Matt Araiza (Drafted by Bills) Is Now An Accused Rapist

[tennis-player]

What do you think "liable" means, friend? Paying out damages for fun?

As @Ouchie should know, the law is based upon precise definitions. No, "guilty" is not a civil equivalent. It has far reaching ramifications beyond mere incarceration that cannot result from a civil verdict.

Friend, I know what "liable" means. I am not an internet expert. I actually am an expert, since it has been my profession for 30 years.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Friend, I know what "liable" means. I am not an internet expert. I actually am an expert, since it has been my profession for 30 years.

Cool. Perhaps you can spend your time productively, explaining why not pressing charges is no assertion of innocence, instead of parsing words about the presumption of guilt associated with criminal vs. civil charges.

 

[tennis-player]

Cool. Perhaps you can spend your time productively, explaining why not pressing charges is no assertion of innocence, instead of parsing words about the presumption of guilt associated with criminal vs. civil charges.

I have no idea what you are trying to say about a presumption of guilt. Obviously, if no charges are filed, it means nothing as to guilt or innocence. People can always have their own opinion as to the truth of allegations.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

As @Ouchie should know, the law is based upon precise definitions. No, "guilty" is not a civil equivalent. It has far reaching ramifications beyond mere incarceration that cannot result from a civil verdict.

Friend, I know what "liable" means. I am not an internet expert. I actually am an expert, since it has been my profession for 30 years.

But we aren’t talking specifically about whether this guy is doing jail time. That’s already been determined. We are talking about whether the team should sign him. I, for one, wouldn’t want the team signing a guy who lost that civil suit because it means there’s a very good chance he is a scumbag. Maybe not enough evidence to put him behind bars but enough evidence that a jury or the bench still found against him. Let’s put it this way, would you be excited to have him and his buddies run into your hot underage daughter who looks older than she is at a frat party if he lost that civil suit?

 

[tennis-player]

But we aren’t talking specifically about whether this guy is doing jail time. That’s already been determined. We are talking about whether the team should sign him. I, for one, wouldn’t want the team signing a guy who lost that civil suit because it means there’s a very good chance he is a scumbag. Maybe not enough evidence to put him behind bars but enough evidence that a jury or the bench still found against him. Let’s put it this way, would you be excited to have him and his buddies run into your hot underage daughter who looks older than she is at a frat party if he lost that civil suit?

I agree with this statement completely. I would not sign him to my team. My post was about a poster mistakenly trying to teach @Brit about what "guilty" means in the US justice system, when we know that our system is based upon the British common law, and the systems are very similar.

Just as you corrected mistaken opinions about pension funds, I will correct false opinions about criminal law and litigation.

 

[SissyBoyFloyd]

Maybe our society has approached sex, rape, underage sex, etc in a totally incongruent manner in relation to what is more real and natural. Maybe, somewhat like religion, sex should be separate from government and laws. It appears trying to bring some form of justice for the said victims hardly ever gets accomplished and ruins the image of all involved, usually disintegrating down to a level of he said/she said.

If there were no laws regarding sex, and we stopped prosecuting so-called sex crimes, we could and would be forced to go after the perpetrators for more straight forward easy to convict physical crimes of kidnapping (forcing someone to move to or remain where they do not wish to, assault & battery (beating/hurting others), public lewdness (exposing oneself in public), etc. If this was done, it removes the need to prove any intent of the victim, plus whether a victim consented or not. No one asked for or invites battery on themselves. And the victim's past history (ie. sexual) has nothing to do with anything, so is never mentioned. I think nearly all victims of physical and emotional abuse would feel free and anxious to prosecute their attackers if the sex angle was totally removed. It is the stigma of a sexual attack, plus the threat of the defense disgracing the person involved by their past actions, which scares and prevents more people from going to the police to report it.

It just seems to me that you remove most of the obstacles that interfere with the criminal act or rape being prosecuted. Now I know there would be thousands of things to address in approaching such an idea, but this was just a thought in general of how not to hinder the prosecution of criminal acts against others through limiting a DA´s options.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

I agree with this statement completely. I would not sign him to my team. My post was about a poster mistakenly trying to teach @Brit about what "guilty" means in the US justice system, when we know that our system is based upon the British common law, and the systems are very similar.

