Ongoing Team Lloyd Irvin Scandal - Part 6

[oyaji poi]

I do understand the difference between moral and legal. They are often two different conversations, I agree. I also understand how reading about this case, especially the details of the video, can elicit strong emotions. I am not blaming anyone for how they interpret the information that has been provided. I am simply asking people to be fair, in a case where being fair is so counter-intuitive. Of course people are more likely to immediately sympathaize with the woman in a case that sounds as horrendous as this. However, there was a really long trial, a group of people, all of whom where privy to much more than transcripts of a video, decided he was not guilty. I think it would be a mistake to assume that we are in a position to judge someone, especially given that all the publicity surrounding it was against Mateo, so we get half the story when people are always ready to condemn someone in his situation.

As for being an enabler, I disagree. I am just speaking my opinion, as we all are. You are talking about a legion of enablers? That sounds so weird to me, he has people that know him personally, that can probably speak better about his character than you, who clearly do not know him. To say something like "he may end up killing the victim" is an extreme and unfair judgement to make about someone whom you only know about from reading negative press. Something like this is bound to invite anger, I just hope if people really care enough, they will get the full story, maybe understand how a poor spanish kid from brooklyn who is accused of rape, on camera, out of state, can prove he is not guilty OF ANY CHARGES, with no political affiliation, loopholes, ect. There was a long trail, everything was scrutinized. I am not saying to love him or what happened; but it worries me to see how self righteous people are when talking about someone else's life with half a story and their minds already made up.

So you're allowed to speak your opinion but others are not because they disagree with you? I believe I'm being more fair than Mateo was to the girl he raped. I'm being more fair than Lloyd Irvin was to the girl he raped as well.


In my opinion you have the same moral standard as a rapist. Not a "legally defined rapist" but a socially defined rapist. Enjoy your culture of rape and abuse you sick bastard.

You're not very good at constructing a logical argument either. Clearly, people who know him personally can give a more nuanced account of his character. We're not talking nuances though, we're talking extreme events such as rape and assault. He may be a nice and sociable guy - most psychopaths are - but he uses that to enable himself to take advantage of people. For example, his teammate trusted him because of his character. He used that trust to isolate her and rape her.

It should make you wonder how he will use your trust to manipulate you.

 

[Balto]

Since there is currently an effort to spin the not guilty verdict as an innocent one, let's look at what the only juror who went on record to the media about the deliberations had to say:

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/1...lty-of-felony-sex-abuse-kidnapping-96383.html



"One juror said they watched the surveillance video of the incident 100 times and he said he was leaning guilty but there was too much reasonable doubt as to consent.

“Blurry images … you really couldn't tell heads or tails what was going on so it made it very difficult,” the juror says."



So there you have it. That is what an impartial guy who saw all the facts in court had to say about why he chose to acquit even though he personally thought they were probably guilty. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard was too high, and he thought the video was too blurry to meet that standard.

None of that corresponds in any way to the jury finding those guys innocent. It is a strict not guilty under the reasonable doubt standard, and you heard that from the juror himself.

Nothing about that verdict means "Hey, this guy is innocent. I hope he moves back to New York, starts teaching classes exclusively filled with young women, and makes a Facebook page to let the world know he feels he did absolutely nothing wrong."

 

[Newverse]

I never said people aren't allowed to have their own opinions. That is actually the point of what I am saying. I think people are very quick to judge and condemn someone in a case like this, for obvious reasons. I just want people to have the whole picture before sitting on high moral horses and condemning someone because they are an easy target. It is easier to fall behind the train of people condemning a "rapist" than it is to try to understand how someone with so much clearly stacked against them could be found not guilty. Some people are trying to say not guilty does not mean innocent. I am pointing out that being innocent until proven guilty, and then not being proven guilty, implies innocence. Of course, this is the legal sense. As far as moral judgement - I can understand disagreeing with how things happened, and questioning the rightness of it. Call him an asshole, say he didnt do the right thing, I can understand that. People keep point out the video, which by itself sounds horrible. There was other evidence, including testimony from other people that were present that night, texts messages between the accused and victim. I would never pretend to know every detail about the case, or the night, but the people that do, did not see it fit to condemn him. I am not here to pick a fight with anyone, just want people to consider more than just the evidence against him. I am busy, so I apologize if these messages appear on the fly. But for the person who asked if I would let Mateo drive my drunk sister home - if you knew him at all aside from what youve read, it would not surprise you to hear that I absolutely would. That is because i know his character from more than the internet. Again, this is not meant to incite or piss anyone off, just want to give a bigger picture than what I have seen.

