-- I (you, all of us) have no basis for such a declaration--especially regarding his involvement (or not) in a gang rape.  You have said he's innocent, based on how you feel about all this.  Ok...

 

I'm pretty sure the trouble she went to the cops about was not that he had sex with a 17 year old, but was sexually assaulted. Obviously if all that happened was consensual sex against the outside wall off the house, this would never have been a story.  I'm sure there is no shortage of underage of underage HS kids hooking up with college athletes at college parties all over the country ("reprehensible", I know!!!).

 

So if she lied about her age to get with a college football star, then everything else has to be a lie?  And if she added a year to her age, she has to be lying about being gang raped by a bunch of players?  Why should that always follow?  How does that work?

 

 

 

 

[boyst]

52 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Took you a long time to look that up...nice try, but no.  it's not in there either.  all provided for more protections for the accused, but none presumed innocence.

 

That phrase was given birth (in terms of legal precedence by the Supreme Court) in a landmark case Coffin v US in 1894.

 

Keep looking!

... The foundations of which were built by the US constitution, you goober. 

 

Road scholar, eh? 

42 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Obviously, I have no idea what he's capable of, so I would not say he's actually innocent or guilty-- I (you, all of us) have no basis for such a declaration--especially regarding his involvement (or not) in a gang rape.  You have said he's innocent, based on how you feel about all this.  Ok...

 

I'm pretty sure the trouble she went to the cops about was not that he had sex with a 17 year old, but was sexually assaulted. Obviously if all that happened was consensual sex against the outside wall off the house, this would never have been a story.  I'm sure there is no shortage of underage of underage HS kids hooking up with college athletes at college parties all over the country ("reprehensible", I know!!!).

 

So if she lied about her age to get with a college football star, then everything else has to be a lie?  And if she added a year to her age, she has to be lying about being gang raped by a bunch of players?  Why should that always follow?  How does that work?

 

 

 

 

See, you take this personal. Doc nor I do. We don't give a ***** about Matt Araiza. I barely know if that's his name. We care about the values and system for which our society should work. 

 

We are tired of the #woke #cancel #metoo.

[Mr. WEO]

21 minutes ago, boyst said:

... The foundations of which were built by the US constitution, you goober. 

 

Road scholar, eh? 

See, you take this personal. Doc nor I do. We don't give a ***** about Matt Araiza. I barely know if that's his name. We care about the values and system for which our society should work. 

 

We are tired of the #woke #cancel #metoo.

So a concept which entered legal status over 100 years after the Constitution was signed means it’s “in the Constitution” (which you “read in elementary school”). 
 

Lol, yeah, that’s what I figured…

[QCity]

22 minutes ago, boyst said:

 

Road scholar, eh? 

 

 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Obviously, I have no idea what he's capable of, so I would not say he's actually innocent or guilty-- I (you, all of us) have no basis for such a declaration--especially regarding his involvement (or not) in a gang rape.  You have said he's innocent, based on how you feel about all this.  Ok...

 

I'm pretty sure the trouble she went to the cops about was not that he had sex with a 17 year old, but was sexually assaulted. Obviously if all that happened was consensual sex against the outside wall off the house, this would never have been a story.  I'm sure there is no shortage of underage of underage HS kids hooking up with college athletes at college parties all over the country ("reprehensible", I know!!!).

 

So if she lied about her age to get with a college football star, then everything else has to be a lie?  And if she added a year to her age, she has to be lying about being gang raped by a bunch of players?  Why should that always follow?  How does that work?

 

Look, the DA refused to press any charges, even statutory rape against Araiza, when he easily could have been charged since he admitted to having sex with her and she was 17 at the time.  That tells me that anything she claimed about the encounter outside being rape, statutory or otherwise, was refuted by witnesses.  And no it doesn't mean that everything else also has to be a lie (nice try), but puts the burden of proof on her to prove her claim that he was involved in the gang rape.

