Matt Araiza Cleared of Gang-Rape at SDSU; Signed by Chiefs

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,495
The DA's office just said that the guy was not in the house when this took place. That is a pretty strong defense.

As a father of two girls I can understand how this makes people's blood boil. It certainly does mine (and my daughters were both over 18 when they started College but I still would have taken a baseball bat and smashed something if...). But that aside, a 21 year old College Senior having sex with a 17 year old girl at a party should not be a reason for not employing him.

More so there being a report that the guy was not there.
That is not what the DA said.
Before making assumptions about others and this case, I'd suggest you read that article more carefully and perhaps some others to educate yourself on the case.


I'm not saying Araiza is definitely guilty of gang rape but if I'm in an NFL GM, I'm staying away.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,699
Panama
That is not what the DA said.
Before making assumptions about others and this case, I'd suggest you read that article more carefully and perhaps some others to educate yourself on the case.


I'm not saying Araiza is definitely guilty of gang rape but if I'm in an NFL GM, I'm staying away.
I read the Yahoo! Sports article linked on this thread.

A fuller picture of what police and prosecutors found, however, is now available via a 200-plus page transcript of a 100-minute meeting obtained by Yahoo Sports where a deputy district attorney offered a detailed explanation to the girl and her attorneys.

Perhaps most notably, the district attorney’s office concluded Araiza couldn’t have led the girl into the alleged gang rape because he had “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 to the girl. Later Amador stated of the timeline of events, “All I know is that at that point, suspect Araiza is gone from the party.”
This was very clear on the article and I assume on the record.

If there is something else I missed I apologize.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,608
I read the Yahoo! Sports article linked on this thread.



This was very clear on the article and I assume on the record.

If there is something else I missed I apologize.
From the article (bold added):

Perhaps most notably, the district attorney’s office concluded Araiza couldn’t have led the girl into the alleged gang rape because he had “left” the home at about 12:30 a.m., an hour prior to when evidence suggested the alleged gang rape would have occurred.​
* * * *​
[The accuser's attorney Dan] Gilleon told CBS8 in San Diego that the witness who prosecutors based their opinion that Araiza was not present during the alleged gang rape was a “buddy.”
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,699
Panama
From the article (bold added):

Perhaps most notably, the district attorney’s office concluded Araiza couldn’t have led the girl into the alleged gang rape because he had “left” the home at about 12:30 a.m., an hour prior to when evidence suggested the alleged gang rape would have occurred.​
* * * *​
[The accuser's attorney Dan] Gilleon told CBS8 in San Diego that the witness who prosecutors based their opinion that Araiza was not present during the alleged gang rape was a “buddy.”
I understand that the girl's attorney will fight it. We will see where that goes because that civil case will most probably go forward.
But the article does say the DA`s office "concluded that". Which was my point.

I'm pretty sure they did noy just take the word of one drunken "buddy" to draw this conclusion.

The ugliest part for me is the fact that some of it is on tape and they still do not think there is enough to charge.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,495
Left the party before the gang rape/ group sex does not mean Araiza didn't have sex with her.

From that article:
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,

....
Any sexual contact, Ariaza has said, was consensual.
Araiza is not denying sexual contact occurred.

Other reports claim they had sex in the side yard. Reportedly, Azaiza told her a few days later that she should get tested for STDs, because he had clamydia.
These claims do come from her lawyer I believe.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,608
I understand that the girl's attorney will fight it. We will see where that goes because that civil case will most probably go forward.
But the article does say the DA`s office "concluded that". Which was my point.

I'm pretty sure they did noy just take the word of one drunken "buddy" to draw this conclusion.

The ugliest part for me is the fact that some of it is on tape and they still do not think there is enough to charge.
This article - https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/report-prosecutors-say-ex-bills-punter-matt-araiza-had-left-party-before-reported-gang-rape/article_a4ec61c0-ee0f-11ed-976f-4343bf543f80.html - notes that the accuser's attorney has been asking for the police for corroborating evidence that Araiza left the party and claims to have received none, so yes, it's possible that prosecutors used the statement during the meeting by just taking the "buddy's" statement at face value.

