2022-2023 Buffalo Bills Thread

[Sabres Fan in NS]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Nothing's been proven. And it might be very difficult to prove he had sex with her. There's a reason the police tried to get him to explicitly confirm it.

She had a rape kit done the following day, I believe.  They found whatever DNA they found there.  When he submits, as he will be compelled to do if he has not yet, they will know for certain.  They always seem to want a confession too.  If the young lady does nto press charges the DA is bound too, I believe.

[K-9]

22 minutes ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

There is no due process when you have sex with a minor.  They can't give consent.  Guilty.  It's easy to prove he had sex with her.  It's easy to prove her age at the time.  Guilty.

It’s not all that cut and dry. Scroll down to the “Best Defenses for Statutory Rape” section. California law allows defendants to provide proof that they had a reasonable and actual expectation that the victim was 18 or older at the time. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/261-5/

Edited August 28, 2022 by K-9

[bob_sauve28]

45 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Not a big fan of due process eh?

You don't need due process to release a punter. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that teams can cut, release, refuse to resign punters under the un-reasonable suspicion. If you suspect he was involved in a gang rape, just cut him! 

[Ogre]

6 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

The ability of a heterosexual guy to say that another guy looks hunky (handsome, etc. - choose your word) in a photo is no cause for self reflection. The inability to do so, OTOH … .

I agree with this statement except the last line. The inability to find men attractive means what now? 
 You misunderstood my suggestion though. If you think THAT particular pic of the kid is hunky and it’s a poor choice on the Bills part to use it, then you should quietly question yourself. “Why am I so hell-bent that the Bills are in the wrong?” is the question, IMO.

I wouldn’t suggest that you are secretly homosexual as an insult, as you did with me there, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with being homosexual, transgender, straight, *****, bisexual, non-binary, etc.

To suggest otherwise, as you have done, is offensive and I expect that you would be above that.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

It’s not all that cut and dry. Scroll down to the “Best Defenses for Statutory Rape” section. California law allows defendants to provide proof that they had a reasonable and actual expectation that the victim was 18 or older at the time. 
 

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/261-5/

How is that reasonable and actual expectation proof going to be provided?  I would say that is damn near impossible.

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Serious question:  assuming Araiza didn’t force her to do anything (which appears to have been the case), what if she told Araiza she was 19?  What if she showed him a fake ID?

I doubt we’ll ever know, but I would like to know what the Bills concluded that he did specifically.  

He would still be guilty of statutory rape (assuming her version of events is accurate).  Not knowing an underaged person was underaged is no excuse under the law.

[That Aud Smell]

3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Serious question:  assuming Araiza didn’t force her to do anything (which appears to have been the case), what if she told Araiza she was 19?  What if she showed him a fake ID?

I doubt we’ll ever know, but I would like to know what the Bills concluded that he did specifically.  

So we’re already setting aside her allegations that she was bombed when she began talking to Araiza (sp?) - and therefore potentially incapable of consent - and that she he then roofied a new drink for her - and that she was then forced face down onto a bed where she went in and out of consciousness as she was raped by several men?

50 minutes ago, Ogre said:

I agree with this statement except the last line. The inability to find men attractive means what now? 
 You misunderstood my suggestion though. If you think THAT particular pic of the kid is hunky and it’s a poor choice on the Bills part to use it, then you should quietly question yourself. “Why am I so hell-bent that the Bills are in the wrong?” is the question, IMO.

I wouldn’t suggest that you are secretly homosexual as an insult, as you did with me there, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with being homosexual, transgender, straight, *****, bisexual, non-binary, etc.

To suggest otherwise, as you have done, is offensive and I expect that you would be above that.

Gah. Okay. I took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. In my defense, I was walking the dog. Also, your OP at least allowed for that interpretation (?). My bad, though.

I also stand by my takes - (1) didn’t like the use of a photo on the Tweet (otoh, I acknowledge a neutral (albeit not great) reason it appeared there), (2) didn’t like that it was hunky pic (otoh, the doofus smiley headshot could have been worse in some ways). I would have preferred a neutral team graphic if one were needed.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

He would still be guilty of statutory rape (assuming her version of events is accurate).  Not knowing an underaged person was underaged is no excuse under the law.

Hearing people claiming that under CA law you are correct about that.  Also hearing that if the underaged person represents themself as being of age, it may be a legitimate excuse.  Have never lived there and am not a lawyer.  Will wait until we see how the cases unfold before believing either interpretation is the correct one.  (And not interested enough to look up the full statute itself nor to see if in case law out there that exception has been used successfully as a defense.)

