I have no idea if Michael Irvin sexually assaulted the woman accusing him. The incident occurred two and one-half years ago, and I am not sure what the statute of limitations is for such an alleged tort in Florida. I do know this: wanna destroy a man or boy? Accuse him of rape. Trust me, no matter what happens to you if your lie is exposed (and most likely, nothing will happen to you), chances are it won't be as bad as what happens to the man or boy.
Michael Irvin - Facing Sexual Assault Lawsuit - Fired From ESPN Radio
With the Super Bowl just days away, a woman is suing former Dallas Cowboys star Michael Irvin in civil court for sexual assault. The woman, identified in the suit as "Jane Doe," claims Irvin sexually assaulted her at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood, Florida in July of 2007. Ms. "Doe" filed the lawsuit Thursday in Broward County Circuit Court, and seeks unspecified damages for the assault. Seminole tribe spokesman Gary Bitner says the incident was reported to Seminole tribal police on July 20, 2007, but the woman later signed a waiver of prosecution.
The Dallas News is reporting Friday that Irvin has lost his job at ESPN 103.3. An ESPN spokesman tells the News that low ratings are to blame, but that the lawsuit expedited the firing. No word yet if Irvin will keep his job at the NFL Network. Irvin's attorney says the sexual assault allegation is merely a false attempt at "civil extortion."
Irvin, 43, is regarded as one of the most successful wide receivers in the history of the National Football League. Irvin called himself "The Playmaker" due to his penchant for making big plays in big games during his college career. In 2007, he was selected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Link: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978032703
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
He's countersuing for $100M .
http://www.zimbio.com/Michael+Irvin/articles/frBGG-osHul/Michael+Irvin+Countersues+Rape+Accuser+100
This lawsuit is suspiciously timed to maximize Irvin's pain.
Why can't this woman be named????????????????
I thought you could name her if it was only a civil action like in the Ben Rothlisberger case?
Seriously this stuff is an epidemic.
I'm sorry they did name her.
Nicole Alicia Mustafa
It's all over the news.
He is counter suing her.
I don't care if you file a criminal or civil charge. If you falsely accuse someone of raping you you deserve life on a sex offender registry after you serve your 20 year minimum prison sentence.
It used to be blacks that were falselly accusssed of rape..Now it is any man with any money to lose that gets targeted for false rape claims.
I do believe our current legal approach to false rape accussations is wat has led us to the flood of false rape accussations that we are now witnessing!!
What will it take for our legal system to realise that gender feminist hysteria and their approach of "not charging false rape accussers"..Is having massive consequences for our legal system.
Pierce, maybe you should reach out to this man?? I know i would have welcomed anyone reaching out to me during my false rape accussation.
He may not be answering any phone calls, but if you tell him who you are, and the cause you stand for..he may just pick up the phone!!
Someone here the other day said that the last 7 or 8 big ??Rape?? cases involving high profile men...SIMPLY NEVER HAPPENED!!!
Scott,
I don't know about all the cases you alluded to, but I know that Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger never raped anyone. I doubt that other, high profile men did, either. Why? Because they don't HAVE to, that's why! If you're rich, handsome, and/or wealthy (a la Donald Trump), they don't have to rape anyone; they have plenty of WILLING partners. IOW, if you're a rich, successful athlete, they come to you, like flies go after a fresh piece of shit! Big Ben, Kobe, et al can get more ass than a toilet seat because of who they are. Come on!
MarkyMark
I don't know of a single celebrity rape accusation that turned out to be true.
"Because they don't HAVE to, that's why!"
I don't agree with that argument. Imho, the main difference here is the amount of public scrutiny.
Anon1033,
The celebrity scrutiny may explain part of it, but the fact of the matter still remains: guys who are rich, successful athletes have chicks FALLING ALL OVER THEMSELVES TO SLEEP WITH THEM; they need an Uzi to keep the women away! Guys like Ben Roethlisberger, Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods, et al have NO PROBLEM finding willing women to sleep with them! Tom Brady, NE Patriots QB, married Giselle Bundchen, the Brazilian supermodel hottie. If he hadn't been a three time, Super Bowl champion QB with the fame, status, and riches that come with it, then Mr. Brady would NOT have gotten Giselle. IOW, you are wrong-end of story.