Besides, the prosecutors weren't presenting a case. They were presenting all of the reasons they didn't charge Araiza. To me, the article makes it sound that the prosecutors thought they had plenty without having to determine whether Araiza was or was not there at the time of the incident.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,699
Panama
This article - https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/report-prosecutors-say-ex-bills-punter-matt-araiza-had-left-party-before-reported-gang-rape/article_a4ec61c0-ee0f-11ed-976f-4343bf543f80.html - notes that the accuser's attorney has been asking for the police for corroborating evidence that Araiza left the party and claims to have received none, so yes, it's possible that prosecutors used the statement during the meeting by just taking the "buddy's" statement at face value.

Besides, the prosecutors weren't presenting a case. They were presenting all of the reasons they didn't charge Araiza. To me, the article makes it sound that the prosecutors thought they had plenty without having to determine whether Araiza was or was not there at the time of the incident.
Thanks. My point is that they did say that and they concluded that. Based on that and other factors they decided not to charge the guy. Not sure about the others.

Now, there is a civil case pending and let's see where that goes. There os a lower burden of proof threshold and as we just saw, it is sometimes a better outlet for "justice" for these victims.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,495
Thanks. My point is that they did say that and they concluded that. Based on that and other factors they decided not to charge the guy. Not sure about the others.

Now, there is a civil case pending and let's see where that goes. There os a lower burden of proof threshold and as we just saw, it is sometimes a better outlet for "justice" for these victims.
Your point was that he didn't have sex with an underrated girl. Something Araiza doesn't even seem to be arguing.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
75,224
Statutory Rape is a strict liability crime. If the victim wants to pursue, why isn’t the prosecutor charging? What am I missing?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,503
one thing I would note, prosecutors don't usually pursue sexual assault cases that aren't slam dunks. I 100% would believe that a prosecutor would look at one witness and say "welp that's good enough", because they often have little in the way of evidence, so now it's a woman's word against 2 guys word, and you usually lose that in front of a Jury.

This would 100% have been buried (as it was initially) if the civil suit hadn't made it a national story. I would guess the San Diego District Attorney probably brings charges in maybe, at most 10% of the thousand plus rape reports per year. In 2021 18% were cleared (that means any arrest was made) based on national numbers, less than half of arrests lead to actual prosecutions in sexual assault cases.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,699
Panama
Your point was that he didn't have sex with an underrated girl. Something Araiza doesn't even seem to be arguing.
I did not say that. My point was that the article said that the DA made the determination that he wasn't there at the time. Whether it can be disputed or not, he had a witness placing him out of the scene. There are two elements in proving rape, that the sexual act happened and that it wasn't consensual. The DA said that he could not prove the first part, and just by the way, after watching videos, he thought he could not prove the second part either.

BTW it does look like Araiza is spinning a very tangled web. He wasn't there, yet any sex he had was consensual. Cannot be both.

Here's a quote from my post

As a father of two girls I can understand how this makes people's blood boil. It certainly does mine (and my daughters were both over 18 when they started College but I still would have taken a baseball bat and smashed something if...). But that aside, a 21 year old College Senior having sex with a 17 year old girl at a party should not be a reason for not employing him.
A 17 year old girl being underage.

Statutory Rape is a strict liability crime. If the victim wants to pursue, why isn’t the prosecutor charging? What am I missing?
Yeah that puzzles me too. The age of consent in California is 18 from a Google search. And I understand that regardless of what she says or looks like, statutory rape applies. (one of the articles mentions that the girls said she was 18 several times. Does that affect charging in California?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,608
Statutory Rape is a strict liability crime. If the victim wants to pursue, why isn’t the prosecutor charging? What am I missing?
Yeah that puzzles me too. The age of consent in California is 18 from a Google search. And I understand that regardless of what she says or looks like, statutory rape applies. (one of the articles mentions that the girls said she was 18 several times. Does that affect charging in California?
I believe CA recognizes a defense if perp believed victim was 18.

