Lloyd Irvin's students accused of brutal rape (Part 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
devnull said:
Statement's calling lloyd a rapist are misrepresentations as well as false and defamatory oral statements.

Definition of SLANDER
1
: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2
: a false and defamatory oral statement about a person
Click to expand...
 
anaconda said:
I think its safe to assume english is not your first language. That would make a lot of sense and would allow us to give you the benefit of the doubt for why you don't understand some of the stuff we're saying. Is english a second language for you, devlin?
Click to expand...

Ja das ist wahr.
 
fair enough. I think that's why you are having trouble with some of the legal terms and everything.

I would suggest then that you really take the time to read what people are writing to you, and what was written in those old news articles. I think if you really read them you might start to see why people are reacting the way they are.
 
The Apostle said:
Yes, that is exactly what it says. Why did I write that whole thing when I could've easily just written porn = rape.

No. The point was how maybe Lloyd wasn't faced with the easy decision most of you are accusing him of not making. When faced with a situation like that among your peer group, it is very easy not to do anything.

Brian rather than being shunned for standing out against porn could have chosen to keep quiet and live with it. Instead he spoke up and put his foot down.

For those crucifying Lloyd for not doing anything to stop the actions of that night, perhaps he was faced with a similar dilemma. He could have spoken up and risk being shunned or he could keep quiet and not participate.

And I also present that it's not nearly as easy being in the situation and being talked about on a forum. I can already tell that most of you will still be like "he should have done something!" Yes, most of us think he should have. But not all of us would have done something.

How many times did you ignore someone getting bullied in high school because you didn't want to stand out and risk being targeted yourself? And before you chime back in and say that now I'm equating bullying with raping, I'm not.

How many of you have participated in belt whipping as part of promotions even though you didn't really want to? Why did you then? Because you didn't want to stand out.

But it is the same as ignoring an issue that you could have taken a stand on.
Click to expand...
Are you for real? The best your Master did was stand back while a child was held down and raped by grown men.
At worst he was on top of her too while she was restrained,fucking disgusting pricks.

Shuned by a group of gang rapists?Who thinks like this??
 
you guys are getting trolled hard by people like devnull.
 
jagcorps_esq said:
congrats, you looked up a definition. That's more research than you've done in most of your other posts, so i'm proud of you.

Now, everyone that can look up a definition gets to be a lawyer, because the definition automatically bestows on the person an entire legal knowledge of what it is they are reading!!!! Or perhaps not.

It's still not slander (which is spoken, not written, moron). It's also not libel unless and until lloyd proves at the civil court level that he did not rape that girl. You think he wants to go through that battle?

He'd have to sue, where the burden of proof in on him to prove it is a false statement and the mere existence of an acquittal does not prove that he didn't commit the rape for civil purposes, because there are two different burdens of proof in play.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is what applies at criminal cases....that requires about 99% assurance that he is guilty. However, at a civil claim, he has to show by a proponderance of the the evidence (meaning that he has to win 51% to 49% to even win).

He squeaked out enough doubt in the jury to drop them from 99% assurance. Do you think he will confidentially walk into court expecting to prove by a preponderance (51%) of the evidence that he didn't do it?

I'd love to see him do it.

Until he does and it has been judged by a jury to be libel, it's not libel.
Click to expand...

magnificent post
 
Jagcorps_esq said:
Thanks.

And no response from devnull either, I see.
Click to expand...

just so i'm clear, is there a legal (liability-wise, sorry if i'm using improper terminology, am not a lawyer) difference between someone saying, "Lloyd Irvin is a rapist" and "I think Lloyd Irvin is a rapist?"
 
The Apostle said:
No. The point was how maybe Lloyd wasn't faced with the easy decision most of you are accusing him of not making. When faced with a situation like that among your peer group, it is very easy not to do anything.
Click to expand...

Another big part of this is that he wanted to participate but was physically unable. He was acquitted because of impotence, and since there was no lesser offense with which he was charged (a prosecutorial screw-up imo) he got off. Another big part is the way he's responded recently, trying to hide it rather than acknowledge it. And he's giving anti rape seminars without accounting for his past. Not to mention the actions of his affiliates, and the fact that he or one of his employees is posting on this thread trying to defend him with lies and distortions of facts. It's not just his involvement i the 1989 thing, it's that plus all the thing surrounding it which have called his overall character into question, as well as the type of culture he cultivates among those who are close to him.
 
Random question - Has Lloyd's fb been deleted? Or have I just been blocked?
 
SuperSuperRambo said:
Another big part of this is that he wanted to participate but was physically unable. He was acquitted because of impotence, and since there was no lesser offense with which he was charged (a prosecutorial screw-up imo) he got off. Another big part is the way he's responded recently, trying to hide it rather than acknowledge it. And he's giving anti rape seminars without accounting for his past. Not to mention the actions of his affiliates, and the fact that he or one of his employees is posting on this thread trying to defend him with lies and distortions of facts. It's not just his involvement i the 1989 thing, it's that plus all the thing surrounding it which have called his overall character into question, as well as the type of culture he cultivates among those who are close to him.
Click to expand...

THIS, none of which is being addressed by his apologists.
 
ironmanbret said:
just so i'm clear, is there a legal (liability-wise, sorry if i'm using improper terminology, am not a lawyer) difference between someone saying, "Lloyd Irvin is a rapist" and "I think Lloyd Irvin is a rapist?"
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a difference. One is an opinion statement, not subject to libel or slander at all (the "I think").

The statement "Lloyd Irvin is a rapist" is subject to a libel claim, but he'd still have to win for it to be officially libel.
 
Jagcorps_esq said:
Yes, there is a difference. One is an opinion statement, not subject to libel or slander at all (the "I think").

The statement "Lloyd Irvin is a rapist" is subject to a libel claim, but he'd still have to win for it to be officially libel.
Click to expand...

thank you.
 
anaconda said:
To play devil's advocate, maybe Lloyd has a good heart and he felt so bad about the situation deep inside that he physically couldn't perform.

That's the angle I would have went with if I were him. But then that would mean he knew it was a rape, and would have gotten his buddies in trouble.
Click to expand...

That would also mean you would have to come out and explain yourself. Which, you know, he didn't do.
 
anaconda said:
Random question - Has Lloyd's fb been deleted? Or have I just been blocked?
Click to expand...

Could be both. He has been deactivating the account and then reactivating it to put in some updates. If you say anything negative he deletes the comment and blocks you.
 
ironmanbret said:
just so i'm clear, is there a legal (liability-wise, sorry if i'm using improper terminology, am not a lawyer) difference between someone saying, "Lloyd Irvin is a rapist" and "I think Lloyd Irvin is a rapist?"
Click to expand...

There's an enormous difference as far as defamation lawsuits. In the first you're purporting to state a fact, the second you're clearly giving an opinion. You can't be sued on the second one, basically.

**Edit: Damn Jag, you're quick on the draw...or response.
 
maybe lloyd is the victim here.
He was peer pressured by his friends and couldn't perform, then he wasn't convicted and didn't get any time in the slammer where as all his buddies did. This only resulted in further ridicule and reduced street-cred. Consequently, he decided to focus his efforts on bjj, obnoxious marketing, and recruiting for his cult. Poor Llloyd, none of us know the truth.
 
mabus6 said:
Could be both. He has been deactivating the account and then reactivating it to put in some updates. If you say anything negative he deletes the comment and blocks you.
Click to expand...

I haven't posted anything on his page.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,670
Messages
55,578,940
Members
174,829
Latest member
dbdbxb

Share this page

Back
Top