Irvin to have 7am Wed press conference - Video in post 113

[GimmeTheBall!]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/based-surveillance-video-michael-irvin-181142965.html

No, Michael, it's a civil case for now.
Chap, be a good fellow now. (For on e in your life.)

 

[CouchCoach]

Lol. No. Doesn't make sense. Marriott made the allegations anyway. They are not talking or turning over any evidence despite a court order.

We do not know if they are in defiance of a court order or not at this time.

Only one lawyer is talking so we only get half the lie. Don't get all litigious on me now, just messin' witya.

Actually two of my closest buds are lawyers and they tell the best lawyer jokes. I have texted with one of them about this and look forward to his response on this pc.

His take on this is he thinks you have a guy saying something that he feels is OK and a woman not feeling the same about that. Just that simple.

 

[MarcusRock]

Because his attorney knows what the question is, what did he say? The lawyer and Irvin talked all around the conversation but not about it.

I told you all. Page 1, Post #5, Option #2. All about how this wasn't a physical encounter hoping people would forget that this is about what was said because no one they have can testify to that, unfortunately not even Irvin himself. I'm no law guy but I know logic.

 

[Merlin]

We do not know if they are in defiance of a court order or not at this time.

Only one lawyer is talking so we only get half the lie. Don't get all litigious on me now, just messin' witya.

Actually two of my closest buds are lawyers and they tell the best lawyer jokes. I have texted with one of them about this and look forward to his response on this pc.

His take on this is he thinks you have a guy saying something that he feels is OK and a woman not feeling the same about that. Just that simple.

We do know that because the judge ordered them to turn over the video and other records by 5 pm. They didn't.

 

[CouchCoach]

I told you all. Page 1, Post #5, Option #2. All about how this wasn't a physical encounter hoping people would forget that this is about what was said because no one they have can testify to that, unfortunately not even Irvin himself. I'm no law guy but I know logic.

I think he knows exactly what he said and he's not coming forward with that.

I would like to see the video for one particular part. This second time he touched her other elbow and was bent forward laughing, was she laughing too?

If it is one thing that all of mankind should have learned from the MeToo movement is do not touch women without permission. Some are OK and some are not even borderline OK about that. Our mouths can get us in trouble but we only got one of those, watch those hands.

 

[Staubacher]

I told you all. Page 1, Post #5, Option #2. All about how this wasn't a physical encounter hoping people would forget that this is about what was said because no one they have can testify to that, unfortunately not even Irvin himself. I'm no law guy but I know logic.

They've also implied bad motives to the defendants way beyond just simply overreacting to something that was said. They are portraying it as Irvin being deliberately targeted and destroyed because of his race

 

[CouchCoach]

We do know that because the judge ordered them to turn over the video and other records by 5 pm. They didn't.

Is there something in that video that prevents them from releasing it? Does it compromise their promise to their employees to protect them? And if they blur the woman's face, can't see what she's saying. Think she has to give them permission to release it?

 

[Vtwin]

You: there's no evidence
You Later: The only evidence is ...

You just did a 180 in plain sight and are now avoiding it while trying to change the subject. What was that about being defensive again?

And no mention of you being completely wrong about me saying Irvin is guilty because of his past indiscretions and instead defending him in that regard. Not surprising in the least. Convenient though.

You also want to claim someone is making a strawman argument but your claim to being accurate is because "someone else also said so?" Oh my ironic stars! I'd say that's a bandwagon logical fallacy but what bandwagon? More like a skateboard. So basically you're claiming a Like Button Legitimacy to Argument stance. Wow. Lol. Ooooh, give this deep thinker some room here everyone. He's about to really make some revelations. Lol.

You're one of "those guys", eh? Completely unable, or unwilling to read between the lines.

I clearly meant "no evidence" in the context of being able to debate it. I stand by that statement. I do forget that it is often a mistake to not be exactingly literal when in the presence of such pedantry. There is not enough evidence to debate. There. Does that help you understand a little better?

I am not wrong in my, and others, observations of your attitude on this topic. You are a top 2 prolific poster on this saga, so you have put plenty down on paper, to be observed. (Note. I understand that you aren't actually writing on paper. It is a figure of speech.)

