Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dogday63

SDSU alleged rapists - civil suit has been filed

Recommended Posts

On 8/29/2022 at 5:56 PM, idkk said:

Statement from Araiza's parents:

It's really something.

I feel bad for the parents and the family. Nobody deserves death threats and harassment for simply being related to him.

0918_FootballVBoise(Weir)6081.jpg.91934a8a511e3532b39599f1988bbacb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta give the kids their day in court instead of assembling a lynch mob. This is why we have a court system and not a system run by mob rule of public opinion. 

Like fatty said, the Duke Lacrosse thing comes to mind. Brian Banks does too, so too does Jordan Johnson. Hell, you could look at Nevin Shapiro’s bullshit about Miami too. Even OJ Simpson was convicted in the court of public opinion but ultimately exonerated for the (likely cocaine dealers’) murder of Nicole and Rollie Fingers Goldman Jr. 

If there’s evidence it happened and can be corroborated, and they did commit the rape of a 17 year old girl, by all means, throw the book at them. Let it play out in the court room though, and don’t be frothing at the mouth at a guilty-led charge to the gulags. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2022 at 7:02 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

She reported it to the police the next day.  She waited a long, long time to go public.

Do you honestly think she is making this up.  I would laugh if it was not so unfunny.  It can take a long time to file criminal charges, and the majority of rape incidents will not be referred.  It does not mean it did not happen.  You cheer for kid gang rapers, congrats.  I mean there are instances of DAs refusing to prosecute rape charges even when there are eyewitnesses.

https://www.keranews.org/2019-08-20/the-provability-gap-why-its-hard-for-prosecutors-to-prove-rape-cases-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt

The above is why Title IX has the standards it does.  

"Even though it can sometimes take more than a year for a case to make it through the system, many in the community, including the district attorney, believe the number of cases making it to trial is far too small."

No, I actually believe she has a rather weak case, sorry, but If it was stronger it wouldn't have taken 9-10 months for the investigation and charges would have been filed rather quickly. We are still waiting for the latter. Before you ask, no, I don't think the SDPD and SDSU is in cahoots to cover this up. 

No, I don't "cheer for gang rapes," I just believe in due process. You know, like what you find in the Bill or Rights. You making that claim just shows how weak minded you are.  I'd be insulted with your accusation if I considered you to be anything more that of an idiotic troll.

I am not defending any of those accused by the alleged victim, never have. However, I am defending my university. They were put in a no win situation here. If they comply with SDPD's wishes then ignorant people like you will call it a coverup despite the fact that the alleged crime occurred off campus involving a non-SDSU student claiming to be the victim. Here is a recent statement from the SDPD which confirms that SDSU complied willingly with the SDPD investigation.: It does involve some reading which may be new to you. But here is the highlight: 

 http://The goal of any criminal investigation is to develop the most comprehensive set of facts and evidence possible. Since the initial radio call, SDPD has made this criminal investigation a priority. SDSU’s continued compliance with SDPD’s October 28, 2021 request to delay their Title IX administrative investigation helped ensure the integrity of this very complex criminal case.

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/20220804_sexual_assault_case_submitted_to_da.pdf

So, just gotta ask you, Einstein, would you have been happy with SDSU using Title IX to expel (the limit of the university's power against an individual) the players if it would have derailed a potential criminal prosecution? 

Had SDSU suspended the three (or was it five, because the earlier rumors had it at 5) students at the time then it is quite plausible that those being investigated would have "lawyered up" which would have severely hampered the SDPD criminal investigation, they did get warrants to listen in on phone calls between the alleged victim and the suspects. At that point SDSU would have been looked at as actually doing something to cover up the incident? And hell, rumors were 5 were involved but now just three are charged in civil court, Would you have suspended/expelled those extra two?

The alleged victim's lawyer's actions have likely destroyed any criminal case against Araiza which seems to be his focus in social media. From even their own statements, it appears that she consented to sex in a side yard. In California, a statutory rape charge is a misdemeanor if the two parties are within 3 years in age. Beyond that it is rather subjective and how old was the youngest person is considered. So, did she just turn 17 or was she a few months from 18? That is relevant in this case. At a 4 -5 year age difference then it is a "tweener" which can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. It really depends on other factors. However, Araiza can make the claim that he had a reasonable expectation that she was of legal age. She was at a college party, was drinking (perhaps even before she arrived there) andshe claimed she went to Grossmont in her own words in her diary after the fact and there is a Grossmont College. I went to school in the district and, if I were ever asked what school I went to I would have said the name but not added "High School." 