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

If she is 17 in California at the time ... he is.  If they found his DNA he is guilty.

I've read enough now to know that this is incorrect.

10 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

He would still be guilty of statutory rape (assuming her version of events is accurate).  Not knowing an underaged person was underaged is no excuse under the law.

In California, if she misled him, it is.

[Doohickie]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Hearing people claiming that under CA law you are correct about that.  Also hearing that if the underaged person represents themself as being of age, it may be a legitimate excuse.  Have never lived there and am not a lawyer.  Will wait until we see how the cases unfold before believing either interpretation is the correct one.  (And not interested enough to look up the full statute itself nor to see if in case law out there that exception has been used successfully as a defense.)

Eh, I'm no lawyer, but I did see one from CA (who was a retired judge) say this on Twitter.

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

I've read enough now to know that this is incorrect.

In California, if she misled him, it is.

Again, we only have one side, but the civil suit says (if I recall correctly) that she said she was a student at a local HS.  So if anything she gave him reason to believe she wasn't of age.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

So we’re already setting aside her allegations that she was bombed when she began talking to Araiza (sp?) - and therefore potentially incapable of consent - and that she he then roofied a new drink for her - and that she was then forced face down onto a bed where she went in and out of consciousness as she was raped by several men?

Gah. Okay. I took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. In my defense, I was walking the dog. Also, your OP at least allowed for that interpretation (?). My bad, though.

I also stand by my takes - (1) didn’t like the use of a photo on the Tweet (otoh, I acknowledge a neutral (albeit not great) reason it appeared there), (2) didn’t like that it was hunky pic (otoh, the doofus smiley headshot could have been worse in some ways). I would have preferred a neutral team graphic if one were needed.

@nfreeman had said "assuming he didn't force her to do anything" which implies he didn't roofie her but he had consensual sex with her and he did not take any part in what certainly seems to be a forcible rape back in the bedroom to preface his question to you.  Which, per the punter's lawyer's statements appears to be his position and at this time may very well be what happened.  (The truth may also have been far closer to her position for all we know at this point.)

How do you get from him asking the question, to him "already setting aside her allegations?"

[bob_sauve28]

She was brutally gang raped and he is a central figure in that horrendous act one way or another. He either was a central player in it or he knows a lot about it. Those are the only issues that really matter, imo 

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Eh, I'm no lawyer, but I did see one from CA (who was a retired judge) say this on Twitter.

Again, we only have one side, but the civil suit says (if I recall correctly) that she said she was a student at a local HS.  So if anything she gave him reason to believe she wasn't of age.

And, his lawyer says that she told him she was a student at a college of the same name as the high school.  (Essentially a "Canisius" situation.)  The handwritten (by her presumably) notes that her lawyer put out which he claims were essentially contemporaneous only give the name of the school.  It doesn't include either HS nor College.  So, if the "she was misleading about her age" defense is valid; whether the punter can avoid a statutory rape conviction may still be possible.  Again, not a lawyer, definitely not a CA lawyer.

[Buffalonill]

Saw you guy are bringing in marquette king that would be an outstanding signing for buffalo.

 

 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, bob_sauve28 said:

She was brutally gang raped and he is may be a central figure in that horrendous act one way or another. He either was a central player in it or he knows a lot about it. Those are the only issues that really matter, imo 

If he was the facilitator of her getting gang raped or he participated in it, absolutely 100% throw the book at him.

But, IIRC in her notes she believes she didn't get out of the room until after the party had pretty much ended.  He certainly knows about the events of that night as she has described them as he has been one of the targets of the criminal investigation.  But IF his contention that he did not take the girl back into the house, much less the bedroom where the incident is alleged to have taken place is true (and we don't know if it is or isn't & the Bills possibly don't know THAT for certain either) then should he lose his job if he took no part in it and didn't even find out about that until the next day?  (Which is plausible.)  Again, under that scenario he'd've taken NO part in the gang rape including not even facilitating it nor even knowing about it in real/nearly real time.

[That Aud Smell]

25 minutes ago, Taro T said:

@nfreeman had said "assuming he didn't force her to do anything" which implies he didn't roofie her but he had consensual sex with her and he did not take any part in what certainly seems to be a forcible rape back in the bedroom to preface his question to you.  Which, per the punter's lawyer's statements appears to be his position and at this time may very well be what happened.  (The truth may also have been far closer to her position for all we know at this point.)

