OFFICIAL 2023 NFL Arrests/Lawsuits/Legal Stuff

[So Ram]

.

Stupid fucking slut.

.

WOW - I guess men love to disrespect woman.They forget or don’t have morals.
Heard the broke back mountain thing today as well with The Ranch. - HBO had a show about the Chix Ranch in Nevada.

 

[nighttrain]

I have daughters. Raised them to think for themselves and all are excellent young people. But if one of them had gone off on a tangent and attended college parties underage and done what that girl did I still would not want his life to be ruined because he failed to card a sex partner.

The guy should be punished iaw the law for sex with an underage girl. He did it. But people talking like his livelihood should be over and he never plays ball again which is BS. What I'm standing up for here is severity of crime. Fucking a girl who is underage but willing and who put herself there to begin with is not a life ending or career ending mistake. It's just not. I don't care what fucking decade it is dude. So yes I appreciate your reply and I expect 99% of people on this board to disagree with me and that's fine. Just throwing my take out there fwiw.

we were all young once, even back in the 60's wen i was in HS, some girls had bad reputations, it happens, sometimes deserved sometimes not
train

 

[Cjcinec]

View: https://twitter.com/claytravis/status/1659295972315262981?s=46&t=KwDPB8g3_dITEcMZZq9_mQ

Prosecutors: Former Bills punter Matt Araiza wasn't present during alleged gang rape

A recently released 200-plus-page transcript details exculpatory evidence in the case against Matt Araiza.

sports.yahoo.com

Prosecutors: Former Bills punter Matt Araiza wasn't present during alleged gang rape​

A recently released 200-plus-page transcript details exculpatory evidence in the case vs. Matt Araiza​

Dan Wetzel
Columnist
Mon, May 8, 2023·9 min read

The Buffalo Bills drafted Matt Araiza in the sixth round before cutting him in the preseason after a civil lawsuit was filed against him, accusing him of rape. He will not face criminal charges over the allegations. (AP Photo/Adrian Kraus)More

Content warning: This story contains depictions of alleged sexual assault.
Last August, just days after earning the starting job as the Buffalo Bills' punter, rookie Matt Araiza was the subject of a civil lawsuit alleging that he and two San Diego State football teammates participated in a gang rape of an intoxicated 17-year-old girl.
While little was known publicly, San Diego Police had spent nearly 10 months on the case before forwarding it to the district attorney without a recommendation for prosecution. The Bills said they also knew about the incident, investigated it and decided to employ Araiza anyway.

The graphic allegations in the civil lawsuit, however, created a public frenzy. It included a claim that during an Oct. 15, 2021, party at a home near the SDSU campus, Araiza led the girl into a bedroom where “at least three other men” waited.

“Once inside, Araiza threw [the girl] onto the bed face first,” the lawsuit read. “[The girl] went in and in and out of consciousness while” suffering through “the horrific gang rape.” It lasted an hour and a half, the lawsuit read, before she “stumbled out of the room bloody and crying” in part because “multiple piercings had ripped through the skin during the attack.”

Within days, the Bills cut Araiza, who, due to his record-breaking NCAA career and an 82-yard punt in a preseason game, had earned the nickname “Punt God.”

“We just think it’s the best move for everyone to move on from Matt and let him take care of this situation,” Buffalo general manager Brandon Beane said.
Araiza remains out of football despite prosecutors announcing on Dec. 7, 2022, that after conducting their own 124-day investigation, they wouldn’t press any criminal charges in the case. However, few details, let alone their reasoning or additional exculpatory evidence, were included in the initial statement.
A fuller picture of what police and prosecutors found, however, is now available via a 200-plus-page transcript obtained by Yahoo Sports of a 100-minute meeting in which a deputy district attorney offered a detailed explanation to the girl and her attorneys.

Perhaps most notably, the district attorney’s office concluded that Araiza couldn’t have led the girl into the alleged gang rape because he “left” the home at about 12:30 a.m., an hour prior to when evidence suggested the alleged gang rape would have occurred.
“He wasn’t even at the party anymore,” deputy district attorney Trisha Amador explained. Later, Amador stated of the timeline of events, “All I know is that at that point, suspect Araiza is gone from the party.”

