Originally posted by Fleet 1
View Post
OT Matt Araiza - Accused Of Rape
Collapse
X
-
-
👍 1
- Top
- Bottom
-
-
Originally posted by Velo View Post
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.
-
👍 1
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by jamrock View Post
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
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.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Fleet 1 View Post
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
-
👍 2
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by chaincrusher View Post
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.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Heatmiser View PostThe 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
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.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by chaincrusher View PostI 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.
-
👍 1
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Hadl2Alworth View Post
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.
-
👍 1
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by QSmokey View PostInteresting 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.
-
👍 1
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by chaincrusher View Post
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.
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.“Less is more? NO NO NO - MORE is MORE!”
-
👍 1
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by chaincrusher View Post
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.
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.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Riverwalk View Post
Bills know more than you and I. I have no doubt they know he’s guilty.
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.
-
👍 3
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Comment