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/matt-araiza-accused-of-gang-rape-at-sdsu-cut-by-bills.37324/page-3#post-5152105
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,219
Asheville, NC
Statutory Rape is a strict liability crime. If the victim wants to pursue, why isn’t the prosecutor charging? What am I missing?
According to many online sources, a reasonable belief that the victim was of age is a defense in California. That's absolutely wild to me, but it seems to be the consensus.

According to California statutory rape laws, you cannot be convicted of statutory rape under California Penal Code section 261.5 if you had a good faith belief that the victim was 18 years of age or older.
https://www.wklaw.com/california-statutory-rape-laws-faq/#:~:text=According to California statutory rape laws, you cannot be convicted,years of age or older and many others.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,495
@trekfan55 You still seem to be conflated a couple things. Once again, the DA is not saying there was not any sexual activity between the two. Or am I missing something?

Both the DA report and the lawsuit seem to indicate there was an encounter in the side yard between Araiza and the underage girl. That does not seem to be in doubt. There seems to be some question about exactly what happened there and the Yahoo article doesn't specify Araiza by name. However, there doesn't seem to be any question that some sexual activity took place between them in the side yard.


What happened after that is where the DA and the lawsuit appear to disagree. The lawsuit suggest Araiza led her to a bedroom immediately or shortly after this encounter where several other guys were waiting and they proceeded to rape her.
The DA report suggests that there was a significant period of time between the two incidents during which Araiza left. Report also suggest that they could not conclude that the sex was not consensual.


edit: Here's the Times of San Diego article at the time the lawsuit was filed.
 
Last edited:

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,517
Newton
The line between “guys waiting in a room to gang rape a younger girl” and “guys waiting in a room for group sex with a younger girl“ is kind of blurry here. Both a pretty disgusting, even if you take rape or the girl’s alleged promiscuity out of the equation.

This isn’t just a series of drunken hookups – it’s a girl having sex with a number of older guys who are filming it on their phones.

If nothing else, I would hope we take from this that whether or not a rape occurred, this is a fucking terrible way for young men to conduct themselves.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,905
South Dartmouth, MA
The line between “guys waiting in a room to gang rape a younger girl” and “guys waiting in a room for group sex with a younger girl“ is kind of blurry here. Both a pretty disgusting, even if you take rape or the girl’s alleged promiscuity out of the equation.

This isn’t just a series of drunken hookups – it’s a girl having sex with a number of older guys who are filming it on their phones.

If nothing else, I would hope we take from this that whether or not a rape occurred, this is a fucking terrible way for young men to conduct themselves.
Thanks for this post. I wholeheartedly agree. So much of the rape culture in this country persists because we focus on things females should do to avoid it, as opposed to teaching males to be better.
I've seen this comment or something similar in I think three threads now. It is not accurate.
Are there any articles/books you'd recommend where I can read more about this? I think a lot of the sentiment about prosecutors not going after these cases unless they are slam dunks stems from books like "Missoula" or tv shows like "Unbelievable." I am NOT trying to challenge your statement by the way, I would just like to educate myself more.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,949
Austin, TX
I did not say that. My point was that the article said that the DA made the determination that he wasn't there at the time. Whether it can be disputed or not, he had a witness placing him out of the scene.
I think you're drawing a line between the sexual activity in the side yard and the sexual activity in the house that others are not drawing.

The original accusation was that they engaged in sexual activity outside the house and then he led her into the house and "handed her off" to others to be raped.

Even if we accept that Araiza wasn't in the house when the next round of sexual activity began, that doesn't really disprove the original accusation by itself.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Stinky Esq.

