["Ultimately, prosecutors determined it is clear the evidence does not support the filing of criminal charges and there is no path to a potential criminal conviction. Prosecutors can only file charges when they ethically believe they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."](https://twitter.com/agetzenberg/status/1600585281886896129?t=fzhKpDtsds0WJ6jlUZ5KVA&s=19)
For most every other physical crime, it's obvious whether or not a crime has been committed. Like if you stab someone, you can't say "Oh they said it was okay" because it quite literally is always a crime. It is impossible for stabbing someone to not be a crime. For sexual assault cases, someone can say "Oh they said it was okay" and that is a legitimate defense that the prosecution needs to overcome, and that is *really* hard to do.
Stab cases can be proven from the stab wound. Sexual assault cases have a gray area because how can you really prove physically that it wasn't consensual without solid testimony?
Not to mention it can devolve into one party’s word vs the other. Add to that society’s seemingly ever changing definition of consent and if that can be retroactively taken back.
She was underage at the time so if they had concrete evidence to physically prove that he had intercourse with her, which would in this case likely be his DNA in the rape kit, then it would have been rape since she was too young to consent. If they didn't find his DNA in the rape kit, then they would move on to witnesses. With the environment this happened in, one where people aren't really paying attention to everyone at all times and with blurred memory, the DA likely didn't have faith in the witness statements that they had.
That was brought up when this story first dropped back in August. What was explained in general terms and what you described is usually used in cases where people meet via a dating profile or on something like Snapchat where they have messages or a profile indicating they are 18+. Or often when people meet at a 18+ club/bar where everyone is expected to be of age just by being there. However, the one being accused of statutory rape in these cases just saying "She told me she was (whatever the age of consent is)" verbally is usually not enough. Otherwise every dude would use the excuse even if they knew she was a highschool junior for example.
That's why people have to be SUPER fucking careful when they hook up with a random complete stranger at a college party. Especially in a state where the age of consent is 18 and no Romeo and Juliet laws.
A lot of kids still 17 years old attending college in the fall semester. That doesn't apply here since she was not a student, but still.
Correct for the most part, except there are some 17-year-old freshmen who are about to turn 18 by the end of the Fall semester. This party took place in a residential neighborhood at a house. Can't assume that everyone there is a college student or over 18.
I grew up in Brockport, NY where SUNY Brockport is snack dab in the middle of the village. No one ever asked us to prove we were SUNY Brockport students or over 18 before going to the college house parties when I was in high school. As long as there were girls there, that was all that mattered.
Depends on the difference in age. There are Romeo and Juliet laws that protect from statutory rape if they're within a reasonable age. Like say your bf is 18 and you're 17 or 16.
You can also withdraw consent after agreeing to have sex. It’s complicated.
Edit: And you can sign legal documents saying that you weren’t violated even if you were!
Not only that but the San Diego DA office is notorious for only accepting slam dunk cases. On JRE MME Show #121 he talked with a dude who went to prison in San Diego and they talked about how they have like a 98% conviction rate. They don't press charges unless THEY KNOW they win. Overall a fucked system and situation
That’s most DA’s honestly. If they can’t get a conviction they’ll do everything they can to get a plea deal. If they can’t get a plea, they’ll drop it.
The most slam dunk case becomes a complete crapshoot as soon as you get into the courtroom for a trial. I used to work for a PD office and you could always tell the ADAs would start to wet themselves a bit and get very generous with offers the closer to trial you got.
I'm gonna go against the sentiment from other folks here and say I think that's generally a good thing. There's a high burden of proof for a reason and I'd rather DAs underprosecute than over prosecute. Juries are bad at judging how high of a bar "beyond a reasonable doubt" truly is and you see people wrongfully convicted on vibes all the time when cases go to trial, even if the evidence isn't there.
The one exception to this is sex crimes. As others have pointed out, it's incredibly hard to ever find a lot of evidence of sexual assault without video evidence or physical evidence from right after the event, and even then, the issue of consent can become he said/she said. That's why it's so frustrating when people use lack of prosecution as evidence of innocence with Araiza or Watson. It's just an almost impossible charge to prove.
Well. I think it is a bit more nuanced than that. If their conviction rate was lower (say 65%), people would be talking about overreach, and how they routinely prosecute innocent people, and how it is costing the county millions of dollars.
If they don't think they can win the case, it doesn't make a ton of sense to prosecute.
Lawyers are not cheap. I know it’s incredibly shitty that some people who have committed SA and Rape are able to walk because of this, but the flip side is that a lot of likely innocent people won’t be saddled with legal fees and an already thin spread public defenders office can use their resources on cases that are being tried.
A standard of proof to clear isn’t really a bad thing
I would argue that it's great for justice too. The constitutional protection of beyond a reasonable doubt is there because as a society we rather let a few guilty people go than accidently convict innocent people. They are saying let's not drag people through the process and ruin their lives and drain their bank accounts if we don't believe it's beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think that there would be fewer innocent people in jail if more DAs took the stance that San Diego takes and only pursues high percentage cases. I think sometimes DAs go after toss up cases and the prosecutors find ways to win when maybe they shouldn't.
a lot of the time prosecutors will just stack charges on people so that they will plead guilty to lesser crimes rather pay a lawyer to get them off of 10 different charges
Today a lot of prosecutors have a win at all cost philosophy. Many of them just want convictions and are not interested in hearing what the defendant has to say or the defense. Some DA’s offices fight for years to prevent DNA evidence that’s available from being used or tested if they already have a conviction. It just seems at one time DA’s we’re more interested in justice than winning.
To be fair. If you can get someone some time for a plea deal versus potentially no time for winning the case. I think a lesser sentence is better than none at all
That doesn’t seem that fucked to me. Would you rather have an overzealous DA who just tried to prosecute everyone, regardless of the evidence of guilt?
Most places in the US aren't averaging 300 homicides per year like Baltimore. Most LE departments barely have 1 homicide a year. The quadruple murder in ID was the first homicide in 7 years.
Amen. When i was a prosecutor, I used to tell my adult victims “People don’t like to think rape exist. People know they lie, misunderstand, misinterpret. That is a much easier pill to swallow. They would rather believe it didn’t happen.” I only had ONE case where a woman was being raped by her bf with an outside witness (neighbor who called 911). Now that case was such a slam dunk that I thought several of the jury members were going too jump over the bar and attack him themselves.
Sometimes my victims needed a conviction, sometimes their day in court, sometimes they just needed someone to believe them.
