OT Matt Araiza - Accused Of Rape

[Velo]

Its not very Charger related is more what im thinking. lol Outside of the fact i wanted us to draft him. lol I had no clue of course.

When the season starts week 1 im moving most non bolt threads to our other wonderful forums.

I wanted the Chargers to draft him also. But then just before the draft, or the day of, I read whisperings - probably here on this board - that he had baggage and that he was going to fall. And when he wasn't the 1st punter drafted, that pretty much confirmed that the whisperings had merit and that at some time in the future we would find out what that baggage was.

[Fleet 1]

I wanted the Chargers to draft him also. But then just before the draft, or the day of, I read whisperings - probably here on this board - that he had baggage and that he was going to fall. And when he wasn't the 1st punter drafted, that pretty much confirmed that the whisperings had merit and that at some time in the future we would find out what that baggage was.

I missed all of that. I blame TPB for not keeping me better informed. Oh well this nasty ocean and beach outside my window helps sooth all that ails. lol

[Guest]

LOL. It’s not like Bundt did one thing to throw his life away. Judge didn’t need to weigh in with his thoughts on the path Buddy could have taken. That’s bullshit and who really needs a lawyer like Ted Bundy? Lawyers have a bad enough reputation as it is

It is not uncommon for a judge to discuss that a criminal defendant needs to take a different path or that it is too bad that the criminal defendant did not take a different path.

My recollection is that you stated that you were involved in practicing law associated with the music industry (which sounds really interesting and potentially awesome by the way). Have you ever done any criminal work (prosecution or defense)?

I have done some criminal defense work, though that is not primarily what I have done and I served for about a decade as a hearing officer. I can tell that on numerous occasions I have witnessed, judges will discuss the conduct of the defendant needing to change and the defendant potentially or actually heading down the wrong path in imposing either a sentence or in monitoring some form of agreement involving diversion. So, the "wrong path" discussion is in no way unique to this particular Florida judge of several decades ago.

As I stated previously, as a hearing officer, I really did feel that it was a tragic thing when some young person before me had done something to ruin his/her life (usually by frying his/her brain on drugs, huffing, or through extreme alcohol abuse). So I can completely see where that concept would cross a judge's mind as well.

Finally, I do not think you are construing the judge's comments fairly. You are discussing Bundy the serial killer as a lawyer. I think the whole point of the judge's comments was that Bundy had the ability to take a different path and that he could have been a good lawyer that the judge would have been pleased to see Bundy appear before him as a good lawyer, so the judge is discussing an alternate reality in which Bundy is not a criminal and not a serial killer, just a regular solid lawyer, which is where Bundy was headed absent his becoming a serial killer.

[Velo]

I missed all of that. I blame TPB for not keeping me better informed. Oh well this nasty ocean and beach outside my window helps sooth all that ails. lol

Haha. TPB is a great place for getting the latest "inside" scoop on what's going on around the league. A lot of things that start out as whispers I read on here first before they become big news. But if I had the nasty ocean and beach outside my window I might spend less time on line.

[jamrock]

It is not uncommon for a judge to discuss that a criminal defendant needs to take a different path or that it is too bad that the criminal defendant did not take a different path.

My recollection is that you stated that you were involved in practicing law associated with the music industry (which sounds really interesting and potentially awesome by the way). Have you ever done any criminal work (prosecution or defense)?

I have done some criminal defense work, though that is not primarily what I have done and I served for about a decade as a hearing officer. I can tell that on numerous occasions I have witnessed, judges will discuss the conduct of the defendant needing to change and the defendant potentially or actually heading down the wrong path in imposing either a sentence or in monitoring some form of agreement involving diversion. So, the "wrong path" discussion is in no way unique to this particular Florida judge of several decades ago.

As I stated previously, as a hearing officer, I really did feel that it was a tragic thing when some young person before me had done something to ruin his/her life (usually by frying his/her brain on drugs, huffing, or through extreme alcohol abuse). So I can completely see where that concept would cross a judge's mind as well.