No more Ramon
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2006
2,421
Are there any articles/books you'd recommend where I can read more about this? I think a lot of the sentiment about prosecutors not going after these cases unless they are slam dunks stems from books like "Missoula" or tv shows like "Unbelievable." I am NOT trying to challenge your statement by the way, I would just like to educate myself more.
I'll send you a PM when I get a few. Briefly, I'd say that such broad statements of how things are should not be based on limited anecdotal data. SSS and failures being more newsworthy and thus more likely to come to your attention, etc...
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,699
Panama
@trekfan55 You still seem to be conflated a couple things. Once again, the DA is not saying there was not any sexual activity between the two. Or am I missing something?

Both the DA report and the lawsuit seem to indicate there was an encounter in the side yard between Araiza and the underage girl. That does not seem to be in doubt. There seems to be some question about exactly what happened there and the Yahoo article doesn't specify Araiza by name. However, there doesn't seem to be any question that some sexual activity took place between them in the side yard.


What happened after that is where the DA and the lawsuit appear to disagree. The lawsuit suggest Araiza led her to a bedroom immediately or shortly after this encounter where several other guys were waiting and they proceeded to rape her.
The DA report suggests that there was a significant period of time between the two incidents during which Araiza left. Report also suggest that they could not conclude that the sex was not consensual.


edit: Here's the Times of San Diego article at the time the lawsuit was filed.
Guys, first off I do not think anything that happened in that house is ok.

I was just basing myself on the conclusion drawn by the DA. What made the news, and what made the Bills cut him, and what makes it doubtful he will ever punt a football in the NFL is that he participated in a gang rape of a 17 year old girl.
The DA is saying he did not, because he was not there at the time.

He did probably engage in sexual activity with a 17 year old girl. The DA is also choosing not to pursue this. This I stand corrected at this point as I may have misunderstood the DA's conclusion.

Matters will come to light when the civil lawsuit is tried. As we saw with the Trump case, the burden of proof is lower.


The line between “guys waiting in a room to gang rape a younger girl” and “guys waiting in a room for group sex with a younger girl“ is kind of blurry here. Both a pretty disgusting, even if you take rape or the girl’s alleged promiscuity out of the equation.

This isn’t just a series of drunken hookups – it’s a girl having sex with a number of older guys who are filming it on their phones.

If nothing else, I would hope we take from this that whether or not a rape occurred, this is a fucking terrible way for young men to conduct themselves.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is totally a disgusting scenario. The utter lack of respect and self awareness is off the charts. However, and sadly, the DA has said that he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the behavior is non consensual.

As to the bolded, I had a long talk with both my daughters when they started College in the US. I also have had long talks with my son (he didn't study abroad but still). I clearly explained to him that no girl/date owes him anything because he either paid for dinner or anything else. And also to always be aware if she feels uncomfortable in any way but may be afraid to say no.

Sadly, too many men still believe that a girl saying yes to "Netflix and chill" is an ok to have sex. Or the fact that she walks into a party or a room with several guys and has a few drinks means she wants to have group sex. This needs to stop.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,608
Guys, first off I do not think anything that happened in that house is ok.

* * * *

The DA is saying he did not, because he was not there at the time.
I appreciate the rest of your post but I just wanted to point out again that the above statement is not accurate. I don't want to beat a dead horse but the DA's office simply decided not to charge Araiza. We don't know why and we in particular don't know what pieces of evidence they found credible or non-credible.

Frankly, it seems to me that if it could be corroborated that Araiza was somewhere else at that time, we would have heard about it by now, particularly from Araiza's camp since he is still being sued. (Note: I find it strange that the Yahoo article about the DA/victim meeting put "left" in quotes. Maybe the buddy was saying that Araiza "left" the house to go to the side yard and no one saw him come back in. Who knows?) The other question to ask is how the victim got from the side yard where I think it's been confirmed that she and Araiza had sex to the room with the other football players.

