UnderGround Forum >> WarMachine accusing Lloyd Irvin of rape

2JupitersTooMany - 

randomposter - 

2JupitersTooMany - 

He had a chance to speak in court.  Read the article. 

I read the article. It quotes a Lloyd Irvin. Assuming that is THE Lloyd Irvin, it was a 20 year old Lloyd Irvin. And if it was THE 20 year old Lloyd Irvin, surely this is not all that he said. What else did he say about the case, since you seem to know all you need to know from reading one article?
Oh, that's right, you don't have the foggiest idea.....

If the article is true, and the news agency isn't spewing bullshit, he appeared in a court trial and had a chance to speak.  The jurors decided that he was present at a rape.  That's why we have juries, so we all don't have to get in a time machine to witness the rape two decades later.

Here are some quotes for you, and unless the news agency reporting on the incident at the time was full of shit, this is what happened:

"Irvin said that having sex with a "freak" was not one of his best ideas of fun, but he did not oppose it."

"On that evening a 17-year-old girl agreed to go to dinner with a group of male college students she barely knew. Then she agreed to go to an apartment with them for a party. Somewhere along the line she drank some booze.

By the end of the night, at least seven men had had sex with her. Neither Gatling, who is 21, nor Irvin, who is 20, tried to talk any of them out of it. Instead, they joined in. Or tried.

Irvin was saved by the fact that the jury believed he was impotent when it was his turn."

 

Now your next move to support your boy is to say the jury got it wrong, the girl was begging for it, and it's perfectly acceptable to run a train on an injured and drunk 17 year old girl when you're a 20 year old because that's what men do and that's what girls want.

Billytk - I don't know I'd really like to jump on the bandwagon crucifying Irvin but the fact that the accusations are being thrown around by Koppenhaver forces me to kind of give Irvin the benefit of the doubt and allow him to get his side of the story out there. Koppenhaver has proven to be such a (have to leave this blank to avoid "fighter bashing") in the past I just can't take his side in ANYTHING

His side of the story is already out there. Look 6 posts above yours. This has nothing to do with Warmachine's credibility. Maybe Warmachine could be considered a dick for posting that on Twitter, but he most definitely isnt lying either.

mmavixen - 

whadafykumeanitstaken - 

Timothyk - I think bish came over with the intent to fuck, got tipsy, one thing lead to another, no one ever said no, and at the end of the event she called rape to calm the parents.

Can Green names be banned for proving to be pieces of shit?

There was a rape convictiin you fucking moron. This wasn't a case like your friends where there was no rape. It went to trial and was proven she was rapes by 7the people. You don't get to have an opiniin at that point. Facts are facts.

So if your mom got gang raped by 77 people and there was a conviction your comments would be "ehh, bitch had the intent to get laid and she let it get out of control.

Gtfo you fucking dirtbag.

Interesting to see how Kirik handles a green name. This guy has no business being pat of thia site after these comments about a girl who suffered a gang rape, suffered a trial, gained a convictiin, and does not need assholes like TimK spewing bullshit.

My soster was raped when I was young. I remeber the trial. I remember lots of things. Fuck anyime making light of a convicted rape case.

 

Agree.  While there are cases where women manufacture lies and were not actually violated, I can assure you that if there was a trial and a subsequent conviction, the girl was obviously violated wihout her consent. No district attorney will ever file charges on a flimsy rape case.  If anything, the evidence has to be inconrtrovertible.

 

 

I'm very sorry about your sister.  I hope she was able to get past it and live a healthy, a happy life.

randomposter - I am going to write this, and then I'm gonna stop. I don't want to be associated in any way with the idea that Lloyd Irvin did or did not participate in, was present at, and/or didn't do anything to stop a gang rape. And I certainly don't want to be made into some kind of spokesman for that position.
I am only trying to get some of you to tap the brakes a second. Calling someone a rapist is serious business. I think each one of us, were we in that position, that is, having someone make that accusation, would ask that his accusers at least have all the facts. That's only fair.

I typed that he had a chance to speak in court.  He did.  You responded the way a condescending asshole does and you're getting the same response, from someone who is also an attorney.  He did not deny being present for an event that an actual jury classified as a rape. He's going to get crucified by the media and by normal people who won't accept that.  In this particular culture, there will be plenty of apologists by reason of personal loyalty or moral defect, but he won't get off so easy in the real world.

randomposter - I should add that I am an attorney. I am certainly not suggesting that Irvin did not do the things that were alleged in the article. But an application of knowledge requires data. The article doesn't even put what Irvin said in quotes! Is this what he really said? Or is it "kind of what he said"?
The facts will come out. And then we can condemn. But many are awfully quick to call someone a rapist without waiting to hear the evidence. More convenient that way, to be sure.....but fair?

who called LI A RAPIST? ppl r just sayn he was involved in 1 ,point is it dont look good.

