OT: The Pittsburgher Thread: Super Bowl? Thats like a giant pot of chips or popcorn right?

[JTG]

Very enlightening interview with Tomlin. One thing I enjoyed about it was when he was talking about Broderick Jones and Darnell Washington's relationship.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

So many athletes have come to Pittsburgh and stuck around. I am always shocked to hear that a 40 game stint with the Pens saw Lyle Odelein lay down roots here. How much Burnett loves the city is crazy considering how high profile he is and how many big cities he played in. I could honestly see a guy like Mitch looking at his life as a whole and coming to the conclusion that Pittsburgh is just a good spot all the way around for him.

I did not know that about Cornelius!

 

[Josey Wales]

Trubisky signed to new three-year contract

 

[WickedWrister]

Best part probably at the end (1:29:00) where Ben admits he didn't really want Kenny to "ball out" in the beginning because it would make people forget about him.

 

[td_ice]

Best part probably at the end (1:29:00) where Ben admits he didn't really want Kenny to "ball out" in the beginning because it would make people forget about him.

All these great players have huge egos. Even Troy P.. Bruce Arians, when he was a coach here, was asked who the best safety in the game was. Arians replied with "Ed Reed". Bruce said it took about 10 years for Troy to talk to him again.

 

[WickedWrister]

All these great players have huge egos. Even Troy P.. Bruce Arians, when he was a coach here, was asked who the best safety in the game was. Arians replied with "Ed Reed". Bruce said it took about 10 years for Troy to talk to him again.

Yeah, it honestly makes Ben look relatable and human. Like who wants their successor to come in and immediately be better than you were?

 

[Peat]

Yeah, it honestly makes Ben look relatable and human. Like who wants their successor to come in and immediately be better than you were?

If I did my best, who cares? People spend too much time measuring themselves by others.

Still, not surprised this is Ben. Like, it's expected to the point I'm almost surprised its news.

edit: And good for him getting over it. Lot more fun to root for a guy than be bitter.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

SDSU now says no findings. It's almost like this guy was unnecessarily railroaded

SDSU says 'no findings' against punter Araiza

San Diego State University concluded Friday that there are no findings against former Buffalo Bills punter Matt Araiza after conducting an investigation into allegations of rape and gang rape.

www.espn.com

 

[The Old Master]

SDSU now says no findings. It's almost like this guy was unnecessarily railroaded

SDSU says 'no findings' against punter Araiza

San Diego State University concluded Friday that there are no findings against former Buffalo Bills punter Matt Araiza after conducting an investigation into allegations of rape and gang rape.

www.espn.com

sadly, it's the times we are living in

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

SDSU now says no findings. It's almost like this guy was unnecessarily railroaded

SDSU says 'no findings' against punter Araiza

San Diego State University concluded Friday that there are no findings against former Buffalo Bills punter Matt Araiza after conducting an investigation into allegations of rape and gang rape.

www.espn.com

Like ive said 1000 time, i have no idea whos innocent or guilty in this situation. But that article is 1000 lbs of meaningless.

SDSU was investigating allegations 9 months after the fact and didnt even talk to the accuser or Ariaza. The only actual relevant information is that none of the people involved were charged, which doesnt mean the werent guilty, but does mean there isnt enough evidence to prosecute.

If its your prerogative to carry a torch for either side you might want to actually understand the nuance of the information provided instead of adjudicating by headline.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

Like ive said 1000 time, i have no idea whos innocent or guilty in this situation. But that article is 1000 lbs of meaningless.

SDSU was investigating allegations 9 months after the fact and didnt even talk to the accuser or Ariaza. The only actual relevant information is that none of the people involved were charged, which doesnt mean the werent guilty, but does mean there isnt enough evidence to prosecute.

If its your prerogative to carry a torch for either side you might want to actually understand the nuance of the information provided instead of adjudicating by headline.

The facts remain the same: there is no evidence currently to state he was guilty of what he was accused of. If new evidence becomes available, then I certainly change my tune.

It appears you have deemed him guilty because of "feelings" or "circumstances" and not facts.. I would not want you on a jury

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

The facts remain the same: there is no evidence currently to state he was guilty of what he was accused of. If new evidence becomes available, then I certainly change my tune.

It appears you have deemed him guilty because of "feelings" or "circumstances" and not facts.. I would not want you on a jury

Can't see who you are replying to as I finally decided to use the ignore feature after all these years, and just kept adding names because it felt so good to rid myself of them permanently - wish I had done it years ago.

So not sure what the entire context of your convo is beyond it looks like this individual believes Araiza is guilty.

I've had friends and family railroaded on both sides of the equation, so I always take a cautious approach to very public cases like this and don't make any assumptions until all the evidence is out.

Unfortunately, no matter if Araiza's name is cleared, his reputation has taken a death blow.

Whomever you are conversing with is a perfect example of what I mean.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

The facts remain the same: there is no evidence currently to state he was guilty of what he was accused of. If new evidence becomes available, then I certainly change my tune.

