Lloyd Irvin Using Internet Marketing To Try To Cover Up Rape Investigation

[KarateFist]

was the victim white? were all the other guys with Lloyd also black? if so then that whole case is probably bullshit

 

[Jagcorps_esq]

Except that isn't what he was charged with, and his acquittal on a stronger charge means double jeopardy applies. The DA doesn't get to keep issuing different charges for the same incident until he can get a conviction. Some are saying the "attempted" charge didn't exist at the time, but I haven't seen that confirmed.

Any of the lawyers here want to confirm that? And while we're at it, can we discuss what kind of evidence would have been necessary to convict someone on attempted rape in these circumstances? Do we even have the facts to say he would have definitely been convicted of attempted rape?

Some states allow a jury to find a "lessor included" offense.

So, sometimes there is a situation where you charge a person with rape but the evidence doesn't go that far, so they jury can also choose a lessor offense that they are informed about.

I don't know that state's laws. Some states actually do not allow lessor included offenses, which actually encourages prosecutors to under charge so that they get a conviction at least.

 

[Vitamin C]

Actually, that's not true. Common sense says she was raped. However, if this goes to trial, the state still has to prove their case on the point of consent. If they fail to do so, such a statement could indeed get him sued.

Lloyd believes she was raped. However, he's a public figure making a formal public statement, which was likely vetted through a lawyer or PR person. Using the qualifier is standard practice, and only indicates a lack of support to the kind of folks that think he's got a limitless capacity for evil. To everyone else, it's no different than the news referring to it as an alleged rape.

I disagree with this on a personal level. I think if he were honestly supporting the victim, he would validate her claim that she was raped, by admitting she was raped. No father releases a statement to the press about his daughter's "alleged" rape. They believe their daughter and call it what she calls it.
Now, I am not arguing that Irvin has any obligation to act in that way, but his use of language that a news corporation would use marks his statement as very reserved, removed, and generally just not that supportive of the victim. No more than I would expect a journalist using the qualifier "alleged" in writing their story to be supportive of the victim.
Keeping in mind, that saying "A female student of mine was raped on New Year's Eve, and I am fully supporting her in getting past this difficult time" is in no way saying "Maldonado and Schultz raped her."
It just looks bad.

Censorship? It's his damn Facebook page, not the NY Times. It's also something from years ago and he was acquitted.

Just sayin, if you went to Ray Lewis's page and posted links to stories about his involvement in a stabbing during Super Bowl week several years ago, there's a pretty good chance he'd delete it. Is it because he's trying to bury the story? No, it's because it was a long time ago, and even though the details make him look terrible he was never convicted of any crime. He's long since moved on.

Likewise, if you went to Kobe or Roethlisberger's pages posting about their past rape charges and demanding answers you'd get deleted. At some point, public figures aren't going to comment on ancient history that makes them look bad just because another group of fans just now discovered it.

Quite right. I would like to mention that I don't participate in any of the facebook hate posting, nor have I ever once contacted LI demanding answers for the 1990 case. I have posted on an anonymous forum, expressing my opinion regarding the situation. I think I am allowed to do that.

Correct. And aside from people talking about it, it'd die down with only occasional activity when new developments occur. What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. That is exactly how we are treating the NYE case.

It's a 22 year old case. If you're worried about it blowing over you're a couple decades too late. The news isn't going to touch it because it's a non-story. No matter how bad his actions, the guy was acquitted. Reporting the details of that case to 'retry it in the court of public opinion' isn't what news organizations do. It's a good way to get themselves sued for defamation. At best, they'll tack a footnote onto reports that says "Lloyd Irvin, the jiu-jitsu coach of the victim and defendants was himself acquitted of a rape charge in 1990".

Again, I am pretty much with you on this. I don't support advocating the local news media to hound him in any way, nor would I ever expect them to for a variety of reasons, such as you included.

Frankly, IMO all Lloyd really needs to do is come out with a statement that says he made a mistake in a situation where he didn't fully understand what was taking place at the time, that his involvement in that case made him realize the seriousness and horrors involved with the crime of rape, and that his experience inspired him to begin teaching rape prevention in order to help women avoid this sort of terrible crime.

And that's all I am personally waiting for, and have said as much in... well, one of the threads.

But that's not going to be enough. Why? Because some see this as an opportunity to take the guy down.

I can't speak for others. I was simply providing you with my subjective experience of why I am still talking about this.

 

[Mad Sweeps]

Seriously, you need to get off Llyod's jock. (Apparently, it doesn't work anyway. )

.

 

[Mad Sweeps]

btw, if you want to add the link incognito style, "quote" me, and copy pasta my link


Here -------->
.

 

[Vitamin C]

There's no rape seminar in the world that's going to teach a woman how to defend herself while blackout drunk and betrayed by two people she trusts. Every rape prevention seminar in the world warns woman about drink to excess when out alone or with people she doesn't trust implicitly.