Just as you corrected mistaken opinions about pension funds, I will correct false opinions about criminal law and litigation.

Do you know who @Ouchie-Z-Clown is and what he does?

 

[tennis-player]

Do you know who @Ouchie-Z-Clown is and what he does?

I am familiar with @Ouchi's profession. I thought I made that clear.

 

[AZCB34]

As this conversation about whether to sign or not unfolds, don’t forget the multiple DUI having, did time in jail GM the Cards currently employ.

Good times

 

[Raindog]

The significant issue to me is that regardless of whether Araiza is "guilty" under criminal law or just "responsible" under civil law, is completely immaterial to the argument of whether he could or should be allowed to continue his NFL career... which it seems was the origin of the argument here.

As has been continually demonstrated in many areas of public life, a business such as the NFL isn't in anyway compelled to authorize or allow the participation of some miscreant simply because they weren't able to be prosecuted on a criminal basis due to the complexity of such action.

So if Araiza is found duly "responsible" in a civil proceeding for what he is accused of, that is more than sufficient in my (and most others) opinion to qualify as a reason to permanently blackball him from the league. Let him take his chances in the CFL, USFL, XFL, etc. if they don't mind being associated with someone who has been legally assessed to be a rapist, even if not on a criminal basis. It's not as if he is owed an NFL career under any circumstances or that he is being deprived in any way because the NFL doesn't (and shouldn't) want to be associated with him.

 

[splitsecond]

I haven’t followed this closely enough to know when this was reported but I can tell you that damn bear every case that doesn’t have a rape kit completed or a physical exam with conclusive evidence is almost impossible to prosecute. In this case they went to much greater lengths to investigate than I can recall seeing in any case I have seen or been involved with in my previous life in family law. None of that proves or disproves guilt. It all just means there’s not evidence to meet the burden of proof to convict in the eyes of the prosecutor.

But where is the line drawn? I imagine this will go all the way to civil trial unless it is dismissed. Araiza probably needs definitely proof in a win in civil court to recover money from the Bills - which IMO if he is cleared civilly he should absolutely go after them.

But what if he settles to avoid all that? What do we do there? There are endless amounts of reasons people settle and very few of them involve actual culpability (or lack thereof). I honestly don’t know.

 

[BritCard]

OJ Simpson agrees with this take!

Sure. That one guy disproves the whole rule of innocent until proven guilty...

The law didn't even bring charges. They didn't even think there was enough bring charges. Yet some still want to punish him.

 

[LA Redbird]

we all know what youre trying to do. Cancelled = trump people ergo these are big bad republican people who are responsible.

Oh. Haha. You WERE being serious.

 

[JohnnyCakes]

Oh. Haha. You WERE being serious.

ok....you have the floor. Obviously your comments say that you were in fact NOT implying that.

So what were your comments implying?

 

[Solar7]

I can't quite pin down how I feel about it. On one hand, I don't like the court of public opinion ruining someone's life, and often feel that if a person is found innocent or not brought up on charges, they should be viewed as such. Obviously, this poor girl's life has been ruined too, so I have the utmost sympathy for her, and it's awful that whoever truly did assault her won't be brought to true justice.

I don't want to delve too much into hypotheticals, and I don't have all of the facts like a prosecutor/investigator/juror would. Additionally, my knowledge of civil law isn't perfect. But if the guy does settle or is levied damages, at which point do we know if he's part of the gang rape? Does he settle acknowledging he had consensual sex with a minor? That he knew she was in an unsafe position and did nothing to help? That he knew about things after the fact and didn't point out those who did it? Did she name him because he's the one she most remembered spending time with during a drunken night?

Genuinely, I'm kinda asking. I don't think the degree of guilt in a civil case or settlement is generally shared with the public. And that's where I struggle to draw a line in my own head. In a different state, consensual sex between her and Arazia would have been perfectly legal. It's not in California. And I know we're all older here now, but thinking back to my high school days, I knew plenty of girls with fake IDs who would be popping into frat parties or bars and lying about their age.

Not really advocating for the Cardinals to sign him, but I don't know if he should be blackballed from the NFL either. I suppose, as a coaching staff, you'd have to bring him in and have him recount everything that happened that night.

