Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Thetruthislikepoetry t1_jcd8zhs wrote

Can’t wait till he gets deposed and has to answer about his “have you ever had bbc in you”comment. Wondering how he will justify that.


jetbag513 t1_jcdjtv7 wrote

What? I'm gonna assume you mean big black cock? Did he actually say this to this woman? Or someone else?


Thetruthislikepoetry t1_jcdn43h wrote

The former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver, who was staying at the Marriott Renaissance Phoenix Hotel & Spa to cover Super Bowl LVII for the NFL Network when the alleged encounter took place, held a press conference in Dallas with his lawyers during which they shared the security video. He’s been accused of asking the woman if she “knew anything about having a ‘big Black man inside of [her].’” “I don’t speak like that. I’ve never spoken like that,” Irvin told the reporters assembled before him. “I totally deny saying that.”

It alleges Irvin made the woman uncomfortable by touching her arm, and that the two other hotel employees noticed a “look of concern” on her face. Before the woman left, Irvin told her he’d come back and find her when she wasn’t working, according to the Marriott filing.

“She bad, She bad, I want to hit that,” Irvin said, slapping himself in the face and saying to himself, “Keep it together, Mike,” according to one of the woman’s colleagues cited in the filing.


jetbag513 t1_jcdqize wrote

Thx. I re-skimmed the article. Wondered whether it was this incident or prior, cause I didn't see that the first time.

He's an idiot.


Thetruthislikepoetry t1_jcdub41 wrote

He touched her twice and she tried to put her arms behind her back and she stepped back to create distance. Two of her colleagues said she looked uncomfortable.


tenkunin t1_jczvaql wrote

I bet those two colleagues of hers were also the ones who told her that she interacted with Michael Irvin, a very rich black man and then they proceeded to collude to make up some allegations to extort some money.

Not defending Michael Irvin, but I highly doubt it went down the way she said it did. Looked to me like Irvin was flirting with her, she denied his advanced, he apologized and they shook hands.


Realfan555 t1_jcl967g wrote

Wait, has it been confirmed that he actually said this?

He's already denied it. What would change during the deposition?


Thetruthislikepoetry t1_jcl9tl6 wrote

The statement is alleged. What would change during a deposition? Other witnesses and being under oath. He also said he doesn’t Talk like that. I’m sure the attorney involved is already looking into his past to find 1 person who has heard him say something like this.


Realfan555 t1_jclbigb wrote

Wait... so you're saying his attorney hasn't asked him all of this yet?

I'm a bit confused. Did his attorney not explain all of this to him?


>I’m sure the attorney involved is already looking into his past to find 1 person who has heard him say something like this.

This won't be admissible in court.


Thetruthislikepoetry t1_jclf6q8 wrote

In a civil suit it is


Realfan555 t1_jclicli wrote

B. Character Evidence in Civil Cases

1. General rule: Character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct in civil cases.

For example, a defendant cannot offer the testimony of friends (or her own testimony) that she is usually a very careful driver as circumstantial evidence she was probably driving carefully and not negligently on the day of an accident.

2. Character in issue.

Character evidence is occasionally admissible if a trait of character has been placed in issue by the pleadings.

Lawsuits in which character is a material issue are extremely uncommon.

One must be careful not to confuse:

an allegation of particular unsavory behavior (e.g., acted maliciously on a certain day)

with true character (tendency to be malicious on all days and toward all people).

Character is a material issue in the following types of cases:

a) Defamation.

Character is in issue in a defamation case when the defamatory statement falsely accuses the plaintiff of having a general flaw, e.g., accusing Hillary Clinton of being a liar.

Character is not in issue if the defamatory statement falsely accuses the plaintiff of a specific act, e.g., Hillary lied about Benghazi.



So, in this instance, if the defamatory statement was:

"Michael Irvin is a sexual harasser of women," then his character would be at issue and they can introduce specific past instances (since they're trying to prove that Michael Irvin is a sexual harasser of women).

But the defamatory statement was:

"Michael Irvin sexually harassed a Marriott employee on the night of Feb 5th." So, character evidence would be inadmissible in court because this is one SPECIFIC ACT and you can't use character evidence to disprove one SPECIFIC ACT.


Realfan555 t1_jdik5gw wrote

>In a civil suit it is

Did you ever find the relevant law you were referring to?