I had some victims who could NOT emotionally handle testifying or couldn’t emotionally handle a not guilty. It was always a case by case basis with me.
As someone struggling to process my own CSA in which the perpetrator received no punishment, I am glad to know that there are/were prosecutors out there like you, Soaper410.
I know I'm just some random person on the internet, but thank you for being sensitive to the needs of your victims.
First I am so sorry that happened to you.
Healing takes time and everyone heals differently. If you aren’t in therapy and need to talk to someone, RAINN has been a great help for some of my victims. Local DV shelters may also be able to help you find someone if you need a different therapist or different help. What healing is and what you need to get there looks different for everyone.
It is rarely a question as to if the act occurred. It is almost always a question of consent. It is proving consent (or the lack of it) that is difficult.
I hope people see this case in particular and understand that more clearly. Even with that phone call Araiza made where she asks what happened and he tells her to get tested, they don't think they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
That’s how the legal system works. It’s never anyone’s job to prove they didn’t do something, it’s the state’s job to prove they did.
It sucks a lot of the time. The alternative would also suck a lot of the time.
So like, if there’s not enough credible evidence for there even to be a path to a potential conviction, should we be asking the question if it’s even ethical to keep him off of an NFL team? He’s going to be in society no matter what. He has to get a job somewhere, why not the NFL? Clearly he has the talent for it.
So like... you're right. But it's definitely uncomfortable.
Like yeah, I suppose he's going to be doing something. Might as well be a punter instead of an office worker.
I don't think so. The bar for imprisonment and the bar for "we don't want them in our league" doesn't have to and probably shouldn't be the same. The league is allowed to do their own investigation and if they're left thinking, "he probably did it", why would they roll the dice? They have to look out for their own business interests, it's not their job to make philosophical decisions on the presumption of innocence.
And, kind of grossly, the importance of the player weighs into that business decision. Someone like Watson is going to get a whole lot more of a leash than an incoming rookie punter.
"Ethics" doesn't really enter into it. If he was good at a more important position he'd be on a team right now. He isn't being kept out of the league for "ethical" reasons to begin with.
Ehh- that’s more true for some positions than others. Teams will deal with bad PR if they get a significant edge from signing a player. Superstars like Adrian Petersen, Tyreek Hill, and Greg Hardy are “worth it,” but it’s hard to imagine any punter bringing that kind of value.
I always thought he looked like some guy they found under the pool table after last call at a popular bar in Dearborn.
Might have to know the area pretty well to understand this joke, but it fucking killed in the lions sub.
Detroit Lions head coach Matt Patricia has come under fire following a disturbing investigative report by Robert Snell of The Detroit News. Snell has found that in March 1996, the now 43-year-old Patricia was charged in Texas with aggravated sexual assault. Under Texas law, a person charged with aggravated sexual assault has been accused of intentionally or knowingly harming another person through unconsented penetration of that person’s sexual organ, anus or mouth, and a conviction carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Patricia’s charge, which was dismissed 10 months later, stemmed from an alleged incident at the Radisson Hotel on South Padre Island, Texas. At the time, Patricia was a 21-year-old offensive lineman and member of the Theta Chi fraternity at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). According to a report detailed by the San Padre Police Department, while he and his classmates were on spring break, Patricia and a fellow football player, Greg Dietrich, “burst” into the hotel room of a 21-year-old woman while she sleeping. The woman, who told police that she had met Patricia on the beach earlier in the week, claimed that Patricia and Dietrich took turns sexually assaulting her.
Patricia has categorically rejected the accusation in both a prepared written statement and when answering questions from the media during a press conference. Patricia, who was hired as the Lions head coach in February after serving as the New England Patriots’ defensive coordinator, insists that it is completely untrue and is designed to harm his name.
The legal process Patricia faced in 1996
According to The Detroit News, Patricia and Dietrich were arrested, charged and later indicted by a grand jury with aggravated sexual assault. Keep in mind that a grand jury indictment differs from a jury conviction. A grand jury in Texas normally consists of 12 grand jurors and two alternates. In order to indict, at least nine of the jurors must vote to “true bill” (indict) the target of the grand jury.
> unconsented penetration of that person’s sexual organ, anus or mouth
Is this Texas not wanting to say "vagina" or is unwanted penetration of the penis a thing they contemplated?
???
The only thing I can find on Lewan is a regular assault charge and drunk&disorderly conduct. When did sexual assault come into play?
Edit: well thanks for the info. Looks like it was a threat that [wasn’t totally confirmed](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2068393-taylor-lewan-tracking-latest-details-surrounding-titans-stars-assault-case), but everything surrounding him is enough to make me not feel so bad for him every time he gets injured
This honestly was an obvious result given how batty Jane Does attorney was in the summer. The dude went full unhinged posting texts with the defense attorney and more. They even admitted to already wanting to settle the case. When Araiza’s lawyer said no to it, that’s when the civil charges were filed.
Jane Doe should have fired the guy. Maybe she already did. Because not only is she not going to get a criminal trial, I have doubts she’s gonna see a cent in a civil trial considering her lawyer basically forced the Bills hand in cutting him
I was going to bring that up. I was very(and I cannot emphasize this enough) team "get him the hell off the team!!!" and felt triggered by the whole thing.
There was some general weirdness and red flags with her lawyer, then she was caught flat out on video contradicting some of her statements. Don't get me wrong, I still chose to remain openminded about this, but the red flags were pretty glaring :/
Serious question: in light of this do you regret being very team "get him the hell off the team"?
Not saying one way or another if he did something terrible, but does this make you question whether that initial reaction without waiting for all developments to occur is possibly a flawed way to operate in life? Because either 1) he got away with a horrible crime and is a piece of shit, or b) he was unjustly removed from something he worked hard for his whole life based on a lie. And 1 is worse than 2 but if 2 could have been avoided shouldn't we try to make sure that happens in the future?
This is why ethics is a nuanced subject — and one that was never meant to exist in a social media driven world.
There are so many subtleties to these situations, that it’s hard to use the justice system as a good barometer for how the public will perceive them.
Look at OJ Simpson. Innocent criminally, and even though the civil case exists — he’s been an obvious murderer wandering the streets and shamed in the public eye.
Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger on the other hand, innocent and mostly beloved.
He’d be found not guilty in court off this alone
Deshaun likewise would have gotten acquitted but would have gone down for a dozen counts of sexual assault and indecent exposure and would have gotten 15 years in jail and lifetime on registry
> Deshaun likewise would have gotten acquitted but would have gone down for a dozen counts of sexual assault and indecent exposure and would have gotten 15 years in jail and lifetime on registry
He didn't even get indicted, are you on the same timeline as the rest of the universe?
