Araiza Troubles

[WHAM-Bam ThankYou Sam]

20 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

 

Well I guess he will be on the first bus to Cleveland!

[csmopar]

8 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

Be warned graphic details.  Mods I understand if you remove this 

 

 

Yeah… there’s definitely a case there criminally. Rape kit will back that up if her piercings were forcibly removed. This is no longer a drunk he said she said thing. 

[csmopar]

6 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

That’s why I posted the graphic account of what happened here.  Some were hinting at that with this girl (and I say girl because she’s 17 she’s a child).  I think the only way you fix that is for people to see what really happened because God willing most of us will never experience anything close to this.  

Thank you for posting that. As someone who has sadly had to investigate more than one of these cases in my past career, I can say now with greater certainty this likely won’t go the way of Watson’s case where the grand jury doesn’t indict 

[NFLfan]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

I wonder why the girl or her family didn't give this info to a news outlet or ESPN

 

What makes you wonder that?

[csmopar]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

I wonder why the girl or her family didn't give this info to a news outlet or ESPN.

Cause they’d likely been ignored. Plus judges tend to frown on that type of behavior 

[RollerColt]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

I wonder why the girl or her family didn't give this info to a news outlet or ESPN.

Possibly because the investigators told them not to contact media until they were finished gathering evidence, contacting witnesses etc. 

[NFLfan]

50 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Possibly because the investigators told them not to contact media until they were finished gathering evidence, contacting witnesses etc. 

 

I did not understand his question. What rape victim wants to broadcast that they had been raped? This is something to report to the police. The girl/woman did exactly what is recommended when someone is raped.

 

Had she gone to a news outlet to report that,  there would be even more people saying she has ulterior motives.

 

The question should be why did Araiza do this. 

[jonjon]

 

 

8 hours ago, Qwiz said:

The term “money grab” and all sorts of victim blaming always tend to pop up in discussions like this, unfortunately. And it’s a shame. Women are already terrified/ashamed to come forward after assaults, and now they have to deal with people calling them liars or insinuating that vicious attacks are their own fault? It’s ridiculous. 

 

I agree that it is ridiculous and horribly shameful....when the allegations are true. But we don't know if that's the case here. For every genuine case of rape, in which case by the way I would be happy to see the offender(s) locked up and the key thrown out, there is a case of a woman trying to get a guy busted for it when it is a crock, and I would be happy to see them locked up and the key thrown away too. If you don't think there are women out there who able and willing to do that for any number of reasons, think again.

 

PS this should go without saying, but FYI I am not saying that is the case here. Like everyone else...I don't know. We have precious little in the way of facts at most. That's why there's this due process thing. 

 

[RollerColt]

50 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I did not understand his question. What rape victim wants to broadcast that they had been raped? This is something to report to the police. The girl/woman did exactly what is recommended when someone is raped.

 

Had she gone to a news outlet to report that,  there would be even more people saying she has ulterior motives.

 

The question should be why did Araiza do this. 

Yes. The last thing they would want is relentless barrages from the media and other people. I think the Bills situation forced their hand. This is so tragic in many ways. This woman’s life is damaged and honestly the future will be hard to repair. And there will still be people who think it’s all for money…

[Nadine]

An estimated 60% of sexual assaults go unreported

False accusations of rape are estimated to be between 2 and 10%

 

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

 

Quote

Research shows that rates of false reporting
are frequently inflated, in part because of
inconsistent definitions and protocols, or a weak
understanding of sexual assault. Misconceptions
about false reporting rates have direct, negative
consequences and can contribute to why many
victims don’t report sexual assaults (Lisak et
al., 2010).

 

I don't know what happened in this case but, it's pretty clear that the deck is stacked against the victims of sexual assault

 

Very difficult to get justice

I cannot think of another type of assault that routinely results in the victim being scrutinized the same way as rape victims are.

[Myles]

9 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

I did not understand his question. What rape victim wants to broadcast that they had been raped? This is something to report to the police. The girl/woman did exactly what is recommended when someone is raped.

 

Had she gone to a news outlet to report that,  there would be even more people saying she has ulterior motives.

 

The question should be why did Araiza do this. 

When the draft was getting ready to start and the media had some focus on Araiza, I would have thought that her family could have ruined his chances of getting drafted.  

[King Colt]

He is innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law so put your ropes back in your closets.