 

[LA Redbird]

ok....you have the floor. Obviously your comments say that you were in fact NOT implying that.

So what were your comments implying?

Whatever you want it to mean. Have fun!

 

[Phrazbit]

By his own admission he gave booze to a 17 year old and took part in banging her. Does it constitute a criminal charge of rape? Well, according to the prosecuter, not enough evidence.

But the facts are the facts... the guy is a scumbag.

No interest.

 

[Dr. Jones]

By his own admission he gave booze to a 17 year old and took part in banging her. Does it constitute a criminal charge of rape? Well, according to the prosecuter, not enough evidence.

But the facts are the facts... the guy is a scumbag.

No interest.

This is where I am at.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I am familiar with @Ouchi's profession. I thought I made that clear.

He does. I don’t practice criminal law and I’m not a litigator.

 

[tennis-player]

@Raindog, @splitsecond and @ Solar 7 have made very good posts on this issue. We know that he will never be found guilty in a criminal court because the district attorney declined prosecution. There will most likely never be a judge or jury in a civil case decide on the evidence because these types of cases never go to trial.

Settlements occur based upon financial and other considerations without an admission of culpability. That does not mean that the defendant did or did not commit the accusations. Often it is an insurance company's financial decision to settle. In many cases the plaintiff will dismiss the case due to a lack of "deep pockets"; not enough money available to make a trial worthwhile. Such a dismissal does not mean the plaintiff is not credible.

All we know is social media reports, which is certainly less than the San Diego authorities have discovered. Based upon what I know, I would not sign him. I also would not sign Deshan Watson, but Cleveland had other ideas based upon their investigation. Other people such as @BritCard want more than social media reports to affect the player's career. I respect that opinion as well.

 

[gimpy]

Ahhhh, a new voice on here, sort of, I like it.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Do you know who @Ouchie-Z-Clown is and what he does?

I do, he is a professional chupacabra hunter and business is good

 

[gmabel830]

I do, he is a professional chupacabra hunter and business is good

Wait.. he’s not a clown for a living?!?!?!?! Mind blown!!

 

[BritCard]

I don't like the court of public opinion ruining someone's life, and often feel that if a person is found innocent or not brought up on charges, they should be viewed as such.

Stop here and you answered your own question.

Obviously, this poor girl's life has been ruined too, so I have the utmost sympathy for her, and it's awful that whoever truly did assault her won't be brought to true justice.

Has it? What if, you know, shes making it up?

I'm not saying she is or isn't. But we don't know and it's certainly not "obvious". There are well documented cases or false rape accusations. Brian Banks the most obvious one. But just a quick Google of "false rape claim football" shows others. And remove football and there are more again.

Maybe Araiza is a nice church going, god fearing man that visits his granny every other weekend and his accuser is street trash who saw a chance to make some money off a guy she knew was heading for the NFL? We don't know.

What we know is he hasn't been charged with anything so for all intents and purposes he's no no different to any of us and should be allowed to continue his career free of reprisal.

 

[BritCard]

By his own admission he gave booze to a 17 year old and took part in banging her. Does it constitute a criminal charge of rape? Well, according to the prosecuter, not enough evidence.

But the facts are the facts... the guy is a scumbag.

No interest.

By his own admission? Where? He's denied everything.

The lawyers of the alledged victim told the media there was a police recording where Araiza told her to "get checked for STD's" but that was never confirmed by anyone else. And considering the law decided there was no case that should be viewed with doubt. And how did she get his number? Did Araiza rape an underage girl then say "Here's my number if you want to press charges"?

Has anyone even read the follow up on this? This is the press release from the San Diego DA. From the people prosecuting the case.

“Ultimately, prosecutors determined it is clear the evidence does not support the filing of criminal charges and there is no path to a potential criminal conviction,” a statement released by the office of Summer Stephan, the San Diego County district attorney, said. “Prosecutors can only file charges when they ethically believe they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Does this sound like the usual "Well we think he did it but we just don't have enough" you get from a DA?

Araiza's lawyer said that 35 witnesses from the party were interviewed and "witnesses said the teenager was not drunk and that she had told them she was a college student."

I hope nobody here ever has a son falsely accused of rape.