MarkyMark
I don't understand how someone can be accused of sexual assault 3 years after the fact.
I'm responding to a comment made in another thread that is now closed, not because I was personally attacked as ad hominem is no argument, but it makes it look like people are saying things on this board that no one is saying. Which makes us all look bad.
""Then maybe we need to accept that rape can occur without being prosecutable, because the cost of not accepting that is ruining the lives of the innocent.'
It's amazing that I even bother to respond to some of these things. Some of you have allowed your anger over this issue to zap your brain cells. Let's just cut to the chase: that's barbaric, and so are you, if you believe that."
No, I'm being perfectly logical. Unfortunately, rape is such an emotionally charged issue sometimes people's brains seem to fly out the window. So from what you say, between the two of us, we've now seen this from both sides. As it seems your emotions lead to your complete failure in reading comprehension.
The reality is that sometimes criminals get away with crimes. Clearly, it's not the ideal situation, but we don't live in an ideal world, and it's childish to pretend otherwise.
What I am saying, in cases where there is only the alleged victim's word, and absolutely no other evidence, even though she may be telling the truth, it should not be prosecutable, and we need to accept that. The only other logical possibility is to prosecute people based on absolutely nothing than the accuser's word. While that is how some might feel, anyone who has ever read this blog should know that is very bad idea.
While I agree with Pierce that prosecutors generally won't go ahead with such cases, sometimes they do and ruin the lives of innocent people.
So what I'm saying is not barbaric, in fact, it was the law in almost every country until a few decades ago, when "feminist legal scholars" started convincing people that that women never lie about rape.
"Are you married? You advocate a law that would allow a gang of sadistic young men to come into your house while you're away on business and just rape the shit out of your wife and your six-year-old daughter.
No, I am not advocating that at all.
"And, hey, maybe you can explain to your wife and children at the hospital -- between their sobbing -- that the men who did this are just acting within their rights -- rights that YOU support."
No, I never even vaguely implied that in any way whatsoever.
"Now if a gang of young men did that to my family, I'd want the police to spare no expense in finding evidence to convict them. But that's just me."
Again, no one has suggested anything to the contrary. In fact, I've explicitly stated the exact opposite numerous times on this board. Investigation is not prosecution.
MarkyMark,
While I agree that rich celebrities can get women to have sex with them, so can most men. The world's oldest profession is that old for reason.
Imho, rape is not a crime of illegal gain. It is simply not a matter of "stealing sex" as some have suggested. Normal men under normal circumstances do not rape. It requires pathology -- generally a personality disorder, or group psychology that would be considered pathological by societal norms (eg. soldiers raping). Having a personality disorder and being rich and famous aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't see what was wrong with that Anonymous comment.
Snark, you're right - I just don't like that particular commentator.
Anon1218,
You're out to lunch! You're wrong, so just admit it. Oh, I forgot; you're a chick, so you can't do that! You can't admit to a guy when you're wrong, because you see yourself as being a superior female. Get off this blog, you stupid bitch!
MarkyMark
Even as the victim of a false rape accussation, I still feel all rape accusations should be investigated thouroughly. But if after the invcestigation resumes...And it turns out that the rape accussation was in fact...NOT TRUE!!!, then she should be held accounteable for her false accussation.
Scott, you've just summed it up perfectly. Let me explain why that commentator rubs me the wrong way - and sorry if I offend some people out there.
I am conflicted about prosecuting guys for rape when there's not hard evidence beyond he said/she said -- I sincerely think that the prosecutor needs to have enough that the prosecutor thinks the guy did it beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't like prosecutors rolling the dice on claims that could go either way and hoping to "get lucky" with some guy's life.