 

[ElKarlo]

There was a ton of evidence, why no be allowed to condemn them? They had a good lawyer is all, and a terrible jury. That doesn't mean that a rape did not occur.

 

[mr violent]

blah blah blah stupid words Some people are trying to say not guilty does not mean innocent. I am pointing out that being innocent until proven guilty, and then not being proven guilty, implies innocence. blah blah blah i'm an idiot

except that it's not "innocent until proven guilty", but rather that the burden of proof is on the accuser. if someone commits a crime, and for whatever reason the prosecutor isn't able to prove without any reasonable doubt that you did it, then you get found not guilty. innocence does not factor into it. innocence implies that you had nothing to do with a crime, not guilty means there's a reasonable doubt.

ps, let's not forget that lloyd tried to take part in a rape, and that dj jackson was also arrested for sexual abuse.

 

[Newverse]

Both sides presented evidence in court. Only one side seems to be presented to the public. Does it really make sense that any of us know more and are in a better position to judge than people who were assigned to become experts for the sole purpose of making a judgement? That seems arrogant, and though I am by no means a religious man, there is something to be said about people casting stones. I do not think it is too much to ask to allow an exonerated man to live his life. Mateo does not know I am speaking up about him, but I will say that he strives to be a better person, a better competitor, and just wants to contribute in any way he can. No one stands anything to gain by smearing him, or trying to prevent him from progressing, and helping others progress.

 

[Newverse]

except that it's not "innocent until proven guilty", but rather that the burden of proof is on the accuser. if someone commits a crime, and for whatever reason the prosecutor isn't able to prove without any reasonable doubt that you did it, then you get found not guilty. innocence does not factor into it. innocence implies that you had nothing to do with a crime, not guilty means there's a reasonable doubt.

ps, let's not forget that lloyd tried to take part in a rape, and that dj jackson was also arrested for sexual abuse.

Actually, you're wrong. It most certainly is innocent until proven guilty, which in no way contradicts the burden of proof being on the accuser.

 

[AcesUp22]

Anyone who'd double team their teammate in a parking garage at 1 am and videotape it has shit character and judgement. These are undisputed FACTS. Newverse, I understand sticking up for your buddy. Loyalty to friends is a normal thing.

Something tells me you don't feel the same way about George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson. You probably don't say "you don't know these people, Weren't privy to all the facts blah blah blah". Maybe you think you knew your friend, but your judgement over the years was wrong. Just because you "know" somebody does not mean you have assessed their character correctly. Think about it.

 

[SuperSuperRambo]

Actually, you're wrong. It most certainly is innocent until proven guilty, which in no way contradicts the burden of proof being on the accuser.

To get technical, and even avoiding the semantic difference between being found not guilty and being found innocent, there is a difference between a presumption of innocence, and a finding of "not guilty." A finding is a conclusion you reach after consideration of evidence. A presumption is a starting point that you assume for the sake of argument. It is a rhetorical fiction. You're not actually innocent until presumed guilty, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is also a high threshold. Jurors from this case have come out with their reasoning, what created doubt in their minds, and it's perfectly reasonable for people to think it more likely than not that a rape was committed (that being a more common-sense but also more lenient standard than that used in a criminal trial). Judges have instructed varying arbitrary percentages of certainty for conviction in a criminal trial, but I've heard it range from 90% to 99% certainty. A juror can theoretically be 85% sure (whatever that means) that it was rape but find the defendant not guilty. People like us (who, mind you, are not in a court of law), can apply common sense judgment and say that if you're roughly that sure, that's enough to judge someone. It would certainly be sufficient in a civil trial.

And the burden of proof is on the State.

 

[LaBrian]

Both sides presented evidence in court. Only one side seems to be presented to the public. Does it really make sense that any of us know more and are in a better position to judge than people who were assigned to become experts for the sole purpose of making a judgement? That seems arrogant, and though I am by no means a religious man, there is something to be said about people casting stones. I do not think it is too much to ask to allow an exonerated man to live his life. Mateo does not know I am speaking up about him, but I will say that he strives to be a better person, a better competitor, and just wants to contribute in any way he can. No one stands anything to gain by smearing him, or trying to prevent him from progressing, and helping others progress.

