Matt Araiza Cleared of Gang-Rape at SDSU; Signed by Chiefs
- Thread starter sodenj5
- Start date
- Status
Sports betting syndicate that has deep contacts within all NFL organizations and many college programs. I get early news on many things but posted this here due to its nature and interest that many have in this thread.
I made this mistake. Damn we have a dumb population.
Good for the Bills though. Even if I don’t think their hands are entirely clean in creating this problem in the first place by overlooking what appears to have been pretty obvious to anyone taking a close look at drafting him.
Yeah, great for the Bills. They pretended they had no idea about any of this, and only cut him when it became a PR issue. Honestly, they should get the draft pick back and added for 2023.
Again, MLB only "took it seriously" because the Dodgers wanted out of the Bauer contract. Had nothing to do with the lawsuit.
The problem is that if Araiza ends up being "vindicated", you've pretty much wrecked his chances of ever playing in the NFL now that he's been cut. Reading the account on the first page, he probably told teams that he wasn't involved in the rape so it shouldn't be an issue. Well, I don't know what the laws are in CA about sex with minors.
Proving Araiza spiked the drink is going to be very hard.
Seriously, anyone saying ”good for the bills” or anything close to it should be ashamed. They did the right thing in the end, but never should have drafted him (assuming they knew which seemed likely it was out there), they cut the other punter after they knew, then threw thoughts and prayers out to him and his victims, flew him to the preseason game and then cut him.
People also wondered why the Patriots cut Hernandez immediately before any charges or arrests. The Pats have plenty of blame there too, but the Bills shouldn’t get any credit for this.
This exactly. McDermott wasn't upset because of "new information", he was upset because they got caught.
They had no choice, and 2 days after the story broke, with all the awful details, is probably not an inordinately long time for them to cut him. Now, like others I also suspect they knew more when they drafted him, and certainly when they cut the other punter. But however they got there, they did what they should’ve ultimately.
I used this term in an earlier post and I really dislike how we categorize cases as he said/she said. It happens with no other type of crime other than rape/sexual assault and it’s used to downplay the veracity of the complaint. If you were walking down the street and a man approached you with a knife and asked for your wallet and took out your cash and tossed the wallet back at you and then you called the cops, there would not be a similar he said/he said declaration when you described being mugged and your mugger described how you consensually handed him your cash out of the goodness of your heart. But a man sexually assaults a woman behind a closed door becomes he said/she said.
Also, there can be no misunderstanding in a strict liability statutory rape case. He had sex with a girl under 18. That’s called rape in California. Doesn’t matter what she said or did before the sexual act. By law, she cannot consent to sexual activity which means any sexual act with her is rape. Moreover, how does one misunderstand lack of consent?
In my experience whether a report is immediate or delayed, adds zero to the credibility of the complaint. Some report immediately some don’t. Some do a SANE/SART, some don’t. As much as society expects victims to act a certain way, responses vary widely with victims of sexual assault (and domestic violence).
Sorry for the rant and I know you were sharing evidence tending to add credibility to the victim’s complaint. I wish people would think differently about these types of cases.
I really just meant they could have continued to make this worse, and at least they got to the right decision relatively quickly given the NFL standard. To be clear, they were still part of the problem.
Like it or not, many people view certain sexual assault cases in such a way, especially when there is a lack of evidence other than the first hand account (admittedly, there seems to be more than that here). All I was saying is that her actions immediately following the incident should put a bullet in such arguments.
Last edited:
The point is most cases have a lack of evidence of evidence beyond witness statements. To use the mugging example, what other proof would you expect to find for a conviction if say the robber just took $50 bucks and didn’t have it on him at the time of arrest?
In California, just being drunk can be enough to make it legally impossible to give consent. If the perpetrator reasonably should have known the victim was intoxicated enough, it's rape.
https://esfandilawfirm.com/crimes/rape-intoxicated-woman-pc-261a-3-ca/
Because if the Patriots waited 48 hours, they could have avoided a ton of lawyer fees in trying to claw back the bonus money.
The account makes it sound like the sex he had was "consentual" and that he wasn't involved in the gang rape. It's true that she could have been drunk but that's going to be tough to prove too.
I think the point is that he’s in the “not” camp.
It’s a paradigm that ought not to be perpetuated as the whole orientation to the crime is misguided at best, but more often than not, contributory to the lack of consequences for wrong doing.
I don’t think anybody thinks you adhere to the position, but the whole mode should be scrapped, which is what I think @Preacher is getting it; it’s one of those things where acknowledging that that’s the way it is for many people is part of the perpetuation of the cycle itself.
I understood the point, but thank you.
