Michael Irvin being investigated for sexual assault

[Philmonroe]

Hey, your self torture not mine.

Nah your online okey doke doesn't work on me. Its no self torture to type for 5-10 seconds but try again.

 

[tyke1doe]

Nah your online okey doke doesn't work on me. Its no self torture to type for 5-10 seconds but try again.

Well, you're obviously preoccupied with what I say to come out of the blue and address me.
So self torture, obsessed. They signal about the same thing.

 

[Philmonroe]

Well, you're obviously preoccupied with what I say to come out of the blue and address me.
So self torture, obsessed. They signal about the same thing.

I already posted when I see folks in general doing that I'm going to comment so as I said before try again. Only online people who wish folks really cared about them would delude theirselves to think online strangers are obsessed with them who have done nothing IRL. You have to do something for that to be remotely the case. I just find it funny when people online say certain things like they get a lot of women and things of that nature with no proof. Its that simple but you can continue to think you have fans or whatever else makes you feel better.

 

[tyke1doe]

I already posted when I see folks in general doing that I'm going to comment so as I said before try again. Only online people who wish folks really cared about them would delude theirselves to think online strangers are obsessed with them who have done nothing IRL. You have to do something for that to be remotely the case. I just find it funny when people online say certain things like they get a lot of women and things of that nature with no proof. Its that simple but you can continue to think you have fans or whatever else makes you feel better.

Actions speak louder than words. You can SAY you're not obsessed. But when you enter a conversation to comment on something that has nothing to do with the original topic - other than a question I was asked and answered - then your ACTIONS say otherwise.

Be that as it may, feel free to play the truth detective, if that floats your boat. I, yi, Captain. Peace out.

 

[Philmonroe]

Actions speak louder than words. You can SAY you're not obsessed. But when you enter a conversation to comment on something that has nothing to do with the original topic - other than a question I was asked and answered - then your ACTIONS say otherwise.

Be that as it may, feel free to play the truth detective, if that floats your boat. I, yi, Captain. Peace out.

Sounds good. My actions only say that to you because you are desperate to be relevant hence why you posted what you posted. My actions said exactly what I posted you trying to hype unprovable things online which is funny to me now and always. I'm not a detective of any kind just laughing at you trying to be something you're not to strangers. Peace out fibber

 

[Wood]

Irvin was on radio today against the advice of his attorney. He was detailed about what happened which tells me the hotel video will conflict with this women story (who was apparently drugged). Irvin says she followed him out of the room to elevator, was texting him and there was no sex involved. I don't think he would go on radio if hotel video, her drug test and rape/sex results were positive.

 

[speedkilz88]

GBag Interview
http://download.podcast.play.it/med...amp;awCollectionId=764&awEpisodeId=761830

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/audio/gbag-nation/

 

[DFWJC]

I think this girl is a long time family friend....which is another reason why Irvin is so dumbfounded by the accusation.

The videos and rape test should shed some light, one way or the other

 

[DFWJC]

If he didnt do anything, should she go to jail?
Serious question

 

[Tenkamenin]

If he didnt do anything, should she go to jail?
Serious question

Yes!

 

[Wood]

If he didnt do anything, should she go to jail?
Serious question

yes. I believe laws have changed on this and not only does she go to jail but I believe she would have to pay his legal fees.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

This will all come down to the DNA evidence from the rape kit.................Irvin says they didn't have sex, so if the rape kit comes back positive with Irvin's DNA, then he is toast. He will have been caught lying and his entire credibility will be out the window.

If the DNA test comes back negative, then its a he said, she said incident and rape will be very, very hard to prove. Irvin should be in the clear if the test comes back negative, don't see how a DA or a grand jury could indict without any physical evidence.

He might be able to prove she was culpable because of the way she dressed or the way she winked and flirted with him.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Next time you or others post such unprovable stuff I will bring it up again so it will never be out of my system.

Me mum says it is due to stress, and lots of bananas and fiber always work.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Well, I have some more free time on my hand. So I'll entertain you some more. Let's start from the top

"Not another person who doesn't know what a straw man is. Sigh.
I didn't say you said what you allege I said you said. I'm building my case on why detectives must first develop suspects and then piece together evidence.
Furthermore, you keep pointing to conviction but no one here has convicted Irvin. Talk about a strawman."

Convicted as in, the court of public opinion? Of course he has. When someone blatantly says "I believe Michael Irvin had his rape cap on" - He's convicted. Remember, not everyone, I didn't respond to everyone saying that - I responded to one specific person who said that.

The issue with court of public opinion is, everyone is the judge. But again, context - I was responding specifically to the person who said he had his rape cap on.

"Now you're reaching.
First, how is mentioning what Irvin has done in the past tarnishing his reputation? Seems to me Irvin has tarnished his own reputation.
Second, Irvin - in all the criticism he received for his indiscretion - was never convicted of a crime nor faced criminal punishment.
I'm surprised you even raised this as an argument."

