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

[kskboys]

When he compared being sent home from covering the SB, as a wealthy black man with highly-paid attorneys - to a lynching - Irvin lost my support.

That's an asinine analogy, and an insult to every black person who lost a family member to an actual lynching - a horrible, unjustifiable death.

I don't care how many SBs he helped Dallas win, I don't care how many fan boys blindly support anything he says, it's an absurd analogy deserving of ridicule.

If this post makes you mad, you should take a good, hard look in a mirror. As should Michael Irvin.

Yes, it's frustrating to be accused of something you don't think you did. But to use lynching as your defense, before going home to your fancy residence, is shameful.

If this still makes you mad, I don't care. Put down the pom poms, be an adult, and think about the comparison he made. If you still don't get it, may God help you.

Agree. His statement in the video was sickening.

However, he hasn't lost my support, because he never had it. Why? Because we do not have enough info to take a side.

 

[kskboys]

The only conclusion I am coming to is understanding with Irvin’s history why they’d take the action they did.

No, you concluding that people backing Irvin are disgusting, and that people not on her side are sexists. I'm not backing anyone in this case, and no one else should either, as we do not know the whole story, and definitely don't know enough to take a side.

 

[Starforever]

Both legal teams are making accusations; which team is more plausible?

 

[Diehardblues]

Agree. His statement in the video was sickening.

However, he hasn't lost my support, because he never had it. Why? Because we do not have enough info to take a side.

The only side I’m taking is that of the Marriott and NFLN for their action in response to the complaint.

That isn’t an admittance of guilt . But caution until further evidence is compiled .

And if this wasn’t a celebrity and if he hadn’t alerted publicly we would t have even known .

And being he is a public figure and Networks have an image to uphold this is a very sensitive subject. Whether he’s guilty or not isn’t the issue . Much like with NFL suspensions , guilty isn’t required to be suspended .

Even in normal job situations , all kinds of unacceptable behavior can be cause for suspension or time out until further investigation.

 

[MarcusRock]

I bet Marriott would not go to such extremes to "protect" an employee if it were a man.

Okay.

 

[Diehardblues]

No, you concluding that people backing Irvin are disgusting, and that people not on her side are sexists. I'm not backing anyone in this case, and no one else should either, as we do not know the whole story, and definitely don't know enough to take a side.

There are some people who are bordering on making sexist and womanizing type remarks.

Again, I’m only backing the decisions made by the Marriott and NFLN.

And I am adding with Irvin’s history it’s understandable the caution both entities are exercising .

 

[CouchCoach]

Agree. His statement in the video was sickening.

However, he hasn't lost my support, because he never had it. Why? Because we do not have enough info to take a side.

True and even though I do not like him, I haven't really taken a side to his guilt or innocence.

Where I am is this is all his fault because of that call into 105.3. Had he not done that, we might never know any of this happened.

He's made two mistakes. That call in and that press conference bringing Jim Crow into it.

And what I have wondered about this from the beginning was the NFLN's role in this before he was sent home, what were they doing between Monday morning when he was moved and they were notified and Wednesday, shortly following his call into 105.3?

Was the "hiding out" comment about him avoiding the media because he used the word "we" and that could have meant the producers at NFLN. Then, he alerts the media and leaves them no choice but to pull the plug.

ESPN is nothing in this. No way Irvin is going on that show with Smith and not being asked why he's not on the NFLN. Smith cruises the water for just a shot like that.

 

[CouchCoach]

Both legal teams are making accusations; which team is more plausible?

Only one is using the media and the Marriott lawyers haven't made any accusations that I've seen.

There are some accusations floating here about non-compliance with the judge's directive but the judge isn't using the media a lot either to affect public opinion.

 

[Reid1boys]

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.