It appears you have deemed him guilty because of "feelings" or "circumstances" and not facts.. I would not want you on a jury

I havent deemed him guilty of anything. Apparently you cannot read.

Ive said literally in this conversation that there is enough reasonable doubt that i would not find him guilty in a criminal case. Which apparently the police and DA agree with.

In a civil case where the standard is “more likely than not” im TBD. Dont have enoigh information.

In a situation where he was a job applicant for me hes in the discard pile because there is a line of guys, that are qualified, that dont have the same question mark.

Now one part your absolutely wrong about is that there is no evidence. There is a (alleged) victim that is willing to put themself on record saying that he was somehow involved in a crime. And i take that very seriously.

I doesn't mean hes guilty, because the have been plenty of occasions of false accusations for various reasons. BUT those instances are very rare.

Im completely fine with not being able to determine guilt in a he said/she said situation. But that doesn't mean he is actually innocent, which is something you are very willing to gloss over for reasons i dont understand.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

I havent deemed him guilty of anything. Apparently you cannot read.

Ive said literally in this conversation that there is enough reasonable doubt that i would not find him guilty in a criminal case. Which apparently the police and DA agree with.

In a civil case where the standard is “more likely than not” im TBD. Dont have enoigh information.

In a situation where he was a job applicant for me hes in the discard pile because there is a line of guys, that are qualified, that dont have the same question mark.

Now one part your absolutely wrong about is that there is no evidence. There is a (alleged) victim that is willing to put themself on record saying that he was somehow involved in a crime. And i take that very seriously.

I doesn't mean hes guilty, because the have been plenty of occasions of false accusations for various reasons. BUT those instances are very rare.

Im completely fine with not being able to determine guilt in a he said/she said situation. But that doesn't mean he is actually innocent, which is something you are very willing to gloss over for reasons i dont understand.

Let's focus on your civil case comment. Would you find him guilty in that arena?

As to your last comment, it is a binary result: you are either guilty or you are not guilty (realize there are criminal and civil standards where you can be not guilty in 1, but guilty in another). But yea, the only evidence "against him" is he participated in consensual oral sex with this woman. That isn't a crime and until I see other evidence he's innocent in my eyes.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Let's focus on your civil case comment. Would you find him guilty in that arena?

As to your last comment, it is a binary result: you are either guilty or you are not guilty (realize there are criminal and civil standards where you can be not guilty in 1, but guilty in another). But yea, the only evidence "against him" is he participated in consensual oral sex with this woman. That isn't a crime and until I see other evidence he's innocent in my eyes.

Because of the standard of guilt, as of this time i cannot make a determination of guilt in a civil case. The accusation is enough for me to want to know more information not yet included in the press.

The evidence against him as of right now thats is public is the accusation. Which is evidence. Not enough alone to convict criminally and (tbd) maybe not even enough to convict (not sure thats the right term) civilly, but certainly enough to hold his character in doubt until more information is released.

I think jumping to guilt is incorrect but i also equally believe jumping to the concluding he was railroaded is equally incorrect.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

I think jumping to guilt is incorrect but i also equally believe jumping to the concluding he was railroaded is equally incorrect.

Yet the evidence (of no wrongdoing) we currently have is pointing to that he has indeed been railroaded.

Have you put yourself in his position and permit for a moment that his version of events and a witness is true?
You attend an off-campus party and receive a BJ. Then leave.
Shortly afterward you learn that same girl was raped and now you're roped into it by proxy. You then lose out on a job you were clearly the front-runner for. How is that fair?

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Yet the evidence (of no wrongdoing) we currently have is pointing to that he has indeed been railroaded.

Have you put yourself in his position and permit for a moment that his version of events and a witness is true?
You attend an off-campus party and receive a BJ. Then leave.
Shortly afterward you learn that same girl was raped and now you're roped into it by proxy. You then lose out on a job you were clearly the front-runner for. How is that fair?

Its not fair (if thats the case). BUT have you put yourself in the position of the inverse. You go to a party, someone rapes your daughter, she has the courage to report it and then nobody believes her and he receives no consequences because the guy is good at football. Also not fair and also heinous. Thats why jumping to either conclusion is wrong.

I still cant understand why you don’t consider the victims testimony as evidence. Sure its not enough alone to presume guilt, especially criminally, but your willing to presume innocence pretty easily, base on a witness (who could also be lying or just incorrect) thinking they saw him leave.

Its human nature to put yourself in the shoes of the person most like you in a dispute and maybe its because i have daughters but i can put myself into both sides and see it from both directions.

Let me be clear, he could absolutely be being railroaded.

But based on the limited info we have could also be very guilty. Nothing has absolved him either. The witness does create reasonable doubt (criminal standard) but doesnt make me sure of his innocence (civil or personal standard).

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

Its not fair (if thats the case). BUT have you put yourself in the position of the inverse. You go to a party, someone rapes your daughter, she has the courage to report it and then nobody believes her and he receives no consequences because the guy is good at football. Also not fair and also heinous. Thats why jumping to either conclusion is wrong.