Finally, I do not think you are construing the judge's comments fairly. You are discussing Bundy the serial killer as a lawyer. I think the whole point of the judge's comments was that Bundy had the ability to take a different path and that he could have been a good lawyer that the judge would have been pleased to see Bundy appear before him as a good lawyer, so the judge is discussing an alternate reality in which Bundy is not a criminal and not a serial killer, just a regular solid lawyer, which is where Bundy was headed absent his becoming a serial killer.

this has nothing to do with being a lawyer, it’s just common sense. A guy with Bundy’s moral compass would not have been a benefit to society no matter how brilliant. I understand your reasoning where a defendant may have done one thing that set him on the wrong path. But that’s not Bundy or any serial killer. He was a monster and academic performance doesn’t change that nor make him someone worthy of any kind of praise

[Guest]

The criminal investigation is still on going and nearing completion according to news articles. When it is completed it is up to the DA to determine whether to bring charges for statutory rape (which seems pretty clear cut, given that Araiza has all but admitted to it during interactions between the girl and him that were monitored by police) or rape, imprisonment, sexual assault and a bunch of other stuff that Chain would know way better than me.

I think Araiza is done as a pro football player and all signs indicate that is deserved.

TG

So, it is strange that the civil case would be filed first. If Araiza were convicted of raping the woman in a criminal case, the civil case becomes a slam dunk for her as every fact required for the conviction will have been established in a court of law already beyond a reasonable doubt. That can be set up in the civil case in the woman's favor such that Araiza would be precluded from arguing anything contrary to any fact required for the criminal conviction.

Perhaps the woman was up against a civil statute of limitations and had to file her complaint, but that statute would not even begin to run until she was 18. If that is the case, the criminal investigation must have dragged on for some time.

Also, there are 5th Amendment issues to Araiza giving testimony in a civil case when there could still be a criminal prosecution as questions may be presented that could potentially call for Araiza to incriminate himself.

Beyond that, statutory rape may not be clear cut. My understanding is that mistake of age is a defense to statutory rape in the State of California. Araiza may deny ever being told by the woman that she was then still in high school. And even if that were not believed, she easily could have been an 18-year-old senior in high school as older seniors in high school typically turn 18 in the fall of their senior year and this event at issue took place in the fall of the year in question as I understand it. But Araiza's argument will almost certainly be that she was drinking and at an adult party, so he believed that she was at least 21 and was not breaking the law. In making that argument, Araiza subtly shifts the focus to the alleged victim's wrongdoing in terms of breaking the law.

If I am the woman's attorney, I definitely want Araiza to have lots of money so that the client can max out her result from the legal proceeding. The good news for the woman is that intentional tort verdicts are often not dischargeable in any sort of bankruptcy proceeding and a judgment in California can be renewed once within 10 years for another 10 years giving the woman up to 20 years to collect on the judgment.

[Xenos]

I have a different perspective than most on all of this.

First, what has been filed against Araiza is a civil lawsuit. Apparently, there is no criminal action filed or to be filed. That is somewhat telling as it suggests that even with the alleged recording, the district attorney's office did not think the case could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. While that does not negate the possibility of proof at the lower civil standard of proof (a more likely than not standard), as in the O.J. Simpson case, at a minimum, that suggests the possibility that the "we have you dead and stinking" allegations of paragraph 15 of the complaint regarding the content of the recording may be being overstated by the young woman's attorney.

Yet, it seems that nobody on this forum has even considered the possibility that the complaint, which at best contains the allegations of an admittedly very intoxicated person (which potentially affects her credibility), may be false or at least false as related to Araiza, who would be a good person to name in a lawsuit since he is/was an NFL player (i.e., someone with a comparatively deep pocket).