You could say that "according to one of Araiza's buddies, he had left the party" or something along those lines but please do not try to use the DA's office's decision as some proof that Araiza wasn't there. That's simply not how things work.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,699
Panama
I appreciate the rest of your post but I just wanted to point out again that the above statement is not accurate. I don't want to beat a dead horse but the DA's office simply decided not to charge Araiza. We don't know why and we in particular don't know what pieces of evidence they found credible or non-credible.

Frankly, it seems to me that if it could be corroborated that Araiza was somewhere else at that time, we would have heard about it by now, particularly from Araiza's camp since he is still being sued. (Note: I find it strange that the Yahoo article about the DA/victim meeting put "left" in quotes. Maybe the buddy was saying that Araiza "left" the house to go to the side yard and no one saw him come back in. Who knows?) The other question to ask is how the victim got from the side yard where I think it's been confirmed that she and Araiza had sex to the room with the other football players.

You could say that "according to one of Araiza's buddies, he had left the party" or something along those lines but please do not try to use the DA's office's decision as some proof that Araiza wasn't there. That's simply not how things work.
I will let that point rest. I am not goung to defend someone who may have engaged in this activity.

I will only say that I read that one article and it pretty much stated a conclusion by the DA that he was not there. You can count on Araiza using it as a defense in the civil trial

"Your Honor the DA investigated the case and determined that my client was not there, we have an offcial statement to that effect"
Followed by back and forth about how flimsy it was or by testimony from other people that indeed he was there.

“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.”
The girl's attorneys will need to counter this.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
45,593
Here
According to many online sources, a reasonable belief that the victim was of age is a defense in California. That's absolutely wild to me, but it seems to be the consensus.
Why is this wild to you? If a 17 year old is lying about being 18, what is, say, a 19 year old supposed to do? Ask for an ID? Even so, kids make fake IDs fairly easily, at least something that could be passed off as legit to a random at a party. Seems harsh to go over people in that scenario if the person could reasonably pass for 18 and is lying about his/her age.

What’s actually wild is there’s a marriage exception in CA and no minimum marriage age! So go ahead, elope secretly in the woods and sex it up CA high schoolers!
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,949
Austin, TX
I will only say that I read that one article and it pretty much stated a conclusion by the DA that he was not there.
Not where? I might be missing something here, but again, the original accusation was never that he was present for the gang rape, it was that he led her into the house and handed her off to other men. No one disputes that he was at the party and had sexual contact with her. What's in question is whether he passed her off to buddies and whether he knew or suspected or suggested that they might rape her. That the rapes took place an hour after the handoff allegedly happened is not an alibi for the handoff itself.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,699
Panama
Why is this wild to you? If a 17 year old is lying about being 18, what is, say, a 19 year old supposed to do? Ask for an ID? Even so, kids make fake IDs fairly easily, at least something that could be passed off as legit to a random at a party. Seems harsh to go over people in that scenario if the person could reasonably pass for 18 and is lying about his/her age.

What’s actually wild is there’s a marriage exception in CA and no minimum marriage age! So go ahead, elope secretly in the woods and sex it up CA high schoolers!
There are many states where regardless of ID, regardless of looks, or anything else, if she is a minor you comitted a crime.

Not where? I might be missing something here, but again, the original accusation was never that he was present for the gang rape, it was that he led her into the house and handed her off to other men. No one disputes that he was at the party and had sexual contact with her. What's in question is whether he passed her off to buddies and whether he knew or suspected or suggested that they might rape her. That the rapes took place an hour after the handoff allegedly happened is not an alibi for the handoff itself.
I will stop this and concede. I will only say I quoted the DA. This will be litigated down the raod and I am 1000% sure that he will use that quote as a defense.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,608
You can count on Araiza using it as a defense in the civil trial

"Your Honor the DA investigated the case and determined that my client was not there, we have an offcial statement to that effect"
Followed by back and forth about how flimsy it was or by testimony from other people that indeed he was there.



The girl's attorneys will need to counter this.
Umm no.

