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

[bagelgod]

Im just not convinced they did.

You are the living embodiment of that Dave Chappelle sketch on R.Kelly.

"Prosecutor: Mr. Chappelle, what would it take to convince you that R. Kelly is guilty?

Dave Chappelle: Okay, I'd have to see a video of him singing "Pee On You," two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly's grandma to confirm his identity."

 

[Makhno]

We really need to stay on point and stop letting idiots and rape apologists hijack this thread.

 

[dirtypablo]

Guess we're already moving here?



Which is the best way to destroy both threads.



Depends on which definition you're thinking of:






Or it could be aliens. Definitely aliens.




What will you base your conclusions on that has a better foundation of knowledge than these trials?
Are you not just some contrarian who read a few articles today or yesterday? Your justice system may not be perfect, but don't fucking ignore an institution that did infinitely more work to find the truth than you did.

Well, see thats just it. I HAVENT MADE CONCLUSIONS. As I have stated before, and most people wont admit, if given no other info a woman claims she was raped by 5 guys and the 5 guys all say it was consentual, most people will believe the woman. Once you have that, people ignore the fact that the other evidence could be used to support either story. So, I see those things, and the fact that most people dont, and quickly make up their mind without a shadow of a doubt, and I see that it wouldnt be that hard for them to be wrongly convicted. So, I dont know. I just accept the possibility that they were innocent.

And Im not a rape apologist. Hell, if the other guys came out and admitted they did it after their jail sentence, I would support retrying LI and sending him to jail for his involvment.

 

[randomg1t]

People are not "hating" on Lyold by talking about his participation in a past gang rape. Yes it happened 20 years ago, but this is the first time most people are learning about it. Also this goes far beyond the spectrum of a youthful "mistake." Parting too much is a mistake, drugs are a mistake, hell I would even grant that stealing a car is a mistake. Participating in the rape and brutalization of another person goes well beyond the scope of a youthful mistake that we should just all overlook.

exactamundo.

we've all been young and we've all been stupid. shit, i'm 25 and when i get really shitfaced i still do stuff that makes me cringe in the morning. and again every time i think about it for the next six months. and yet, at no point in my dumb adolescent life would i have considered gangfucking a drunk girl who clearly isn't into it acceptable.

we aren't passing judgement on something dumb, irresponsible or embarrassing. we're passing judgement on physically abusing a helpless person and scarring them for life. you don't get a pass for shit like that.

 

[envee]

maybe it was just rough consensual sex between said victim and our friends maldonado and schultz

 

[Darkslide632]

Clearly not legitimate...

 

["Mata Leao"]

Cliff notes from the previous thread:

Two of Lloyd Irvin's medal chasers, Matthew Maldonado and Nick Schultz have been accused of brutally raping and assaulting a female teammate, then leaving her alone and bloodied on the concrete. According to news reports quoting police sources, all this was caught on tape.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/01/matthew-maldonado-nicholas-schultz-appear-in-court--83929.html
(most recent news article)

Lloyd Irvin responds by posting video testimonials of his rape prevention seminars on his youtube page. This prompts local hero Balto to reveal a damning piece of information that he had previously withheld out of respect and to give LI the benefit of the doubt. This bombshell is that Lloyd himself was once tried for gang rape. While most of his co-defendants were convicted, LI apparently convinced the jury that a limp dick prevented him from taking his turn and was thus acquitted. Numerous attempts to get a response from LI involving this have been ignored. His facebook page was briefly deactivated yesterday, and now anyone who mentions anything about this case is blocked and their comment deleted.

www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/1/10/3856994/team-lloyd-irvin-rape-case

Okay so there is something that I don't understand here. LI was apparently acquitted because he couldn't get it up. But he was present during the time of the rape, did nothing to try and stop it, and did not attempt to inform the police either during or after the rape.

So how could he be acquitted then? That should clearly make him an accessory to the crime or an accomplice. Maybe one of the lawyers here could chime in (real lawyers and not the posters who pretend to be lawyers on Sherdog).

 

[Kid Sampson]

Everyone seems to be trashing LI and not saying what he should have done instead.

Don't hang out with shady dudes who rape drunk broads, probably would have been a great course of action.

 

[fizbo]

[QUOTE="Mata Leao";78274243]Okay so there is something that I don't understand here. LI was apparently acquitted because he couldn't get it up. But he was present during the time of the rape, did nothing to try and stop it, and did not attempt to inform the police either during or after the rape.