No, not just "mentioning his past" - saying that his past is indicative of what he did now. Using his past to judge a case unrelated. Again, when someone says "I believe the women normally. I think Michael Irvin had his rape cap on" - No matter how you feel about his past 20 years ago, this is still damaging. You can still damage someone with a shaky reputation further.

"You mean create a context.
You're the one talking about the court of law applying even in situations like a discussion forum. Then you have the NERVE to say a tarnished reputation is the same as criminal punishment. Will the defendant rise. I know sentence you to ... A life time of tarnished reputation. You are free to go serve your sentence "

Read my last few replies, understand the context.

"Knowing you did? You're not the only one in this thread. And my response was based on others saying the woman is probably lying. They, then, pointed out Irvin's history. How do you vilify someone with the truth of what he did?"

....then maybe next time you actually go back to the original replies for context? MY reply wasn't on what "otherS" said, my response was to one specific person who criticized someone for bias, while showing their own bias at the same time. Now I'm getting why you are so lost in this discussion, you couldn't even bother to look back through the discussion I was having before you jumped in.

"So basically without any conclusive evidence that he lost or stole your property, you will give him further responsibility because of his previous actions. Even though he hasn't been proven guilty, you take action anyway.
Thank you for acknowledging my point. That wasn't so hard now was it. "

I explained it in more detail than should have been needed.

I would not be keeping my stuff from my friend while accusing him of stealing - I would be keeping it from him because I KNOW that it has disappeared - again, whether he's lying, irresponsible, or if he's truthful and really doesn't know what happened to them (Maybe an outside party is taking it from him?)

You get what I'm trying to avoid here is jumping to conclusions and throwing out accusations I can't 100% back up, right? The issue with you giving out analogies that could have "multiple meanings" is that it could easily benefit my point as well. Which it did here, and I explained it in detail. Moving on...

"
It's interesting that in quoting the definition of bias you overlooked the key word that provides context and supports my point.
It's that word SOMETIMES.
Let me translate this for you. SOMETIMES bias is unreasoned, and SOMETIMES it is reasoned.
You're trying to school me on language and definition and you don't understand what the world "sometimes" means."

Did you read where I said i proved you were being unreasonable? Which means I acknowledged that part of the definition?

"A. Should we just believe the woman is lying because it's Irvin and he can have a number of women without having to force one or
B. Men of power, influence and celebrity like Irvin, who also has a history of sexual assaults and false allegations against him, can't possibly do such things."

Both that A and B, without evidence to back either up, would be wrong to conclude.

"you don't like how people decide to discuss topics in a discussion forum."

LOL am I going to ban them from the forum? I simply step in and criticize their posts. They can continue to spam the same thing after I break down their comments. But yes, I will give you the most logical stance - if you want to continue to be unreasonable, that's up to you.

"A. That everything is a matter of "innocent until proven guilty" or
B. That some issues that don't rise to a legal standard can be evaluated"

Everything is a matter of innocent until proven guilty - if someone makes an accusation, I expect substantial evidence to back up the claim. Again, you can come to whatever unreasonable conclusion you like - but if you see a lack of evidence and still choose one side, you are most likely biased or there is a form of blind faith in a person.

OK, OK, OK.
But is there really such a thing as a rape cap?
It is figurative, correct?

 

[xwalker]

yes. I believe laws have changed on this and not only does she go to jail but I believe she would have to pay his legal fees.

Laws only have meaning if they're enforced. I highly doubt any of these women get any serious punishment for false accusations. Some women's group would protest and a bunch of 'whipped dudes in charge will do what their wives tell them to do.

Men in America owned the world back in the 1800s, but they were eventually 'whipped into submission by their wives and gave it all away.

 

[tyke1doe]

He might be able to prove she was culpable because of the way she dressed or the way she winked and flirted with him.

No, it would be unwise for him to go there. Just because a woman is giving your overtures, if she doesn't give you consent to have sex with her, the law will consider it rape.

Really, this case hinges on Irvin's DNA. If none of his DNA is found on her private parts or anywhere else he would make contact with her, it's an open-and-closed case.

 

[Trouty]

Laws only have meaning if they're enforced. I highly doubt any of these women get any serious punishment for false accusations. Some women's group would protest and a bunch of 'whipped dudes in charge will do what their wives tell them to do.

Men in America owned the world back in the 1800s, but they were eventually 'whipped into submission by their wives and gave it all away.

You make take our lives... but, you'll never take our FREEDOM

Ok, I'll see myself out. Try the veal

 

[xwalker]

You make take our lives... but, you'll never take our FREEDOM

Ok, I'll see myself out, Try the veal

That was one of the all-time great lines from a movie.

 

[Trouty]

That was one of the all-time great lines from a movie.

It most certainly was. Mel is an amazing human being and an equally amazing actor/director/producer.

Braveheart is a top 20 film of mine. Your avatar is lovely, X.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

No, it would be unwise for him to go there. Just because a woman is giving your overtures, if she doesn't give you consent to have sex with her, the law will consider it rape.

Really, this case hinges on Irvin's DNA. If none of his DNA is found on her private parts or anywhere else he would make contact with her, it's an open-and-closed case.

But ... if her eyes say "yes, yes" ?