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

Status
Not open for further replies.
CouchCoach said:
The industry they are in is female dominated by the sheer number and % they employ in a male dominated clientele. Which gender needs more protection?
Click to expand...
It shouldn't matter, CC. According to the law, we all are supposed to have equal rights and protections.
 
Anyone believing that the courts and her employer can hide her identity are misinformed. Her identity is sure to be found out. Whether she is innocent or guilty. It is a shame that power, prestige and money trumps the law.
 
JBond said:
Polarization. I'm right and you are wrong. Only made it through the first hundred posts. Then had to stop. Irvin is controversial. I get it. I hate when a bunch of really good folks that add great contributions most of the time fight with each other over a multimillionaire that may or may not have done something. Who gives a ****? We are all friends that support our team. The courts will figure it out. Stop tearing up your fellow fans.
Click to expand...

Great post JBond, that is why I stay natural on most things till the facts are end. I never get into the name calling too old for that but things can always look one way but turn out way differently. I prefer to laugh and keep a smile on my face, most people always ask do you ever get mad. Being mad and upset is not the way try to get along with everyone.
 
Beast_from_East said:
Well, it depends.

Marriott did allow opposing counsel to view the video and they might argue to the judge that release of the video could affect the privacy rights of individuals in the video, such as minors or other employees not related to the case.

Same thing with documents, HR complaints that contain employee files or identifying information could be an issue for public release, that is why a lot of the times information such as names and employee records might be released with redacted information, basically all blacked out.

Will be up to the judge obviously. People also need to keep in mind that this is a civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages, its not a criminal case and neither Marriott nor any of their employees are on trial here. The burden of proof lies solely with Irvin and his legal team to prove Marriott intentionally and maliciously sought to destroy Irvin's reputation and that all of their actions were guided by this one singular purpose with no other reason being possible.

Its a very high bar to prove a defamation case in civil court.
Click to expand...
What you say about why Marriott didn't release the video for copy is exactly what they claimed (2nd link below). They said that the judge's order was merely to "produce" the evidence, not a mandated "provide a copy" and that inspection is the standard in a lot of places then cite a few cases for backup (see page 3 of second link below). They also quote what the judge told them saying they could take "reasonable measures" to protect the identity of the accuser hence they produced the video by offering a showing (bottom of page 1 of second link). The actual order is cited in Irvin's motion (1st link below) on page 10. It does say to "produce" the evidence by the deadline.

IRVIN'S MOTION FILED TODAY

MARRIOTT'S RESPONSE TO IRVIN'S MOTION TODAY
 
sacase said:
The NFL showed him a still image when they told him about it originally. They wouldn't let him see the video. They have a copy.
Click to expand...
That's worse than showing a still picture to say someone is holding on the offensive line. You need video to show holding. And illegal contact. Did Irvin do both? We know he was a good pushoff artist but can one assume guilt based on that? Lol.
 
Starforever said:
Anyone believing that the courts and her employer can hide her identity are misinformed. Her identity is sure to be found out. Whether she is innocent or guilty. It is a shame that power, prestige and money trumps the law.
Click to expand...
Always been that way, and won't ever change. This paradise idealism we're going through now is but a fad.
 
So, what do y'all think was the purpose of this press conference?

What was accomplished?

Is Irvin better, the same or worse off for this press conference in your opinion now?
 
People need to review what they post on here. The “men get wronged a lot” testosterone is picking up and it’s a bad look. A lot of excuses for touching other people that have nothing to do with this case.
 
Diehardblues said:
I’m not aware of many men being sexually assaulted or inappropriate behavior as such. Most men would probably welcome sexual advances .

This type of statement is so concerning in why these women need protected unless we want to discourage them from coming out to testify.

For generations men have gotten away with such behavior and finally women are exposing them.
Click to expand...
Not true. I know of a myriad of cases myself. Most are not reported due to simple machoism and/or the fear of being laughed at.
 
CouchCoach said:
Reputation matters and it has influenced the thinking in these threads. I wonder if that affected the thinking of the person making the decision to move him?

If this had been another analyst without Irvin's track record, does he receive the same treatment?
Click to expand...
And why this was news worthy to begin with and the NFL Network pumped the brakes because of Irvin’s sexual misconduct history.

These over zealous Irvin backers and possible sexist are disgusting. While everyone deserves their day in court the fact Irvin was moved and then benched is very understandable given his history.
 
Diehardblues said:
And why this was news worthy to begin with and the NFL Network pumped the brakes because of Irvin’s sexual misconduct history.

These over zealous Irvin backers and possible sexist are disgusting. While everyone deserves their day in court the fact Irvin was moved and then benched is very understandable given his history.
Click to expand...
Actually, you coming to this conclusion w/o the facts is utterly disgusting.
 
Diehardblues said:
9%. Lol. Stop the presses ..

But thanks for supporting my response . Over 90% is a great indicator the women need protecting.
Click to expand...
He completely mischaracterized (or misunderstood) that 9% btw. Meaning, most of the 9% are getting attached by other men, not women. He left out the most important part from the web site he was looking at. Here is the full statement:
An estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male.
 
kskboys said:
Not true. I know of a myriad of cases myself. Most are not reported due to simple machoism and/or the fear of being laughed at.
Click to expand...
AC said it was 9%. More than I would have thought. But the fact over 90 % are women would support they need more protection.

No one is saying there isn’t some false accusations but surely we don’t want to discourage women finally coming out to expose these men .
 
BoyzBlaster said:
He completely mischaracterized (or misunderstood) that 9% btw. Meaning, most of the 9% are getting attached by other men, not women. He left out the most important part from the web site he was looking at. Here is the full statement:
An estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying . I had trusted AC wouldn’t skim the facts but he did.

So, whether it’s a man or women being sexually assaulted, 99% accused are men.

That’s conclusive . Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

... and 75 more.
Total: 7,012 (members: 175, guests: 6,837)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,094
Messages
13,788,567
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top