Additionally, prosecutors told the girl that video recordings of the incident in the bedroom made it impossible to determine — let alone prosecute anyone — whether there was a gang rape at all that night, rather than consensual sex with the other men.
“In looking at the videos on the sex tape, I absolutely cannot prove any forceable sexual assault based upon what happened,” Amador said.
The accuser's attorney, Dan Gilleon, could not be reached for comment to Yahoo Sports. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Gilleon said his client won't be "bullied" into dropping the civil lawsuit. "It's not going to happen. This case is going to trial, and we’ll force Araiza to talk," he said.
Gilleon told CBS8 in San Diego that the witness on whom prosecutors based their opinion that Araiza was not present during the alleged gang rape was a “buddy.”

The dual investigations by police and prosecutors included more than 35 witness interviews (including some of the girl’s friends who came to the party with her that night), the results of a Sexual Assault Team exam conducted the following day and 10 search warrants that produced four terabytes of information, including numerous short videos of some of the alleged encounters.

They led authorities to come to vastly different conclusions than what was alleged in the civil lawsuit. Prosecutors explain it to the girl and her representatives in a sensitive and detailed manner during the meeting, allowing for questions and pushback from both the girl and her attorney.
Araiza, whose life has been upended since he was named in the civil lawsuit, hopes this is enough for NFL teams to take a second look at him, despite the civil suit still being active, according to his attorney. He and the two other players named in the suit vehemently deny any gang rape or knowledge that the girl was below California’s age of consent (18) or whether she was intoxicated.

Any sexual contact, Ariaza has said, was consensual. And now here, essentially, are local prosecutors making his case for him via a recording that not every jurisdiction provides.

For Araiza, the most powerful exculpatory evidence came from a number of short videos of the encounter between the girl and two or three men in the bedroom. Timestamps show it occurred about 1:30 a.m. Citing a witness and other information, prosecutors concluded Araiza had “left the party at 12:30 [a.m.],” Amador explained to the plaintiff.

The lawsuit additionally alleged that Araiza “knew or should have known” that the girl was only 17 years old and that she was “heavily intoxicated.”
The girl and some other high school friends became aware that a party was being thrown at the house just a few blocks from the SDSU campus. The group let themselves in through a back gate. Witness interviews from the party, including two of the girl’s friends with whom she arrived, said she didn’t appear to be drunk at the time. Other witnesses said the girl was telling people she was 18.

“A witness who was in the house gave a statement saying that at — at least one point in the party, that you made a statement telling people at the party you were 18,” Amador explained to the accuser. “Another witness at the party, a different one, says that they specifically heard you say you were 18 …”
There was additional evidence cited by Amador from a recording from a party the night before at a different residence in which the girl says on camera that she is 18.

The civil lawsuit alleged that soon after the girl’s arrival at the party, she was separated from her friends, and Araiza led her “over to the side yard of the house, where he told her to perform” sex against her consent.

Araiza, however, has always maintained that he never led her into a private area of the backyard, that she walked back there while he was urinating.

Witness testimony, again including the girl’s friends, played a role in prosecutors declining to press charges.
“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."
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].”

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.
“Again, you’re not intoxicated at this point that anybody would know your intoxication level to the point that they would not be able to tell that you weren't able to give consent,” Amador said.

The timeline prosecutors pieced together suggested that this encounter occurred at 12:55 a.m., about a half-hour after Araiza had left the house. This incident occurred on a living room sofa with one of the football players who was also named in the civil lawsuit. Parts of this encounter were filmed on a cell phone. Prosecutors said the footage from the cell phone did not suggest any forced behavior.
“There’s nothing in the videos that sound like you’re saying ‘stop’ or ‘this hurts’ or anything like that,” Ted Mansour, an investigator for the San Diego County district attorney’s office, said at the meeting.

The prosecutors offered to show the girl and her lawyers all of the videos they culled from cell phones. The girl watched one during the meeting before deciding that was enough. None of the lawyers in the civil case, or Araiza himself, has seen the videos because they involve sex with an underage girl. Araiza’s legal team is trying to acquire the videos through a court order as a way to defend him against the allegations.

Gilleon wrote in a court filing that Araiza not appearing in any of the brief videos does not prove he wasn’t there, just that he wasn’t filmed.
Prosecutors also said that videos from the bedroom show that the girl's piercings were not ripped at the time and she was not bleeding from any wounds. Amador said her behavior in the videos made prosecuting anyone for rape impossible.

“I don’t see any elements of force being used in the sexual encounter,” Amador said.
The civil lawsuit is continuing and requires a lower threshold of proof than criminal charges.