As someone who responds to complaints and other allegations routinely for a living, it is absolutely the case that just because someone writes something down on a piece of paper, that does not make that something true--even as to what was reportedly recorded as that could be being mischaracterized as well.

I, for one, find it to be a poor move on the part of the Bills that they released Araiza absent an adjudication or solid proof on the matter. The "we are going to let Matt focus on this" is a total cop out by the Bills. There is nothing preventing Araiza from playing football and aiding his attorney in the defense of the case at the same time. This is just the Bills caving to what it perceives as the inevitable wave of PC and cancel culture BS, something that will continue until people stand up to it and say "enough is enough".

Given that Araiza is not facing any NFL discipline, I would not hesitate to sign Araiza. I do not see how giving a man a high paying position that he has earned with his job performance and that enables him to pay a nice settlement to the alleged victim is a bad thing--for anyone. The NFL team wins by getting the player; the player wins by getting a higher paying job; and the alleged victim wins because the player is making an NFL salary instead of working at a local car wash making minimum wage.

And I think I can tell you at least person that privately would agree with me on that subject--and that is the young woman's attorney. As someone that represents plaintiffs regularly, I can tell you that having someone that can actually pay a larger settlement is always helpful to a client that has suffered significant harms and losses. These lawsuits are filed to help the alleged victim, not to destroy the alleged tortfeasor.

The incident was reported last October, immediately after it happened. So please stop with this nonsense that she’s going after his money.

[Xenos]

And the victims aren't always girls. My father molested me for years. At least from 8 years old to 17. That - and a combination of other messed up things (like Mom abandoning me to Dad the molester/hitter when she ran off to another state with a man) - made my life HELL growing up and into adulthood. I don't trust anyone. I'm always in panic mode with so much fear that I just stay inside my apartment all the time. And I'm 59 years old. I don't want anyone's sympathy. But I can back up your assertion that victims don't always recover so well. I'll leave you with this...When my father would molest me he'd smile at me. That was literally the only time he would ever smile at me. It was hell growing up with him for me. At least he's dead now.

I’m so sorry.

[Xenos]

Interesting discussion, albeit not really football related, per se. Shows that there are two sides to everything; kind of what makes this country so great and, IMO, problematic at times.

Not sure why criminal chargers weren't filed. Does anyone have information on that? Often, in this day and age, there is that slippery slope of consent, deception, gold-digging, general dishonesty, greed, regret, revenge, shame, public opinion, and a whole host of other feelings/emotions/motivations that make their way into these messy situations.

Did the Bills do the 'right' thing by cutting Araiza? Well, you have to ask: What was their motivation for that? To avoid the media circus surrounding the case? To not have to deal with a major distraction for a team who feels they are poised to make a serious SB run? Because they believe Araiza did what the civil suite said that he did?

My personal opinion, FWIW, is the Bills management/coaches had a meeting and decided that they didn't want to deal with all the 'stuff' coming their way if they kept Araiza and, as someone already said, we're talking about a punter here, not Josh Allen. They can easily be successful without Araiza. Now, if that was their line of thinking - cutting a low-profile player simply because he is a low-profile player - opens up a whole 'nother discussion about this situation.

For me, I wouldn't touch Araiza with a 10-foot pole. Do I believe he did what he has been accused of doing? Honestly, yes. And if I were in a position to make the decision of whether to keep him or not, that would be my motivation for such a decision.

Civil charges can occur first if the victim wants something done. Especially if the PD and DA take their time.

[dmac_bolt]

Again, the proceeding was not the life celebration event for Bundy's victims. It was the pronouncement of Bundy's sentence. The sentencing was exactly what it was supposed to be and the thoughts that went through the mind of the judge were entirely normal for that type of proceeding.

Your tortured revisionist attempt to turn that proceeding into something else is unimpressive and demonstrates a lack of understanding of both the nature of the proceeding and the meaning of the judge's comments.