You answered one of my questions but not the other. If you are so sure that Matteo did nothing wrong why are you expending energy to get us to stop talking about it? Usually if you're trying to hide something then what you did is fucked up.

As long as he insists on putting himself in positions of authority over women by trying to train them in martial arts then people are going to talk about the fact that he's a scumbag rapist. If he went and got a job in construction or in a factory, no one would bother to inform his employers and students of his past.

 

[Newverse]

To get technical, and even avoiding the semantic difference between being found not guilty and being found innocent, there is a difference between a presumption of innocence, and a finding of "not guilty." A finding is a conclusion you reach after consideration of evidence. A presumption is a starting point that you assume for the sake of argument. It is a rhetorical fiction. You're not actually innocent until presumed guilty, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is also a high threshold. Jurors from this case have come out with their reasoning, what created doubt in their minds, and it's perfectly reasonable for people to think it more likely than not that a rape was committed (that being a more common-sense but also more lenient standard than that used in a criminal trial). Judges have instructed varying arbitrary percentages of certainty for conviction in a criminal trial, but I've heard it range from 90% to 99% certainty. A juror can theoretically be 85% sure (whatever that means) that it was rape but find the defendant not guilty. People like us (who, mind you, are not in a court of law), can apply common sense judgment and say that if you're roughly that sure, that's enough to judge someone. It would certainly be sufficient in a civil trial.

And the burden of proof is on the State.

Thank you for clairification about legal terms. I have no problem with people taking information and making up their own minds about it. I just am sensative to the idea that in cases involving accusation of rape, people tend to make minds up prematurely. To support this, I tend to see only highlights of evidence against Mateo, not considering the evidence that supports his side. We can apply common sense judgement, sure, but it seems dangerous if given a slanted view of an already slanted situation.

Also to the person saying I am trying to get people to stop talking about this - I am not. I am trying to provide more to talk about, so that we can consider the entire picture.

What I was trying to say, that Rambo corrected, was simple association. If you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and are not proven guilty, then logically, one can be presumed innocent. However, I understand that innocent is not the right term for a legal situation such as this. In terms of the burden of proof being on the government, I understand that, but that does not counter presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

I am not saying that everyone is wrong, or not entitled to their position. I am asking that if people are going to consider themselves a moral authority, and pass judgement enough to affect someone's life, then please find out as much as possible, from all sides, before making that judgement. Again, I am supporting someone who I believe in, but I am also trying to be respectful, and civil. I am busy, again sorry if these responses are rushed, but I welcome open discussion.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Mateo was offered plea deals, did not accept them, fought in a 10 month trial that scrutinized everything you've heard plus much more, and now he has to fight to make a living after being exonerated. How on earth can you call that luck? He did not win his trial because he was rich, affiliated, or because of any loophole or technicality.

And please do not turn this into a personal attack, I am not defending rape, I am not defending abusing women, I am trying to be as respectful and civil as possible, given a very volatile and clearly anger-inducing topic. Please do not try to read this as a challenge to your morals, just a plea to understand more before declaring yourself a moral authority.

You want ME to understand more or you want YOU to understand more? Because I've followed this right from the beginning and I know more disgusting details than I want to. These two are disgusting human beings who got away with something horrible. And the fact that they're now painting themselves as victims... and you're trying to create a space where that is a reasonable approach... is ridiculous. You are a cretin. Filth. Shit.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Also to the person saying I am trying to get people to stop talking about this - I am not. I am trying to provide more to talk about, so that we can consider the entire picture.

They fucked a drunk woman in a parking lot, bashing her head on the ground, and left her unconscious afterwards. And that's BEST case scenario, since many of us are convinced it was non-consensual and she was begging them to stop.

Please tell me what kind of additional information... be as hypothetical as you need... could have us see them as anything but human filth.

Take your shit elsewhere.

 

[AcesUp22]

Newverse keeps speaking of "the other evidence". Why not share the evidence with us? Probably because it is bullsht.

 

[Jukai]

Not to add any drastic tangents to the conversation, but irrelevant of your feelings of the accused party's guilt, doesn't it still make them awful people that they let a woman pantless in the cold, and then when she brings them up on charges, tarnish her and make themselves out to be the victim instead of conveying innocence and trying to convince her it was a misunderstanding? Doesn't the fact that, even if it was true that she was asking them not to tape it, they were ignoring her and taping the act infact make them still terrible people?