 

We may learn more during the civil trial.  But if not, I'm sure Araiza's attorney will present the proof he has that Araiza wasn't even at the house when the gang rape occurred.  But again if proof exists that he participated in it, I'll admit it was wrong.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Doc

[boyst]

4 hours ago, QCity said:

 

Tbdism

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Look, the DA refused to press any charges, even statutory rape against Araiza, when he easily could have been charged since he admitted to having sex with her and she was 17 at the time.  That tells me that anything she claimed about the encounter outside being rape, statutory or otherwise, was refuted by witnesses.  And no it doesn't mean that everything else also has to be a lie (nice try), but puts the burden of proof on her to prove her claim that he was involved in the gang rape.

 

We may learn more during the civil trial.  But if not, I'm sure Araiza's attorney will present the proof he has that Araiza wasn't even at the house when the gang rape occurred.  But again if proof exists that he participated in it, I'll admit it was wrong.

 

In California, he couldn't charge that is she is on tape lying about her age, doc.  You already knew this.  Why mention it?

 

As you well know, the burden is on the DA, and as is true in 75% of such cases in that particular county, the DA didn't see a way to a clear win for the office so it didn't charge.  You and I have no idea as to how they came to that decision, but they did--it has nothing to do with innocence.  You know this. 

 

Do you conclude, given this data, that 75% of allegations  of sexual assault in that county are determined by the DA to be simply fabrications against actually innocent defendants?  

[StHustle]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

In California, he couldn't charge that is she is on tape lying about her age, doc.  You already knew this.  Why mention it?

 

As you well know, the burden is on the DA, and as is true in 75% of such cases in that particular county, the DA didn't see a way to a clear win for the office so it didn't charge.  You and I have no idea as to how they came to that decision, but they did--it has nothing to do with innocence.  You know this. 

 

Do you conclude, given this data, that 75% of allegations  of sexual assault in that county are determined by the DA to be simply fabrications against actually innocent defendants?  

There is also a thing called common sense. How was she gang raped with her friends patiently waiting on her to finish getting raped before they take her where? Home. Not to the police, not to the hospital. Instead that happens the next day.

 

I’ve heard of too many cases where kids get caught in sexual acts and lie saying they were raped to avoid getting in trouble. The girl is a proven liar and underage drinker who went to a college party open to hooking up with grown men. Does that mean she deserves to be raped? Of course not. But it certainly calls her character into question and the validity of any of her claims. She later admitted to consensually having sex OUTSIDE. Her actions scream young lying slut. How anyone can give her the benefit of the doubt and believe her claims over college kids who had no record of such behavior is beyond me. I can see if Araiza lied about even having sex with her but from all I heard, he didn’t lie about a thing nor did anything knowingly illegal. Yet she has proven to be a liar and willing to break the law, yet some people insist on believing her. How does that make sense???

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, StHustle said:

There is also a thing called common sense. How was she gang raped with her friends patiently waiting on her to finish getting raped before they take her where? Home. Not to the police, not to the hospital. Instead that happens the next day.

 

I’ve heard of too many cases where kids get caught in sexual acts and lie saying they were raped to avoid getting in trouble. The girl is a proven liar and underage drinker who went to a college party open to hooking up with grown men. Does that mean she deserves to be raped? Of course not. But it certainly calls her character into question and the validity of any of her claims. She later admitted to consensually having sex OUTSIDE. Her actions scream young lying slut. How anyone can give her the benefit of the doubt and believe her claims over college kids who had no record of such behavior is beyond me. I can see if Araiza lied about even having sex with her but from all I heard, he didn’t lie about a thing nor did anything knowingly illegal. Yet she has proven to be a liar and willing to break the law, yet some people insist on believing her. How does that make sense???

 

 

How unusual is that?  Probably not very.

 

As for Araiza, in a pretext phone call, her first admitted having sex with her (telling her he may have given her chlamydia, even), then, later in the call he lied and said "I don't remember anything that happened that night".  There's your boy...

 

DA doesn't charge or not charge based on your "common sense"---your conclusion is that the DA and the cops got together, reviewed al the evidence and concluded she's just a "you lying slut"?

 

look at you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StHustle]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

How unusual is that?  Probably not very.

 

As for Araiza, in a pretext phone call, her first admitted having sex with her (telling her he may have given her chlamydia, even), then, later in the call he lied and said "I don't remember anything that happened that night".  There's your boy...

 

DA doesn't charge or not charge based on your "common sense"---your conclusion is that the DA and the cops got together, reviewed al the evidence and concluded she's just a "you lying slut"?