You actually used Tomi Lahren as a credible source of news? That’s embarrassing. Its obvious you really don’t comprehend the situation. The NFL is a business. Only about 1% of college players coming out each year get the privilege to play in it. This young man made an egregious error in judgment getting involved physically with an inebriated minor. That has been proven true by his statement to the victim the morning after with deputies listening in. The charges that were not brought involved activity that happened later that evening when it has been alleged that she was raped by his teammates in a room where he took her. They are now saying that no video evidence exists showing him in the room. So it’s quite possible he just took her there and left. DA isn’t prosecuting because they don’t think the girl is a credible witness because of her state of mind and being impaired. Facts remain that Ariaza did have sex with an inebriated minor that later was assaulted by others in his party. He could have avoided the entire situation if he made the choice to either leave the minor alone altogether or get her some help to protect her. He chose to just take advantage of the situation and he stepped in it. Unfortunately poor decisions CAN cost you your livelihood regardless if you’re prosecuted in a criminal court. There is a civil case that starts in October. The evidence that was never brought out because the DA chose not to file will come out and a jury of his peers will determine if he’s responsible for damages for the actions he took that fateful evening. You are trying to exonerate him of all responsibility because the prosecutor didn’t file charges. That’s much different from a not guilty verdict from a jury.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

You actually used Tomi Lahren as a credible source of news? That’s embarrassing. Its obvious you really don’t comprehend the situation. The NFL is a business. Only about 1% of college players coming out each year get the privilege to play in it. This young man made an egregious error in judgment getting involved physically with an inebriated minor. That has been proven true by his statement to the victim the morning after with deputies listening in. The charges that were not brought involved activity that happened later that evening when it has been alleged that she was raped by his teammates in a room where he took her. They are now saying that no video evidence exists showing him in the room. So it’s quite possible he just took her there and left. DA isn’t prosecuting because they don’t think the girl is a credible witness because of her state of mind and being impaired. Facts remain that Ariaza did have sex with an inebriated minor that later was assaulted by others in his party. He could have avoided the entire situation if he made the choice to either leave the minor alone altogether or get her some help to protect her. He chose to just take advantage of the situation and he stepped in it. Unfortunately poor decisions CAN cost you your livelihood regardless if you’re prosecuted in a criminal court. There is a civil case that starts in October. The evidence that was never brought out because the DA chose not to file will come out and a jury of his peers will determine if he’s responsible for damages for the actions he took that fateful evening. You are trying to exonerate him of all responsibility because the prosecutor didn’t file charges. That’s much different from a not guilty verdict from a jury.

There have been a lot worse people that did worse things and they were allowed to play in the NFL. Id say that screwing a 17 year old girl at a frat party has likely been done by more than one NFL player. The league allowed Tyrique Hill to play, Leonard Little too after killing someone while drunk Kareem Hunt, Taylor Lewan, etc… The question should be is Araiza really of lower character than many current NFL players? He should be playing in the league.

 

[Tano]

With this day and age - any NFL player (or college player) should get a signed consent form and copy of drivers license before having sex with any lady.

 

[Lunchbox]

You actually used Tomi Lahren as a credible source of news? That’s embarrassing. Its obvious you really don’t comprehend the situation.

Argumentative and assuming.

The NFL is a business. Only about 1% of college players coming out each year get the privilege to play in it. This young man made an egregious error in judgment getting involved physically with an inebriated minor.

Witness accounts dispute the validity of the "victim" being inebriated.

That has been proven true by his statement to the victim the morning after with deputies listening in.

The other side of the story is she willingly performed oral sex on him and bragged to her friends about it afterward.

The charges that were not brought involved activity that happened later that evening when it has been alleged that she was raped by his teammates in a room where he took her.

Again, witness accounts have him leaving the party and hour before the alleged rape took place.

They are now saying that no video evidence exists showing him in the room. So it’s quite possible he just took her there and left.

Sounds like a biased assumption to me.

DA isn’t prosecuting because they don’t think the girl is a credible witness because of her state of mind and being impaired. Facts remain that Ariaza did have sex with an inebriated minor that later was assaulted by others in his party. He could have avoided the entire situation if he made the choice to either leave the minor alone altogether or get her some help to protect her. He chose to just take advantage of the situation and he stepped in it.

Complete speculation with zero evidence to back it up.