What I don't appreciate is people insisting that DAs routinely prosecute he said/she said claims and using this faulty premise to insist on a blanket rule that would forbid prosecuting his own mother's rapist if it were just her word against his. The fact is, police can almost always find other evidence that tends to prove or disprove the claim. But that's beside the point. The point is, the premise is faulty because the VAST majority of false claims are handled at the police level -- they get rid of them with a stern warning to the accuser. YES, too many guys are arrested, and even being held 24 hours is way too much. But beyond that, most rape claims fizzle unless there is strong evidence. We hear this from actual police in news stories we print here. And I know from my own experience that even cases that get to the D.A. are looked at very carefully, and they don't take cases they think are losers.
And you know what? Some cases are turned away even though the DA thinks the guy did it.
Well, the commentator had to fight me on every point I raised -- and kind of left me with a pro-rape taste in my mouth. Maybe I overreacted but that's the impression I was left with.
I asked a friend of mine who is a big time criminal defense attorney who makes a ton of money -- this guy actually got a man out of prison who was wrongfully convicted of rape and had been in for about two decades (big national case) how many of his clients he guessed were innocent. He told me very candidly hardly any. See, that's for cases that actually make it to the trial stage. He wasn't being cute, and he's not anti-male -- he's a crusader, in fact. Hardly any.
See, it's all about perspective, and trying to see the big picture. Rape is a problem, too, and I refuse to be like inane feminist bloggers who think it's all or nothing.
But it's my fault for even addressing the comments. Glenn Sacks doesn't comment on his blog (and now apparently doesn't allow comments from anyone. I think I understand why he's doing it, but I'm going to ask him directly.)
Bottom line, we hurt the movement when we sound like we're pro-rape. It is well to remember that there are bad men out there, too. Not every rape claim is a lie. Handling rape claims is very difficult, almost an art, and they don't lend themselves to one size fits all solutions; it's not black-and-white. That doesn't take away one ounce of what we're doing here -- it actually buttresses our position because it shows we are reasonable. I don't want to legalize rape.
But Scott's comment actually summed it up perfectly, and I am going to leave it at that.
Glenn Sacks has explained on his site why he no longer allows comments.
I know you have crossed paths with this topic before:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
THANKS ANON -- ONCE AGAIN, WOMEN ARE THE VICTIMS BECAUSE ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES THEY NEED TO ASSUME THE ROLES MEN FORMERLY HAD TO PLAY. MEN, OF COURSE, WERE NEVER VICTIMS. HOW MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE ARE SICK OF ARTICLES LIKE THIS?
EXCERPTS:
“I was talking to a friend at a bar, and this girl just came up out of nowhere, grabbed him by the wrist, spun him around and took him out to the dance floor and started grinding,” said Kelly Lynch, a junior at North Carolina, recalling a recent experience.
Students interviewed here said they believed their mating rituals reflected those of college students anywhere. But many of them — men and women alike — said that the lopsided population tends to skew behavior.
“A lot of my friends will meet someone and go home for the night and just hope for the best the next morning,” Ms. Lynch said. “They’ll text them and say: ‘I had a great time. Want to hang out next week?’ And they don’t respond.”
Even worse, “Girls feel pressured to do more than they’re comfortable with, to lock it down,” Ms. Lynch said.
. . . .
“On college campuses where there are far more women than men, men have all the power to control the intensity of sexual and romantic relationships,” Kathleen A. Bogle, a sociologist at La Salle University in Philadelphia, wrote in an e-mail message.
. . . .
“Women do not want to get left out in the cold, so they are competing for men on men’s terms,” she wrote. “This results in more casual hook-up encounters that do not end up leading to more serious romantic relationships. Since college women say they generally want ‘something more’ than just a casual hook-up, women end up losing out.”
W. Keith Campbell, a psychology professor at the University of Georgia, which is 57 percent female, put it this way: “When men have the social power, they create a man’s ideal of relationships,” he said. Translation: more partners, more sex. Commitment? A good first step would be his returning a woman’s Facebook message.
Women on gender-imbalanced campuses are paying a social price for success and, to a degree, are being victimized by men precisely because they have outperformed them, Professor Campbell said.
Thanks for running this. I'm the anon who posted the link. I think I'll join the discussion under the moniker "BB" from now on.
I think Micheal Irvine was falsely accused before...unless I am thinking about someone else.
Glenn Sacks has explained on his site why he no longer allows comments.