It appears that Mr. Irvin was tried in a courtroom.  The result was an acquittal for him and guilty verdicts for others.

Assuming that's all true, then there is no dispute that (1) what happened was a gang rape, (2) Mr. Irvin was aware of it, witnessed it, and intended to participate or at least wished to appear to the rapists as if he intended to participate, and (3) Mr. Irvin could not and did not participate because he was unable to "get it up."

While I have no doubt there are women out there who willingly participate in sexual encounters only to claim rape later, our justice system has concluded that in Mr. Irvin's case, that is not what occured.  We also have no indication that this is what occured in the more recent parking garage situation with two of Mr. Irvin's male students allegedly raping a female student.

So nobody is discussing a consensual encounter that is later redefined as rape.  It is notable, however, that there always seems to be somebody who brings up "non-rapes" when actual rapes are being discussed, even when there are no facts to suggest that what occured wasn't really a rape.

Stay on point.

2JupitersTooMany - 

randomposter - I am going to write this, and then I'm gonna stop. I don't want to be associated in any way with the idea that Lloyd Irvin did or did not participate in, was present at, and/or didn't do anything to stop a gang rape. And I certainly don't want to be made into some kind of spokesman for that position.
I am only trying to get some of you to tap the brakes a second. Calling someone a rapist is serious business. I think each one of us, were we in that position, that is, having someone make that accusation, would ask that his accusers at least have all the facts. That's only fair.

I typed that he had a chance to speak in court.  He did.  You responded the way a condescending asshole does and you're getting the same response, from someone who is also an attorney.  He did not deny being present for an event that an actual jury classified as a rape. He's going to get crucified by the media and by normal people who won't accept that.  In this particular culture, there will be plenty of apologists by reason of personal loyalty or moral defect, but he won't get off so easy in the real world.

randomposter - I should add that I am an attorney. I am certainly not suggesting that Irvin did not do the things that were alleged in the article. But an application of knowledge requires data. The article doesn't even put what Irvin said in quotes! Is this what he really said? Or is it "kind of what he said"?
The facts will come out. And then we can condemn. But many are awfully quick to call someone a rapist without waiting to hear the evidence. More convenient that way, to be sure.....but fair?

Billytk - Sorry but I can't accept Koppenhaver trying to take moral highground over anyone considering his past

randomposter - 

2JupitersTooMany - 

randomposter - I am going to write this, and then I'm gonna stop. I don't want to be associated in any way with the idea that Lloyd Irvin did or did not participate in, was present at, and/or didn't do anything to stop a gang rape. And I certainly don't want to be made into some kind of spokesman for that position.
I am only trying to get some of you to tap the brakes a second. Calling someone a rapist is serious business. I think each one of us, were we in that position, that is, having someone make that accusation, would ask that his accusers at least have all the facts. That's only fair.

I typed that he had a chance to speak in court.  He did.  You responded the way a condescending asshole does and you're getting the same response, from someone who is also an attorney.  He did not deny being present for an event that an actual jury classified as a rape. He's going to get crucified by the media and by normal people who won't accept that.  In this particular culture, there will be plenty of apologists by reason of personal loyalty or moral defect, but he won't get off so easy in the real world.

I wasn't trying to be a condescending asshole, as you say. But you have certainly managed the trick. I am surprised to hear an attorney stand up on the side of a newspaper article serving as immutable proof of anything.
The fact is, counselor, that you don't know a single thing about the facts except what is written in that article. You don't know how long he was at the party, where he was when the actual "raping" happened (other than to say that he appears to have been present for some part of it), or exactly what his conduct was or wasn't.
You are correct that this will be a great stain on Lloyd Irvin, if the article is correct. That is, of course, beside the point that I thought we were discussing, which is "Do we know enough to call the man a rapist, without knowing more?"

randomposter - 

2JupitersTooMany - 

randomposter - I am going to write this, and then I'm gonna stop. I don't want to be associated in any way with the idea that Lloyd Irvin did or did not participate in, was present at, and/or didn't do anything to stop a gang rape. And I certainly don't want to be made into some kind of spokesman for that position.
I am only trying to get some of you to tap the brakes a second. Calling someone a rapist is serious business. I think each one of us, were we in that position, that is, having someone make that accusation, would ask that his accusers at least have all the facts. That's only fair.