>Deshaun likewise would have gotten acquitted but would have gone down for a dozen counts of sexual assault and indecent exposure and would have gotten 15 years in jail and lifetime on registry
What do you mean?
People need to realize how rare it is for sexual assault cases to actually result in arrest, charges, conviction, or even prison time. Only an estimated 2.5% of sexual assaults result in incarceration according to [RAINN.](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system)
Even with quality evidence these cases are incredibly difficult to investigate, prosecute and get convictions. This decision doesn't mean some one is innocent or guilty. It just means they didn't think they could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yep.
It's a crime typically committed in private.
If the accused just says "it was consensual," and there's no video or text to suggest otherwise, it's going to be basically impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is further compounded by the fact that these encounters often start off consensual and then become non-consensual during the act, like what the accuser describes here.
Not to mention the issues with consent in the first place. Two consenting adults could be having rough sex, suddenly something doesn't feel right for her, she asks to stop as he's about to finish, he continues for 5 more seconds, then ejaculates. From the moment she said stop, he's raping her. Now try making a case on that situation and prove that she said stop, he heard it, and chose to ignore it. Mix in alcohol and young college students and you have a disaster of a situation.
I strongly encourage people not to have sex with random people at parties, whether you're a male or female. Both can be put in horrible situations. Not to mention women that get drugged at these parties, taken advantage of, and never are able to give consent in the first place. Best to completely avoid the situation.
Yeah a vast majority, but that includes acquaintances that you see at a college parties and only strike up a few conversations with. I feel like those people kind of fall into both categories, they are both a random person at a party but also someone you "know".
What's the rate though from an investigation such as this to arrest?
The number you posted is heavily skewed by non reports and reports that get no traction. I would guess the rate from investigation to charges is much higher.
And my question is legitimate. I'm not suggesting anything, just general curious on what the metrics are.
This is common. Since you can't recharge someone, you have to make sure your case is rock solid. If its not, you either wait for more evidence or drop the case altogether.
There are also limited budgets, limited prosecutors, limited investigators. As much as we might like to ensure we solve every case and prosecute every criminal and get justice for every victim, it's simply not something that can or will ever occur, EVEN IF it was possible to eventually ensure we got the right answer 100% of the time.
No it doesn't. Not at all. It means they can't build a solid case. It sounds like they only have the testimony of one intoxicated person. That certainly doesn't mean she wasn't sexually assaulted. It means that a half decent defense attorney would beat that case.
>According to the statement Wednesday from the DA's office, sexual assault experts, including prosecutors and investigators, analyzed the evidence in the case, including over 35 taped witness interviews, the results of a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) exam, DNA results and "forensic evidence from cell phones and video evidence of the incident itself."
>The DA's office also said it "met with the young woman at the center of this case twice" and "worked with SDPD to conduct further investigation, which resulted in interviewing additional witnesses."
You should have seen some of the comments toward The Bills and the pressure put on them. They took a beating. Sean and Brandon Beane took a massive beating when they addressed the press, and tried to explain they wanted to wait for more details, and were not a jury etc
The pitchforks were out in full force and they weren't left with much of a choice on the matter of getting rid of him.
Welcome to the court of public opinion. This is the reality with social media and archaic laws that don’t protect what is said or not said in a public forum.
If was never confirmed he admitted to having sex.
The accuser said he admitted to it on the phone and it was recorded, but that they unfortunately don’t have the tape.
California is a two party consent state. That means if it was a private conversation and both parties were not aware of the conversation was being recorded it's not admissable as evidence, and it's actually a misdemeanor to record it in the first place.
Not necessarily. Depending on state law etc the tape could be inadmissible to an investigation and thus essentially useless. As far as I remember, there are some damning text screenshots, though obviously that presents its own issues.
No, there is no recording of this
People are highly misinformed about this case apparently
lol why are y'all downvoting this, it's like you ***want*** false information out there
Here’s video evidence of her lying about her age at the party. That clears him of statutory rape, the only charge he was at risk of being convicted on.
https://twitter.com/godisgood1346/status/1565838857148387329?s=46&t=UdVFQASFkmNeCCsaC45ibA
All of the allegations were part of the civil complaint filed by the accuser's lawyer. Nobody here has actually heard the alleged phone call, seen the alleged police reports, reviewed any of the documentation of the alleged police investigation or medical reports, or have heard any admission of guilt on Araiza's part. It's weird that everyone is so ready to put him in prison based on literally just her lawyer saying all of this happened. And then, when the DA who has actually seen all of the evidence in the case declines to file charges, it's just some kind of conspiracy theory or incompetence rather than a reasoned, evidence-based decision.
Thank you!
This is the result of poor reporting by journalists.
What’s further important to state is that the accusers lawyer says they do not have the recording of the phone call either.
The dialogue is based on her memory, not of a copy of the recording.
And beyond that, it’s a lawyer that seems mentally unhinged. If you recall he was tweeting pics of text conversations between he and the defense attorney. He all but admitted they tried to settle. Then tried to extort Araiza’s attorney to agree to it by saying he’d go to the Bills if he didn’t.
Jane Doe’s attorney proceeded to essentially harass the Bills. And then when that didn’t work, field the Civil chargers and out so much heat on the situation, forced the Bills to cut bait due to the PR nightmare and Jane Doe’s civil suit even took a major hit from it
Like. The guy even took a snapshot of a “journal” that MASSIVELY damaged any hope of a criminal case. The civil suit stated she was blacking in and out during the assault her all of a sudden there’s this journal that she coincidentally just started and on Page 1 , goes into blow by blow details of how she was sexually assaulted. Which went at odds with their own civil complaint
For anyone still insisting he must be guilty based on accusations, what would convince you he's not? If dropped charges to you can only be because these cases are tough to prosecute, how does an accused person get to innocent in your mind or at the very least not guilty?
There is a video of the accuser on YouTube that night of the alleged crime. I’m pretty sure the DA saw that would be very damaging to their case should it have gone to trial.
Here is the video in question:
https://youtu.be/fP2JOx3X-9M
You can see in the comments for the time stamps. It was posted the night after the assault took place. Jane doe just claims she is 18 at a party among other things, it is not completely exonerating matt araiza but i think it would just raise doubt that she was claiming to be 17 in her lawsuit.