Unfortunately poor decisions CAN cost you your livelihood regardless if you’re prosecuted in a criminal court. There is a civil case that starts in October. The evidence that was never brought out because the DA chose not to file will come out and a jury of his peers will determine if he’s responsible for damages for the actions he took that fateful evening. You are trying to exonerate him of all responsibility because the prosecutor didn’t file charges. That’s much different from a not guilty verdict from a jury.

I'll be interested to see the results of the civil case. Araiza will probably have to pay a fine as outlined in the article @Mackeyser posted as he does not dispute taking part in a sexual act with a minor.
I'm open to changing my thoughts on the case if the accuser can offer proof. I am not willing to condemn a young man who I feel could have been the victim of someone with an agenda, who lied about their age and filed charges that, so far, are unsupported by any publicly available evidence.

Poor choices may have been made by all involved, including the "victim". Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Tano]

I am not willing to condemn a young man who I feel could have been the victim of someone with an agenda, who lied about their age and filed charges that, so far, are unsupported by any publicly available evidence.

If true - she pisses me off taking advantage of a college male whose hormones are thru the roof at that age

 

[norcalramfan]

They need to keep with the heavy-handed approach to this. If you're caught gambling on your games and you're a player it has to hurt.

You don’t think it’s possible to collude with other players on other games other than their own. Pete Rozelle wouldn’t have allowed any of it and I don’t think human nature has changed much in the last 60 years. Now gambling is tolerated and even encouraged with a barely a nod towards it being a problem with a “call this number if it’s turned into a bad habit “.
I forget exactly what Paul Hornung did but Rozelle exacted a price.

 

[Merlin]

You don’t think it’s possible to collude with other players on other games other than their own.

I do think that is possible. Not professing to have the answers on this either. It is a tough one but yes maybe all NFL gambling needs to be outlawed for them.

 

[norcalramfan]

I do think that is possible. Not professing to have the answers on this either. It is a tough one but yes maybe all NFL gambling needs to be outlawed for them.

I looked up Paul Hornung’s wiki page after my last post and it reminded me that Alex Karras of th Lions was suspended indefinitely at the same time Hornung was. It did not mention collusion between the two but I suppose it could have been.

 

[bubbaramfan]

Old enough to pee
old enough for me.

Ariza

 

[Lunchbox]

Old enough to pee
old enough for me.

Ariza

I think you're confusing him with Cris Collinsworth.

 

[Kupped]

Re: Araiza
He was 5 years older than a girl he met at a college party who said she was 18, according to him. Others at the party say she claimed to be 18.
You don't go after someone criminally in that scenario.
If it's a 22 year old knowingly pursuing a high-schooler? That's a different scenario.

We can not like his behavior, but it doesn't make him a criminal.

 

[Cjcinec]

There have been a lot worse people that did worse things and they were allowed to play in the NFL. Id say that screwing a 17 year old girl at a frat party has likely been done by more than one NFL player. The league allowed Tyrique Hill to play, Leonard Little too after killing someone while drunk Kareem Hunt, Taylor Lewan, etc… The question should be is Araiza really of lower character than many current NFL players? He should be playing in the league.

The NFL isn’t preventing Ariaza from playing. The allegations are from prior to him being drafted. Buffalo picked him and cut him. Time will tell if a team decides to give him another shot. Jets were going to give him a tryout. Civil trial is set for October so teams might wait until the trial is over. Cleveland took on the Watson baggage but he was a top QB. Teams find punters in the UDFA market pretty easily.

 

[Cjcinec]

Argumentative and assuming.

Witness accounts dispute the validity of the "victim" being inebriated.

The other side of the story is she willingly performed oral sex on him and bragged to her friends about it afterward.

Again, witness accounts have him leaving the party and hour before the alleged rape took place.

Sounds like a biased assumption to me.

Complete speculation with zero evidence to back it up.

I'll be interested to see the results of the civil case. Araiza will probably have to pay a fine as outlined in the article @Mackeyser posted as he does not dispute taking part in a sexual act with a minor.
I'm open to changing my thoughts on the case if the accuser can offer proof. I am not willing to condemn a young man who I feel could have been the victim of someone with an agenda, who lied about their age and filed charges that, so far, are unsupported by any publicly available evidence.

Poor choices may have been made by all involved, including the "victim". Innocent until proven guilty.