How do you get from him asking the question, to him "already setting aside her allegations?"

He said it appears to be the case. The language I bolded.

[That Aud Smell]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

then should he lose his job if he took no part in it and didn't even find out about that until the next day?  (Which is plausible.)  Again, under that scenario he'd've taken NO part in the gang rape including not even facilitating it nor even knowing about it in real/nearly real time.

The question of “should he lose his job” us not only academic at this point, it seems to ignore the peculiar, unique circumstances of being employed as an NFL player. In the NFL’s multi-billion dollar entertainment industry, the brands are paramount. Goodell talks un-ironically about “protecting the shield” (the NFL logo). Araiza’s currently implicated in an alleged gruesome sex assault, rape. Absent really compelling exculpatory evidence - of which there is apparently none here - he’s going to get cut if he can’t get put on the exempt list or some such. The Bills cannot allow the brand to suffer in order to give Araiza the most fair treatment and process possible. That’s just the nature of the business.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

How is that reasonable and actual expectation proof going to be provided?  I would say that is damn near impossible.

Did you read the article? 

Anyway, I don’t claim to know what evidence a lawyer may present in a case I don’t know anything about except for what a plaintiff has alleged. But I doubt it’s impossible in many cases. 

[bob_sauve28]

23 minutes ago, Taro T said:

If he was the facilitator of her getting gang raped or he participated in it, absolutely 100% throw the book at him.

But, IIRC in her notes she believes she didn't get out of the room until after the party had pretty much ended.  He certainly knows about the events of that night as she has described them as he has been one of the targets of the criminal investigation.  But IF his contention that he did not take the girl back into the house, much less the bedroom where the incident is alleged to have taken place is true (and we don't know if it is or isn't & the Bills possibly don't know THAT for certain either) then should he lose his job if he took no part in it and didn't even find out about that until the next day?  (Which is plausible.)  Again, under that scenario he'd've taken NO part in the gang rape including not even facilitating it nor even knowing about it in real/nearly real time.

He is involved in this mess, perhaps criminally. That he is losing his job is just part of that job being very public in a league and organization that can not have a distraction of any kind like this going on. If he worked in an office somewhere I'm sure the case would just play out in the courts. The NFL conducts business under a microscope. If he did nothing wrong, yes its unfair but in no way should Bills be taking the chance that he is innocent. 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

but the civil suit says (if I recall correctly) that she said she was a student at a local HS

Which his attorney has denied, stating that she identified her school--the name of which is shared by a high school and a college in San Diego, like Villa Maria (formerly?) or Canisius in Buffalo.  I'm not going to predict which attorney has it right; what she actually said is a factual issue, though.

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

The question of “should he lose his job” us not only academic at this point, it seems to ignore the peculiar, unique circumstances of being employed as an NFL player. In the NFL’s multi-billion dollar entertainment industry, the brands are paramount. Goodell talks un-ironically about “protecting the shield” (the NFL logo). Araiza’s currently implicated in an alleged gruesome sex assault, rape. Absent really compelling exculpatory evidence - of which there is apparently none here - he’s going to get cut if he can’t get put on the exempt list or some such. The Bills cannot allow the brand to suffer in order to give Araiza the most fair treatment and process possible. That’s just the nature of the business.

So, the question gets ignored because it's academic?  That seems to be setting a really slippery slope and is uniformly not applied uniformly by the NFL.

How do you know there is no exculpatory evidence?  The criminal investigation has been ongoing for over 10 months and as yet has not resulted in any charges.  The civil complaint appears to have been filed only 3 days ago.  Though the girl's attorney is quite fine with trying his case in the court of public opinion, that isn't where the merits of the case will actually be determined.

The only thing we seem to know other than no criminal charges have been filed yet but civil charges have been filed is that both parties involved seem to agree  (she through her TV interview, notes, & lawsuit & him through indirect comments by his lawyer) that they met inside the house and then had sexual relations in the side yard of the house.  They don't agree on whether he gave her a drink (roofied or non) and it could be they both remember that part of the event correctly.  How?  She said she'd been drinking prior to arriving.  Maybe he was at the keg (presuming there was one at the party) pouring himself a refill & she showed up with plastic cup in hand and he kept the tap running for her and maybe her friend and others.  She is fairly petite.  If she had been drinking prior to talking to him, that beer she had with him might've been the one that got her "drunk, drunk" later and though there was nothing else it the cup but beer feeling much drunker at some point before having another one might make an inexperienced drinker think in hindsight that something nefarious rather than simple biochemistry was occurring.  As they're chit chatting while deciding if they're gonna do the nasty she might've said she went to whatever school it was.  He thinks she meant the college, she thought he knew it was the HS.  Again, 2 people experiencing the exact same event while perceiving it radically differently.