So how could he be acquitted then? That should clearly make him an accessory to the crime or an accomplice. Maybe one of the lawyers here could chime in (real lawyers and not the posters who pretend to be lawyers on Sherdog).[/QUOTE]

Yea, an accessory, or guilty of sexual assault, or regular assault, or kidnapping, or something. I'm not a lawyer, but if he was completely acquitted I imagine there has to me more to the story than he just couldn't get it up.

 

[voxom]

If LI and those guys did rape that girl, YES they are monsters. Im just not convinced they did.

what type of evidence would it take to convince you?

we already have, evidence that she was punched in the face, a doctor saying the victim showed signs that virtually always mean vaginal rape, confessions from one of the offenders, 4 different juries agreeing that it was rape.

what else do you need to see to be convinced?

 

[Kid Sampson]

[QUOTE="Mata Leao";78274243]Okay so there is something that I don't understand here. LI was apparently acquitted because he couldn't get it up. But he was present during the time of the rape, did nothing to try and stop it, and did not attempt to inform the police either during or after the rape.

So how could he be acquitted then? That should clearly make him an accessory to the crime or an accomplice. Maybe one of the lawyers here could chime in (real lawyers and not the posters who pretend to be lawyers on Sherdog).[/QUOTE]

I'm flabbergasted as well, as I pointed out on the BE post. If I were to pull out my pistol with intent of killing some random bystander, but it happened to jam/misfire; would I not still be charged/convicted of other crimes?

 

[voxom]

Don't hang out with shady dudes who rape drunk broads, probably would have been a great course of action.

that doesn't work, because remember he actually wanted to join in but he couldn't get it up.

but something that irvin should have to avoid this was NOT want to be involved in a rape at all.

 

[KJGould]

I'm flabbergasted as well, as I pointed out on the BE post. If I were to pull out my pistol with intent of killing some random bystander, but it happened to jam/misfire; would I not still be charged/convicted of other crimes?

It's telling of the lack of seriousness rape was given as little as 20 something years ago.

 

[bjjaz]

Maybe he testified against the others or gave information???

 

[glkpr]

I'm flabbergasted as well, as I pointed out on the BE post. If I were to pull out my pistol with intent of killing some random bystander, but it happened to jam/misfire; would I not still be charged/convicted of other crimes?

I believe I read in an earlier piece of the thread that there wasn't a statute on the books for accessory in Maryland. Which doesn't surprise me. When I interned in the MA DA's office, we had a case that involved a guy looking up women's skirts at malls and we had a devil of a time charging him with anything; turns out the legislature hadn't thought to include "under your skirt" as a place where you have an expectation of privacy in their peeping tom statute.

 

[Kid Sampson]

that doesn't work, because remember he actually wanted to join in but he couldn't get it up.

but something that irvin should have to avoid this was NOT want to be involved in a rape at all.

Of course that goes without saying, I was just being snarky.

One of my best friends was raped in high school, so I have absolutely no sympathy for sex offenders, especially those that try to portray themselves as martial arts gurus. If it was up to me, after conviction they would be taken out back and shot.

 

[bjjaz]

I believe I read in an earlier piece of the thread that there wasn't a statute on the books for accessory in Maryland. Which doesn't surprise me. When I interned in the MA DA's office, we had a case that involved a guy looking up women's skirts at malls and we had a devil of a time charging him with anything; turns out the legislature hadn't thought to include "under your skirt" as a place where you have an expectation of privacy in their peeping tom statute.

Makes sense.

 

[voxom]

Of course that goes without saying, I was just being snarky.

yeah i know. i was just pointing out how ridiculous the "yeah i wanted to join in, but i couldn't get a boner" defense is

 

[Kid Sampson]

yeah i know. i was just pointing out how ridiculous the "yeah i wanted to join in, but i couldn't get a boner" defense is

Agreed.

Part of me wonders if his acquittal gave him the confidence to spew the BS he is renowned for.

Think about it, it must have crossed his mind "Well since I know I can beat a felony rap, portraying myself as some sort of BJJ/Grappling god should be pretty easy...hmmm maybe I can even make some money off of this...."

 

[100%Jiu-Jitsu]

I'm flabbergasted as well, as I pointed out on the BE post. If I were to pull out my pistol with intent of killing some random bystander, but it happened to jam/misfire; would I not still be charged/convicted of other crimes?

You would be charged with attempted murder. If the jury believed that Lloyd had actually put his hands on the woman and tried to put his penis inside her, he likely would have been convicted of attempted rape. Presumably his limp-dick defense involved him just standing in the corner, stroking it without touching the woman.

EDIT: After reviewing one of the articles, the jurors asked if they could convict Gatling and Irvin on "lesser charges," which could well mean attempted rape. They were instructed that they did not have that option. This may have been a tactical error by the prosecutor when filing charges.