Her attorney is a complete idiot and I expect her and her family to sue him for malpractice. He's eff'ed up everything involving her criminal and civil cases. He makes Michael Avenatti look honest and competent. Her best chance for financial restitution in this case, is suing her attorney. He, via social media, has destroyed Araiza's ability to make a living as a professional football player, at least until we see actual court cases in front of a jury. He seems now to be trying to blame SDSU and the Buffalo Bills as to what happened to her client. Well, that dog just ain't gonna hunt. Also, he has made it impossible for Araiza to get a fair trial here in SoCal when means a change of venue. That ain't gonna happen unless the SD DA thinks they have a solid felony case though, perhaps, they will prosecute just because it is now a high profile case. Any way you frame it, her lawyer is a complete moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering it has been ten months, my guess is either her case is so weak, that the authorities know they cannot win it, or they believe her claims not to be true.

 

Either way, horrible situation, made even more horrible by the mob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2022 at 9:26 PM, Koji Vu said:

Altshiler distinguished California law from NY law with regard to what constitutes rape. I've read so much on this thread and AztecMesa that I can't recall whom but it's been said the very fact that the accuser was under 18 at the time means she could not have legally consented to sexual relations with anyone and since Araiza has admitted he had sex with her, he is, therefore, a rapist. Although that is true in some states, if Altshiler is correct, it is not in California.

I've thought since the accuser's attorney tweeted out her journal or whatever they've called it that doing so was potentially bad for their case. IIRC, the lawsuit alleges that the accuser told Araiza she was in "high school" and in so doing she implicitly informed Araiza she was under 18 since 18 year olds are no longer in HS. (Not sure that's accurate, but whatever.) But, as I believe has been Araiza's story, the journal states she told him she "went to Grossmont." Although there is a Grossmont HS, there is also a Grossmont College so those who think Araiza should have assumed she wasn't yet 18 because she was still in HS should properly think it possible that if she merely told him she attended "Grossmont," he could just as easily have inferred she attended Grossmont College and was therefore at least 18 at the time. (Whether she was too intoxicated to consent is another issue but if I also recall correctly, she says that the drink she was given after having sex with Araiza outside the house messed her up so badly that she thought it was spiked with an additional intoxicant so she would have been drunker then than when outside with Araiza.)

Maybe the accuser's attorney was somehow obligated to make the journal public, I don't know. However, if not, could it therefore have been a strategic blunder to have tweeted it out to the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 9:29 PM, Aztec1984 said:

Gee, it is in the Bill of Rights, numbnuts. The Constitution and the BoR were written by those infinitively more intelligent that you, numbnuts:

 

That has nothing to do with running an amateur football team. Coaches aren't cops, and there's no right to participate in extracurricular activities in school in the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2022 at 12:20 PM, 818SUDSFan said:

Altshiler distinguished California law from NY law with regard to what constitutes rape. I've read so much on this thread and AztecMesa that I can't recall whom but it's been said the very fact that the accuser was under 18 at the time means she could not have legally consented to sexual relations with anyone and since Araiza has admitted he had sex with her, he is, therefore, a rapist. Although that is true in some states, if Altshiler is correct, it is not in California.

I've thought since the accuser's attorney tweeted out her journal or whatever they've called it that doing so was potentially bad for their case. IIRC, the lawsuit alleges that the accuser told Araiza she was in "high school" and in so doing she implicitly informed Araiza she was under 18 since 18 year olds are no longer in HS. (Not sure that's accurate, but whatever.) But, as I believe has been Araiza's story, the journal states she told him she "went to Grossmont." Although there is a Grossmont HS, there is also a Grossmont College so those who think Araiza should have assumed she wasn't yet 18 because she was still in HS should properly think it possible that if she merely told him she attended "Grossmont," he could just as easily have inferred she attended Grossmont College and was therefore at least 18 at the time. (Whether she was too intoxicated to consent is another issue but if I also recall correctly, she says that the drink she was given after having sex with Araiza outside the house messed her up so badly that she thought it was spiked with an additional intoxicant so she would have been drunker then than when outside with Araiza.)

Maybe the accuser's attorney was somehow obligated to make the journal public, I don't know. However, if not, could it therefore have been a strategic blunder to have tweeted it out to the world?

Everything her attorney has made public has only worked to get Araiza unemployed. Her attorney has posted text messages between her and Araiza's criminal lawyer. That is incredibly stupid. He continues to promote his case in the press and, in doing so, has destroyed his target 's ability to earn income. Idiotic. He has also pretty much destroyed any possibility of a criminal case. No way the SD DA can expect to try a case in SoCal, and the charges against Araiza may be nothing more than a misdemeanor. Her attorney now seems to be also trying to blame SDSU and the Buffalo Bills for what happened that night. Yep, they have deep pockets but there is no way that dog is gonna hunt. Today, the alleged victim gave an interview. Again, I ask why? Her statements do nothing to help either a civil or criminal case. In fact, it hurts. Real cases are tried in court, not in public. 

SDSU cooperated 100% with the SDSU investigation. Now that is in the hands of the SD DA. That is all that matters when it comes to SDSU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2022 at 1:49 AM, Brew_Poke said:

That has nothing to do with running an amateur football team. Coaches aren't cops, and there's no right to participate in extracurricular activities in school in the Constitution.

