Michael Vick hit with sexual lawsuit

[wesfau 0]

Because he is a rich athlete, it automatically makes this woman a slut, who is just out to line her pockets. 

   

154808[/snapback]

No, because she filed a lawsuit, the purpose of which is to take mucho dinero from said athlete, she is out to line her pockets. Like I said, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but let's not build her pedestal too tall.

[texaubie 0]

What if prior to having sex she had directly asked him if he had any STD's and he replied with a "no" so that he could get laid? Would that make a difference?

Legally, I would think that she has a case. I believe there is a precedent for this with HIV. HIV is much more severe than herpes so the monetary value would be less. She trusted him and he knowingly put her at risk. That said, it will never see court. Vick will write her a check before that happens.

[SouthLink02 8]

[wesfau 0]

154811[/snapback]

Hysterical.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

Another thing that was just brought up on the radio on the whole Vick thing: How many other women are out there that will file similiar suits?

[wesfau 0]

Another thing that was just brought up on the radio on the whole Vick thing:  How many other women are out there that will file similiar suits?

154813[/snapback]

That could be the only reason Mr. Mexico fights this suit: to discourage others by showing that they have no basis for recovery.

On the other hand, he might settle just to prevent the discovery process.

Tough call.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

first, it never ever ever said they were "dating." that is a very sigificant thing. it says they had a year-long non-sexual relationship. i am best friends with two girls that i could say i've had five-year non-sexual relationships with, and it would not be odd at all for me to conceal the fact that i had herpes during that entire time (which i don't). so don't put this in the context of a boyfriend/girlfriend thing.

second, my thoughts on the validity of her lawsuit in no way reflects the way i date or think of women. if i were mike vick, i wouldn't have herpes b/c i don't have sex out of wedlock. period. so this wouldn't be an issue in the least. don't make this more personal that it is.

if the disease contracted was HIV, he could be tried in criminal court so yes that would change the scenario completely. HIV can eventually kill you. herpes, while it makes you more likely to contract HIV/AIDS if you continue to go around screwing shady characters, will not. if she had asked him directly, yeah it probably makes for a stronger claim if she could prove she asked.

also, there is a very different set of standards for the way you treat a person you are legally and spiritually binded to. if they were married, it'd be a different story. they aren't so that whole thing gets thrown out the door in my opinion.

in summation, vick's a dick. i feel bad for her. she has no case. the lawsuit is only about money. she will get paid.

[wesfau 0]

in summation, vick's a dick. i feel bad for her. she has no case. the lawsuit is only about money. she will get paid.

154816[/snapback]

Nice summary.

[Gorilla 0]

The bottom line on this whole discussion is that there are a lot of facts NONE OF WHICH WE REALLY KNOW that would change everyone's feeling on the whole thing, potentially in favor of, or against, both parties.

My first reaction, strictly to the woman's legal claim, is a negative one, for all the reasons everyone has been stating. But realistiaclly, any reaction based on what's out there now is pretty much knee-jerk. So anybody saying "this woman is a whore who got what she deserved" is an idiot. Likewise, anybody riding to her defense as an innocent victim of Michael Vick is an idiot. Nobody knows enough. The details of their relationship - what was said, how long they've known each other, how long they were in a "dating" relationship, etc. - all bear on the claim (in a legal sense) and even more so on the more general equitable aspects of the whole thing.

All we know for sure is 1) you should tell people if you have herpes and 2) you should protect yourself against the possibility that someone might NOT tell you if they do. How this case falls out between those two principles depends on a lot of facts.

[AuNuma1 1]

The bottom line on this whole discussion is that there are a lot of facts NONE OF WHICH WE REALLY KNOW that would change everyone's feeling on the whole thing, potentially in favor of, or against, both parties.

My first reaction, strictly to the woman's legal claim, is a negative one, for all the reasons everyone has been stating. But realistiaclly, any reaction based on what's out there now is pretty much knee-jerk. So anybody saying "this woman is a whore who got what she deserved" is an idiot. Likewise, anybody riding to her defense as an innocent victim of Michael Vick is an idiot. Nobody knows enough. The details of their relationship - what was said, how long they've known each other, how long they were in a "dating" relationship, etc. - all bear on the claim (in a legal sense) and even more so on the more general equitable aspects of the whole thing.

All we know for sure is 1) you should tell people if you have herpes and 2) you should protect yourself against the possibility that someone might NOT tell you if they do. How this case falls out between those two principles depends on a lot of facts.

154819[/snapback]

Thanks for settling this issue for us!

Now can we all just enjoy more Ron Mexico farks?