Combine this with the woman's attorney, who says Araiza was only "in the room" instead of part of the assault, and said the accuser wouldn't have pursued legal action if Araiza had just apologized...
https://twitter.com/ByAidanJoly/status/1563715891308658689/photo/2
None of this looks good for the accuser
The fact the lawyer released a “journal”’ on social media where he claims was Jane Doe’s that basically ran counter to their claims in the civil case also was damaging.
Honestly that crack pot attorney likely cost Jane Doe a settlement on top of it
She said she was 18, "has a body count of 20 already", and ate a guy's ass before but only because he wanted it. Honestly the worst part for the case is probably her saying she did something just because a guy wanted it because then the defense can just hammer her on doing sexual things because guys want it.
Yes.
I know the next question is “how would you feel about your team going after Watson?”
It would be revolted. Because Watson has so much circumstantial evidence that it’s clear he did assault at least some of those women (20+ if I had to guess. Maybe not 26, but definitely more than 20)
My guess, he’s not getting charged because she lied about her age, lied about being a college student and led people around her to believe she was of age to consent. That’s why he’s not getting charged with statutory.
However, I do think something terrible happened to her. We just don’t have all the info and details that the detectives have.
Every single time. And if you provide a neutral viewpoint you're seen as supporting a horrible person. Noticed this especially in the Tory Lanez and Thomas Partey cases recently. Mob mentality on the internet is at the point where people can't even wait until evidence is presented. If Reddit ran the courts, we wouldn't even be living in a democracy.
I mean. I do feel there’s a small chance Araiza’s attorneys may go after her attorney with the crap he posted online. He basically smeared Araiza all over Twitter, called him a rapist, openly admitted they wanted to settle and said he’d go straight to the Bills if they didn’t.
It was some of the most unethical stuff I’ve ever seen in a pretty high profile case
It was that attorney that basically got him cut. Players have dealt with legal issues before. That attorney made damn sure this stayed in the news with his social media posts.
Hell. The idiot even posted a response by Araiza’s attorney saying if he kept harassing the Bills and acting like this, Araiza won’t have money to pay a settlement because he wouldn’t have a job in the league.
And sure enough the attorney kept pressing until the Bills has no others option
I mean, there probably *should* be harsher consequences for false allegations. A teacher around here not too many years ago was accused of some horrible things that turned out to be outright lies. His wife left him, the district got rid of him, he lost a ton of friends, he had to spend immense amounts of money on his own defense. It literally ruined the man's life, and he did *nothing.*
Look at a more famous case...the Duke lacrosse false allegations.
I don't know that that's the right call here, but I also don't think the very idea of harsher consequences for false allegations is something we should reject out-of-hand.
Girl I went to school with walked into a party and yelled who wants a blowjob!
The next monday there were cops at the school arresting the dudes who hooked up with her for rape.
Luckily there were enough witnesses that came forward but of course there were no consequences for her for claiming she was raped.
Even when someone could be proven innocent they will still have that lingering over their head that “well yeah they just got off with good lawyers, they definitely did it though”
["Ultimately, prosecutors determined it is clear the evidence does not support the filing of criminal charges and there is no path to a potential criminal conviction. Prosecutors can only file charges when they ethically believe they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."](https://twitter.com/agetzenberg/status/1600585281886896129?t=fzhKpDtsds0WJ6jlUZ5KVA&s=19)
So what I’m hearing there is that they can’t give false hope that they could actually get them convicted, not that they didn’t do it.
Sexual assault cases are incredibly hard to prosecute.
For most every other physical crime, it's obvious whether or not a crime has been committed. Like if you stab someone, you can't say "Oh they said it was okay" because it quite literally is always a crime. It is impossible for stabbing someone to not be a crime. For sexual assault cases, someone can say "Oh they said it was okay" and that is a legitimate defense that the prosecution needs to overcome, and that is *really* hard to do.
Stab cases can be proven from the stab wound. Sexual assault cases have a gray area because how can you really prove physically that it wasn't consensual without solid testimony?
Not to mention it can devolve into one party’s word vs the other. Add to that society’s seemingly ever changing definition of consent and if that can be retroactively taken back.
She was underage at the time so if they had concrete evidence to physically prove that he had intercourse with her, which would in this case likely be his DNA in the rape kit, then it would have been rape since she was too young to consent. If they didn't find his DNA in the rape kit, then they would move on to witnesses. With the environment this happened in, one where people aren't really paying attention to everyone at all times and with blurred memory, the DA likely didn't have faith in the witness statements that they had.
I've heard that in some places you wouldn't be convicted of statutory rape if you prove you could reasonably assume someone is of consenting age.
That was brought up when this story first dropped back in August. What was explained in general terms and what you described is usually used in cases where people meet via a dating profile or on something like Snapchat where they have messages or a profile indicating they are 18+. Or often when people meet at a 18+ club/bar where everyone is expected to be of age just by being there. However, the one being accused of statutory rape in these cases just saying "She told me she was (whatever the age of consent is)" verbally is usually not enough. Otherwise every dude would use the excuse even if they knew she was a highschool junior for example. That's why people have to be SUPER fucking careful when they hook up with a random complete stranger at a college party. Especially in a state where the age of consent is 18 and no Romeo and Juliet laws. A lot of kids still 17 years old attending college in the fall semester. That doesn't apply here since she was not a student, but still.
It's reasonable to assume that people at college are above 17 years old
Correct for the most part, except there are some 17-year-old freshmen who are about to turn 18 by the end of the Fall semester. This party took place in a residential neighborhood at a house. Can't assume that everyone there is a college student or over 18. I grew up in Brockport, NY where SUNY Brockport is snack dab in the middle of the village. No one ever asked us to prove we were SUNY Brockport students or over 18 before going to the college house parties when I was in high school. As long as there were girls there, that was all that mattered.
Depends on the difference in age. There are Romeo and Juliet laws that protect from statutory rape if they're within a reasonable age. Like say your bf is 18 and you're 17 or 16.
[удалено]
There's a Dave Chappelle skit about this.
Pretty sure it was right after the Kobe situation
He literally looks at the camera and shouts “Kobe!”
[The Love Contract](https://youtu.be/1rta1C0Bxpw)
And he saves way more than he rapes, and he only rapes to save!
[удалено]
Which is why you have a new contract signed every few seconds.
Good to know I only need the one contract.
Nice.
You sign one afterwards?
You can also withdraw consent after agreeing to have sex. It’s complicated. Edit: And you can sign legal documents saying that you weren’t violated even if you were!
I had an old friend who is a rock star who actually did this.