What HR thinks or says is irrelevant. Those arguments must be made to the judge PRIOR to the date of the release. BUT, you are partially correcvt in what you say. I certainly hadnt read the actual order fro the judge, and apparently it stated Marriott were to "Produce," the video by such and such date. Marriott is arguing they did produce it. Now the judge will have to argue to the judge they need a copy and the judge will decide if he meant to physically hand over a copy or "Produce," it as in show it.
Bottom line is if Marriott had the concerns as you say, you file a motion with the court, you dont do as you please and then after the date on the judges original order start to fight it.

 

[Reid1boys]

because crazy fans of irvin might pose a danger to her.
She wont be anonymous in court, this is really none of the public's business, it will be handled in court in private.

bahahhaha... in private. Private??? Like Johnny Depp's defamation case? Couldnt have crazed Johnny Depp fans harmed his accuser??? Did all those procedings stay private? Some of you should start watching a little court tv. You could learn a thing or two about court proceedings.

 

[Reid1boys]

That was the worst babble I’ve ever heard. To quote Billy Madison “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul”

He literally said he couldn’t remember what was said because he was drinking.

Irvin said he had just gotten back from having drinks with former Cowboys safety Michael Brooks. He admitted that he is unsure of what was said during the brief conversation because he had been drinking.

“It was a minute meeting somewhere in the lobby. I don’t even remember it really because I had a few drinks to tell you the truth,” Irvin said.

you just stated the quote that clearly shows he NEVER said he had been drinking ALL NIGHT. The English language seems to be lost on you.

 

[Mind_Liberator]

When he compared being sent home from covering the SB, as a wealthy black man with highly-paid attorneys - to a lynching - Irvin lost my support.

That's an asinine analogy, and an insult to every black person who lost a family member to an actual lynching - a horrible, unjustifiable death.

I don't care how many SBs he helped Dallas win, I don't care how many fan boys blindly support anything he says, it's an absurd analogy deserving of ridicule.

If this post makes you mad, you should take a good, hard look in a mirror. As should Michael Irvin.

Yes, it's frustrating to be accused of something you don't think you did. But to use lynching as your defense, before going home to your fancy residence, is shameful.

If this still makes you mad, I don't care. Put down the pom poms, be an adult, and think about the comparison he made. If you still don't get it, may God help you.

Wealthy people got lynched the same, so I fail to comprehend what his money has got to do with anything?

I empathize with your overall point, but you seem to fail to do the same for his?

Black Americans have a history of being lynched over false accusations. Therefore, to sympathize with someone having been wrongfully accused, but not to empathize with them in regards to the fact that, in their history, those very accusations could get them killed, is something to say the least!

 

[MarcusRock]

Lets just say that Irvin was rude to someone in the lobby? So what? The guy should have his job and life ruined because of it?

Are you part of the cancel mob?

Lol. Not a polarizing question in the slightest. I'm just here to parse the evidence and other things released in this case because I find it interesting and want to know what happened exactly.

If you're asking my opinion on what transpired, a business establishment can refuse service if they find something objectionable. Things being neutral, almost everyone can agree on that unless it's for an illegal reason like discrimination, etc. Did Marriott go too far here? That's for a judge to decide because none of us will ever know/see all the evidence (I think the judge will grant the protective order on the video). A TV network is basically a positive-PR-only environment. Things being neutral, almost everyone knows this is the case. NFLN didn't want to risk embarrassment and pulled Irvin to protect their PR. There are likely contracts in place that speak to their ability to do this with their TV personalities. Did NFLN go too far though? That would be for a judge to decide if Irvin decides to sue them if they permanently remove him and/or he doesn't like a settlement offer if it gets to that.

I'm on record in these threads saying that I have compassion for Irvin here. He was made to wait around for at least 2 full days while NFLN was doing who knows what. 2 days was more than enough time to make a determination, IMO and he's just languishing, wondering what was going to happen to him. That might have prompted that radio interview revelation although I've also said that it seemed planned, perhaps by his law team (because I can't imagine he didn't call them in that 2-day period) and he just flubbed it with that drinks comment (which I don't give a whole lot of weight to but it's bad optics).