Exactly why marketing a rape prevention seminar directly following the brutal rape of one of his students is in poor taste. They don't work.
Unless Lloyd's seminar is essentially, "Get thee to a nunnery" and they all actually do it. Then they just need to worry about pillaging Vikings I guess.

 

[KGB256]

I disagree with this on a personal level. I think if he were honestly supporting the victim, he would validate her claim that she was raped, by admitting she was raped. No father releases a statement to the press about his daughter's "alleged" rape. They believe their daughter and call it what she calls it.
Now, I am not arguing that Irvin has any obligation to act in that way, but his use of language that a news corporation would use marks his statement as very reserved, removed, and generally just not that supportive of the victim. No more than I would expect a journalist using the qualifier "alleged" in writing their story to be supportive of the victim.

Keeping in mind, that saying "A female student of mine was raped on New Year's Eve, and I am fully supporting her in getting past this difficult time" is in no way saying "Maldonado and Schultz raped her."
It just looks bad.

First, it's not his daughter. Secondly, I'm pretty sure he's not referring to this in informal conversation as "alleged". And even a father making a public statement would be advised to use the term "alleged" to shield himself from liability.

Nobody is saying she made it up. Nobody is even implying that.

Think in terms of the Trayvon case. Trayvon was killed. Zimmerman killed him. However, Trayvon was allegedly murdered, and Zimmerman is an alleged murderer because the courts have not yet determined that the killing constituted a murder. No matter how strongly someone feels he was murdered, a public statement to that effect exposes them to liability.

If the state were to somehow fail to prove lack of consent, then technically it's just sex. Nobody disputes that the victim was involved in a sexual act. But the courts have not yet determined that that act constituted rape. That's why whatever lawyer or PR goon that reviewed the statement before release slapped "allegedly" into it.

It just seems like such a petty and spiteful point. Do you really think he doesn't believe her? I will agree that I would like to have seen him make a stronger statement, but I understand why he can't. Personally I'd like to see him come out and say that Schultz & Maldonado are scumsucking rapist trash that should fear for their lives if they ever enter his gym again, but I know that even if he might feel that way, he can never publicly say it.

Quite right. I would like to mention that I don't participate in any of the facebook hate posting, nor have I ever once contacted LI demanding answers for the 1990 case. I have posted on an anonymous forum, expressing my opinion regarding the situation. I think I am allowed to do that.

And Lloyd isn't here deleting anything. We're free to discuss it, but he's well within his rights to say "you're not discussing it on my personal Facebook wall".

My sister and her family died a few years ago in a housefire. We made a memorial group for them on Facebook. My brother in law's family sued my mom for wrongful death, because she owned the house. People tried to discuss that in the memorial group, and I deleted the shit out of it. It's not like I was trying to bury news of the lawsuit, it just wasn't the place for it to be discussed.

People are free to call him a scumbag. They're not free to do it on his front lawn.

And that's all I am personally waiting for, and have said as much in... well, one of the threads.

Fair enough. I get the impression that even if he made such a statement, the knee-jerk reaction will be to call him a liar, say it's just for PR, etc, etc. For some, it's never going to be enough.

Reminds me of an expression "For the believer no evidence is necessary, for the cynic no amount of evidence will ever suffice".

I can't speak for others. I was simply providing you with my subjective experience of why I am still talking about this.

I appreciate the civil and well reasoned reply.

 

[KGB256]

Exactly why marketing a rape prevention seminar directly following the brutal rape of one of his students is in poor taste. They don't work.
Unless Lloyd's seminar is essentially, "Get thee to a nunnery" and they all actually do it. Then they just need to worry about pillaging Vikings I guess.

They actually can work if people follow the advice. The problem is that it's very hard to keep your guard up all the time for the rest of your life.

And in this case, the victim did follow some (but definitely not all) principles of rape prevention, and it didn't help. These things aren't a guarantee of protection, they're just a way to help women improve their odds. And I think any reasonable person who takes any form of self-defense knows that.

 

[KGB256]

Some states allow a jury to find a "lessor included" offense.

So, sometimes there is a situation where you charge a person with rape but the evidence doesn't go that far, so they jury can also choose a lessor offense that they are informed about.

I don't know that state's laws. Some states actually do not allow lessor included offenses, which actually encourages prosecutors to under charge so that they get a conviction at least.

Thanks for this reply. Good info here.

 

[100%Jiu-Jitsu]

Did any of you even watch the video on www.lloydirvinrape.com?
2) I HATE (IFRICKINHATE) when people pitch BJJ to women as some magical antiviolence pill that you get after a couple months of classes. No. Nononono. I'm 6.5 years in, I'm pretty good at it, and I would never choose to engage in conflict with a large male. I bum girls out when they playfully ask, "Can you teach me to beat up guys?!" "Yeah, give me a decade and 4 days a week." He's taking advantage of ignorance and this is just making my blood boil.