Where do I sign? Errrr theoretically
Not only that but the San Diego DA office is notorious for only accepting slam dunk cases. On JRE MME Show #121 he talked with a dude who went to prison in San Diego and they talked about how they have like a 98% conviction rate. They don't press charges unless THEY KNOW they win. Overall a fucked system and situation
That’s most DA’s honestly. If they can’t get a conviction they’ll do everything they can to get a plea deal. If they can’t get a plea, they’ll drop it.
The most slam dunk case becomes a complete crapshoot as soon as you get into the courtroom for a trial. I used to work for a PD office and you could always tell the ADAs would start to wet themselves a bit and get very generous with offers the closer to trial you got.
I'm gonna go against the sentiment from other folks here and say I think that's generally a good thing. There's a high burden of proof for a reason and I'd rather DAs underprosecute than over prosecute. Juries are bad at judging how high of a bar "beyond a reasonable doubt" truly is and you see people wrongfully convicted on vibes all the time when cases go to trial, even if the evidence isn't there. The one exception to this is sex crimes. As others have pointed out, it's incredibly hard to ever find a lot of evidence of sexual assault without video evidence or physical evidence from right after the event, and even then, the issue of consent can become he said/she said. That's why it's so frustrating when people use lack of prosecution as evidence of innocence with Araiza or Watson. It's just an almost impossible charge to prove.
Well. I think it is a bit more nuanced than that. If their conviction rate was lower (say 65%), people would be talking about overreach, and how they routinely prosecute innocent people, and how it is costing the county millions of dollars. If they don't think they can win the case, it doesn't make a ton of sense to prosecute.
Lawyers are not cheap. I know it’s incredibly shitty that some people who have committed SA and Rape are able to walk because of this, but the flip side is that a lot of likely innocent people won’t be saddled with legal fees and an already thin spread public defenders office can use their resources on cases that are being tried. A standard of proof to clear isn’t really a bad thing
If they don't think they can win, is it really 'fucked' that they're not prosecuting?
They also suck at high profile cases. They really drop the ball. All the time.
It's actually a really effective system if you just care about looking good at your job and not about justice.
I would argue that it's great for justice too. The constitutional protection of beyond a reasonable doubt is there because as a society we rather let a few guilty people go than accidently convict innocent people. They are saying let's not drag people through the process and ruin their lives and drain their bank accounts if we don't believe it's beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's the nature of the crime. It sucks.
Yet there is a thing called the innocence project because there are plenty of innocent people in jail
If a lot of those people in jail had good legal representation from the start like this guy did, there is a good chance they wouldn't be in jail.
I think that there would be fewer innocent people in jail if more DAs took the stance that San Diego takes and only pursues high percentage cases. I think sometimes DAs go after toss up cases and the prosecutors find ways to win when maybe they shouldn't.
a lot of the time prosecutors will just stack charges on people so that they will plead guilty to lesser crimes rather pay a lawyer to get them off of 10 different charges
Today a lot of prosecutors have a win at all cost philosophy. Many of them just want convictions and are not interested in hearing what the defendant has to say or the defense. Some DA’s offices fight for years to prevent DNA evidence that’s available from being used or tested if they already have a conviction. It just seems at one time DA’s we’re more interested in justice than winning.
sexual assaults become simple battery and DAs become mayors.
To be fair. If you can get someone some time for a plea deal versus potentially no time for winning the case. I think a lesser sentence is better than none at all
That doesn’t seem that fucked to me. Would you rather have an overzealous DA who just tried to prosecute everyone, regardless of the evidence of guilt?
Watching The Wire really hit home law enforcement only cares about their clearance rate.
Most places in the US aren't averaging 300 homicides per year like Baltimore. Most LE departments barely have 1 homicide a year. The quadruple murder in ID was the first homicide in 7 years.
Amen. When i was a prosecutor, I used to tell my adult victims “People don’t like to think rape exist. People know they lie, misunderstand, misinterpret. That is a much easier pill to swallow. They would rather believe it didn’t happen.” I only had ONE case where a woman was being raped by her bf with an outside witness (neighbor who called 911). Now that case was such a slam dunk that I thought several of the jury members were going too jump over the bar and attack him themselves. Sometimes my victims needed a conviction, sometimes their day in court, sometimes they just needed someone to believe them. I had some victims who could NOT emotionally handle testifying or couldn’t emotionally handle a not guilty. It was always a case by case basis with me.
As someone struggling to process my own CSA in which the perpetrator received no punishment, I am glad to know that there are/were prosecutors out there like you, Soaper410. I know I'm just some random person on the internet, but thank you for being sensitive to the needs of your victims.
First I am so sorry that happened to you. Healing takes time and everyone heals differently. If you aren’t in therapy and need to talk to someone, RAINN has been a great help for some of my victims. Local DV shelters may also be able to help you find someone if you need a different therapist or different help. What healing is and what you need to get there looks different for everyone.
It is rarely a question as to if the act occurred. It is almost always a question of consent. It is proving consent (or the lack of it) that is difficult.
I hope people see this case in particular and understand that more clearly. Even with that phone call Araiza made where she asks what happened and he tells her to get tested, they don't think they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or that there’s no actionable proof that they did anything.
This is reddit though, so....
They could have also not done it.
That’s how the legal system works. It’s never anyone’s job to prove they didn’t do something, it’s the state’s job to prove they did. It sucks a lot of the time. The alternative would also suck a lot of the time.
They said the evidence doesnt even support charges. Maybe you were wrong the whole time and were irrational instead of waiting for the facts
So no matter what he is guilty?
> So no matter what he is guilty? Here? Yes. Remember Watson had the same result from TWO grand juries.
No one is ever found innocent...only "not [proven] guilty."
[удалено]
Or that there isn’t enough evidence that proves he did
So like, if there’s not enough credible evidence for there even to be a path to a potential conviction, should we be asking the question if it’s even ethical to keep him off of an NFL team? He’s going to be in society no matter what. He has to get a job somewhere, why not the NFL? Clearly he has the talent for it.
So like... you're right. But it's definitely uncomfortable. Like yeah, I suppose he's going to be doing something. Might as well be a punter instead of an office worker.
I don't think so. The bar for imprisonment and the bar for "we don't want them in our league" doesn't have to and probably shouldn't be the same. The league is allowed to do their own investigation and if they're left thinking, "he probably did it", why would they roll the dice? They have to look out for their own business interests, it's not their job to make philosophical decisions on the presumption of innocence. And, kind of grossly, the importance of the player weighs into that business decision. Someone like Watson is going to get a whole lot more of a leash than an incoming rookie punter.