And thank God for that. Coaches, and the University for that matter, should have nothing to do with criminal investigations. I realize this is not at issue here, but it is a reminder of how absurd the Title IX investigations are. 

This should be in the hands of Detectives with the SDPD, as it appears it has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a video you can find on Youtube called "Slutty Halloween." That video was posted on Oct 20, 2021. Reportedly the alleged victim is on it at 5 sec (shortly) 1:48 and 2:48. I have been told that her costume and nails match pictures her civil attorney posted publicly on Twitter. In the video she boasts of having a "body count" of 20 though she is "only 18." At 2:48 she makes the comment that she is 18 and, well I won't go into what more she said other than that she claims, brags, that she lost her virginity at 14 to a 15 year old. If this is, indeed, the same girl who claims to be a victim, it is quite understandable why the DA hasn't brought charges against Araiza or the others involved. It would also give Arazia a very good case against her and her attorney in a countersuit. Her lawyer has been rather quiet of late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2022 at 6:50 PM, Aztec1984 said:

There is a video you can find on Youtube called "Slutty Halloween." That video was posted on Oct 20, 2021. Reportedly the alleged victim is on it at 5 sec (shortly) 1:48 and 2:48. I have been told that her costume and nails match pictures her civil attorney posted publicly on Twitter. In the video she boasts of having a "body count" of 20 though she is "only 18." At 2:48 she makes the comment that she is 18 and, well I won't go into what more she said other than that she claims, brags, that she lost her virginity at 14 to a 15 year old. If this is, indeed, the same girl who claims to be a victim, it is quite understandable why the DA hasn't brought charges against Araiza or the others involved. It would also give Arazia a very good case against her and her attorney in a countersuit. Her lawyer has been rather quiet of late.

Uh, thanks, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2022 at 6:50 PM, Aztec1984 said:

There is a video you can find on Youtube called "Slutty Halloween." That video was posted on Oct 20, 2021. Reportedly the alleged victim is on it at 5 sec (shortly) 1:48 and 2:48. I have been told that her costume and nails match pictures her civil attorney posted publicly on Twitter. In the video she boasts of having a "body count" of 20 though she is "only 18." At 2:48 she makes the comment that she is 18 and, well I won't go into what more she said other than that she claims, brags, that she lost her virginity at 14 to a 15 year old. If this is, indeed, the same girl who claims to be a victim, it is quite understandable why the DA hasn't brought charges against Araiza or the others involved. It would also give Arazia a very good case against her and her attorney in a countersuit. Her lawyer has been rather quiet of late.

Ahhh, she had it coming.  I see. 

SDSU fans are +++++ing gross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2022 at 8:52 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Ahhh, she had it coming.  I see. 

SDSU fans are +++++ing gross.

No, some people are ++++ing gross.

I guarantee you if the same thing happened at Boise State there would be some dumbass Boise fans saying the same things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2022 at 5:50 PM, Aztec1984 said:

There is a video you can find on Youtube called "Slutty Halloween." That video was posted on Oct 20, 2021. Reportedly the alleged victim is on it at 5 sec (shortly) 1:48 and 2:48. I have been told that her costume and nails match pictures her civil attorney posted publicly on Twitter. In the video she boasts of having a "body count" of 20 though she is "only 18." At 2:48 she makes the comment that she is 18 and, well I won't go into what more she said other than that she claims, brags, that she lost her virginity at 14 to a 15 year old. If this is, indeed, the same girl who claims to be a victim, it is quite understandable why the DA hasn't brought charges against Araiza or the others involved. It would also give Arazia a very good case against her and her attorney in a countersuit. Her lawyer has been rather quiet of late.

None of that matters if he (they) did what is accused.  If that report has merit, not a single thing you just posted takes away what happened, and at this point, it is in extreme poor taste to use that as some absolution of wrongdoing, and I hope you can reanalyze your thoughts on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know only one thing for sure about all of this. No person or institution is going to come out of this looking good.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 
         ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a former professor at SDSU (I am still in higher ed have worked in administration before). This sucks all around for everyone. I feel terribly for that young lady. Her life is altered forever, in negative ways. I hope she finds peace and justice. Also, from everything I've read and seen, the SDSU admin could not have done anything different. Araiza? It isn't possible, at this point, to know if he is a rapist. It's obvious that the girl said she was 18 (twice on that video), so he could not be convicted of statutory rape. That video is not a good look (and in fact, takes away from her case), and she is a young person being, well, young. It doesn't mean she deserved what happened. But did Araiza rape her? Unless there is proof (eye witnesses, video, admittance, etc) then there is nothing to corroborate her story according to the SDPD, especially because there were hundreds of people at this party. This is a lose-lose situation. It sucks and I think we need to be compassionate for her. I think we also need to be compassionate for Araiza. Because, he may be innocent. It sucks. None of us really know anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...