Michael Irvin being investigated for sexual assault

[mattjames2010]

This is pretty easy

- Did she get a rape kit done? Yes or no? If no, we move on to the next question

- Any witnesses? Yes or no? If not, we move on to the next question

- Any other women recently coming froward with similar stories?

If no to both, I don't care. I'm not a fan of the court of public opinion, I'm not part of a lynch mob. Let the investigators do their job, if they come up with nothing, move on. If they do, goodbye Irvin and you were always a low IQ hypocrite who were propped up as some kinda God due to 90s nostalgia. Wouldn't say I'm entirely surprised he went down a bad path again.

 

[stilltheguru88]

Jerry set this up with the employer for NFL network. This was a scare tactic for Zeke.

 

[Setackin]

No. That'd be stupid because if she was drunk, she cannot consent. Welcome to the 21st century.

But if he was drunk, how could he consent?

 

[Toomany10pins]

Amen. Its always about tne money. I support Irvin. He will turn out to be the victim. Even Mike is too smart for this baloney. Mike Irvin doesn't need to drug some bimbo for sex....fake.

Darren Sharper says HI.

 

[AbeBeta]

But if he was drunk, how could he consent?

If they both were passed out drunk, how would that work? But yes, women forcing themselves on men - that's the real problem here

 

[haleyrules]

Darren Sharper says HI.

Sharper! That was a strange, strange story. What got into Sharpers head. Sad really.

 

[haleyrules]

Jerry set this up with the employer for NFL network. This was a scare tactic for Zeke.

A little humour is good!

 

[tyke1doe]

define sin, that is the problem with most of you on this

you are certain adultery is a "sin", maybe it isn't.

First, YOU quoted the passage "Judge not that you be not judged."

Second, if YOU'RE going to quote the passage from the person who said it, don't remove the passage from the context of the person who said it.

Third, the person YOU Quoted said adultery is a sin.

Fourth, when you use a person's words and elevate those words to make a point, you can't then cast doubt on other things that person said, particularly in the same passage/context in which he said it. You just invalidated your "Judge not that you be not judge" statement. Maybe that's right, maybe it isn't.

 

[tyke1doe]

Mike says he didn't sleep with her and another male was present during the brief time he was in the hotel room with her. We'll see how this plays out, and if he actually gets charged.

His fall guy?

Semen don't lie.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

TMZ...

I tell you what.... TMZ seems to break the REAL story before any of the major news outlets.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

No. That'd be stupid because if she was drunk, she cannot consent. Welcome to the 21st century.

If she was drunk, she can still consent. Regardless of what certain female advocacy groups try to tell the world, if you're drunk and you consent....you still have consented.

Now, if she was passed out drunk...she cannot consent.



YR

 

[tyke1doe]

and we all know why adultery was considered a "sin", the reasons for which really are not as necessary now

Do you REALLY want to go down this road?

You're the one who first mentioned the good book and "judge not that you be not judged". If you consulted that book to condemn us about "judging," maybe you need to consult that book to understand the definition of "adultery" and why it's still considered a sin.

 

[tyke1doe]

If she was drunk, she can still consent. Regardless of what certain female advocacy groups try to tell the world, if you're drunk and you consent....you still have consented.

Now, if she was passed out drunk...she cannot consent.

YR

Ah, but that's the $1 million question. Did she consent? And how is Michael Irvin going to prove that she consented when she said she didn't?

If she was drunk and says she did not consent and they find his DNA on her body, he's in trouble - UNLESS there's a videotape or another witness who can corroborate his story.

 

[negativecreep]

This is pretty easy

- Did she get a rape kit done? Yes or no? If no, we move on to the next question

- Any witnesses? Yes or no? If not, we move on to the next question

- Any other women recently coming froward with similar stories?

If no to both, I don't care. I'm not a fan of the court of public opinion, I'm not part of a lynch mob. Let the investigators do their job, if they come up with nothing, move on. If they do, goodbye Irvin and you were always a low IQ hypocrite who were propped up as some kinda God due to 90s nostalgia. Wouldn't say I'm entirely surprised he went down a bad path again.

i have the same questions, it's a delicate issue, though. Let's see what happens, and hope Mike is innocent and this poor girl didn't actually get raped, by anyone.

 

[Bullflop]

It's much easier to charge someone than to actually prove them guilty. Her case sounds pretty weak to me but the investigators will do their thing, no doubt. I think this thing will be dropped in due time.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Ah, but that's the $1 million question. Did she consent? And how is Michael Irvin going to prove that she consented when she said she didn't?

If she was drunk and says she did not consent and they find his DNA on her body, he's in trouble - UNLESS there's a videotape or another witness who can corroborate his story.

You're innocent until proven guilty.

Just because she says she was drunk and did not consent, even with Irvin's DNA on her body...she still has to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that it was rape.

Usually the way you start to prove rape in this case is if somebody like Irvin claims he never had sex with the woman and then they find his semen on her....then Irvin becomes less credible.

The other part is if they find lacerations on that area of the body that is consistent with rape instead of consensual sex...then she has a case.

Of course, 'innocent until proven guilty' means less these days, particularly in rape cases. But, I would imagine that's what the police will look for and how the prosecutor will go about the case. If the law works like it is supposed to, if they find DNA on her it is still her word versus his word and he's still innocent until proven guilty.




YR

 

[tyke1doe]

You're innocent until proven guilty.

Just because she says she was drunk and did not consent, even with Irvin's DNA on her body...she still has to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that it was rape.

Usually the way you start to prove rape in this case is if somebody like Irvin claims he never had sex with the woman and then they find his semen on her....then Irvin becomes less credible.

The other part is if they find lacerations on that area of the body that is consistent with rape instead of consensual sex...then she has a case.

Of course, 'innocent until proven guilty' means less these days, particularly in rape cases. But, I would imagine that's what the police will look for and how the prosecutor will go about the case. If the law works like it is supposed to, if they find DNA on her it is still her word versus his word and he's still innocent until proven guilty.

YR

I understand all that. But ...

1. We live in a culture and society in which rapists have drugged women leaving no marks on her but only their semen.

2. The courts are finding that a woman being drunk is not necessarily an excuse that negates a rape charge/conviction.

3. Michael Irvin lives in this culture. He doesn't live in a culture where the burden of proof rest solely on the woman to prove she was raped, and that requires a woman to have a mountain of evidence to support her claim. Irvin lives in a culture that frowns upon sex with a woman who is not in her full state of mind, particularly if she claims rape. And he should know this as a member of THIS society in THIS age.

4. In THIS culture, if we have a woman claiming she was raped, a woman who was drunk, a man who seemingly has taken advantage of her in her compromised state, and Michael Irvin's DNA on and in her body, that spells MAJOR TROUBLE for Irvin.

 

[Wood]

Ah, but that's the $1 million question. Did she consent? And how is Michael Irvin going to prove that she consented when she said she didn't?

If she was drunk and says she did not consent and they find his DNA on her body, he's in trouble - UNLESS there's a videotape or another witness who can corroborate his story.

lots of questions. All I know is nothing good ever happens after 4am.

 

[AmericasTeam81]

So has Irvin's innocence or guilt been determined yet?

 

[revospeed]

No. That'd be stupid because if she was drunk, she cannot consent. Welcome to the 21st century.

If two women get drunk and have sex, who raped who?