My argument has never been based on what someone else said. I have pointed out that I am apparently not alone in my thinking. You do understand there is a huge gap between the two, don't you?

Then you finish off with the oh so predictable last bastion of the defeated....

One strawman after another. You clearly fancy yourself as the "deep thinker" here. I'm just an uneducated hillbilly. I'm ok with that. It makes it that much more fun to occasionally expose the self labeled geniuses like yourself.

Aren't you missing the View?

 

[mldardy]

That part really made me cringe. That's like someone saying "I spent a night in jail and know what death row is about".

Irvin may hear from same family and friends about using something so horrific in a civil suit. The fact that he is a multimillionaire celebrity makes it worse.

Who cares? People like you want to crucify Irvin for anything he says and does no matter what. The main focus is on the hotel who apparently overreacted by kicking him out of the hotel and this woman who was laughing with him and shook his hand. You are the people he was referring to who constantly won't let up this man no matter what he says and does.

 

[Merlin]

Is there something in that video that prevents them from releasing it? Does it compromise their promise to their employees to protect them? And if they blur the woman's face, can't see what she's saying. Think she has to give them permission to release it?

I repeat. The judge ordered them to turn it over and other records. It's fairly simple. They will have to release it at some point unless they decide to settle or the case gets dismissed.

 

[Starforever]

Her coming from behind the desk could be a sign that something happened before this incident. So, everyone that observed this innocuous conversation, may not be privy to an earlier conversation. This is all speculation, of course.

 

[Staubacher]

Her coming from behind the desk could be a sign that something happened before this incident. So, everyone that observed this innocuous conversation, may not be privy to an earlier conversation. This is all speculation, of course.

I've considered that a possibility from the outset.

 

[Merlin]

Her coming from behind the desk could be a sign that something happened before this incident. So, everyone that observed this innocuous conversation, may not be privy to an earlier conversation. This is all speculation, of course.

If something happened, she should have went to a manager and let them handle it.

 

[Starforever]

I've considered that a possibility from the outset.

If so, Irvin could be telling the truth about their last conversation, but the employee was not accepting of what he said after giving it some thought; due to a prior incident.

 

[ChronicCowboy]

I’ve always known Mike to be a man of high moral fiber and reputation.

 

[mldardy]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/based-surveillance-video-michael-irvin-181142965.html

No, Michael, it's a civil case for now.
Chap, be a good fellow now. (For on e in your life.)

Yes this was so thread worthy

 

[Starforever]

If something happened, she should have went to a manager and let them handle it.

Some people give certain celebrities the benefit of doubt.

 

[Merlin]

Some people give certain celebrities the benefit of doubt.

Maybe she was flirting with him since so many people want to speculate and he wasn't interested.

Or the male manager got mad when he found out for whatever reasons and just made something up that she didn't tell him.

Or she made something up.

 

[Qcard]

To be fair, if Marriot would adhere to the court-ordered release of the video then there would likely be more clarity.

The fact that they are ignoring the court, the one they requested and received a transfer of the case to, along with the non-NFL fan and the Eagles fan both supporting Irvin's side description-wise of the interaction in the lobby, really makes Marriott look like they did something wrong here.

I know it is easy to lump everyone that disagrees with your opinion into one bucket, but I assure you I have no sympathy for atheletes who assault women and given Irvin's questionable past, I think it is reasonable to wonder if something did happen.

So far though, the information that has been released seems to lean toward Irvin's claims, and the only reason more information has not come out is because Marriott is refusing to provide it, which presents as questionable.

The only reason this case is not getting the full weight of the Media attention is because of Irvin's past.

I, too am hesitant but this does not look good for Marriott or the Private owner using the Name...

If Parent Company drops their licensing agreement, Irvin will own that hotel

 

[Starforever]

Maybe she was flirting with him since so many people want to speculate and he wasn't interested.

Or the male manager got mad when he found out for whatever reasons and just made something up that she didn't tell him.

Or she made something up.

So many possibilities. I hope there is a real resolution and we get the facts.