[Qwiz]

15 hours ago, jonjon said:

 

 

 

I agree that it is ridiculous and horribly shameful....when the allegations are true. But we don't know if that's the case here. For every genuine case of rape, in which case by the way I would be happy to see the offender(s) locked up and the key thrown out, there is a case of a woman trying to get a guy busted for it when it is a crock, and I would be happy to see them locked up and the key thrown away too. If you don't think there are women out there who able and willing to do that for any number of reasons, think again.

 

PS this should go without saying, but FYI I am not saying that is the case here. Like everyone else...I don't know. We have precious little in the way of facts at most. That's why there's this due process thing. 

 

Take a look at what Nadine posted above this quote. No, not every single accusation is 100% true; But unreported assaults, whether it is unwanted groping or full on rape, has a far higher number than false accusations. Judging by Araiza’s suspicious behavior on the phone call and the legal process moving swiftly enough that he’s been released by a seemingly terrified Bills team already, things are not looking good for him. 

[Qwiz]

3 hours ago, King Colt said:

He is innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law so put your ropes back in your closets.

Ah yes, so crimes shouldn’t be discussed or spoken about at all until the judge lays down the mallet possibly months or years later. Gotcha. 

[PrincetonTiger]

[GoColts8818]

4 hours ago, King Colt said:

He is innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law so put your ropes back in your closets.

That’s for courts and making sure you aren’t facing false imprisonment or other wise having your rights violated which he isn’t.  People are found guilty in the court of public opinion all the time.  Look at OJ.  Not many people truly believe he is innocent even though he was found not guilty.

[King Colt]

54 minutes ago, Qwiz said:

Ah yes, so crimes shouldn’t be discussed or spoken about at all until the judge lays down the mallet possibly months or years later. Gotcha. 

"Discussed?" Not likely as YOU have already used the word "crimes" when it is an accusation only. Learn the difference

[PrincetonTiger]

10 minutes ago, King Colt said:

"Discussed?" Not likely as YOU have already used the word "crimes" when it is an accusation only. Learn the difference

 

[jvan1973]

40 minutes ago, King Colt said:

"Discussed?" Not likely as YOU have already used the word "crimes" when it is an accusation only. Learn the difference

He is ACCUSED of these CRIMES.   Pretty simple

[GoColts8818]

50 minutes ago, King Colt said:

"Discussed?" Not likely as YOU have already used the word "crimes" when it is an accusation only. Learn the difference

He’s accursed of said crimes so saying crimes is correct.  No one saying he has been found guilty by a court of those crimes and no one is denying his rights.  No one is doing anything wrong here.  Why are you defending him so hard on this?  The evidence strongly suggests he did this, most notably him confusing to having sex with her and tell her she needs to get checked for a STD.  Given that he’s 21 and she’s 17 that lone is a crime and he’s admitted to it.  That’s why people aren’t backing him on this.

[Happy2BeHere]

23 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

He’s accursed of said crimes so saying crimes is correct.  No one saying he has been found guilty by a court of those crimes and no one is denying his rights.  No one is doing anything wrong here.  Why are you defending him so hard on this?  The evidence strongly suggests he did this, most notably him confusing to having sex with her and tell her she needs to get checked for a STD.  Given that he’s 21 and she’s 17 that lone is a crime and he’s admitted to it.  That’s why people aren’t backing him on this.

It also depends on whether or not he "knew" she was 17 or not. I don't know if the girl told him she was of age or not. I also don't know how much either situation impacts the "law" as the judge sees it. Since the law has elasticity by virtue of judges they can interpret it however it seems reasonable based on evidence. Innocent until proven guilty has become somewhat a thing of the past since dawn of social media. Innocent (at the moment) as it pertains to the law....guilty (at the moment) as it pertains to the court of public opinion. 

 

The evidence thus far does NOT look good for him and I'll grant you that. I think the Bills were absolutely stellar in making a decision to cut this guy free. They don't want that liability (legally) and they don't want that liability to lay on the players as a distraction trying to get back to the AFCCG and beyond. My hat's off to the Bills organization for doing the right thing. I can't say the same for the TEXANS or for the BROWNS in regards to Watson...they BOTH screwed that up.

[Four2itus]

5 minutes ago, Happy2BeHere said:

It also depends on whether or not he "knew" she was 17 or not. I don't know if the girl told him she was of age or not. I also don't know how much either situation impacts the "law" as the judge sees it. Since the law has elasticity by virtue of judges they can interpret it however it seems reasonable based on evidence. Innocent until proven guilty has become somewhat a thing of the past since dawn of social media. Innocent (at the moment) as it pertains to the law....guilty (at the moment) as it pertains to the court of public opinion. 