I couldn't agree more. And I've bummed out female friends who asked me, quite seriously, whether they could learn martial arts to help protect themselves from violence. They weren't expecting the answer to be "yes, if you treat BJJ or Judo like your second job, and fighting a man will still be incredibly dangerous." They also are shocked to learn that, despite all my martial arts training, if a mugger pulled a knife on me, my reaction would be to toss my wallet in one direction and run in the other.

The only "seminar" that can help women avoid being raped is one about situational awareness and risk avoidance. Making good choices about where to be and whom to be with will do more to protect women from violence than any martial arts training.

 

[KJGould]

If Master Lloyd is the same Lloyd Irvin from the 1989 gang rape, starting this website on rape prevention is in poor taste and opportunistic.

Had some non-TLI associated BJJ players set this up, there wouldn't have been an issue.

How anyone can defend this scenario is bizarre to me. How odious would it be if the Sandy Hook killer had not died himself, put on trial, acquitted on a technicality, and then set up a website to sell kid-sized bulletproof vests?

My favourite comment from the BE article on this latest development:

Holy Shit
I thought I was good at putting my foot in my mouth, but Lloyd is deepthroating his knee right now.

 

[Robjitsu]

Might make you a piece of trash, doesn't make you a murderer. That's what people are trying to do here. He didn't actually rape her, but in their eyes he's still a rapist.

I see what you're saying and certainly you're a correct in a "legal" sense.

However, in my view, the fact that someone attempts murder/rape but fails, makes them as big of piece of trash as someone who succeeds.

So while you're statement is correct from a legal perspective, I believe mine to be correct from a moral perspective.

Someone who changes their mind before attempting to commit horrible moral act, is different. I don't believe that is the case here though.

 

[Nostromo]

bjj can help a woman in a rape situation. don't hate the guy for trying to want to help potential rape victims.

He's being hated on for being involved in a rape.

You can't deflect that, pal.

 

[Vitamin C]

...

Just a few points.

- I know it's not his daughter. Ill conceived and executed example.
and
- I recognize that Lloyd is not in any familial obligation to act in such a role, and he needs to work the publicity angle as well being public. But imo, in that situation, all that needed to be said was something awful happened to a member of his academy, and that he is supporting her in her difficulties. The tone of the statement however, read like LI marketing, and it rubbed people the wrong way. That, in combination with the several other situations (rape prevention seminar) lead to a shitstorm.
- I just think had he approached the whole ordeal from a different angle, ie. not marketing for once, things would have gone much smoother for him.

But yeah,

I appreciate the civil and well reasoned reply.

Likewise.

 

[Nostromo]

I"m not trying to control anything honestly. This is not my job, It just amazes me how things over time are always the same. This is a modern day online lynch mob.

You're posting from a proxy, you created this account 2 days ago as did envee, and other than a few nominal posts initially, every one of your posts is in a LI thread here.

Easy to draw conclusions as to your motive.

 

[devnull]

You're posting from a proxy, you created this account 2 days ago as did envee, and other than a few nominal posts initially, every one of your posts is in a LI thread here.

Easy to draw conclusions as to your motive.

Sorry again as I stated I joined to post in BJJ Hot women thread which was my very first post and this came up. I have no motive and I'm done people know my point now.

 

[LS1Rx7]

You're posting from a proxy, you created this account 2 days ago as did envee, and other than a few nominal posts initially, every one of your posts is in a LI thread here.

Easy to draw conclusions as to your motive.

Wow, good call

BTW lloydirvinrape(dot)com is already on the first page of Google a day after he purchased it. This is the power of an exact match domain. It will continue to be at the top of Google and eventually when the news (surrounding this case) stops trending the news articles will drop off the first page more than likely.

 

[Nostromo]

Funny how none of the regular Irving pundits have posted in any of these threads yet, just these new accounts.

 

[Vitamin C]

Funny how none of the regular Irving pundits have posted in any of these threads yet, just these new accounts.

Marcos Avellan actually made a thread concurrent with these, which has fallen to page two since.
I am genuinely surprised that no one tried to bring it up there.
Some posters noticed that DavidAvellan was online and viewing the giant NYE case thread, but he never posted.

 

[KGB256]

I see what you're saying and certainly you're a correct in a "legal" sense.

However, in my view, the fact that someone attempts murder/rape but fails, makes them as big of piece of trash as someone who succeeds.

So while you're statement is correct from a legal perspective, I believe mine to be correct from a moral perspective.

Someone who changes their mind before attempting to commit horrible moral act, is different. I don't believe that is the case here though.

Did you miss the part where I said that failing still makes them trash? I'm more than happy to call Lloyd a scumbag. But he's not actually a rapist, and he doesn't need to be for me to consider him a scumbag.

Also, I think people are making a big assumption in thinking that everyone in the 1990 case knew the full extent of what was going on at that time. Lloyd testified that he wanted to participate at the time. He also testified that he thought it was a consentual act at that time. I'd be willing to bet my house that if he were asked "knowing what you know today, would you have wanted to participate?" would have been answered with a resounding no.