 

look at you!

 

They concluded she has zero credibility and even the facts they uncovered aren’t enough to overcome this in the court of law. No jury would believe her story. How is that not enough to give Araiza the benefit of the doubt is beyond me. False accusations are a real thing and this plaintiff surely fits the profile.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

In California, he couldn't charge that is she is on tape lying about her age, doc.  You already knew this.  Why mention it?

 

As you well know, the burden is on the DA, and as is true in 75% of such cases in that particular county, the DA didn't see a way to a clear win for the office so it didn't charge.  You and I have no idea as to how they came to that decision, but they did--it has nothing to do with innocence.  You know this. 

 

Do you conclude, given this data, that 75% of allegations  of sexual assault in that county are determined by the DA to be simply fabrications against actually innocent defendants?  

 

Why mention that if she's a proven liar about statutory rape that she could be lying about his involvement in the gang rape?  Gee, I don't know WEO.  It's a puzzler...

 

As for sexual assault in general, many are cases where there are no witnesses or video of the event and it's a "he-said, she-said" thing, which yes, are hard to prove and not worth the DA's time.  But again, in this case, we have evidence of her lying about the statutory rape part, and I'll bet there is evidence he wasn't even at the house when the rape occurred, which we'll find out later.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Doc

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

19 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

He had one punt...in preseason game 1, against scrubs.   It was a touchback.

 

Didn’t we punt it from inside our own 20? Just saying there are times where a touchback is okay. That would be one of those times. 
 

 

[Mr. WEO]

4 hours ago, StHustle said:

They concluded she has zero credibility and even the facts they uncovered aren’t enough to overcome this in the court of law. No jury would believe her story. How is that not enough to give Araiza the benefit of the doubt is beyond me. False accusations are a real thing and this plaintiff surely fits the profile.

 

 

Zero?  This is what they said?  She's a lying slut therefore has zero credibility?

 

Link?

 

Anyway, you're not giving him "the benefit of the doubt", you and your bro doc are declaring actually innocent, without a doubt.

 

 

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Why mention that if she's a proven liar about statutory rape that she could be lying about his involvement in the gang rape?  Gee, I don't know WEO.  It's a puzzler...

 

As for sexual assault in general, many are cases where there are no witnesses or video of the event and it's a "he-said, she-said" thing, which yes, are hard to prove and not worth the DA's time.  But again, in this case, we have evidence of her lying about the statutory rape part, and I'll bet there is evidence he wasn't even at the house when the rape occurred, which we'll find out later.

 

Is there a "statutory rape kit"?  Is that what was administered?

 

Anyway, the only reason he was not charged with statutory rape it that it is his good fortune to live in a state that allows for a "hey, she told me she was of age!!" defense.  For a guy with nothing to worry about, wouldn't his lawyer reach out for a settlement amount at the beginning of August?  If this was just a shakedown, why did this happen (from texts released by the plaintiff's lawyer)?

 

"Armstrong then says that Araiza’s parents had inquired about the monetary amount Gilleon's client wanted and warns that if Gilleon “keeps calling the Bills and he gets cut, there will be no money to get.”

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

Didn’t we punt it from inside our own 20? Just saying there are times where a touchback is okay. That would be one of those times. 
 

 

 

I mean, I guess. 

[StHustle]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

Anyway, the only reason he was not charged with statutory rape it that it is his good fortune to live in a state that allows for a "hey, she told me she was of age!!" defense.  For a guy with nothing to worry about, wouldn't his lawyer reach out for a settlement amount at the beginning of August?

Dude what alternate reality do you live in??? You’re a college kid at a college party and a girl who looks like all the other college girls wants to have sex with you (and it was proven she was telling people she attended a nearby college)…WHO ASKS FOR PROOF??? I could see if she looked really young. Nobody felt the need to assume she was lying. You think he should be labeled a sexual predator and have to register as a sex offender for life because of this??? What is wrong with you man???

 

And because of people like YOU is exactly why people like to settle out of court and hush false accusers because they know if their false accusations go public then it ends up like exactly what happened to Araiza. Guilty or not. So to assume guilt cause they tried to settle shows how naive you are and have little grip on the real world and what being fair as possible means.