After knowing the facts, I guess in my personally opinion if he thought she was 18 based on the information he was aware of, what is he to do be ashamed of? Other than he ruined his name and lost an opportunity in the NFL.
Matt "The Punt God" Araiza
- Thread starter Cougar63
- Start date
Plenty of witness testimony that she was NOT drunk, they had just arrived at the party, and she is witnessed and recorded telling people she is 18.
Basically, they have evidence to disprove almost everything she claims.
You also have to consider the circumstances of the encounter...it was a college party that she snuck into through the back and then presented herself as an 18-year old student. How many people here checked ids from every girl or guy they hooked up with at college at a college event.
If he'd been trolling high schools, that would be quite different.
Also doesn't mean he should have his career and reputation ruined while the person who ruined it will have minimal repercussions.
Agreed; but, believe SLHs point is that it doesn’t matter if she told people she is 18. Like it or not, by rule of law in most states, people cannot rely on someone’s word in these situations. They can still be charged with statutory rape Not sure why this isn’t part of any of the original charges. I don’t know CA specific state laws, so maybe they have some sort of exception, I would doubt it though.
The issue is everything this girl has stated has been a lie. So when you have an unreliable witness it will be impossible to prosecute.
Telling people she’s 18 isn’t a defense. But I get the point that the case likely can’t be proved beyond a reasonable doubt because of too many conflicts in her story.
100% agree. Was just pointing out that the law would allow for charges; although, after a quick search, CA does allow for “mistake of age” defenses if someone lies about their age, so quite possible that is the reason for no charges on that offense. I tend to agree it should be a defense; but, don’t think it is common in most states.
He went for a pee and banged a stranger he knew zero about.
That's fine if you're working the counter at the 7-11 but not if you're hoping to keep a multi-million dollar gig.
How'd you all feel about Roethlisberger using that defense?
I wouldn't be happy about that if I was my son. There's also a drastic chasm between what I would consider optimum or admirable behavior, and what should have you banned from your career over.
That's a standard that would leave us lucky to have 3 on 3 football with an all-time QB. Easy consensual sex is a universal fringe benefit for big time athletes, music stars, etc.
If we are going to now slide easy consensual sex into the pile of sexual malfeasance...that's going to be an interesting path to go down. That's quite a commitment, but its not surprising that people would rather do that than simply say, "In this one instance, what happened to this guy was unfortunate."
Nope, impossible. Much better to now demand people are cancelled for consensual sex (at least if they have a job better than 7-11).
Yeah sorry. If everyone in the nfl is banging underaged drunk girls I'm ok with it going away.
Christ would probably laugh too.
But hey, football is bigger than your religious beliefs, right?
If you point me to any post where I said that only orthodox, unerring Catholics (all nine of them) should have a job in public life, due legal process, or take part in things that entertain me....then yes I will frame that.
It's delicious that now YOU of all people are postulating a standard that nothing less than perfect Christians are worthy of the NFL (or a job better than 7-11). That's the pretzel someone will twist into to avoid saying that a guy got a raw deal by being falsely accused of a violent, bloody gang rape.
Not even sure what's so difficult about saying that somebody being falsely accused of something, with huge career and financial repercussions, is unfortunate.
Dude, he banged an underaged girl. He's not getting a "raw deal". His employer doesn't want to be tied to that.
Honestly, I find it hilarious when christians ask how non-christians have morals as it seems most of you are missing them yourselves.
I never understood non-religious people finding such joy in belittling religious people.
I mean sure I get the whole right wing religious agenda stuff annoys (understatement) people- I get that.
But, you are the same people (usually) who are all “not all Muslims!”; then find it recreational to go after religious folks like it’s a sport?
I mean sure I get the whole right wing religious agenda stuff annoys (understatement) people- I get that.
But, you are the same people (usually) who are all “not all Muslims!”; then find it recreational to go after religious folks like it’s a sport?
Quite frankly I don't understand why that wouldn't be a defense. She's 17 so it's believable from visual evidence that she could be 18. On top of that she's at a college party . . . uninvited. So it would be reasonable to conclude that everyone at that party was college age which is almost always 18 or over. (Although to be fair I did know one person who was 17 when they entered college.)
How can someone be convicted of a crime without mens rea? Should he have asked her for a photo ID? And even if he did do that, odds are given her behavior she likely had a fake ID as well. Pretty much any document that would prove age could be forged or faked.
Just think it's pretty unreasonable to charge someone with a felony when mens rea can't be proved. Mens rea is a requirement for pretty much any other crime.
You dont think its asinine to charge a college student with rape, which they would be stuck with a prison sentence and tagged a sex offender the rest of their life, because he was 19-20 and she was 17 and lied and said she was 18? Is there an ID check procedure that should have went down here? Did he not have his ID scanner on his phone that day?
