PDA

View Full Version : Michael Irvin Accused of Rape


Hines
02-05-2010, 08:37 AM
http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/1463950.html


Discuss.

killxswitch
02-05-2010, 08:43 AM
I bet he's so mad about this he could stab a teammate in the neck with scissors.

Hines
02-05-2010, 08:47 AM
I bet he's so mad about this he could stab a teammate in the neck with scissors.

Or do more coke.

T-RICH49
02-05-2010, 08:52 AM
ok here's my question.wth do you wait two years AFTER thia happened to file charges???

bored of education
02-05-2010, 08:55 AM
This smells fishy and I am not talking about the two years between event and filing of charges :)

kwilk103
02-05-2010, 08:59 AM
this is becoming a trend

roethlisberger, now irvin

killxswitch
02-05-2010, 09:17 AM
this is becoming a trend

roethlisberger, now irvin

Are you saying raping women is becoming a trend, or women making up stories about athletes to get money is a trend?

tjsunstein
02-05-2010, 09:38 AM
Are you saying raping women is becoming a trend, or women making up stories about athletes to get money is a trend?

Both, it seems. But the latter in this case.

Paul
02-05-2010, 09:43 AM
Michael Irvin is a Saint!

gsorace
02-05-2010, 09:46 AM
6vwNcNOTVzY

Hines
02-05-2010, 09:46 AM
this is becoming a trend

roethlisberger, now irvin

It all started with Kobe.

Scotty D
02-05-2010, 09:49 AM
Matthew Stafford raped me

Paul
02-05-2010, 09:53 AM
Matthew Stafford raped me

It's not rape if it's consensual.

FlyingElvis
02-05-2010, 10:38 AM
"In the suit, the woman said Irvin bought her alcohol to get her drunk, then lured her to his hotel room."

:rolleyes:


He got her drunk and she followed him to his room. I suppose her assumption was they were going to do some scrapbooking or something? Eat a dick, *****. Oh wait, you already did.

Addict
02-05-2010, 10:54 AM
Michael Irvin is a Saint!

no he's a cowboy
with the night on his side
he's wanted... dead or alive

is he a rapist?
or was it the free bud light?
he's wanted (waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanted)
dead or alive...

killxswitch
02-05-2010, 10:59 AM
"In the suit, the woman said Irvin bought her alcohol to get her drunk, then lured her to his hotel room."

:rolleyes:


He got her drunk and she followed him to his room. I suppose her assumption was they were going to do some scrapbooking or something? Eat a dick, *****. Oh wait, you already did.

Yes I agree that part was dumb. Did he tie her down and pour alcohol down her throat? Did he knock her over the head and drag her to his room? Maybe he raped her and maybe he didn't but the wording there just makes her case look weaker IMO. She chose to drink the alcohol and chose (drunkenly or not it's still a choice she made as an adult) to go to his room. No idea what happened after that but wording like that makes me think the whole thing is fake.

clay_allison
02-05-2010, 11:11 AM
Last time he was accused the woman admitted to having made up the story. I think this one's unlikely too. If it really happened, why waive prosecution?

PalmerToCJ
02-05-2010, 11:36 AM
Color me not surprised.

Must be hard for a retired former superstar, getting action can't be half as easy as it once was.

prock
02-05-2010, 11:40 AM
michael irvin is definitely a believable case. but that being said, i really think this is just another gold digger hoping she can settle out of court for some big bucks. its really really annoying that this is allowed to happen.

FlyingElvis
02-05-2010, 11:43 AM
it's intriguing that almost everyone immediately wants to attack the woman for being a money grubbing *****, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that michael irvin is a massive, massive scumbag.



my opinion notwithstanding, that's still rape in all 50 states.



because in some cases the victim is able to convince him or herself that 'they asked for it' or some other such nonsense. alternatively, one of my buddies didn't develop ptsd until a couple of years after the fact, because he'd pretty successfully blocked the entire experience out (war, in this case, rather than rape).

*shrug*

not to white knight, but on this board at least, there usually seems to be an immediate knee jerk reaction to defend the douchebag athlete, simply because he's the athlete.

I'll never defend Irvin b/c I agree he is a pretty poor excuse for a human being. And I agree that rape is rape.

I'm simply not willing to take her side when she admittedly got drunk on his tab and then willingly followed him to his room. And make no mistake - it's not that I think rape is ok under those circumstances. It's simply that I don't believe for one second that a woman makes all those choices then decides she misunderstood the pretenses and proceeded to get raped. To me, the more likely scenario is that she gave it up and now calls it rape simply to get paid.