Link? I can guess the reason, but I'd like to read it firsthand. I can't find it with Google.
There is an old greek epic called the "sirens", of which men will heed again when this state of mass hysteria passes.
The epic tells about men sailing their ships around the island of the sirens, and the "Sirens" would cry help me, help me; and the men that answered these seductive cries would invariably crash their ships onto the rocks, and the "sirens" would come down and loot the ships.
Un-fortunatelly the United States is now being run by weak minded, and desperate myn who not only indulge the "siren", but they hang on every cry she pukes.
http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/index.php
False rape is a pandemic that nobody with authority will acknowledge. Up to HALF of all rape claims are false. That adds up to a ton of waisted time & resources on the police's part. Yes, the claims should be investigated, but when found to be patently false, like so many are, why are the liars not being held accountable?!
Personally I'd like to see laws be created that A) anonymizes the accused and B) sets up specific penalties for false accusations. After all, if rape is such a special crime they need special laws and procedures for handling it (eg protecting the identity of the accuser), surely they need to ensure those falsely accused have similar protections to prevent undue mental and emotional damage, which after all is ALL accused as they're innocent until proven guilty. Think about it.
Here's my suggestion for those punishments:
In cases where nobody is named and they just waste the police's time & money, 1 year probation and 500 hours of community service. If they name someone then perhaps a mandatory 30 days in jail and 1000 hours of community service would be suffice? If they name someone and that person serves jail time and it's later found they lied, then maybe 1-5 years in jail, depending on how long the falsely accused was imprisoned.
Bottom line is Irvin is smart in making the counter-claim. Not only does it allow him to name the woman, but it also establishes his defense in the court of public opinion.
We have an abusive commentator on this thread -- if it keeps up, we're going to either moderate or do away with comments. It reflects badly on our message when we have comments spewing hatred. Glenn recently did away with comments for much the same reason, and it may start a trend.
For now, we are going to allow comments but require civility. If you don't like what we do at this site, there are millions of others for you to visit, and I sincerely ask you not to disrupt our site. And I know you don't think of your comments as a disruption -- so that's another good reason for you not to visit here anymore.
P.S. I am deleting any abusive comments when I see them.
Moderation is a wonderful thing! :)
We have a mission and are building a good reputation here. Delete the abuse away! But Please, don't disable comments altogether -- There is too much to share and this site needs to be speedy, responsive, and detailed as possible. The more we are able to link out and in the more information we will be able to provide to those who most need it.
The wisdom of the crowd is better than the wisdom of a few or one (especially if those in the crowd are reasonable, accountable, compassionate, fair minded, courteous, and think critically).
"The wisdom of the crowd is better than the wisdom of a few or one (especially if those in the crowd are reasonable, accountable, compassionate, fair minded, courteous, and think critically)."
I agree, although moderation can only be a good thing if it is done well. I find it mind-boggling that comments that may be all those things can get deleted, while comments, like the following, which are none of those things and basically just name-calling, are allowed to remain.
"You're out to lunch! You're wrong, so just admit it. Oh, I forgot; you're a chick, so you can't do that! You can't admit to a guy when you're wrong, because you see yourself as being a superior female. Get off this blog, you stupid bitch!"
"P.S. I am deleting any abusive comments when I see them."
Then perhaps some sort of rules or guidelines should be posted describing what is considered "abusive" so that everyone here could follow them. Otherwise you run the risk of alienating your readership by actions that might seem unfair and arbitrary.
You should also lead by example. Civility breeds civility. Recently, on a blog where many of its participants have been falsely accused of rape, you falsely accused someone of being "pro-rape", although almost anyone would consider such comments "abusive".
Anon at 10:09/10:11: You raise some good points. First, right now "moderation" is sporadic. There are so many comments, we don't always read all of them or read the ones we do read carefully. I got into this deleting thing with NORM a while back, you may recall.