Did I say he should be put in prison? Can you quote me, because I don't recall saying that.
Then I'm curious what he did wrong that warrants him losing his career?
If the girl was actually 18 years old like she told him she was than this is something you don't even hear about and for the most part no one cares.
He banged a minor he didn't even know.
If he loses some money because of it before another team takes a chance on him in a year or so I don't feel bad at all for him.
I'm guessing football players bang women they don't know all of the time. The only difference was he ran into a 17 year old who told him she was 18 at a place where he would not reasonably expect 17 year olds to be.
And I don't think he will get another chance in the NFL, that's a bit more than just being cut for a little while.
Agreed. He had sex with a girl that was only a few years younger than him who also lied about her age.
BFD.
He should be able to file a lawsuit against her for lost wages.
So, before the alleged gang rape happened, she had sex with two guys consensually (one being Araiza).
She told her friends who gave witness testimony that the sex was consensual.
“The witnesses say … that shortly after you arrived at the party, you left and came back shortly thereafter,” Amador said. “And you told [a friend], ‘I just had sex.’ ... You didn’t appear unhappy. You appeared to be having fun and that the encounter on the side of the house with Matt, suspect Araiza, was consensual."
After having sex with Araiza, she goes up to other guys at the party and says this. The whole time, her friends at the party said she didn’t appear intoxicated.
Amador explained to the girl that additional witness testimony alleged that at this period of time, “you were approaching men at the party saying, ‘I want you to [expletive] me, and if you don’t [expletive] me, you’re a [expletive].”
She then has sex with a second guy before the alleged gang rape.
While the civil lawsuit claimed that right after the Araiza encounter in the side yard, the football player led her into the bedroom in the house, the timeline established by authorities was much different. Prosecutors said that “shortly after” being with Araiza, witnesses said the girl again left her group and came back to report that she had had sex with a different man. Again, prosecutors explained, witnesses suggested it was consensual.
“You had returned and then came back and said you had sex with a guy, this would have been the second person that would have been in the progression of the evening,” Amador said. “Again, you’re described as being OK, not scared or distraught. Seemed happy, seemed consensual.
She told her friends who gave witness testimony that the sex was consensual.
“The witnesses say … that shortly after you arrived at the party, you left and came back shortly thereafter,” Amador said. “And you told [a friend], ‘I just had sex.’ ... You didn’t appear unhappy. You appeared to be having fun and that the encounter on the side of the house with Matt, suspect Araiza, was consensual."
After having sex with Araiza, she goes up to other guys at the party and says this. The whole time, her friends at the party said she didn’t appear intoxicated.
Amador explained to the girl that additional witness testimony alleged that at this period of time, “you were approaching men at the party saying, ‘I want you to [expletive] me, and if you don’t [expletive] me, you’re a [expletive].”
She then has sex with a second guy before the alleged gang rape.
While the civil lawsuit claimed that right after the Araiza encounter in the side yard, the football player led her into the bedroom in the house, the timeline established by authorities was much different. Prosecutors said that “shortly after” being with Araiza, witnesses said the girl again left her group and came back to report that she had had sex with a different man. Again, prosecutors explained, witnesses suggested it was consensual.
“You had returned and then came back and said you had sex with a guy, this would have been the second person that would have been in the progression of the evening,” Amador said. “Again, you’re described as being OK, not scared or distraught. Seemed happy, seemed consensual.
San Diego State: 'There are no findings against Matt Araiza'
The university says the former star punter is no longer a subject of an investigation into an alleged gang rape.
Hey look, Hoosier is wrong again.
Lawsuit against former Bills punter Matt Araiza has been dropped
In exchange, Araiza will dismiss his defamation claim against his accuser
www.cbssports.com
Hey look, Hoosier is wrong again.
Lawsuit against former Bills punter Matt Araiza has been dropped
In exchange, Araiza will dismiss his defamation claim against his accuser
He's just being worked out. He's not been signed. I believe Kapernick got some workouts too but was still blackballed by the NFL.
I will be happy to be wrong if he's actually signed.
To be fair, you said chance not signed. IMO getting a workout is definitely a chance.
Something like "We did a ton of research and everything pointed to this being a kid who was wrongly accused, who deserves a chance. We're comfortable with him as a person, and we'll support him throughout his return to the NFL."
Until he says or does something dumb again. Then they kick him to the curb asap
Wasn't it already proven he's done nothing wrong to begin with?
https://apnews.com/article/matt-araiza-rape-lawsuit-dismissed-ba34b821c0e5ff59268c6ae0c7b2842f