I typed that he had a chance to speak in court.  He did.  You responded the way a condescending asshole does and you're getting the same response, from someone who is also an attorney.  He did not deny being present for an event that an actual jury classified as a rape. He's going to get crucified by the media and by normal people who won't accept that.  In this particular culture, there will be plenty of apologists by reason of personal loyalty or moral defect, but he won't get off so easy in the real world.

I wasn't trying to be a condescending asshole, as you say. But you have certainly managed the trick. I am surprised to hear an attorney stand up on the side of a newspaper article serving as immutable proof of anything.
The fact is, counselor, that you don't know a single thing about the facts except what is written in that article. You don't know how long he was at the party, where he was when the actual "raping" happened (other than to say that he appears to have been present for some part of it), or exactly what his conduct was or wasn't.
You are correct that this will be a great stain on Lloyd Irvin, if the article is correct. That is, of course, beside the point that I thought we were discussing, which is "Do we know enough to call the man a rapist, without knowing more?"

Nobody is calling him a rapist, pay attention.

figure four -

Billytk - Sorry but I can't accept Koppenhaver trying to take moral highground over anyone considering his past

War Machine may be a thug - yes. But even thugs have honor too...

Rapists and Child Molesters have to be segregated from Gen Pop because there is no honor in fighting with woman and children - raping men is okay, at least they have a fighting chance.

No honor though in LI defense "I wanted to join, but I couldn't get it up"

Mark Hunter - OK, just one more attorney to chime in. How about this: None of us were in the room that night, so none of us on this thread have a clue what happened. Maybe the girl was telling the whole truth . . . maybe she wasn't. Same for the guys, including Lloyd Irvin. Bottom line: we have no clue.

Since we can't know, and Lloyd Irvin was not convicted, then perhaps this is a good time to wind this post down. I'm sure, if Lloyd Irvin could, he'd go back in time and handle that night differently. He can't . . . let's move on. Just a thought.

A jury convicted his friends of rape and he was there, and now he has two students in jail for something remarkably similar. That we can know.  The details are probably lost now, and Lloyd would certainly say he'd "handle that night differently" as would anyone in this shitty position, but for God's sake, you think it's appropriate to just "move on?"

randomposter -

2JupitersTooMany - 

randomposter - I am going to write this, and then I'm gonna stop. I don't want to be associated in any way with the idea that Lloyd Irvin did or did not participate in, was present at, and/or didn't do anything to stop a gang rape. And I certainly don't want to be made into some kind of spokesman for that position.
I am only trying to get some of you to tap the brakes a second. Calling someone a rapist is serious business. I think each one of us, were we in that position, that is, having someone make that accusation, would ask that his accusers at least have all the facts. That's only fair.

I typed that he had a chance to speak in court.  He did.  You responded the way a condescending asshole does and you're getting the same response, from someone who is also an attorney.  He did not deny being present for an event that an actual jury classified as a rape. He's going to get crucified by the media and by normal people who won't accept that.  In this particular culture, there will be plenty of apologists by reason of personal loyalty or moral defect, but he won't get off so easy in the real world.

I wasn't trying to be a condescending asshole, as you say. But you have certainly managed the trick. I am surprised to hear an attorney stand up on the side of a newspaper article serving as immutable proof of anything.
The fact is, counselor, that you don't know a single thing about the facts except what is written in that article. You don't know how long he was at the party, where he was when the actual "raping" happened (other than to say that he appears to have been present for some part of it), or exactly what his conduct was or wasn't.
You are correct that this will be a great stain on Lloyd Irvin, if the article is correct. That is, of course, beside the point that I thought we were discussing, which is "Do we know enough to call the man a rapist, without knowing more?"

2Jupes is one of the few in here with his head on straight.

Bootsy Collins -

Timothyk - 

2JupitersTooMany - 

Timothyk - Do you really think this girl went over to hang out with a bunch of dudes, and not have sex with any of them? Do you know how many girls have trains run on them? Or like to be hit while fucked? Or lie about rape to soothe parent anger?

what a gentleman

My fiance thinks I am quite so.

If she knows what's good for her....

Anyone remember the home invasion thing at Lloyds house with Brandon Vera a few years back?