[wesfau 0]

The bottom line on this whole discussion is that there are a lot of facts NONE OF WHICH WE REALLY KNOW that would change everyone's feeling on the whole thing, potentially in favor of, or against, both parties.

My first reaction, strictly to the woman's legal claim, is a negative one, for all the reasons everyone has been stating. But realistiaclly, any reaction based on what's out there now is pretty much knee-jerk. So anybody saying "this woman is a whore who got what she deserved" is an idiot. Likewise, anybody riding to her defense as an innocent victim of Michael Vick is an idiot. Nobody knows enough. The details of their relationship - what was said, how long they've known each other, how long they were in a "dating" relationship, etc. - all bear on the claim (in a legal sense) and even more so on the more general equitable aspects of the whole thing.

All we know for sure is 1) you should tell people if you have herpes and 2) you should protect yourself against the possibility that someone might NOT tell you if they do. How this case falls out between those two principles depends on a lot of facts.

154819[/snapback]

Um, Gorilla, I'm going to need you to stop making sense right now....

otherwise I will be forced to reconsider my opinion of LSU fans.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

nm

[texaubie 0]

if the disease contracted was HIV, he could be tried in criminal court so yes that would change the scenario completely. HIV can eventually kill you. herpes, while it makes you more likely to contract HIV/AIDS if you continue to go around screwing shady characters, will not.

I disagree with respect to the legal aspect. If you hit somebody with a baseball bat, you could be convicted of assault. Hitting somebody with a baseball bat is dangerous and could seriously harm the victim. If you spit on somebody, you could be convicted of assault even though you really could not seriously hurt the victim. Its the act, not the result that is the violation. The result usually dictates the severity of the punishment. Just my thoughts...

[SouthLink02 8]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36932

[WarTim 3,456]

if the disease contracted was HIV, he could be tried in criminal court so yes that would change the scenario completely. HIV can eventually kill you. herpes, while it makes you more likely to contract HIV/AIDS if you continue to go around screwing shady characters, will not.

I disagree with respect to the legal aspect. If you hit somebody with a baseball bat, you could be convicted of assault. Hitting somebody with a baseball bat is dangerous and could seriously harm the victim. If you spit on somebody, you could be convicted of assault even though you really could not seriously hurt the victim. Its the act, not the result that is the violation. The result usually dictates the severity of the punishment. Just my thoughts...

154848[/snapback]

Tex, just for future reference, If we ever get in a fight, go ahead and spit at me and leave the baseball bat alone!

[LegalEagle 22]

Which of these do you feel is the best public policy?:

Rule 1. If you can get a person to have sex with you within 24 hours of meeting them, you are not responsible to them for transmitting any STD to them.

Rule 2. If you have an STD and knowingly have unprotected sex with another person without first giving them notice of your condition and the possibility of transmission of same, you shall be responsible for the medical treatment of that person and will be subject to the assessment of damages for pain and suffering should your partner contract an STD from you.

Rule 3. If you have sex with a famous, rich person, consider yourself blessed, and you shall be solely responsible for any uncurable disease you contract from said famous, rich person. Also, you may be openly referred to as a "whore" or "slut" who deserved what you got.

Well, which do you thing leads to moral decay, and which leads to social responsibility?

[SKCAUB 0]

Which of these do you feel is the best public policy?:

Rule 1.  If you can get a person to have sex with you within 24 hours of meeting them, you are not responsible to them for transmitting any STD to them.

Rule 2.  If you have an STD and knowingly have unprotected sex with another person without first giving them notice of your condition and the possibility of transmission of same, you shall be responsible for the medical treatment of that person and will be subject to the assessment of damages for pain and suffering should your partner contract an STD from you.

Rule 3.  If you have sex with a famous, rich person, consider yourself blessed, and you shall be solely responsible for any uncurable disease you contract from said famous, rich person.  Also, you may be openly referred to as a "whore" or "slut" who deserved what you got.

Well, which do you thing leads to moral decay, and which leads to social responsibility?

155061[/snapback]

Rule #4...There are no rules. That's the one that has led to moral decay in this country...along with "what does 'is' mean"...and some others....

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

[High fives all around the locker room.]  Guess it's just too confusin' trying to be a compassionate male, huh?  *grin*

154617[/snapback]

With a few rare exceptions (including but not limited to you and Texas), there have not been too many compassionate males on this thread...

154642[/snapback]

Jenny, I've been in agreement with you all the way.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

So any earlier comments I made regarding shared responsibliity and no court case were in tune with my feelings about one-night stands and/or casual sex.  In the case of a long-term relationship where a partner has a reasonable expectation of safety, mutual trust, and honesty, I could vote in favor of compensation for damages.