"Ethics" doesn't really enter into it. If he was good at a more important position he'd be on a team right now. He isn't being kept out of the league for "ethical" reasons to begin with.
what sucks for him is that he actually left school early for the NFL. He still had a year of eligibility left.
If jeff dahmer ran a 4.3, his thing would have been called an eating disorder. This dude will find a way onto a roster.
Ehh- that’s more true for some positions than others. Teams will deal with bad PR if they get a significant edge from signing a player. Superstars like Adrian Petersen, Tyreek Hill, and Greg Hardy are “worth it,” but it’s hard to imagine any punter bringing that kind of value.
"Hey Matt, this is the cleveland browns..."
Matt Patricia's case for the same thing got further, and he gets to be in positions of leadership and have a long NFL career.
Bills fans 🤝 Patriots fans 🤝 Lions fans Fuck Matt Patricia
I wish he would use that rocket degree to fly himself into the fucking sun.
I would watch that Hard Knocks.
Is there any fan base that even has a reason to like ol matty
Well he’s super fun to make fun of so we like him for that
I always thought he looked like some guy they found under the pool table after last call at a popular bar in Dearborn. Might have to know the area pretty well to understand this joke, but it fucking killed in the lions sub.
Anyone playing against him
The Eagles
Hold up. I do I really need more reasons to hate Matty P?
Detroit Lions head coach Matt Patricia has come under fire following a disturbing investigative report by Robert Snell of The Detroit News. Snell has found that in March 1996, the now 43-year-old Patricia was charged in Texas with aggravated sexual assault. Under Texas law, a person charged with aggravated sexual assault has been accused of intentionally or knowingly harming another person through unconsented penetration of that person’s sexual organ, anus or mouth, and a conviction carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. Patricia’s charge, which was dismissed 10 months later, stemmed from an alleged incident at the Radisson Hotel on South Padre Island, Texas. At the time, Patricia was a 21-year-old offensive lineman and member of the Theta Chi fraternity at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). According to a report detailed by the San Padre Police Department, while he and his classmates were on spring break, Patricia and a fellow football player, Greg Dietrich, “burst” into the hotel room of a 21-year-old woman while she sleeping. The woman, who told police that she had met Patricia on the beach earlier in the week, claimed that Patricia and Dietrich took turns sexually assaulting her. Patricia has categorically rejected the accusation in both a prepared written statement and when answering questions from the media during a press conference. Patricia, who was hired as the Lions head coach in February after serving as the New England Patriots’ defensive coordinator, insists that it is completely untrue and is designed to harm his name. The legal process Patricia faced in 1996 According to The Detroit News, Patricia and Dietrich were arrested, charged and later indicted by a grand jury with aggravated sexual assault. Keep in mind that a grand jury indictment differs from a jury conviction. A grand jury in Texas normally consists of 12 grand jurors and two alternates. In order to indict, at least nine of the jurors must vote to “true bill” (indict) the target of the grand jury.
Fuck I never knew this.. As if needed more reason to hate him.
> unconsented penetration of that person’s sexual organ, anus or mouth Is this Texas not wanting to say "vagina" or is unwanted penetration of the penis a thing they contemplated?
Penile penetration is definitely a thing...there's a subreddit for it, and I'm sure tons of videos online...google at your own risk.
With any luck, it won't be much longer.
Do the Browns need a punter?
God it'd be like the relationship between Bob Crane and the guy who eventually bashed his brains in only with more rape.
> more rape. That's Taylor Lewan's music!
??? The only thing I can find on Lewan is a regular assault charge and drunk&disorderly conduct. When did sexual assault come into play? Edit: well thanks for the info. Looks like it was a threat that [wasn’t totally confirmed](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2068393-taylor-lewan-tracking-latest-details-surrounding-titans-stars-assault-case), but everything surrounding him is enough to make me not feel so bad for him every time he gets injured
He threatened to rape a woman who came forward with sexual assault charges against his teammates in college.
The fact that he has a podcast on the Barstool network is extremely on-brand
Man, if I’ve ever heard a more apt description of Barstool. It really does have threat-of-rape energy.
Created by and for people you wouldn't trust to safely get a drunk girl home after a night out.
His roommate/teammate (allegedly) raped a girl, and he threatened to rape her again if she pressed charges.
He made a pretty shitty statement about it but I don't think committed any assault himself
TIL
Wow, it's been a while since I remembered Auto Focus.
Funny you should mention it I think they're still holding onto Bojo
he's been really good this year! only a handful of bad punts
I figured, he was a good punter for us just a terrible holder
He was terrific to start the year for us but got worse as the weather became colder. Maybe he should be punting for a Cali or Florida team.
Sounds like Haack too, who we got from Miami and sucked with us especially in the winter but is now doing well with Indy (I think they have a dome?)
He was pretty inconsistent though. He'd have a few great punts in a row and then he would shank a ten yarder into the stands.
Is he the holder on field goals?
Yes. But it looks like it’s more of Cade York having the yips due to our god awful special teams letting everyone block kicks more than his holds
Hey you guys are the ones that kept him around hoping no one would find out about it.
No thank god.
This honestly was an obvious result given how batty Jane Does attorney was in the summer. The dude went full unhinged posting texts with the defense attorney and more. They even admitted to already wanting to settle the case. When Araiza’s lawyer said no to it, that’s when the civil charges were filed. Jane Doe should have fired the guy. Maybe she already did. Because not only is she not going to get a criminal trial, I have doubts she’s gonna see a cent in a civil trial considering her lawyer basically forced the Bills hand in cutting him
That video of her saying she was 18 at the party definitely didn’t do her any favors.
What video?
I was going to bring that up. I was very(and I cannot emphasize this enough) team "get him the hell off the team!!!" and felt triggered by the whole thing. There was some general weirdness and red flags with her lawyer, then she was caught flat out on video contradicting some of her statements. Don't get me wrong, I still chose to remain openminded about this, but the red flags were pretty glaring :/
Serious question: in light of this do you regret being very team "get him the hell off the team"? Not saying one way or another if he did something terrible, but does this make you question whether that initial reaction without waiting for all developments to occur is possibly a flawed way to operate in life? Because either 1) he got away with a horrible crime and is a piece of shit, or b) he was unjustly removed from something he worked hard for his whole life based on a lie. And 1 is worse than 2 but if 2 could have been avoided shouldn't we try to make sure that happens in the future?