If needed, Araiza's attorney will certainly try to have his "buddy" testify that Araiza left the party and to present any other evidence that shows that Araiza wasn't in the room.

Victim's attorney will have the right to cross-examine the buddy (and any other witness) and present evidence to the contrary (if any exists).

But in no event will anything about the DA be admissible at trial. That's the point I'm trying to make. The DA's office did not make an official statement; nothing the DA's office said will be admissible at trial; and nothing the DA's office said is probative of anything.

I hope that makes sense as to why. I mean can you imagine if people could start introducing random DA statements in at trial? What a nightmare that would be!
 

azsoxpatsfan

Does not enjoy the go
SoSH Member
May 23, 2014
4,845
Not where? I might be missing something here, but again, the original accusation was never that he was present for the gang rape, it was that he led her into the house and handed her off to other men. No one disputes that he was at the party and had sexual contact with her. What's in question is whether he passed her off to buddies and whether he knew or suspected or suggested that they might rape her. That the rapes took place an hour after the handoff allegedly happened is not an alibi for the handoff itself.
The original article is unclear, it states that he led her to a room where others were waiting. I went back and reread it and never saw anywhere say that he left the room and didn’t participate in the rape. Even if the original accusation was just that he handed her off to friends, plenty of people, myself incl (strictly anecdotal from talking about this case, and reading the first few pages of this thread)
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,354
from the wilds of western ma
That there is still this much uncertainty of his role in facilitating the rape, and there is also strong evidence he had sex with an intoxicated minor, kind of answers the question as to whether any team should get anywhere near him right now.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,949
Austin, TX
The original article is unclear, it states that he led her to a room where others were waiting. I went back and reread it and never saw anywhere say that he left the room and didn’t participate in the rape.
Sure, that part is unclear. And that's the point -- whether he stayed or not is separate from the things he definitely was accused of doing.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,699
Panama
Umm no.

If needed, Araiza's attorney will certainly try to have his "buddy" testify that Araiza left the party and to present any other evidence that shows that Araiza wasn't in the room.

Victim's attorney will have the right to cross-examine the buddy (and any other witness) and present evidence to the contrary (if any exists).

But in no event will anything about the DA be admissible at trial. That's the point I'm trying to make. The DA's office did not make an official statement; nothing the DA's office said will be admissible at trial; and nothing the DA's office said is probative of anything.

I hope that makes sense as to why. I mean can you imagine if people could start introducing random DA statements in at trial? What a nightmare that would be!
I will leave that to the lawyers here and angain, concede the point.

Let's see what the civil trial against him and the other players brings out. And let's hope some measure of justice is served.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
45,593
Here
There are many states where regardless of ID, regardless of looks, or anything else, if she is a minor you comitted a crime.
I'm not really sure that's the case. I believe most states do have some sort of rule similar to CA, where a reasonable belief of age is a defense. There's also, of course, prosecutorial discretion. DAs are not going to go around charging every 18 year old who had sex with a 17 year old (at least for the states which use 18 as a hard cutoff, of which many do not). In CA, it's a misdemeanor if you're within 3 years, and DAs don't go around prosecuting all of those. It will depend on the facts and circumstances.
there is also strong evidence he had sex with an intoxicated minor, kind of answers the question as to whether any team should get anywhere near him right now.
As it's being defined here, if this was the standard and you were using 18 as the cutoff for minor, a significant portion of all professional athletes would be cut immediately. There's plenty of drinking and sex happening in high school, particularly with Juniors and Seniors. I think the facilitating the rape question has been answered as best as possible if he's not being charged, right? That would still be a crime.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,608
I'm not really sure that's the case. I believe most states do have some sort of rule similar to CA, where a reasonable belief of age is a defense. There's also, of course, prosecutorial discretion. DAs are not going to go around charging every 18 year old who had sex with a 17 year old (at least for the states which use 18 as a hard cutoff, of which many do not). In CA, it's a misdemeanor if you're within 3 years, and DAs don't go around prosecuting all of those. It will depend on the facts and circumstances.
As of 1999, many states do not have a mistake of age defense. Here's a summary: https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS99/rpt\olr\htm/99-R-1084.htm.