Yes that was clear. I wasn’t arguing with his position but instead just explaining the purpose of my post. The reality is that not everyone subscribes to his position, and I don’t believe SoSH typically ignores outside arguments, nor should we.
Last edited:
The last statement would indicate that his throwing her on the bed would constitute being involved in the gang rape.
https://apnews.com/article/nfl-sports-lawsuits-matt-araiza-zavier-leonard-ec9db235a1698da15d9a474ac385f19e
Not only thar but the fact that she claims to have been roofied can imply that the first encounter wasn’t exactly consensual either. It’s possible that it was, but given the circumstances, that would be a very generous reading.
axx’s most generous interpretation would be that he “merely” coordinated and facilitated the gang rape (plus his statutory).
Am I wrong here, or with regard to the charges being discussed in this thread, the specific acts as to whether they threw her down on the bed, or spiked her drink don’t matter all that much to the actual charge? If the charge is statutory rape, all they need to prove is that they had sex. The CA statute reads that there is no situation in any case where a 17 year old can give consent to having sex. None. If someone under 18 can prove that someone over 18 had sex with them in CA, then it’s statutory rape. When, how, where don’t really matter.
If the charge is something other than statutory rape, maybe say aggravated rape, then the particulars do matter.
Preacher is doing a great job in this thread, but I want to try to close a circle that I think he was getting to. He cited how difficult it is for a woman to go into court, in a public forum, confront her accuser and testify. You have to relive it in a public space and that is traumatic.
For that reason, and Preacher will know better, but my guess is that the odds are overwhelming in favor of the Punt Rapist never seeing a day of trial.
Again, I defer to Preacher, but my guess is that the number of woman who go to the police stating they were raped and hang in a case like this for 3 or so years and testify at trial is somewhere around 1 in 25. Meaning for every 25 woman who get to this point where she is only 1 gets to trial.
Public figure cases are likely even more difficult. Assuming he is charged. He will hire a lawyer who depending on funds, will comb through every day of the accusers past history. Some lose pictures on Facebook, cheating on a high school test, prior similar accustoms, any criminal charges or fraud..they will turnover every rock. If there is even a scintilla of background noise in her life, then Punt Rapist’s lawyer will turn this away from him and her character will become the case. Allegations of this being a set up for a cash grab, her being sexually promiscuous. If she ever has sex before even with say a 16 year old boyfriend, then lookout. It’s all coming..
If the charge is something other than statutory rape, maybe say aggravated rape, then the particulars do matter.
Preacher is doing a great job in this thread, but I want to try to close a circle that I think he was getting to. He cited how difficult it is for a woman to go into court, in a public forum, confront her accuser and testify. You have to relive it in a public space and that is traumatic.
For that reason, and Preacher will know better, but my guess is that the odds are overwhelming in favor of the Punt Rapist never seeing a day of trial.
Again, I defer to Preacher, but my guess is that the number of woman who go to the police stating they were raped and hang in a case like this for 3 or so years and testify at trial is somewhere around 1 in 25. Meaning for every 25 woman who get to this point where she is only 1 gets to trial.
Public figure cases are likely even more difficult. Assuming he is charged. He will hire a lawyer who depending on funds, will comb through every day of the accusers past history. Some lose pictures on Facebook, cheating on a high school test, prior similar accustoms, any criminal charges or fraud..they will turnover every rock. If there is even a scintilla of background noise in her life, then Punt Rapist’s lawyer will turn this away from him and her character will become the case. Allegations of this being a set up for a cash grab, her being sexually promiscuous. If she ever has sex before even with say a 16 year old boyfriend, then lookout. It’s all coming..
Matt Patricia was indicted for aggravated sexual assault but not prosecuted because the woman didn't show up for the trial.
What do you think the Patriots record should be?
BTW, I'm not saying that Buffalo doesn't deserve some criticism. I do. Teams that employ rapists and domestic abusers deserve criticism. The Yankees have a couple of domestic abusers on the team and it really sucks. I wish they didn't.
But I think there is a fine line between criticism and schadenfreude and I think the bits of schadenfreude popping up in this thread are gross.
But I think there is a fine line between criticism and schadenfreude and I think the bits of schadenfreude popping up in this thread are gross.
What is the point of this website if people can't be confidently judgmental and hypocritical?
People are like, "This is the ugliest thing I have ever seen and the NFL makes me sick and fuck them and I hope they all burn in a tire fire, but I'll still be watching."
This is probably going to come home to roost again at some point and, if so, the Pats will deserve all the criticism that comes their way. It will also likely coincide with Patricia failing at his job. So that will be fun.
Hey our kicker who we didn’t research enough was only a right wing militia dude.