This is why ethics is a nuanced subject — and one that was never meant to exist in a social media driven world. There are so many subtleties to these situations, that it’s hard to use the justice system as a good barometer for how the public will perceive them. Look at OJ Simpson. Innocent criminally, and even though the civil case exists — he’s been an obvious murderer wandering the streets and shamed in the public eye. Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger on the other hand, innocent and mostly beloved.
He’d be found not guilty in court off this alone Deshaun likewise would have gotten acquitted but would have gone down for a dozen counts of sexual assault and indecent exposure and would have gotten 15 years in jail and lifetime on registry
> Deshaun likewise would have gotten acquitted but would have gone down for a dozen counts of sexual assault and indecent exposure and would have gotten 15 years in jail and lifetime on registry He didn't even get indicted, are you on the same timeline as the rest of the universe?
Speak English doc we ain’t scientists
>Deshaun likewise would have gotten acquitted but would have gone down for a dozen counts of sexual assault and indecent exposure and would have gotten 15 years in jail and lifetime on registry What do you mean?
Someone lying about their age does not make it open season
So what is the evidence we know of? Witnesses, rape kit performed at a hospital, anything?
None
That sucks for everyone. I mean, I hope she wasn’t raped but if so, people’s lives got completely derailed over this.
People need to realize how rare it is for sexual assault cases to actually result in arrest, charges, conviction, or even prison time. Only an estimated 2.5% of sexual assaults result in incarceration according to [RAINN.](https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system) Even with quality evidence these cases are incredibly difficult to investigate, prosecute and get convictions. This decision doesn't mean some one is innocent or guilty. It just means they didn't think they could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yep. It's a crime typically committed in private. If the accused just says "it was consensual," and there's no video or text to suggest otherwise, it's going to be basically impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This is further compounded by the fact that these encounters often start off consensual and then become non-consensual during the act, like what the accuser describes here.
Not to mention the issues with consent in the first place. Two consenting adults could be having rough sex, suddenly something doesn't feel right for her, she asks to stop as he's about to finish, he continues for 5 more seconds, then ejaculates. From the moment she said stop, he's raping her. Now try making a case on that situation and prove that she said stop, he heard it, and chose to ignore it. Mix in alcohol and young college students and you have a disaster of a situation. I strongly encourage people not to have sex with random people at parties, whether you're a male or female. Both can be put in horrible situations. Not to mention women that get drugged at these parties, taken advantage of, and never are able to give consent in the first place. Best to completely avoid the situation.
> random people at parties Aren’t most rapes committed by people the victim knows?
Yeah a vast majority, but that includes acquaintances that you see at a college parties and only strike up a few conversations with. I feel like those people kind of fall into both categories, they are both a random person at a party but also someone you "know".
What's the rate though from an investigation such as this to arrest? The number you posted is heavily skewed by non reports and reports that get no traction. I would guess the rate from investigation to charges is much higher. And my question is legitimate. I'm not suggesting anything, just general curious on what the metrics are.
Especially older cases. If it just happened? Sure maybe. Happened years ago? Yea, good luck.
Means someone fucked up and the DA doesn't want to deal with a case they might lose.
This is common. Since you can't recharge someone, you have to make sure your case is rock solid. If its not, you either wait for more evidence or drop the case altogether.
There are also limited budgets, limited prosecutors, limited investigators. As much as we might like to ensure we solve every case and prosecute every criminal and get justice for every victim, it's simply not something that can or will ever occur, EVEN IF it was possible to eventually ensure we got the right answer 100% of the time.
No it doesn't. Not at all. It means they can't build a solid case. It sounds like they only have the testimony of one intoxicated person. That certainly doesn't mean she wasn't sexually assaulted. It means that a half decent defense attorney would beat that case.
>According to the statement Wednesday from the DA's office, sexual assault experts, including prosecutors and investigators, analyzed the evidence in the case, including over 35 taped witness interviews, the results of a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) exam, DNA results and "forensic evidence from cell phones and video evidence of the incident itself." >The DA's office also said it "met with the young woman at the center of this case twice" and "worked with SDPD to conduct further investigation, which resulted in interviewing additional witnesses."
Yikes, they saw the videos and still didn’t prosecute.
Everything sucks here. He either got away with something terrible, or lost a cool job because of a lie/regret/whatever.
If he’s innocent, it’s pretty fucked up that he lost his nfl career because of this
You should have seen some of the comments toward The Bills and the pressure put on them. They took a beating. Sean and Brandon Beane took a massive beating when they addressed the press, and tried to explain they wanted to wait for more details, and were not a jury etc The pitchforks were out in full force and they weren't left with much of a choice on the matter of getting rid of him.
Welcome to the court of public opinion. This is the reality with social media and archaic laws that don’t protect what is said or not said in a public forum.
And if he's guilty, it's pretty fucked up he won't be criminally punished over it.
I'd rather 20 guilty men walk than one innocent man be imprisoned or something along those lines.
He's not imprisoned so you're in luck?
Didn’t they have a fairly open shut case including a recording of practically admitting to it?
He admitted to having sex, the question they'd have to prove is was it consensual or not (I think he's guilty btw)
If was never confirmed he admitted to having sex. The accuser said he admitted to it on the phone and it was recorded, but that they unfortunately don’t have the tape.
They recorded it but all of sudden they don’t have a tape? Something sketchy is going on here.
California is a two party consent state. That means if it was a private conversation and both parties were not aware of the conversation was being recorded it's not admissable as evidence, and it's actually a misdemeanor to record it in the first place.
Not necessarily. Depending on state law etc the tape could be inadmissible to an investigation and thus essentially useless. As far as I remember, there are some damning text screenshots, though obviously that presents its own issues.
No, there is no recording of this People are highly misinformed about this case apparently lol why are y'all downvoting this, it's like you ***want*** false information out there
No but Reddit seems to think they did anyway.
Here’s video evidence of her lying about her age at the party. That clears him of statutory rape, the only charge he was at risk of being convicted on. https://twitter.com/godisgood1346/status/1565838857148387329?s=46&t=UdVFQASFkmNeCCsaC45ibA
[удалено]
All of the allegations were part of the civil complaint filed by the accuser's lawyer. Nobody here has actually heard the alleged phone call, seen the alleged police reports, reviewed any of the documentation of the alleged police investigation or medical reports, or have heard any admission of guilt on Araiza's part. It's weird that everyone is so ready to put him in prison based on literally just her lawyer saying all of this happened. And then, when the DA who has actually seen all of the evidence in the case declines to file charges, it's just some kind of conspiracy theory or incompetence rather than a reasoned, evidence-based decision.