 

[Whitby]

Seems like Maldanado, Schultz, LI and a number of others could easily put this whole issue to rest by issuing some public statements, justifications, contrition...etc. Continued efforts to suppress information, create some kind of persecuted victim narrative, etc. just continue to fuel fire. Bad guys gonna keep on being bad guys. You would think that the LI organization would have figured out by now that this is not going to go away after over a year now. Even when LI competitors win, no one seems too enthused to be seen on the stand with them. The firestorm that erupted after Sherdog took down the threads in question would seem to testify to the fact that a few angry internet folks are not the only people in the Jiu jitsu community who care about this whole thing. Narratives created by Internet assassins claiming that the issue is not well known at gyms around the country are just false. People are going to continue to ask TLI, Crazy 88, Phil Proctor, even Ivey League students about the issue. The only Jiu jitsu folks who may not know much about the situation are students of the respective academies under the TLI association who are kept deliberately in the dark. After a long climb up to black belt and running a school, parents will doubtless still be disturbed when they learn who you threw your loyalty to. 1989 may seem like ancient history to the young guys in question but it isn't. 2013 is not going to seem that long ago also. Other narrative that seems to be making the rounds is that any fame attributed to guys like Mike Fowler, Ryan Hall, etc. is directly creditable to Lloyd Irvin. The LI organization would posit that Lloyd can do the same for you young blue, purple, or brown belt so just hang tough. The younger guys do not seem to realize that this stuff will follow them around for as long as they are associated with the sport. If LI is dragging you in closer to replace his lost talent like Keenan and JT, that should be a cause of worry not congratulation. Run, run very far away...

 

[the heed]

Obviously this guy is friends with one of the defendants. And he can't separate himself from what actually happened.

Like JosephDredd said, even if this wasn't rape, they still had sex with a really drunk girl who blacking out (which is date rape), BASHED HER HEAD AND LEFT HER UNCONSCIOUS BY HERSELF at a parking lot. That still makes both of them full on scum bags. Just having sex with a drunk/blacking out girl is creepy enough, let alone just leaving her at a parking lot passed out by herself.

No matter how good of a friend you are with someone, this kind of right and wrong is CLEAR CUT. One walked away free due to a faulty justice system.

Defending this kind of action because you are friends with them or like them, shows you just how screwed up this society is becoming.

 

[AcesUp22]

Obviously this guy is friends with one of the defendants. And he can't separate himself from what actually happened.

Like JosephDredd said, even if this wasn't rape, they still had sex with a really drunk girl who blacking out (which is date rape), BASHED HER HEAD AND LEFT HER UNCONSCIOUS BY HERSELF at a parking lot. That still makes both of them full on scum bags. Just having sex with a drunk/blacking out girl is creepy enough, let alone just leaving her at a parking lot passed out by herself.

No matter how good of a friend you are with someone, this kind of right and wrong is CLEAR CUT. One walked away free due to a faulty justice system.

Defending this kind of action because you are friends with them or like them, shows you just how screwed up this society is becoming.

Loyalty to people over principles shows a clear lack of maturity. To add.. This was not just a girl, this was a teammate. You left your teammate passed out in a parking garage in freezing cold weather after you double teamed her. Just scum.

 

[Balto]

and now he has to fight to make a living after being exonerated.

He is not fighting to make a living. No one really cares if he goes off to be an electrician, a garbageman, a Wall Street stock broker, a Silicon Valley tech guru, etc.

He is fighting to make a living doing something that is SPECIFICALLY RELATED to what he was just put on trial for. He is making a living teaching close contact physical classes SPECIFICALLY TO YOUNG FEMALES -- just like, you know, the young female teammate of his that he just left in a parking garage half naked.

How ridiculously out of touch does a person have to be to even think that would be a remotely good idea? It reads like an article from The Onion. How do you think people would react if George Zimmerman opened up a halfway house for troubled black youth? How about if Casey Anthony opened up a daycare center?

 

[Rich959]

And please do not turn this into a personal attack, I am not defending rape, I am not defending abusing women, I am trying to be as respectful and civil as possible, given a very volatile and clearly anger-inducing topic. Please do not try to read this as a challenge to your morals, just a plea to understand more before declaring yourself a moral authority.

Lets put the rape piece aside for just a moment. Neither of them denies leaving her in the parking garage, alone, in a state of undress, unconscious, in the middle of winter. Can you provide me with some additional information that would help me "understand" how those actions can be considered anything other than amoral?