 

The evidence thus far does NOT look good for him and I'll grant you that. I think the Bills were absolutely stellar in making a decision to cut this guy free. They don't want that liability (legally) and they don't want that liability to lay on the players as a distraction trying to get back to the AFCCG and beyond. My hat's off to the Bills organization for doing the right thing. I can't say the same for the TEXANS or for the BROWNS in regards to Watson...they BOTH screwed that up.

"Innocent until proven guilty" becoming a thing of the past? He isn't behind bars.....yet. So he is still legally innocent. But this is no different, rather the opposite side of the coin from "Guilty unless you have enough money"

 

He is guilty of something in the Bills eyes, and since they are a private organization, they can do as they please as long as it is contractually allowed. On the subject of the Bills, though I applaud their decision, I don't respect them, because they ignored the huge red flag in the first place. Also, if this were Josh Allen instead of a punter, would they still be making the cut? I hope so, but I have my doubts, 

[GoColts8818]

13 minutes ago, Happy2BeHere said:

It also depends on whether or not he "knew" she was 17 or not. I don't know if the girl told him she was of age or not. I also don't know how much either situation impacts the "law" as the judge sees it. Since the law has elasticity by virtue of judges they can interpret it however it seems reasonable based on evidence. Innocent until proven guilty has become somewhat a thing of the past since dawn of social media. Innocent (at the moment) as it pertains to the law....guilty (at the moment) as it pertains to the court of public opinion. 

 

The evidence thus far does NOT look good for him and I'll grant you that. I think the Bills were absolutely stellar in making a decision to cut this guy free. They don't want that liability (legally) and they don't want that liability to lay on the players as a distraction trying to get back to the AFCCG and beyond. My hat's off to the Bills organization for doing the right thing. I can't say the same for the TEXANS or for the BROWNS in regards to Watson...they BOTH screwed that up.

Paging @csmopar.

 

He gave an explanation in another thread why rather him knowing if she was under age or not wasn’t going to matter with his expertise of being a former investigator.  Rather than not doing it right I’d ask him to post that again as I think it’s relevant and important.  
 

Also innocent until proven guilty is to make sure your rights are being protected and your aren’t being punished for crimes until you are convicted.  To my knowledge neither of those things are being violated here so he is being treated as innocent until proven guilty.  
 

It was never and has never applied to the court of public opinion or things like your job.  Like I used as another example, do you think OJ Simpson is innocent of killing his ex wife and Ron Goldman?  A court didn’t find him guilty so using “innocent until found guilty” logic people should think he’s innocent yet very few do.  

[Goatface Killah]

Those accusations would be pretty easy to prove.

 

Ripped out piercings?

 

Bleeding privates?

 

Sounds like something happened. Im sure she didnt do that to herself. 

 

[Goatface Killah]

31 minutes ago, Happy2BeHere said:

It also depends on whether or not he "knew" she was 17 or not. I don't know if the girl told him she was of age or not. I also don't know how much either situation impacts the "law" as the judge sees it. Since the law has elasticity by virtue of judges they can interpret it however it seems reasonable based on evidence. Innocent until proven guilty has become somewhat a thing of the past since dawn of social media. Innocent (at the moment) as it pertains to the law....guilty (at the moment) as it pertains to the court of public opinion. 

 

The evidence thus far does NOT look good for him and I'll grant you that. I think the Bills were absolutely stellar in making a decision to cut this guy free. They don't want that liability (legally) and they don't want that liability to lay on the players as a distraction trying to get back to the AFCCG and beyond. My hat's off to the Bills organization for doing the right thing. I can't say the same for the TEXANS or for the BROWNS in regards to Watson...they BOTH screwed that up.

Innocent until proven guilty has NEVER existed in regards to public opinion. Never. 

 

It only exists in theory. 

 

It basically just means you have the right to a trial and an opportunity to prove your innocence. 

 

Jails are full of people who were convicted on circumstantial evidence, personal opinions and innuendo. 

[Nadine]

6 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

 

Jails are full of people who were convicted on circumstantial evidence, personal opinions and innuendo. 