Beyond all that, I'm just here to parse like I do for controversial football plays that understandably get people in their feels. So I get run at based on the football plays reputation, could give 2 shakes at a tree about it, and keep doing it.

 

[aikemirv]

When he compared being sent home from covering the SB, as a wealthy black man with highly-paid attorneys - to a lynching - Irvin lost my support.

That's an asinine analogy, and an insult to every black person who lost a family member to an actual lynching - a horrible, unjustifiable death.

I don't care how many SBs he helped Dallas win, I don't care how many fan boys blindly support anything he says, it's an absurd analogy deserving of ridicule.

If this post makes you mad, you should take a good, hard look in a mirror. As should Michael Irvin.

Yes, it's frustrating to be accused of something you don't think you did. But to use lynching as your defense, before going home to your fancy residence, is shameful.

If this still makes you mad, I don't care. Put down the pom poms, be an adult, and think about the comparison he made. If you still don't get it, may God help you.

I don't like it when people take everything so literal like he was somehow comparing it to one of those lynchings. He was not, he was just comparing the process to lynching where there is no trial, just you are guilty and then here is your punishment. And also, the word is not somehow just relegated to what happened to black people

The exact origins of the word "lynch" are a matter of dispute. In the widely cited 1905 book Lynch-Law, James E. Cutler traced the origins to Revolutionary War-era politician Charles Lynch of Virginia, who was a justice of the peace and landowner. Because the official court system was not yet well-established and there was a war going on, Lynch created a system of informal citizen juries to handle legal matters. It's important to note here that the punishments handed out by Lynch's court did not include the death by hanging that is associated with the modern-day definition of lynching. The most common sentence for those found guilty was 39 lashes with a whip.

The word "lynch" would take on its definition of death by public hanging over time. As the United States expanded westward, historians Eric Foner and John A. Garrity note in The Reader's Companion to American History, lynching became a common occurrence in reaction to criminal behavior. Foner and Garrity note that in the pre-Civil War era, the most common victims of lynching were gamblers, horse thieves and opponents of slavery.



And also, the word is not somehow just relegated to what happened to black people - it was first used as such: The word "lynch" would take on its definition of death by public hanging over time. As the United States expanded westward, historians Eric Foner and John A. Garrity note in The Reader's Companion to American History, lynching became a common occurrence in reaction to criminal behavior. Foner and Garrity note that in the pre-Civil War era, the most common victims of lynching were gamblers, horse thieves and opponents of slavery.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/30/227792122/tracing-the-story-of-lynch-mob#:~:text=Cutler traced the origins to,juries to handle legal matters.

That article later says that it was used post civil war against a lot of black people but lets not say that they were the only once ever lynched!

 

[Reid1boys]

I bet Marriott would not go to such extremes to "protect" an employee if it were a man.

this is about protecting Marriott more than any hourly employee....

 

[Reid1boys]

2 or 3 drinks don't give you amnesia. To use that as an excuse takes away from Irvin's credibility which is periodically suspect. This seems like one of those making hay out of a single straw litigating scenarios. It is getting to the point that if you fart or burp near someone you can be sued or jailed for olfactory assault.

Irvin just deflected the question by a REPORTER. He wasnt in court and it was easy enough to just say... damn man, I dont remember exactly what was said. He said yesterday he lives in hotels for much of the year and meets and "Talks," with fans all day , everyday. No way in hell can he be expected to remember every meaningless 90 second encounter.

Hows this... I had a conversation with a staff member where I work YESTERDAY. I couldnt tell you what was said. I wasnt drunk.

 

[Reid1boys]

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.

For me, this isnt even about Irvin. I like the guy, but Ive never met him, never talked to him. This is about the way a person can have some ACCUSATIONS made, with up to now ZERO evidence to back up the claim and have their entire life turned upside down.

While I never had anything like this happen, I did have a hot head guy drive a car into the side of my car, then he threatened me as I was trying to drive away and he walked up to my car and opened the door as he threatened me on his approach. He was surprised to get a 9mm(legally carried) in his chest.