Part of whether there is a mistake of age defense I would suspect has to do with the age of consent but that's just a guess.

Note: this law review article from 2018 - file:///C:/Users/atlsun/Downloads/55AmCrimLRev813.pdf - says that only 17 states have some form mistake of age defense but in my quick look at the article, I didn't see any backup for that claim.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,354
from the wilds of western ma
I'm not really sure that's the case. I believe most states do have some sort of rule similar to CA, where a reasonable belief of age is a defense. There's also, of course, prosecutorial discretion. DAs are not going to go around charging every 18 year old who had sex with a 17 year old (at least for the states which use 18 as a hard cutoff, of which many do not). In CA, it's a misdemeanor if you're within 3 years, and DAs don't go around prosecuting all of those. It will depend on the facts and circumstances.
As it's being defined here, if this was the standard and you were using 18 as the cutoff for minor, a significant portion of all professional athletes would be cut immediately. There's plenty of drinking and sex happening in high school, particularly with Juniors and Seniors. I think the facilitating the rape question has been answered as best as possible if he's not being charged, right? That would still be a crime.
I was speaking more of the social/moral implications of signing him, based on what is known and acknowledged to this point. By the (correctly) higher standards of consent in 2023, his behavior would preclude me from signing him were I an owner or a GM. As we've seen in many instances since the me too movement started, strict legal liability is hardly the last word standard in cases like this. I've no doubt he's hardly alone in behavior like this among high level college and professional athletes, but his case is very public, and therefore, he's under much greater scrutiny. And as a fan, I would be very disappointed if, hypothetically, he was signed by the Patriots, based on what we know now.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,219
Asheville, NC
What’s actually wild is there’s a marriage exception in CA and no minimum marriage age! So go ahead, elope secretly in the woods and sex it up CA high schoolers!
While you can get married at any age in CA, you need both parental consent and a court approval to marry under age 18. So it's not really conducive to eloping secretly.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/family-code/fam-sect-302.html
https://www.findlaw.com/state/california-law/california-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,517
Newton
Rodgers has a lot of faults, but why on earth would he give a shit who the punter is?
Victims of the woke mob need to stick together, dude.

It was a joke, but basically I was just trying to come up with some reason why the Jets--who have a really talented roster and a real chance for the first time in forever--would risk it all with a guy like Araiza and the requisite media headache.

I mean, sure it's been all good vibes so far, but just wait until somebody asks Rodgers about Araiza ... as a Jets fan, why would you want to bring even that potential on yourselves?
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
20,027
Henderson, NV
Victims of the woke mob need to stick together, dude.

It was a joke, but basically I was just trying to come up with some reason why the Jets--who have a really talented roster and a real chance for the first time in forever--would risk it all with a guy like Araiza and the requisite media headache.

I mean, sure it's been all good vibes so far, but just wait until somebody asks Rodgers about Araiza ... as a Jets fan, why would you want to bring even that potential on yourselves?
I just read back what I wrote and it sounds a lot worse than I meant, so my apologies.

I agree with you that it seems to be a Jetsian thing to do, but by training camp, it will probably be the 147th most important issue with that team (the first 130 or so being some aspect of Rodgers).
 

Salva135

Cassandra
Oct 19, 2008
1,581
Boston
Victims of the woke mob need to stick together, dude.

It was a joke, but basically I was just trying to come up with some reason why the Jets--who have a really talented roster and a real chance for the first time in forever--would risk it all with a guy like Araiza and the requisite media headache.