And people waiting for a trial

[Goatface Killah]

23 minutes ago, Nadine said:

And people waiting for a trial

Exactly

 

Its just something people say really. And on the flip side just because you win your freedom in a trial doesnt mean the public believes you're innocent. 

 

How many people think Casey Anthony is innocent? How about OJ?

[PrincetonTiger]

13 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Exactly

 

Its just something people say really. And on the flip side just because you win your freedom in a trial doesnt mean the public believes you're innocent. 

 

How many people think Casey Anthony is innocent? How about OJ?

So true

  goes the other way too

     See Sacco and Vanzetti

 

[Happy2BeHere]

43 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Innocent until proven guilty has NEVER existed in regards to public opinion. Never. 

 

It only exists in theory. 

 

It basically just means you have the right to a trial and an opportunity to prove your innocence. 

 

Jails are full of people who were convicted on circumstantial evidence, personal opinions and innuendo. 

Exactly what I am saying...you get it. When I said "Innocent until proven guilty has become somewhat a thing of the past since dawn of social media. Innocent (at the moment) as it pertains to the law....guilty (at the moment) as it pertains to the court of public opinion." 

 

Since the dawn of social media it's pretty much guilty or innocent regardless of the "law" when it comes to public opinion. Take the Johnny Depp / Amber Heard case.....I did not follow it nor did I give a care in the world about it...but SO many people around me including my oldest daughter is like cheering for Depp from beginning to end well before facts were presented...why she had that opinion boggles my mind from before day 1. That's the society we live in anymore...sometimes the court of public opinion is FAR more damaging to a person than is the court of law.

[Happy2BeHere]

1 hour ago, Four2itus said:

"Innocent until proven guilty" becoming a thing of the past? He isn't behind bars.....yet. So he is still legally innocent. But this is no different, rather the opposite side of the coin from "Guilty unless you have enough money"

 

He is guilty of something in the Bills eyes, and since they are a private organization, they can do as they please as long as it is contractually allowed. On the subject of the Bills, though I applaud their decision, I don't respect them, because they ignored the huge red flag in the first place. Also, if this were Josh Allen instead of a punter, would they still be making the cut? I hope so, but I have my doubts, 

Obviously you didn't really thoroughly read what my statement was: "Innocent until proven guilty has become somewhat a thing of the past since dawn of social media. Innocent (at the moment) as it pertains to the law....guilty (at the moment) as it pertains to the court of public opinion."

 

I CLEARLY stated he is "innocent" in terms of the law...and in terms of public opinion "guilty". 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Order in the court room - as judge Joe Brown used to say, one thing Ariaza is guilty of is being DDOTD = Dumb Dumb of the Day for even being in this predicament.

[Happy2BeHere]

 

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

Paging @csmopar.

 

He gave an explanation in another thread why rather him knowing if she was under age or not wasn’t going to matter with his expertise of being a former investigator.  Rather than not doing it right I’d ask him to post that again as I think it’s relevant and important.  
 

Also innocent until proven guilty is to make sure your rights are being protected and your aren’t being punished for crimes until you are convicted.  To my knowledge neither of those things are being violated here so he is being treated as innocent until proven guilty.  
 

It was never and has never applied to the court of public opinion or things like your job.  Like I used as another example, do you think OJ Simpson is innocent of killing his ex wife and Ron Goldman?  A court didn’t find him guilty so using “innocent until found guilty” logic people should think he’s innocent yet very few do.  

 

I think he is clearly being "punished" because the Bills released him. He hasn't been convicted absolutely correct...but unfortunately he is taking a beating because of the perception.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Happy2BeHere said:

 

 

I think he is clearly being "punished" because the Bills released him. He hasn't been convicted absolutely correct...but unfortunately he is taking a beating because of the perception.

First of all this a civil proceeding and he is being punished because he acted like a dunce

[Goatface Killah]

11 minutes ago, Happy2BeHere said:

Exactly what I am saying...you get it. When I said "Innocent until proven guilty has become somewhat a thing of the past since dawn of social media. Innocent (at the moment) as it pertains to the law....guilty (at the moment) as it pertains to the court of public opinion." 

 

Since the dawn of social media it's pretty much guilty or innocent regardless of the "law" when it comes to public opinion. Take the Johnny Depp / Amber Heard case.....I did not follow it nor did I give a care in the world about it...but SO many people around me including my oldest daughter is like cheering for Depp from beginning to end well before facts were presented...why she had that opinion boggles my mind from before day 1. That's the society we live in anymore...sometimes the court of public opinion is FAR more damaging to a person than is the court of law.