His account of events was a little different than reality... so I totally get Irvin's frustration.

 

[Reid1boys]

If everyone here gets the chance, listen to that call in but this time only listen to how Irvin speaks, not what he says. He is obviously nervous and not speaking in his normal cadence. He is extremely uneasy and trying to hide it. He seems scared.

My point is that line about "had a few drinks" as a reason for not remembering could be a throwaway and not as relevant as I first thought. First off, having a few drinks is ambiguous and how many cause one to lose their memory functions? Most have to get to the drunk point and well beyond for blackouts to occur.

So, here is what I think based on not much to go on.

I think Irvin said something along with the touching of her elbow that she reported back to her supervisor. BTW, the men here that do not see touching her as an invasion of her space, go out today and meet women and make sure you touch their arm or elblow and report back how well they respond to that. You do not touch any woman anywhere that you do not know really well and even then it is ill advised as many men have discovered.

Someone up the ladder overreacted to what the woman reported and the punishment did not fit the crime. A male manager could have approached him with a warning not to put his hands on any females within the hotel and let that be it. They've done their duty.

I think that's where the lawyers find themselves, someone got a little to Barney Fife and Irvin should not have been moved. And this particular woman, if she was weirded out by him, did not have to interact with him again.

Irvin could have just been being Irvin and didn't think he was doing anything wrong, even if he made a suggestive comment. Touching her might have exacerbated whatever he said.

You guys with girlfriends and/or wives, try this on either or both. Look her in the eyes and tell her you love her. Now do that only this time cup her face in your hands or take her hands in yours. Touching for a woman amplifies everything......good or bad.

So, if he said something forward, that would have been accentuated and heightened by just the simple touching of her elbow. Message delivered with urgency. Message received with overreaction.

It is a well-known fact than Irvin uses his hands on people when he is talking to them, he has since he was at ESPN. His lawyer even referenced that and emphasized "briefly" in that pc. Only this time he timed it with something that set her alarm off that he said and that started this entire out of control ordeal that probably never should have happened.

Some are blaming her but did she make the decision to move him or even agree with that? She might be regretting she even reported it.

Irvin should not have done what he did but he does not deserve the punishment. However, what he should have never done was that call in to 105.3 and broke his own story because other than Irvin and his lawyer, no one else has been talking.

It is possible we would have never known any of this happened but from a selfish standpoint, I would not be having as much fun batting to ole ball around with all my fellow lawyers. Honestly, these off season escapades of Cowboys and ex Cowboys make it almost worthwhile putting up with the Joneses.

I agree with everything you say here, especially how you broke down his talking on the radio about the event and him not remembering. He was nervous because he knew where this thing was headed.
BUT, where does her responsibility lie in this? If someone touches you... anywhere in a friendly to them manner. Is it your responsibility to at least tell them You are not ok with that? Ive met people in my life that are like that... they put their hand on your shoulder as they approach you, maybe in a social setting.... but like you said, whatever happen does not mean his life should be turned upside down over what has been described in that 90 seconds. I am not a touchy person. I coached young female woman for 20 years. I actually slapped one of the butt once in excitement.. like guys do to each other in sports. I immediately walked out to the stands apologizing to her mother... she laughed and thought it was funny. That never happened again.

My female players are often huggers and would hug me when we came together for tournaments. I was always a little uncomfortable with that and left my arms hanging straight down as I knew someone as out there watching just waiting to come after me. Irvin, unfortunately will never be able to be himself in public again... if he even has a public life after this.

In any event, I cant wait to hear hat she has to say.

 

[Reid1boys]

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?

public opinion matters... a ton, which is the exact reason he was taken off the air. There were no legal charges so why did the NFLN take him off air??? Public perception, thats why... which is the exact reason the held a press conference.

 

[Reality]

This thread is closed for now due to it devolving into too many off-topic posts (many have been deleted).

When new significant news comes out again about this story we will allow a new thread to be created but we will be aggressive in thread-banning anyone who strays off-topic.