Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

Or shake his hand at the end of the conversation

Said the same on the thread that was about 60 pages, don’t care what my job was and who you are, you insult me or done something to piss me off, I am not laughing one bit at you and sure as h—- will not be shaking your hand.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

You convicted him several days ago who are you trying to fool?

LOL

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

:

Ok let's go with your "no no" gesture. It lacks a lot of context, it could be him making a joke to her and her clairifying something or slow down, wait, etc. Context is important with that gesture. But I can give you three gestures that she uses that are positive.

Much of the time she is standing with he hands in front of her in a relaxed position. This is typically an ideal position to keep her hands. Its hard to tell but if she had a limp wrist if could signifiy interest in him. While using that pose, she often repeats a palms up gesture, which is a submissive geture as well as one that conveys open and honesty. So she has now shown two submissive getures. The third one she uses is her hands behind her back. She is holding one hand with the other which signify's confidence and dominence. So two submissive positive gesture and one gesture in which she feels confident. Also both handshakes she uses a dominent handshake by keeping her hand over the top.

If anyone wanted to understand what special pleading is, see the above.

 

[America's Cowboy]

She didn't seem mad or anything. If Mike said what she claims why isn't she upset? I sure wouldn't stay there laughing with him.

This. ^^^^

 

[America's Cowboy]

If the lady felt she was verbally sexually harassed, she sure didn't show it. Why didn't she scream, slap, push/shove and walk away fastly motions on video? Instead, she laughed, shook hands more than once and nonchalantly walked away very cool as if nothing bad happened or bothered her. Unless there is voice recording of their conversation, Michael Irvin should be able to win his case.

 

[Ghost12]

Michael Irvin hasn’t even walked in the door when the lady makes her presence in the video. How is he in her line of sight

I didn’t say he was in her line of sight. I said she and Irvin were in the manager’s line of sight when he clapped.

So not only are you watching imaginary videos, you’re reading imaginary posts.

 

[Rockport]

All those who condemned him on day 1, like @CouchCoach, sure do have egg on their face. Will they apologize?

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

All those who condemned him on day 1, like @CouchCoach, sure do have egg on their face. Will they apologize?

Lol

 

[mldardy]

All those who condemned him on day 1, like @CouchCoach, sure do have egg on their face. Will they apologize?

Glad you called him out. Way overdue.

 

[MarcusRock]

You have a creative take. I showed you two body language poses that she used throughout 95% of the coversation that shows she is open and engaged. One was submissive and one was confident and dominant. You are trying to use a minor gesture that took up less that 2 seconds of the whole conversation as your justifcation that it was a negative encounter. LOL Security didn't do anything.

Here is a breakdown for you. The convo starts at 23:11:58. From 23:12:08 to 23:13:39 no one was really in position to hear the conversation. Maybe the other table could have heard a little depending on the background noise and if they were paying attention. On the video time of 23:13:39 you can see black shirt and grey shirt pass by each other and there is an exchange of a message. The female employee points both guys out as if saying I think they want to get a picture with you.

Gray shirt walked out just behind her when she came into the camera. There was no encounter yet so he had nothing to be watchful for. The conversation started at 23:11:58. Gray shirt walks away at 23:12:08. He was present for the first 10 seconds of the conversation. That's it. Until 23:13:39 which is a minute and half later, he was not in a position to hear the coversation, so again, he could not have known anything was wrong. 23:13:39 both black and grey shirt pass each other and exchanged a message. this was the next time they were in position to hear anything. The conversation was already wrapping up at this point. The female employee points them out as if to say they want to take a picture with you, which he obliges. The manager, black shirt, and grey shirt were in no position to hear any part of the coversation past the first 10 seconds. They had no indication that anything was wrong. So that blows you theory out of the water that they interviened to help her. They physically could not have known anything was going on.

Yeah, I'm not being creative, I'm just quoting facts here. I think you're the one needing to make leaps to get to a point. Those "no-no" gestures each came after Irvin touched her and she stepped back each time. That's not minor, that's major. Those were clearly unwanted and when security approached she couldn't wait to pass him off on them. Even if it was only 5% of the interaction, it now colors the entirety of it. The security folks knew what was up. You didn't need to hear what was happening to know that a pick-up was in process and that she was not receptive but trying to be professional. Again, this isn't security's first rodeo at a hotel bar I'm sure an who knows if they have protocols for such a thing to protect staff from these things keeping them from their work or from threats.

You've been one of the more sensible ones to debate this from what I've seen, and respectful too, which I appreciate, but today was not a good day for Irvin. It would take creativity to believe that it wasn't. Besides the morphing, evolving story from his side, this video backs Marriott's account almost to a T, physically at least. It also discredits Irvin's witnesses who clearly didn't hear anything, weren't paying attention for almost all of the encounter, and didn't even see how the two came to be talking to each other in the first place like at least one of them claimed.