But youre implying there was a time when it actually existed. Social media has nothing to do with this. Social media just gives people more reach.

 

I gave 2 examples from the past. I could give you countless others from any time period. 

 

You just cant regulate opinions in a free society. People are gonna speculate on his guilt.

 

Im starting to wonder if people really like freedom that much? Freedom means tolerating other people as much as living the way you want to live.

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

But youre implying there was a time when it actually existed. Social media has nothing to do with this. Social media just gives people more reach.

 

I gave 2 examples from the past. I could give you countless others from any time period. 

 

You just cant regulate opinions in a free society. People are gonna speculate on his guilt.

 

Im starting to wonder if people really like freedom that much? Freedom means tolerating other people as much as living the way you want to live.

Social Media is not new just in a different form see tabloid journalism

 

 @Happy2BeHere

[Happy2BeHere]

14 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

But youre implying there was a time when it actually existed. Social media has nothing to do with this. Social media just gives people more reach.

 

I gave 2 examples from the past. I could give you countless others from tany time period. 

 

You just cant regulate opinions in a free society. 

 

Im starting to wonder if people really like freedom that much? Freedom means tolerating other people as much as living the way you want to live.

I do think in early America there was a time where innocent in public opinion was much more common than it is now. And yes...social media has a LOT to do with why it's different today.

[GoColts8818]

22 minutes ago, Happy2BeHere said:

 

 

I think he is clearly being "punished" because the Bills released him. He hasn't been convicted absolutely correct...but unfortunately he is taking a beating because of the perception.

Again, that’a not innocent until proven guilty means.  innocent until proven guilty is designed to keep the government from imprisoning you before you have been convicted of a crime.  Again he has not.  Thus, he is being treated as innocent until proven guilty.

 

Innocent until proven guilty was not deigned for, does not apply too, and will never apply to the court of public opinion.  People get fired all the time because they are accused of something.  If the evidence suggests they probably did it they get fired.  
 

The reason he’s taking such a beating is that people are looking at the facts that the have been presented and going this looks overwhelming that he did this and this is awful.  Again, just like people look at OJ Simpson and go yeah I know he was innocent in the eyes of the law in terms of killing his ex wife and Ron Goldman but there is enough evidence there I don’t think he’s innocent.  You notice NBC fired him after he was accused and didn’t give him his job back after he was found not guilty back in the middle 90’s because he was guilty in the eyes of the public and they knew there would be a large public backlash if they brought him back.  That was long before social media.
 

Innocent until proven guilty does not exist outside of a court of law.  It’s no different than people who think freedom of speech means they can say whatever they want whenever they want.  That’s not what it means it means the government can’t throw you in jail for what you say.  The public can and will judge you based on what you say all the time.  

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Happy2BeHere said:

I do think in early America there was a time where innocent in public opinion was much more common than it is now. And yes...social media has a LOT to do with why it's different today.

Salem Witch Trials

 

 

 

 

[Happy2BeHere]

1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

Again, that’a not innocent until proven guilty means.  innocent until proven guilty is designed to keep the government from imprisoning you before you have been convicted of a crime.  Again he has not.  Thus, he is being treated as innocent until proven guilty.

 

Innocent until proven guilty was deigned for, does not apply too, and will never apply to the court of public opinion.  People get fired all the time because they are accused of something.  If the evidence suggests they probably did it they get fired.  
 

The reason he’s taking such a beating is that people are looking that the facts the have been presented and going this looks overwhelming that he did this and this is awful.  Again, just like people look at OJ Simpson and go yeah I know he was innocent in the eyes of the law in terms of killing his ex wife and Ron Goldman but there is enough evidence there I don’t think he’s innocent.  You notice NBC fired him after he was accused and didn’t give him his job back after he was found not guilty back in the middle 90’s.  
 

Innocent until proven guilty does not exist outside of a court of law.  It’s no different than people who think freedom of speech means they can say whatever they want whenever they want.  That’s not what it means it means the government can’t throw you in jail for what you say.  The public can and will judge you based on what you say all the time.  

I'm not sure in any of my comments where I said he wasn't innocent. I have absolutely said he is innocent until he is proven guilty as it pertains to the law. I was pretty clear about that.

 

I can assure you I know very well what innocent until proven guilty means as it pertains to the law.

[PrincetonTiger]

@GoColts8818