After they get to know each other in the biblical sense, that's when the stories diverge completely.  We haven't heard from any of the other witnesses, the police have.  His lawyer states that several witnesses including one of her friends said he didn't take her inside when questioned (no data on whether that's true nor whether the friend said that to him, police investigators, or both).  We know absolutely nothing about what the police actually know other than the girl did have a rape kit performed and they had her speak with him and other investigation targets through a bugged line.  So, how do you know this apparent lack of exculpatory evidence is in fact an ACTUAL lack of exculpatory evidence?  The police aren't going to make their evidence public until after the DA has finalized the investigation and made a charging decision.

Look, he could be guilty of both statutory rape & of taking part in a forcible rape.  In which case he should be punished severely.  But if all he did was have sex with a girl that said she was in college, not sure that the punishment apparently being doled out is appropriate.  Perhaps that in itself is enough to warrant this punishment, but just can't get to that place at this moment with so few facts known by us.

[bob_sauve28]

10 minutes ago, Taro T said:

So, the question gets ignored because it's academic?  That seems to be setting a really slippery slope and is uniformly not applied uniformly by the NFL.

How do you know there is no exculpatory evidence?  The criminal investigation has been ongoing for over 10 months and as yet has not resulted in any charges.  The civil complaint appears to have been filed only 3 days ago.  Though the girl's attorney is quite fine with trying his case in the court of public opinion, that isn't where the merits of the case will actually be determined.

The only thing we seem to know other than no criminal charges have been filed yet but civil charges have been filed is that both parties involved seem to agree  (she through her TV interview, notes, & lawsuit & him through indirect comments by his lawyer) that they met inside the house and then had sexual relations in the side yard of the house.  They don't agree on whether he gave her a drink (roofied or non) and it could be they both remember that part of the event correctly.  How?  She said she'd been drinking prior to arriving.  Maybe he was at the keg (presuming there was one at the party) pouring himself a refill & she showed up with plastic cup in hand and he kept the tap running for her and maybe her friend and others.  She is fairly petite.  If she had been drinking prior to talking to him, that beer she had with him might've been the one that got her "drunk, drunk" later and though there was nothing else it the cup but beer feeling much drunker at some point before having another one might make an inexperienced drinker think in hindsight that something nefarious rather than simple biochemistry was occurring.  As they're chit chatting while deciding if they're gonna do the nasty she might've said she went to whatever school it was.  He thinks she meant the college, she thought he knew it was the HS.  Again, 2 people experiencing the exact same event while perceiving it radically differently.

After they get to know each other in the biblical sense, that's when the stories diverge completely.  We haven't heard from any of the other witnesses, the police have.  His lawyer states that several witnesses including one of her friends said he didn't take her inside when questioned (no data on whether that's true nor whether the friend said that to him, police investigators, or both).  We know absolutely nothing about what the police actually know other than the girl did have a rape kit performed and they had her speak with him and other investigation targets through a bugged line.  So, how do you know this apparent lack of exculpatory evidence is in fact an ACTUAL lack of exculpatory evidence?  The police aren't going to make their evidence public until after the DA has finalized the investigation and made a charging decision.

Look, he could be guilty of both statutory rape & of taking part in a forcible rape.  In which case he should be punished severely.  But if all he did was have sex with a girl that said she was in college, not sure that the punishment apparently being doled out is appropriate.  Perhaps that in itself is enough to warrant this punishment, but just can't get to that place at this moment with so few facts known by us.

You think he should still be on the Bills with this hanging over him? 

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

You think he should still be on the Bills with this hanging over him? 

With this hanging over him he should've been able to get put onto an exempt list while it gets sorted out.  That appears to have not been an option because the events in question predate his participation in the NFL.

After watching the post game press conference, fully expected him to be cut yesterday and he was.  

[bob_sauve28]

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

With this hanging over him he should've been able to get put onto an exempt list while it gets sorted out.  That appears to have not been an option because the events in question predate his participation in the NFL.

After watching the post game press conference, fully expected him to be cut yesterday and he was.  

Fully cutting ties to that mess was the only way to go, imo 

 

 

[That Aud Smell]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

So, the question gets ignored because it's academic? 

It’s a family birthday tonight. I’ll read this later. I am humbled by the level of engagement by a poster I respect.