Two equally scummy people who deserve each other.

Forenci
02-05-2010, 11:48 AM
it's intriguing that almost everyone immediately wants to attack the woman for being a money grubbing *****, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that michael irvin is a massive, massive scumbag.



my opinion notwithstanding, that's still rape in all 50 states.



because in some cases the victim is able to convince him or herself that 'they asked for it' or some other such nonsense. alternatively, one of my buddies didn't develop ptsd until a couple of years after the fact, because he'd pretty successfully blocked the entire experience out (war, in this case, rather than rape).

*shrug*

not to white knight, but on this board at least, there usually seems to be an immediate knee jerk reaction to defend the douchebag athlete, simply because he's the athlete.

I totally agree. I think people are too quick to make jokes (not just on the board, but in general too) or say it's just another 'gold digger'.

There are a million different reasons why this could have been reported days, months and in this case, years later. Njx just happened to mention one of them, which is a very standard and legitimate reason.

I'm not trying to grandstand by any means, but I do think it's pretty unfair for most people to just make light of it.

wordofi
02-05-2010, 11:57 AM
ok here's my question.wth do you wait two years AFTER thia happened to file charges???

No, because he didn't do it.

Bengals78
02-05-2010, 12:52 PM
Joke: I hope this story isnt tied in http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584938,00.html

The reason a woman waits is because this is not Law And Order. They dont always go right to the cops. Its a traumatic event.
Ever have something crazy and very devastating happen to you?
Didnt get over it in one hour did ya.
Rape is such a traumatic event it takes some women years to get over it and accept it happened.

Im not condemning Irvin as guilty but to simply dismiss it as a gold digger is asinine.

And as for Kobe: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gzV4oiLQQws&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gzV4oiLQQws&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

clay_allison
02-05-2010, 01:59 PM
It's a civil suit, hence it is about money. If it was about rape it would be a criminal case.

MetSox17
02-05-2010, 02:05 PM
Yeah, i don't understand where this is gonna get her when two years later i'm sure she has little to no evidence (outside of her testimony) that she was raped. If i'm Irvin and i know i'm innocent, take this to trial and let it play out. Make her look like a money chasing skank. Then, like njx said, file suit for defamation, just to clear your name publicly, cause i doubt this woman has anything of value that Irvin could take from her.

clay_allison
02-05-2010, 02:11 PM
In criminal proceedings, a rape victim is sheltered from personal attacks etc (these days that's the case, hasn't always been), her personal life is off limits to the defense and the media can be prevented from having a lot of information about her. In a civil case, anything goes, and no sane woman wants to go through it unless she just wants some money off a rich guy. She can't even prove she was ever in the same room with Irvin now, she couldn't get the cash she wanted in settlement and she's upping the ante.

El Peefs?????
02-05-2010, 02:11 PM
Too bad, it would be great if Irvin went to jail for an extended period of time and was no longer able to be part of any media in any form.

clay_allison
02-05-2010, 02:14 PM
All I can say about Irvin from personal knowledge is if you met the guy, you'd like him. He's definitely one of the most approachable, fan friendly star athletes of his era.

MetSox17
02-05-2010, 02:19 PM
All I can say about Irvin from personal knowledge is if you met the guy, you'd like him. He's definitely one of the most approachable, fan friendly star athletes of his era.

So i'm assuming you've met him? Cause i have, and he's nothing like you just described, and i know plenty of people that agree with me.

wordofi
02-05-2010, 02:34 PM
i'm sure you can quote some information from the trial that led to this positive assertion?

It's obvious it's about money. You don't wait 2 years to come out with rape allegations. Also, the only reason this is getting as much hype as it is has to do with the fact that Michael Irvin has a troubled past. Nobody's talking about Big Ben and the woman who accused him of rape.

FlyingElvis
02-05-2010, 02:42 PM
It's being discussed because the article came out today.

And the whopping one page total with about 20 members posting hardly seems like "hype."

clay_allison
02-05-2010, 02:49 PM
So i'm assuming you've met him? Cause i have, and he's nothing like you just described, and i know plenty of people that agree with me.

I didn't, my brother did. At the airport in Dallas.

Hines
02-05-2010, 02:52 PM
It's obvious it's about money. You don't wait 2 years to come out with rape allegations. Also, the only reason this is getting as much hype as it is has to do with the fact that Michael Irvin has a troubled past. Nobody's talking about Big Ben and the woman who accused him of rape.

When it first came out, everyone was talking about it. Now, everyone knows she's a lying gold digger so they just left it alone.

wordofi
02-05-2010, 03:02 PM
When it first came out, everyone was talking about it. Now, everyone knows she's a lying gold digger so they just left it alone.