I've said before that I have compassion for Irvin in this situation and I continue to. I don't blame him at all for shooting his shot but he may have gotten entangled going a little too far.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

To me sure looks like she was into whatever was being said and she definitely seemed interested and her boss was upset either because she wasn’t working or he was wanting that to be him.

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

All those who condemned him on day 1, like @CouchCoach, sure do have egg on their face. Will they apologize?

Don't hold your breath. Drive By's Like Rush used to say.

 

[christopher1989]

Marriott said he sexually assaulted her. This completely disproves that.

Lewd comments are not a crime nor sexual assault.

Your wrong on account number 2

Definition of Lewd Acts​

Lewd acts are defined as unlawful behaviors that are sexual in nature, performed with the intention of sexually arousing either the perpetrator or the person to whom the conduct is directed. Lewd acts are a crime in all jurisdictions, which may be considered misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the exact circumstances. To explore this concept, consider the following lewd acts definition.

​

 

[glimmerman]

Your wrong on account number 2

Definition of Lewd Acts​

Lewd acts are defined as unlawful behaviors that are sexual in nature, performed with the intention of sexually arousing either the perpetrator or the person to whom the conduct is directed. Lewd acts are a crime in all jurisdictions, which may be considered misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the exact circumstances. To explore this concept, consider the following lewd acts definition.

​

If he did not reach out and touch her arm then I would say he had a strong chance of the hotel settling outside of court. But maybe him touching her was a bad idea. There is a lot going on there. There are other angles but no one heard anything so. He said she said. May not be the end of the videos coming out.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

Guess we now know why the hotel was in no hurry to leave or turnover the video, they saw it and was like d—, we are in big trouble here after the Playmaker sued there A—‘s.

 

[Walker]

Irvin about to make a lot more money signing his next contract thanks to team Marriott.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

Irvin about to make a lot more money signing his next contract thanks to team Marriott.

This, See the hotel trying to settle this before going to court. S—- I could see the Judge saying, h—- she is enjoying this conversation, nothing about threatening whatsoever on this tape.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

I would back away from anyone who seemed drunk that stepped toward me period. That means nothing to me. It looked cordial and she instigated the conversation it seems.

And her manager did not seem pleased with her. Note how he was clapping off to the left as if you say "Back to your post!"

 

[Mk2_Cowboys]

She shook his hand and smiled and walked away at the end, how bad could it be? This is ridiculous .

 

[Creeper]

LOL..

The video, which is the evidence, shows Irvin approaching the lady and initiating conversation. She turns around and proceeds to move back and talk to Irvin.

There is no witness that reports her yelling across the hotel lobby to get Irvin, who admitted he was drunk and said in the radio interview, didn’t even think he spoke to anybody.

when she leaves, Irvin is seen staring at her.

All the evidence points to Irvin initiating the conversation. Any other claim is just asinine.

And no, “the burden of proof” in a legal sense is not on her, as we are talking about hotel protocol. She told her management and they told the network. And the network investigated and told him to get another hotel and they are taking him off the air for SB Sunday.

Irvin then shot himself further in the foot by trying to play damage control on the radio and said he was drunk and had no clue he even talked to anybody.

Seems like we are not watching the same video. The woman enters the video from the lower left corner as Irvin and the guy with the white hat are coming in the hotel doors. She turns and enters the bar and is hidden behind some kind of pillar as the guy with the white hat is just entering the bar with Irvin about 5 ft behind him. Since Irvin came into the hotel with the guy in the white hat, Irvin could be following the guy with the white hat as he turns towards the bar. You are assuming Irvin started the conversation because you see him turn towards the entrance to the bar area. But that is not on the video. You cannot see the woman as Irvin turns into the bar. When she steps out to the right she and Irvin are already conversing. You cannot see who initiates the conversation.

Besides, it is not relevant. Even if Irvin walked up to her and started the conversation it's not a crime, or offensive. If every guys who started a conversation with a woman in a bar lost his job an awful lot of men would be unemployed right now. Her words in her accusation matter.

And sorry, the burden of proof in this country is always on the accuser. In this case Irvin has filed a suit claiming she defamed him be telling his employer he assaulted her. If this video is supposed to back up her claim then she has a loser case. If Irvin did not assault her that would be defamation, and he suffered damages because he was taken off the air for Super Bowl week. The video does not show an assault of any kind. The question still remains, why did ESPN take Irvin off the air? If it was because the woman and the hotel claimed he assaulted her then Irvin has a good case for defamation based on this video.