The Patricia thing is quite a bit different-it first became public twenty two years later, there’s no civil suit or settlement that we are aware of, the case was dismissed by the prosecution (allegedly because of the victims non cooperation). I think we all know there’s a reasonably good chance the allegations are true and they’re bad if true but I’m loathe to hold it against him or anyone in similar circumstances without more.
This tidbit in the article above that suggests that the Patriots' hands were tied, but I'd want more information before giving them a pass:
https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/05/10/matt-patricia-detroit-lions-sexual-assault-indictment
There's also out of court settlements and the probablistic risk factor of whether or not you think a jury will convict even if the statutory claim is rock solid; the latter is a huge part of crimes involving alcohol and consent, as an example specific to this case.
I highly doubt they'd prosecute a 21 year old and 17 year old having sex willingly, though I could see it being used in a situation like this if they couldn't prove another charge. Almost like a sex version of Al Capone.
She claims it wasn’t consensual. She may have also been too intoxicated to consent. She also legally cannot consent. The statuary rape angle is a lot easier to prove than lack of consent/too intoxicated to consent. As far as I’ve seen, statutory rape in CA is strict liability (some jurisdictions allow for mistake of fact as to age as a defense). This case has gotten a lot of attention so I wouldn’t be surprised if he is prosecuted.
I can't find statutory support, but a number of CA legal sites seem to indicate that there is a mistake of fact defense allowed in practice, albeit with a high bar. E.g. https://www.kannlawoffice.com/statutory-rape.html
(The “shouldn't be” language is what is used consistently in hypos throughout the page, indicating a belief about what the courts will do and not a moral decision.)
I mean, Patricia left the organization and was later rehired. Whatever benefit of the doubt you wanted to extend in 2018 has to be wiped out when they brought him back in 2021.
CA apparently recognized a mistake of fact defense in 1964 when the age of consent was raised to 18 so long as perp had "reasonable grounds for such belief. People v. Hernandez, 39 Cal. Rptr. 361, 364 (1964)." https://www.criminalattorney.com/Blog/2005/July/Statutory-Rape-Sorting-Out-the-California-Unlawf.aspx. I understand that "mistake of facr" is not an affirmative defense but part of the prosecution's burden: i.e., DA has to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt (as opposed to the defense having the burden of proof.
One more important distinction is that this website -
https://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com/practice-areas/criminal-defense/sex-crimes/statutory-rape - says that (1) if victim is within 3 years of age of perp, then the crime is a misdemeanor and (2) typically prosecution requires at least 5 years of age difference to prosecute as a felony.
Note that this is just a legal statement. Obviously with the victim being unconscious means that much more was going on in terms of potential charges.
Ahh, yes. Shows how much I've been paying attention post-Brady, and certainly puts the Pats in a bad light.
Although the issue remains that there is literally no other info available other than the 22 year old police report and subsequent grand jury indictment that were uncovered by a journalist. There has been no further corroborating evidence (unlike with Araiza) and so there remains an open question as to whether the indictment should be disqualifying when it comes to future employment. Obviously, if further details ever emerge that implicate Patricia in that crime or another one, the team will come out looking pretty bad. But it seems to be a risk that the Pats were willing to take, and they are hardly alone among professional sports teams either.
At what point do we weigh his behavior for the last 22 years into the equation, about half of which (?) was with the Patriots?
Edit - to be clear, I don't know the right answer. These are very tough decisions that should never have been created by the people (in this case Patricia) in the situation.
If I were an owner, I think there's two dimensions. The first is the shame and embarrassment that employing a predator ought to bring to your team/the community your team represents, and the second is the active threat that bringing a predator into your community represents.
On the first, I'm not sure how much the recency matters. If there's good reason to believe Patricia broke into a room and took turns with his buddy raping a woman, I don't think "oh, it was 22 years ago" goes very far. That's just unforgivable, at least in my book.
On the second, I do think there's a big distinction between the two. That's not say 47 year olds can't engage in predatory behavior; they obviously can. But just based on the amount of time that has passed since the respective allegations, I think if each man did something terrible tomorrow, it would be more reasonable for Kraft to say that he didn't consider Patricia a threat to the community than it would be for the Pegulas to say the same about Araiza.
On the first, I'm not sure how much the recency matters. If there's good reason to believe Patricia broke into a room and took turns with his buddy raping a woman, I don't think "oh, it was 22 years ago" goes very far. That's just unforgivable, at least in my book.
On the second, I do think there's a big distinction between the two. That's not say 47 year olds can't engage in predatory behavior; they obviously can. But just based on the amount of time that has passed since the respective allegations, I think if each man did something terrible tomorrow, it would be more reasonable for Kraft to say that he didn't consider Patricia a threat to the community than it would be for the Pegulas to say the same about Araiza.
- Status