I know, but that's very unlikely to happen to Michael Irvin, even though his accuser is a gold digger.

Brent
02-05-2010, 03:04 PM
not to white knight, but on this board at least, there usually seems to be an immediate knee jerk reaction to defend the douchebag athlete, simply because he's the athlete.
knee jerk reactions? on SWDC? well, sir, I dont know what you are referring to.

Bengals78
02-05-2010, 03:06 PM
knee jerk reactions? on SWDC? well, sir, I dont know what you are referring to.

I for one and shocked and appalled he would make such an assumption people have knee jerk reactions on here!

bored of education
02-05-2010, 03:07 PM
**** jerk reactions > knee jerk reactions

BaLLiN
02-05-2010, 03:14 PM
so she just didnt know who the other guy was, or the fact that he probably doesnt have the money Irvin does not matter?

I understand the trauma that she could've had after a rape, alot of women kill themselves because of rape. 2 years is a long time, much longer than youd think itd take to get even.

clay_allison
02-05-2010, 03:29 PM
in response to both, i'm curious how familiar you are with the massive differences between a civil and criminal trial, and the burden of proof involved. i'll give you both some time to familiarize yourself so that this isn't a complete waste of time.

Burden of proof is a totally different thing. Civil suits function without the presumption of innocence, meaning that the defendant and the plaintiff are on equal grounds. Preponderance of evidence is the standard for civil trials, where reasonable doubt (a much harder standard to meet) is required for a criminal conviction.

The reason the victim is protected in a criminal case from being attacked by the defense is that the victim is not the "adversary" legally. A criminal case against Irvin would be entered as "People vs. Michael Irvin" or "The State of Florida vs. Michael Irvin", not "Jane Doe vs. Michael Irvin".

Once the (civil) trial is scheduled she will be entitled to exactly the same treatment by the court as Irvin because opponents in a civil suit are presumed to be equal before the law.

As for how I'm familiar, I have a bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice (not the same thing as law) and had to take classes about the legal system.

Brodeur
02-05-2010, 06:40 PM
Everyone just assumes the unknown chick is a money-grubbing *****, so I'm going to go the opposite way since Michael Irvin is a horrible human being and just say he did this.

Bengals78
02-05-2010, 07:11 PM
Everyone just assumes the unknown chick is a money-grubbing *****, so I'm going to go the opposite way since Michael Irvin is a horrible human being and just say he did this.

Youre just whiny he didnt film it lol jk.

Scotty D
02-05-2010, 07:12 PM
PFT says he counter-sued the accuser for 100 million after he lost his ESPN radio show today

Bengals78
02-05-2010, 07:14 PM
PFT says he counter-sued the accuser for 100 million after he lost his ESPN radio show today

Didnt his contract expire and they just didnt renew?

Brodeur
02-05-2010, 07:16 PM
Youre just whiny he didnt film it lol jk.

This should make more sense Bengals, I'm disappointed.

When the **** did Irvin get an ESPN radio show anyway? The guy is such an ass that I never thought he had one, but I guess that's my problem.

MetSox17
02-05-2010, 07:35 PM
This should make more sense Bengals, I'm disappointed.

When the **** did Irvin get an ESPN radio show anyway? The guy is such an ass that I never thought he had one, but I guess that's my problem.

He's been broadcasting an ESPN affiliate here in Texas since he got fired from ESPN.

clay_allison
02-06-2010, 02:23 AM
beautiful. thus, the reasoning for going to civil trial, even with the enhanced exposure to the victim, is that if evidence has 'disappeared' (for whatever reason) due to time, or if certain evidence was never obtained (let's say that, due to emotional distress or whatever, she never got the rape kit), the burden of proof is FAR lower. which is also why OJ, while innocent in criminal trial, was found liable in civil trial (which you basically outlined, but i'm restating).

this is the typical reasoning i've seen behind going the civil route.

all that said, she still might be a money-grubbing ****. but it's not like going the civil route automatically proves that or suggests anything.

I think it is a preconception likely to form in the mind of the jury that not going the criminal route and seeking money first = financial motivation. That really hurts the case, especially if the target is a rich man.

bored of education
02-06-2010, 09:47 AM
But money can make mental pain go aways

LizardState
02-06-2010, 10:13 AM
He's counter-suing b/c she alleged rape & there were no criminal charges filed.

Her atty. got paid too but did a far worse job than Irvin's attys. but hey! They all get paid by the hr. don't they? Any excuse for litigation!