Lloyd Irvin's students accused of brutal rape (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
KGB256 said:
Absolve? No. His behavior was awful. He very nearly made a mistake that would have ruined his life. I would have much rather that he properly understood the situation and stopped it, which is the only course of action he could have taken that night that I would have considered good. So let's be clear on that much.

Does it change anything? I'll let you decide if these two things mean the same thing:

A) "Yes I wanted to have sex with her, but only because I thought it was consentual at the time".

B) "I knew it was rape, but I wanted to do it anyway".

Not even close. A is what Lloyd actually testified, while B is the way people have consistently presented the "he wanted to" part of his testimony.
Click to expand...

Yes, because he totally would have testified that he wanted to RAPE her on the stand!!??

Dude, Get The Fuck Out Of Here Already!!!!!
 
a dead stick said:
Having read through the fb comments, man people lack perspective.

A teammate was raped by two other teammates, but don't let that distract you from the tournament!!!

AS IF a fucking tournament means a fucking thing in comparison to what has transpired.

It demonstrates the "money, titles, and fuck the haters" mentality to a T.
Yes forget real life horrific drama, its all about who you can beat on the mats....fucking savages.
Click to expand...

It is typical way of mind controlling with "fighters".

Just tell them to not worry about it, just concentrate on your next goal/fight/comp whatever.

But since they always are given another goal/comp, they never been given the time or authorisation to think about "stuff" that are not relevant to the cause.

It is a reason why lot of people find it so easy to join a BJJ competition.

It just takes so many things away from the daily equation of having a life/dealing with outside problems.
 
Knuckles69 said:
Chloe is bringing up a lot of good points.

This drama also wouldn't have to be played out on her brothers wall if LI would deal with this issue like a man on his page. Instead of having the discussion on his page, Chloe (a concerned sister) is forced to have the discussion in a public place where it will be noticed.
Click to expand...


This is the part I don't quite get - why is she forced to have it in public at all?
Sure, she can debate the issue on the web, write a blog post or whatever, but why does she have to make a written message specifically to her brother public? Can't she just shoot him a text, email, private message or call him? There are other places for a public message - reddit, sherdog, etc. Didn't her father use another medium and still get attention?
 
Mumrik said:
This is the part I don't quite get - why is she forced to have it in public at all?
Sure, she can debate the issue on the web, write a blog post or whatever, but why does she have to make a written message specifically to her brother public? Can't she just shoot him a text, email, private message or call him? There are other places for a public message - reddit, sherdog, etc.
Click to expand...

It seems pretty clear Keenan is being controlled, possibly to the point of having his "phone time" and text messages filtered. He lives in a controlled environment and we've seen in Lloyd's videos that 100% subservience is expected and there is "punishment" for non-compliance.
 
KGB256 said:
Absolve? No. His behavior was awful. He very nearly made a mistake that would have ruined his life. I would have much rather that he properly understood the situation and stopped it, which is the only course of action he could have taken that night that I would have considered good. So let's be clear on that much.

Does it change anything? I'll let you decide if these two things mean the same thing:

A) "Yes I wanted to have sex with her, but only because I thought it was consentual at the time".

B) "I knew it was rape, but I wanted to do it anyway".

Not even close. A is what Lloyd actually testified, while B is the way people have consistently presented the "he wanted to" part of his testimony.
Click to expand...

The statements of the victim make (A) a virtual impossibility.
 
KGB256 said:
Absolve? No. His behavior was awful. He very nearly made a mistake that would have ruined his life. I would have much rather that he properly understood the situation and stopped it, which is the only course of action he could have taken that night that I would have considered good. So let's be clear on that much.

Does it change anything? I'll let you decide if these two things mean the same thing:

A) "Yes I wanted to have sex with her, but only because I thought it was consentual at the time".

B) "I knew it was rape, but I wanted to do it anyway".

Not even close. A is what Lloyd actually testified, while B is the way people have consistently presented the "he wanted to" part of his testimony.
Click to expand...


Please stop this. The defense of it being consensual was rejected by at least 3 different juries. So the facts show it was RAPE not consensual sex so it doesn't matter what someone wants to claim 20 years after the fact.
 
Mumrik said:
Occam's razor tells me that Lloyd was one of a group of immoral idiots who tried to screw a drunk girl against her will, but wasn't convicted because his whiskey dick didn't fit into the options the jury was given. That's the simplest and most straight forward explanation I can see based on the facts we know. It is to me the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions.
Click to expand...

1) You assume he knew it was rape.
2) You assume he wanted to participate in it, knowing it was rape.
3) You assume he lied about thinking it was consentual under oath.

Even if you eliminate any element of premeditation, or any conspiracy for everyone to lie about it in court, that's still 3 assumptions.

I make one assumption:
1) Lloyd mistakenly thought the encounter was consentual.

Everything else is based on facts reported about the case. It fits. Moreover, not only does it fit with the defendants' stories....it fits with the victim's story.
 
bjjisgreat said:
Please stop this. The defense of it being consensual was rejected by at least 3 different juries. So the facts show it was RAPE not consensual sex so it doesn't matter what someone wants to claim 20 years after the fact.
Click to expand...

YOu are asking the wind not to blow.

This is what he does. I'm not sure if he's a troll or deranged, but his MO is:

Find a topic people are talking about, take a position contrary to someone random who obviously feels strongly. Argue about it until you are both dead, no matter how absurd the positions he has to embrace to continue.
 
Considering a couple of the convicted guys, might be repeat offenders in sex related or sex assault related crimes, I have a hard time believing everyone there thought it was consensual.
 
madgrappler said:
It seems pretty clear Keenan is being controlled, possibly to the point of having his "phone time" and text messages filtered. He lives in a controlled environment and we've seen in Lloyd's videos that 100% subservience is expected and there is "punishment" for non-compliance.
Click to expand...

Uh, we have a conspiracy theorist in the house.
 
bjjisgreat said:
Please stop this. The defense of it being consensual was rejected by at least 3 different juries. So the facts show it was RAPE not consensual sex so it doesn't matter what someone wants to claim 20 years after the fact.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me you can't distinguish between "it was consentual" and "he THOUGHT it was consentual"? Because I was arguing the latter, not the former. Reading comprehension for the win.
 
KGB256 said:
1) You assume he knew it was rape.
2) You assume he wanted to participate in it, knowing it was rape.
3) You assume he lied about thinking it was consentual under oath.

Even if you eliminate any element of premeditation, or any conspiracy for everyone to lie about it in court, that's still 3 assumptions.

I make one assumption:
1) Lloyd mistakenly thought the encounter was consentual.

Everything else is based on facts reported about the case. It fits. Moreover, not only does it fit with the defendants' stories....it fits with the victim's story.
Click to expand...

Jesus, you are fetching at straws now.

Your assumption is not backed up by ANY of the evidence. In fact, your assumption ASSUMES a great deal more, given the evidence.

Oh, and FTR, it doesn't matter if he KNEW it was rape, he still participated in the act despite the victims protestation. Blind ignorance is not an acceptable excuse in this instance.
 
lechien said:
at least we know what is the punishment for not attending training on time.
Click to expand...
Ya, strange that he sends a dude to the basement for being late but he has delivered no punishment for allegely raping your own teammate. Priorities...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,239,016
Messages
55,599,830
Members
174,845
Latest member
sosadus

Share this page

Back
Top