I still cant understand why you don’t consider the victims testimony as evidence. Sure its not enough alone to presume guilt, especially criminally, but your willing to presume innocence pretty easily, base on a witness (who could also be lying or just incorrect) thinking they saw him leave.

Its human nature to put yourself in the shoes of the person most like you in a dispute and maybe its because i have daughters but i can put myself into both sides and see it from both directions.

Let me be clear, he could absolutely be being railroaded.

But based on the limited info we have could also be very guilty. Nothing has absolved him either. The witness does create reasonable doubt (criminal standard) but doesnt make me sure of his innocence (civil or personal standard).

I have two daughters, so I absolutely have put myself in the victim's shoes. I also understand the limitations of law where it's frequently a he said/she said situation. And it's terrible where rape did occur, but that is the only evidence available (the accusation)

I want to understand your position: are you saying that he was present during the gang rape?

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

I have two daughters, so I absolutely have put myself in the victim's shoes. I also understand the limitations of law where it's frequently a he said/she said situation. And it's terrible where rape did occur, but that is the only evidence available (the accusation)

I want to understand your position: are you saying that he was present during the gang rape?

Im saying that i have no idea.

And that having no idea is ok.

Im not saying hes is guilty and im not saying he was being railroaded.

Im saying that there is enough reasonable doubt not to prsecute criminally.

Im saying that there is enough suspicion to not hire as an employee, as the next man up is just as qualified without the potential baggage.

As far as any other criteria, i have no idea. There is a credible accusation, a denial, and as far as i know a witness that creates reasonable doubt.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

Im saying that i have no idea.

And that having no idea is ok.

Im not saying hes is guilty and im not saying he was being railroaded.

Im saying that there is enough reasonable doubt not to prsecute criminally.

Im saying that there is enough suspicion to not hire as an employee, as the next man up is just as qualified without the potential baggage.

As far as any other criteria, i have no idea. There is a credible accusation, a denial, and as far as i know a witness that creates reasonable doubt.

You also forgot to add there is a video of this gang rape occurring with this dude not heard or seen on the video. That to me is a HUGE component. In fact, I give that the most weight out of anything.

There is also the fact that the victim was inebriated, so her recollection of events could be skewed. It wouldn't be out of malice on her end, but the fact that it's a component of introducing alcohol.

She might correctly recall that he was at the party, but incorrectly placed him at the rape event.

So in general, it's safe to say your position is: while the facts don't point to guilt, I have my suspicions about how this night went down

Which is fair and you have a right to that. But I have a different approach in terms of how I view evidence.

 

[Goalie_Bob]

The facts are that Araiza had sex with the girl and that she was underage. He was not charged for having sex with an underage person because California has a law that states that if their is cause for the of age person to think the underage person is not underage then the authorities can forego charges. In this case, because the girl was telling people on video that she was 18 and was at other parties on another night saying the same thing, the authorities stated they did not see a reason for statutory charges.

That being said, he still showed incredibly bad judgement. And if teams don't want to deal with the backlash, whether perceived or not, for a punter I can't blame them.

Plain and simple, he has nobody to blame but himself. Araiza had a chance to make a good decision, and he couldn't keep it in his pants.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

The facts are that Araiza had sex with the girl and that she was underage. He was not charged for having sex with an underage person because California has a law that states that if their is cause for the of age person to think the underage person is not underage then the authorities can forego charges. In this case, because the girl was telling people on video that she was 18 and was at other parties on another night saying the same thing, the authorities stated they did not see a reason for statutory charges.

That being said, he still showed incredibly bad judgement. And if teams don't want to deal with the backlash, whether perceived or not, for a punter I can't blame them.

Plain and simple, he has nobody to blame but himself. Araiza had a chance to make a good decision, and he couldn't keep it in his pants.

This is not entirely true. In Cali, the statute defining sex has qualifiers. If he had penetrative sex with her as a 17 yo, then he could have been charged. But he didn't have that type of sex with her so that's why they couldn't pursue charges.

I don't intend to be pedantic, but there is a difference between "didn't see a reason to pursue charges" and "cannot pursue charges since what he didn't wasn't illegal"

 

[OnMyOwn]

Sex laws are interesting and vary state to state. In PA age of consent is 16, for example. Can make it tough to follow what is illegal or not if you don’t live in that state or pay attention to their laws.

I see both your points of view on this one. Accusations are what they are. Anyone can be accused of anything and in a lot of instances wrongfully. Victims also often don’t get justice in these cases because they’re just hard to prove in general.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

Well this is long overdue

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37708322/nfl-owners-approve-emergency-3rd-qb-proposal

 

[Factorial]

Sex laws are interesting and vary state to state. In PA age of consent is 16, for example. Can make it tough to follow what is illegal or not if you don’t live in that state or pay attention to their laws.

I see both your points of view on this one. Accusations are what they are. Anyone can be accused of anything and in a lot of instances wrongfully. Victims also often don’t get justice in these cases because they’re just hard to prove in general.

Does that age of consent mean it's OK for a 40 year-old to have sex with a 16 year old? In some states age of consent is 16 but only to someone up to 21 or something like that.