The judge was not focusing on the world being deprived of Bundy's brilliance. That is an absolutely lame characterization of what was said. Rather, the judge was telling Bundy that because he had the ability to do so, he could have taken a different path in life and that it was too bad that he chose a different path, one that resulted in the judge sentencing him to death. He chose to kill women instead of being a good lawyer and that was tragic for all involved.

Bundy was the man being sentenced and Bundy was the focus of the proceeding, so discussing Bundy was appropriate no matter what decades later agenda driven revisionist spin you are trying to put on it.

I would also emphasize that the proceeding involved the sentencing of Bundy to death and that I would hope that no judge would conduct that kind of proceeding in a mindless and unreflective fashion. His comments showed careful consideration of the issues and his punishment was the harshest possible under the law for what he did to his victims.

You don’t appreciate the impact a judge saying it was tragic for Bundy has on normal people. You’re too immersed in legality to see humanity. Accepting it was less than stated, so what. The judge should have been aware to realize expressing any regret of the loss of Bundy’s potential was beyond merely poor taste and bad optics. he isn’t just opining his personal rumination to a friend in his private study over a scotch. He’s the official recognized top representative of the State of Florida, speaking from the bench of the State Circuit Court. Its glaringly obtuse to minimize the primary purpose of their even gathering together in that room - Buddy willfully avidly killed at least 30 young bright women just starting their primes of life for no reason other than he was a sick evil monster. Could have been a bright lawyer? Fuck the tragedy of Bundy. A presiding judge should not go there in the official court transcript, he should describe him as an evil monster period and not a tragic loss for the road not taken - he’s a moron.

Araiza is done. he is a punter and not a Star QB and he is about to learn there is no such thing as a Punt God. There are great punters, good punters, poor punters. They are all just punters. Bills are better off with an average punter than a great punter who will have rape accusations chase the entire team all season long. I’ll grant him he is only so far guilty of the obvious facts he has implicitly confessed to. That is more than enough to cancel a punter/. Your argument they should retain him so he has more money to pay the victim is twisted acceptance of evil in its own right. Implied in your argument is he is guilty and needs to pay restitution, so the more money he makes the better for the victim. So you want him to play NFL football.

Thats sick.

[Duck of Death]

Perhaps the woman was up against a civil statute of limitations and had to file her complaint, but that statute would not even begin to run until she was 18. If that is the case, the criminal investigation must have dragged on for some time.

I’m not sure I understand the logic here. Would you mind clarifying? Why would there be such a short statute of limitations, esp in the case of rape? And how would her age at filing time be of impact? I ask because I’m admittedly in the dark about criminal proceedings (heck, with most things pertaining to the legal realm).

And yes, there are some strange things about this case. Why did it take so long for SDSU to investigate? Is it another case of sweeping bad behavior under the rug in order to protect the program? Or was there not enough evidence?

Supposedly a rape exam took place, allegedly uncovering bruises and blood. Why didn’t SDPD file charges or make an arrest? If this were any other situation (e.g. say a woman attacked by a random thug off the street), wouldn’t we expect an arrest be made much sooner? Again, I don’t know how these things work, so I’m asking anyone in the know.

Lastly, if Buffalo knew a month ago, why wait until only after it went public? And why cut the other punter - unless they were reasonably confident that nothing more would come of this case?

If this case tilts towards the plaintiff, it seems the fallout could be quite huge for some of the other connected parties.

[Ghost of Quacksaw]

Bills know more than you and I. I have no doubt they know he’s guilty.

He acknowledged having sex with her by telling her to get tested for chlamydia. She was a minor at the time, so having sex with her is automatically statutory rape.

So I would agree that we have basis for understanding that he's guilty of significant charges, even if EVERYTHING the suit alleges isn't 100% accurate.

Not saying he doesn't deserve his day in court, because he *does*. But we *do* know, already, that he's guilty of statutory rape.

MAYBE he's guilty of nothing else. We'll see.