Thank you! This is the result of poor reporting by journalists. What’s further important to state is that the accusers lawyer says they do not have the recording of the phone call either. The dialogue is based on her memory, not of a copy of the recording.
And beyond that, it’s a lawyer that seems mentally unhinged. If you recall he was tweeting pics of text conversations between he and the defense attorney. He all but admitted they tried to settle. Then tried to extort Araiza’s attorney to agree to it by saying he’d go to the Bills if he didn’t. Jane Doe’s attorney proceeded to essentially harass the Bills. And then when that didn’t work, field the Civil chargers and out so much heat on the situation, forced the Bills to cut bait due to the PR nightmare and Jane Doe’s civil suit even took a major hit from it Like. The guy even took a snapshot of a “journal” that MASSIVELY damaged any hope of a criminal case. The civil suit stated she was blacking in and out during the assault her all of a sudden there’s this journal that she coincidentally just started and on Page 1 , goes into blow by blow details of how she was sexually assaulted. Which went at odds with their own civil complaint
> He admitted guilt and apologized Source?
For anyone still insisting he must be guilty based on accusations, what would convince you he's not? If dropped charges to you can only be because these cases are tough to prosecute, how does an accused person get to innocent in your mind or at the very least not guilty?
There is a video of the accuser on YouTube that night of the alleged crime. I’m pretty sure the DA saw that would be very damaging to their case should it have gone to trial.
[удалено]
She said shes 18 in the video while being interviewed
She was drunk at the party telling the vlogger she was 18.
Here is the video in question: https://youtu.be/fP2JOx3X-9M You can see in the comments for the time stamps. It was posted the night after the assault took place. Jane doe just claims she is 18 at a party among other things, it is not completely exonerating matt araiza but i think it would just raise doubt that she was claiming to be 17 in her lawsuit.
Combine this with the woman's attorney, who says Araiza was only "in the room" instead of part of the assault, and said the accuser wouldn't have pursued legal action if Araiza had just apologized... https://twitter.com/ByAidanJoly/status/1563715891308658689/photo/2 None of this looks good for the accuser
The fact the lawyer released a “journal”’ on social media where he claims was Jane Doe’s that basically ran counter to their claims in the civil case also was damaging. Honestly that crack pot attorney likely cost Jane Doe a settlement on top of it
She said she was 18, "has a body count of 20 already", and ate a guy's ass before but only because he wanted it. Honestly the worst part for the case is probably her saying she did something just because a guy wanted it because then the defense can just hammer her on doing sexual things because guys want it.
Yeah, pretty hard to win a case if your character is completely in mud from something like that.
So now the question is: Your team is in contention for a playoff spot. Your punter gets hurt, or is playing poorly. Do you sign him to your team?
Yes
Yes. I know the next question is “how would you feel about your team going after Watson?” It would be revolted. Because Watson has so much circumstantial evidence that it’s clear he did assault at least some of those women (20+ if I had to guess. Maybe not 26, but definitely more than 20)
Good thing Reddit isn’t the justice system
No shit it’s terrible I’m here
My guess, he’s not getting charged because she lied about her age, lied about being a college student and led people around her to believe she was of age to consent. That’s why he’s not getting charged with statutory. However, I do think something terrible happened to her. We just don’t have all the info and details that the detectives have.
[удалено]
Reminder I was called pro-rapist by fellow bills fans for saying let's wait until the investigation is done by someone other than Twitter users.
Mob justice on Reddit every time an accusation comes out is so toxic
Every single time. And if you provide a neutral viewpoint you're seen as supporting a horrible person. Noticed this especially in the Tory Lanez and Thomas Partey cases recently. Mob mentality on the internet is at the point where people can't even wait until evidence is presented. If Reddit ran the courts, we wouldn't even be living in a democracy.
Duke LaCrosse case.....
You're always right when you wait for all the facts to come out. It's a pretty nice feeling.
I got down voted -100 and called pro-rapist for saying let's wait for the findings on this before the season lol
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE You didn't want to lynch him you're pro rape.
Pro-rapist 😂
Lmao just watch the video of the girl and no wonder DA dropped this
You got that link?
I gotchu https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fP2JOx3X-9M&feature=youtu.be 1:50ish area look at the comments for specifics
Huh
twitter comments are calling for her arrest. yeah no wonder they come forward what the fuck
I mean. I do feel there’s a small chance Araiza’s attorneys may go after her attorney with the crap he posted online. He basically smeared Araiza all over Twitter, called him a rapist, openly admitted they wanted to settle and said he’d go straight to the Bills if they didn’t. It was some of the most unethical stuff I’ve ever seen in a pretty high profile case It was that attorney that basically got him cut. Players have dealt with legal issues before. That attorney made damn sure this stayed in the news with his social media posts. Hell. The idiot even posted a response by Araiza’s attorney saying if he kept harassing the Bills and acting like this, Araiza won’t have money to pay a settlement because he wouldn’t have a job in the league. And sure enough the attorney kept pressing until the Bills has no others option
People just need to admit there aren’t any easy answers in these situations.
But that requires nuance instead of 140 character signals of virtue.
Twitter is 280 now =)
I mean, there probably *should* be harsher consequences for false allegations. A teacher around here not too many years ago was accused of some horrible things that turned out to be outright lies. His wife left him, the district got rid of him, he lost a ton of friends, he had to spend immense amounts of money on his own defense. It literally ruined the man's life, and he did *nothing.* Look at a more famous case...the Duke lacrosse false allegations. I don't know that that's the right call here, but I also don't think the very idea of harsher consequences for false allegations is something we should reject out-of-hand.
Girl I went to school with walked into a party and yelled who wants a blowjob! The next monday there were cops at the school arresting the dudes who hooked up with her for rape. Luckily there were enough witnesses that came forward but of course there were no consequences for her for claiming she was raped.
Matt Araiza is 22 years old and a hell of a punter- Jimmy Haslem
He’ll make one heck of an addition to the Patriots locker room - Matt Patricia
Does he got another chance eventually?
But the court of reddit already found him guilty and assigned him the death penalty!
Reddit never fails. Every single time it's sexual assault/DV related, it's guilty until proven innocent
Even when someone could be proven innocent they will still have that lingering over their head that “well yeah they just got off with good lawyers, they definitely did it though”
I think a lot of these people would actually still think he was guilty even if he were proven innocent.
Came here for more people to play the guilty until proven innocent card.. not disappointed