Your thoughts? You have no standing in the matter. Your thoughts are pure speculation.The phone recording and a lot of evidence that hasn’t been revealed because there was no trial will be in the civil trial. The burden of proof and admissibility of the evidence has a different legal standard. It’s not a District Attorney that is worried about his prosecution record or the failure of the police investigation anymore. There is a long time between now and October so Ariaza could come to a financial settlement just like Watson did. That still won’t guarantee him a shot at the NFL. Punters are a dime a dozen. Punt Gods coming off rape allegations from a minor are somewhat cheaper.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

The NFL isn’t preventing Ariaza from playing. The allegations are from prior to him being drafted. Buffalo picked him and cut him. Time will tell if a team decides to give him another shot. Jets were going to give him a tryout. Civil trial is set for October so teams might wait until the trial is over. Cleveland took on the Watson baggage but he was a top QB. Teams find punters in the UDFA market pretty easily.

Tyrique Hill’s incidents happened before he was drafted. It’s a team by team choice. It also seems that the more valuable the position, the more teams are willing to look the other way. When it comes to players like Adam Jones, consider that is who he always was. He was a thug. So, is Matt Araiza’s character really worse than the character of a guy like PAC Man Jones, or others I’ve mentioned.

Either way, making exceptions for some then not others is unfair practice. Innocent until proven guilty. Right?

 

[Kupped]

Tyrique Hill’s incidents happened before he was drafted. It’s a team by team choice. It also seems that the more valuable the position, the more teams are willing to look the other way. When it comes to players like Adam Jones, consider that is who he always was. He was a thug. So, is Matt Araiza’s character really worse than the character of a guy like PAC Man Jones, or others I’ve mentioned.

Either way, making exceptions for some then not others is unfair practice. Innocent until proven guilty. Right?

Matt Araiza's actual behavior, from all the facts we know, doesn't come close to any of those examples.

The allegations against Araiza were connected to an alleged gang rape in which he was never accused of taking part in. His encounter was consensual.. she said it and he said it.
She claims he lead her into the house and handed her off to other guys when she says she was raped.
There appears to be video proof that Araiza left before she went in the house.

Araiza got hosed last year because of the timing... there wasn't enough time to clear his name.
He's legally in the clear now.

 

[Lunchbox]

Your thoughts? You have no standing in the matter. Your thoughts are pure speculation.

I have as much standing in the matter as you do, none. All of my responses are based on information that is available to anyone who can read it objectively. There was no speculation in my response other than to counterpoint speculation by you.

The phone recording and a lot of evidence that hasn’t been revealed because there was no trial will be in the civil trial. The burden of proof and admissibility of the evidence has a different legal standard.

Agreed and as stated, I am remaining openminded about things I don't know rather than offering biased speculation damaging to someone who is, by law, innocent until proven guilty.

It’s not a District Attorney that is worried about his prosecution record or the failure of the police investigation anymore. There is a long time between now and October so Ariaza could come to a financial settlement just like Watson did. That still won’t guarantee him a shot at the NFL. Punters are a dime a dozen. Punt Gods coming off rape allegations from a minor are somewhat cheaper.

My guess is, IF it goes to trial Araiza will be found guilty of statutory rape as he has admitted having a sexual encounter with a minor.

I'm not arguing his innocence. I'm arguing that the circumstances of the encounter need to be taken under consideration in terms of the punishment and more importantly in this case, his public vilification.

For all intents and purposes, he was targeted (among other SDSU football players) for sex by a minor who lied about her age, according to the information available to us.

Based on that information (including eyewitness statements from several of her friends) there are a key parts of her story that differ from the accounts of others present. Araiza left the party shortly after their encounter outside, she was not inebriated, no forcible acts were committed, and no trauma suffered by the plaintiff that was apparent to anyone else at the party. She appeared happy.

Based on all of that I find it unconscionable that people have seen fit to presume he is guilty of much more than poor judgement in taking the girl at her word as far as her age (excepting the letter of the law regarding statutory rape).

 

[Merlin]

I'm not arguing his innocence. I'm arguing that the circumstances of the encounter need to be taken under consideration in terms of the punishment and more importantly in this case, his public vilification.

For all intents and purposes, he was targeted (among other SDSU football players) for sex by a minor who lied about her age, according to the information available to us.

Well said. Humanity still loves them some lynch mobs, difference nowadays is it's electronic but the taste for blood remains.

 

[Tano]

Well said. Humanity still loves them some lynch mobs, difference nowadays is it's electronic but the taste for blood remains.

That's the thing that pisses me off the most nowadays.

People are guilty in the media until proven innocent.

I could have sworn it was the other way around