Matt Araiza cleared of all charges - should we?

this case is perfect poli board fodder

I would take him in a heartbeat.

If you can upgrade a position that requires expensing no draft capital while also acquiring a player who could be on your team for the next decade...that's something you absolutely do lol

I mean the guy had a 82 yard punt in Buffalo....imagine what he could do in a dome

I was at a party in college where i walked in on a gang rape of young drunk girl right in the middle of the room with guys cheering it on and forming a line.

I was the ONLY guy there (of 100+ dudes) who verbally expressed that it was fricked up.

I carried her out and to a hospital while dudes cursed me and threw dixie cups of beer at me.

I am 100% certain that dudes from that party are church going Christians who would deny ever being there and have friends who would back them up, but that experience changed my perspective of humanity forever.

Prosecutors: Former Bills punter Matt Araiza wasn't present during alleged gang rape

quote:

---

The graphic allegations in the civil lawsuit, however, created a public frenzy. It included a claim that during an Oct. 15, 2021, party at a home near the SDSU campus, Araiza led the girl into a bedroom where “at least three other men” waited.

“Once inside, Araiza threw [the girl] onto the bed face first,” the lawsuit read. “[The girl] went in and in and out of consciousness while” suffering through “the horrific gang rape.” It lasted an hour and a half, the lawsuit read, before she “stumbled out of the room bloody and crying” in part because “multiple piercings had ripped through the skin during the attack.”

---

quote:

---

Perhaps most notably, the district attorney’s office concluded Araiza couldn’t have led the girl into the alleged gang rape because he had “left” the home at about 12:30 a.m., an hour prior to when evidence suggested the alleged gang rape would have occurred.

“He wasn’t even at the party anymore,” deputy district attorney Trisha Amador explained to the girl. Later Amador stated of the timeline of events, “All I know is that at that point, suspect Araiza is gone from the party.”

---

quote:

---

The girl and some other high school friends became aware a party was being thrown at the house just a few blocks from the SDSU campus. The group let themselves in through a back gate.

Witness interviews from the party, including two of the girl’s own friends whom she arrived with, said that she didn’t appear to be drunk at the time. Other witnesses said the girl was telling people she was 18. “A witness who was in the house gave a statement saying that at — at least one point in the party, that you made a statement telling people at the party you were 18,” Amador explained to the accuser. “Another witness at the party, a different one, says that they specifically heard you say you were 18 …”

There was additional evidence cited by Amador from a recording during a party the night before at a different residence where the girl says on camera that she is 18. The civil lawsuit alleged that soon after the girl’s arrival at the party, she was separated from her friends and Araiza led her “over to the side yard of the house where he told her to perform” sex against her consent.

Araiza, however, has always maintained that he never led her into a private area of the backyard, that she walked back there while he was urinating. Witness testimony, again including the girl’s friends, played a role in prosecutors declining to press charges.

“The witnesses say … that shortly after you arrived at the party, you left and came back shortly thereafter,” Amador said. “And you told [a friend], ‘I just had sex.’ ... You didn’t appear unhappy. You appeared to be having fun and that the encounter on the side of the house with Matt, suspect Araiza, was consensual."

Amador also explained to the girl that additional witness testimony alleged that at this period of time, “you were approaching men at the party saying, ‘I want you to [expletive] me and if you don’t [expletive] me you’re a [expletive].”

While the civil lawsuit claimed that right after the Araiza encounter in the side yard the football player led her into the bedroom in the house, the timeline established by authorities was much different. Prosecutors said that “shortly after” being with Araiza, witnesses said the girl again left her group and came back to report she had had sex with a different man. Again, prosecutors explained, witnesses suggested it was consensual.

---

quote:

---

The timeline prosecutors pieced together suggested this encounter occurred at 12:55 a.m., about a half hour after Araiza had left the house. This incident occurred on a living room sofa with one of the football players who was also named in the civil lawsuit.

Parts of this encounter were filmed on a cell phone. Prosecutors said the footage from the cell phone did not suggest any forced behavior. “There’s nothing in the videos that sound like you’re saying ‘stop’ or ‘this hurts’ or anything like that,” Ted Mansour, an investigator for the San Diego County district attorney’s office, said at the meeting.

---

Lol a true left wingers world that an innocent man, who was falsely accused and lost his job because of it, has somewhat regained his life back.... and that’s “Poli Board fodder”

He’ll never have his life back. Never have his reputation back. He was the victim of a cancel culture, believe all women, and guilty before proven innocent society that we now unfortunately live in.

He’s not a QB. He’s not guaranteed to get another shot in the NFL. He’s a punter...

Granted he was the best punter I’ve ever seen in my life. I think Gillikin has done more than fine job and is one of the better punters in the league, but I’d be happy to have Araiza and hope he ends up on a successful team