Second, you are correct that at times I allow my rage to show through, and I shouldn't. I am certain that if I had more time to engage in discourse with the particular commentator at issue, we could achive common ground. As it is, I (and I'll bet the commentator as well) are both speaking in a sort of shorthand, voicing our conclusions without having time to explain our rationales fully. The fact is, we are largely in agreement; our "differences" are just a matter of approach. So, yes, I become short-tempered at times, and for that I apologize. I do have a very strong sense about the positions I want this blog to espouse, and I am concerned that comments sometimes are extreme, and that this reflects badly on me.
I've actually spoken with Glenn in the past about his comments. Glenn is a very sharp guy, by the way. He isn't thrilled about extremist comments. I formerly didn't think this was a problem but now I know it is. We are judged by the company we keep. That's why Glenn doesn't like them.
The fact is, the comments I deleted weren't as extreme on their face as some I haven't deleted. The comments I deleted perhaps suffered from being worded too well -- and thus coming to a conclusion I think is ultimately wrong but without allowing time to rationally and patiently explain why it's wrong. Other less rational, angry comments are passed over -- perhaps I don't even notice them as I should.
Bottom line: I am very passionate about this, and sometimes allow my passion to dictate my "moderation." I want to allow free speech, but I don't want casual readers to think we don't care about rape. I do care about rape. I think, for instance, prison rape is among the most underrated signficant topics in America -- it's an atrocity. And I do care about women who have been raped -- I have two close female family members who were (1) raped and (2) victimized by an attempted raped. They are both very pro-men and don't have any time for "Take Back the Night" or other misandric displays. My wife, who is more pro-men than anybody I've ever met, was the victim of extreme sexual harassment one time at work. These things are problems. Some of our commentators clearly do not understand that although the pendulum has swung too far, we shouldn't advocate it swinging too far in the other direction. Some of our commentators have a problem with women in general, which is unfortunate.
So to the commentator at issue, you are correct, and I apologize. Either we moderate the right way or not at all.
Thank you for posting an apology. Although I'm a bit confused as to who is who. Is "Archivist" Harlan or Berkimer?
"The comments I deleted perhaps suffered from being worded too well -- and thus coming to a conclusion I think is ultimately wrong but without allowing time to rationally and patiently explain why it's wrong."
There is a significant difference between comments you think are wrong in that you merely disagree with them, and comments that are personal attacks or contain inappropriate language. I think most people would understand that comments from others don't necessarily reflect the opinions of those who run the blog, and you can't be expected to answer everything posted.
"speaking in a sort of shorthand, voicing our conclusions without having time to explain our rationales fully."
That may be true, but on the internet full explanations are often too long; didn't read.
"I do care about rape."
Which is like saying you care about murder. While feminists have made a massive effort to politicize the issue, despite their machinations and accusations, no one worth acknowledging is in favor of violent crime. Even criminals know they are wrong, otherwise they wouldn't make an effort to hide their crimes. Maybe there are a few nuts out there, but I don't know of any forums or blogs that actually advocate rape. And while like you, some people might say regrettable things out of anger, I think you need to give people the benefit of the the doubt. Otherwise it leads to a pissing contest that plays right into the hands of the liberal feminists.
"Some of our commentators have a problem with women in general, which is unfortunate."
Yes, it is unfortunate. Although, while it isn't logical, it is understandable. Also, you should consider the possibility that some of these comments might be from feminists trying to bait agreement.
Regardless, I agree blatantly sexist comments should not be allowed as you are judged by the company you keep, even though that isn't logical either. However, anti-male and anti-female bigotry should be handled equally.
I also think that some of the general "anti-feminist" entries, that aren't about false rape accusations, not only increase the amount of comments, but tend to invite more of the types of comments you find objectionable. While they bring up valid points and are often interesting to read, imho, these tangents water down the main focus of this blog.
10:49: Please understand, I still disagree with you and am not persuaded by some of your points. Have you posted here under another identity? Please advise.
10:49: Please understand, I still disagree with you and am not persuaded by some of your points. Have you posted here under another identity? Please advise.
"Please understand, I still disagree with you and am not persuaded by some of your points."
That's OK. I don't see a problem with disagreement as long as it's civil. Which is my main point.
"Have you posted here under another identity? Please advise."
I haven't, although it looks like several anons were arguing very similar points, as I know what I didn't write, fwiw.
Post a Comment