I mean, sure it's been all good vibes so far, but just wait until somebody asks Rodgers about Araiza ... as a Jets fan, why would you want to bring even that potential on yourselves?
Wow, I mean, this is pretty terrible. Lumping Rodgers and this guy together? I don't know much about Araiza's case but why would Rodgers want this guy on the team? Just a ridiculous extrapolation.

"it was just a joke"... nah... it wasnt.
 

PedrosRedGlove

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2005
670
Wow, I mean, this is pretty terrible. Lumping Rodgers and this guy together? I don't know much about Araiza's case but why would Rodgers want this guy on the team? Just a ridiculous extrapolation.

"it was just a joke"... nah... it wasnt.
I think it was... and, are we that concerned about preserving the honor of Aaron Rodgers here?

Araiza has been somewhat cleared, so what Rodgers is being lumped into is a bit ambiguous at this point... but it's totally "logic" he would use.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,688
The 718
Wow, I mean, this is pretty terrible. Lumping Rodgers and this guy together? I don't know much about Araiza's case but why would Rodgers want this guy on the team? Just a ridiculous extrapolation.

"it was just a joke"... nah... it wasnt.
Because having the better punter during the game means consistently better field position when he gets the ball?
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,688
The 718
One note: statements by the DA re prosecuting or not, etc are not entitled to automatic deference, either as fact or as a marker of what's fair, just etc. DA's can be less than forthcoming, for reasons both legitimate (not everything they know can/should be public) or illegitimate. I would weight their statements but not credit them uncritically.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,552
One note: statements by the DA re prosecuting or not, etc are not entitled to automatic deference, either as fact or as a marker of what's fair, just etc. DA's can be less than forthcoming, for reasons both legitimate (not everything they know can/should be public) or illegitimate. I would weight their statements but not credit them uncritically.
I believe we saw this in Deshaun Watson’s case as well.
 

Salva135

Cassandra
Oct 19, 2008
1,581
Boston
I think it was... and, are we that concerned about preserving the honor of Aaron Rodgers here?

Araiza has been somewhat cleared, so what Rodgers is being lumped into is a bit ambiguous at this point... but it's totally "logic" he would use.
Rodgers has a lot of silly opinions but I don't see the point of assigning additional hypothetical ones to him unless you have a specific agenda toward him.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,688
The 718
I believe we saw this in Deshaun Watson’s case as well.
Sure.

At the extreme, you have the ADA in the Duke lacrosse case, who was disbarred for withholding exculpatory evidence and making highly prejuidicial post-arrest, pre-trial statements about the defendants, among other things, out of a corrupt motive, ie career advancement.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2007/jun/17/duke-lacrosse-prosecutor-permanently-disbarred/

Most DA's are not craven liars, of course. But the mix of prosecutorial function, ethical responsibility, confidentiality mandates, and (let's be honest) intense ambition for most, with those pressures often working at cross purposes, is an unpredictable stew. A DA's public pronouncements are, at the very least, not to be taken as the final word on anything involving the guilt or innocence of the defendant, the decision to prosecute or not, etc. We don't know enough.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,259
Tuukka's refugee camp
Rodgers has a lot of silly opinions but I don't see the point of assigning additional hypothetical ones to him unless you have a specific agenda toward him.
That’s the whole point of making fun of someone who has silly opinions. “They’re so crazy because they believe x, they probably also believe y! LOL.”

And plenty of people have an agenda against him after the last year. And then he became a Jet.
 

The Talented Allen Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
12,759
MetroWest, MA
Chiefs sign Araiza.

The Chiefs are signing punter Matt Araiza, who was dismissed in December from a lawsuit alleging the rape of a 17-year-old girl in 2021.
The signing was announced on X by Araiza's agent, Joe Linta.

"We are grateful to Brett Veach, coach Reid and the @Chiefs organization for giving Matt this opportunity," Linta wrote.

Tommy Townsend, the Chiefs' punter in each of the past four seasons, is scheduled to be an unrestricted free agent next month. Townsend was first-team All-Pro and selected for the Pro Bowl in 2022.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.