154807[/snapback]

I absolutely agree. As I said way early in this thread, the long-term aspect of this situation is the key that I think many here are missing. I bet most of those who are downplaying the woman's position here would feel a lot different if they were in her situation.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Another thing that was just brought up on the radio on the whole Vick thing:  How many other women are out there that will file similiar suits?

154813[/snapback]

I hope a bunch of them do!!!! I for one am really sick of irresponsible athletes getting away with the stuff they do.

[AuNuma1 1]

Would anyone be opposed to moving this thread to the political forum now?

[jaydubb121 22]

What is this even doing on the football board. The fact that it's off-season is no reason for us to be treating this as an athletic discussion.

Vick is a dirtbag plain and simple. The girl is totally innocent and should be compensated for the drastic life changes he has cost her.

She is brave for coming out and making it public. Now the best screwing that Vick(Mexico) can look forward to is the one he'll be giving the Falcons fans.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I never said that there was anything wrong with it...if she has a valid legal claim, but Jenny seems to think that this woman is on some principled crusade.

For the record, though, this case has little legal merit and this amounts to extortion.

154801[/snapback]

How can you say this has no legal merit? I did a Google search on other cases that have been filed by women against men (men who don't happen to be rich and famous, BTW.) and one court found as follows:

Link

Technically speaking, the court said, Sistrunk's failure to disclose his herpes made the sex he had with Catherine nonconsensual, because she would not have agreed to it if she had known about his disease.  Reasoning further, the court held that if the sex was nonconsensual, it was battery.

That makes perfectly good sense to me. I sure as hell would not have sex with someone who told me they had an STD.

And like Ravad said, why shouldn't the woman get money out of this? I don't consider this to be a frivilous lawsuit, because (1) real damage occurred to someone because of another person's deceit and/or deliberate, knowing neglect and negligence and (2) this is a permanent condition that will affect this woman for the rest of her life. I never said this was ONLY some big moral crusade - my point was that MONEY ASIDE, filing suit against this a-hole will make huge headlines, and will hopefully keep other women from getting infected. But from the "revenge" perspective, hell yes, I would file suit to make this b*****d suffer like I had - and get a lot of satisfaction out of it too. Any money TO ME would be secondary to raking him over the coals and ruining his reputation and making him suffer. Call me vicious, but he deserves every bit of hell she puts him thru.

[High fives all around the locker room.]  Guess it's just too confusin' trying to be a compassionate male, huh?  *grin*

154617[/snapback]

With a few rare exceptions (including but not limited to you and Texas), there have not been too many compassionate males on this thread...

154642[/snapback]

Jenny, I've been in agreement with you all the way.

155074[/snapback]

I know, PT and thanks - but I didn't want to go all the way back and re-read every post and name every name, so I used the ole' legal catch all, "including but NOT LIMITED TO".

[quietfan 233]

  I never said this was ONLY some big moral crusade - my point was that MONEY ASIDE, filing suit against this a-hole will make huge headlines, and will hopefully keep other women from getting infected. 

155082[/snapback]

The public attention on the case, and threat of civil or criminal penalties, might also provided a little deterence factor to slow down other scumbags who otherwise wouldn't give a second thought about whom they infect in their pursuit their own pleasure.

...but then again, individuals of that ilk are rarely deterred by anything

[AURainman 6]

Which of these do you feel is the best public policy?:

Rule 1.  If you can get a person to have sex with you within 24 hours of meeting them, you are not responsible to them for transmitting any STD to them.

Rule 2.  If you have an STD and knowingly have unprotected sex with another person without first giving them notice of your condition and the possibility of transmission of same, you shall be responsible for the medical treatment of that person and will be subject to the assessment of damages for pain and suffering should your partner contract an STD from you.

Rule 3.  If you have sex with a famous, rich person, consider yourself blessed, and you shall be solely responsible for any uncurable disease you contract from said famous, rich person.  Also, you may be openly referred to as a "whore" or "slut" who deserved what you got.

Well, which do you thing leads to moral decay, and which leads to social responsibility?

155061[/snapback]

Rule 4, claim responsibility for your own actions. If you had sex with someone who has herpes, you run the risk of attaining it. If you sleep with someone UNPROTECTED without questioning their sexual history, you run the risk of attaining ANY STD.

Has anyone PROVEN he knew he had herpes when they had sex? If so, he's in big trouble. If it cannot be PROVEN, then it just smells like gold-digging to me. We shall see.

"Damnit, I've got herpes. But, Michael Vick gave it to me." $$$$$!!!!

Thanks for posting the previous case Jenny. I didn't know that there was previous precedence.