transitions

From THE GANG RAPE GAME PLAN $199.99

Hi this is Master Lloyd, and no one has more real world gang rape experience than Team Lloyd Irvin. From gang rapes at college, to gang rapes in parking lots, we at Team Lloyd Irvin will show you exactly how a gang rape is done.

And by the way shame on you for your disgusting comments on my facebook page about my business that had absolutely nothing to do with the gang rape by two advanced level students and employees of mine that my business sponsored and gave room, board, and shelter to in a house of fellow medal chasers, of another Team Lloyd Irvin student and employee. Just like I had nothing to do with that gang rape by 6 of my friends, while I hooted and hollared and watched and allegedly missed out on my turn (although I wanted to) because I was impotent. I did nothing to discourage or stop it, or help the young woman who was gang raped by 6 individuals (who are now in prison while I am a self made millionaire) but as a public service I am making my rape seminar show up free at the top of google now for the public’s benefit.

But again, let’s focus on the real issue here, all the support I’ve given the woman who was gang raped by those I mentored and financially supported and shaped into young men. And how I’m enjoying supporting my other fine young men and enjoying life in Miami now.

DISGUSTING.

FYI MODS: This is a parody about a public figure, and parody has been part of the political disourse of this country since the early days of our revolution. It conveys important messages for people to think about utilizing shame and a call to moral conscience. But take it down if you want.

“Master” Irvin participated in the gang-rape of an underage girl in 1989. He was acquitted by exploiting a loophole in the law regarding his actions as an accessory to the gang-rape by claiming that although he wished to participate in the beating, rape, and forced sodomy of a 17 year old girl, he was temporarily unable to achieve an erection. He has never publicly apologized for his actions, or taken any responsibility. Five of his co-conspirators were convicted and sentenced.

When two of his students violently beat and raped a female student from his academy, he closed his public web-pages, quickly purchased the domain ‘LloydIrvinRape.com’, and issued several news releases regarding his rape-prevention seminars. This was an overt attempt to control search-engine results and further bury his despicable actions. He then brought his public pages back online and immediately deleted any questions regarding his prior history as an enthusiastic participant in gang-rape. This is the person that you are supporting by attending his seminars or enrolling in his schools. He is without an ethical backbone, and an unfit role model. He is the lowest form of a man. He is a disgrace to any sport , activity, or person with whom he associates.

Here is an image of a LI black belt, Phil Proctor, calling a girl, who was raped by no less than five men, a “dirty whore who got to feeling guilty.” http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g402/rustyballs799/proclloyd.jpg Make your own judgments. Remember that the judge ruled in her favor. Lloyd was present, he was willing to participate, but simply unable. One is judged by the company he keeps. With friends like Phil, and others spilling out of the woodwork, using similar tactics to “defend” Lloyd in this situation, the “master’s” character is becoming increasingly clear by the hour.

WoodenPupa - “I think we’re all wondering how Lloyd pulled off the Houdini act in the courtroom. We all know he’s guilty, and that his explanation is bullshit. But why did it succeed? This is my attempted explanation, and obviously it’s conjecture. But I’m conjecturing for a reason, because I think Lloyd’s limp-dick strategy could not have worked unless certain facts were in place in the courtroom.

Cliff Notes: Basically what I’m saying is that Lloyd’s strategy wasn’t planned ahead of time, before the matter went to trial, but instead a chess move played against his buddy (Terrence Gatling, whom the jury convicted of sodomy) once Gatling’s strategy was ascertained.

Again, I’m not a lawyer, so of course I could be way off. But I hate it when creeps escape justice, and when things don’t make sense to me I try to figure them out. So here’s my theory:

Since this was all before DNA evidence became standard in the courtroom, the lack of material evidence SPECIFICALLY implicating Lloyd in the rape forced the spotlight onto motive.

Now, claiming he wasn’t in the room at all probably wouldn’t have worked, since both the girl and at least one other defendant testified he was.

Lloyd must have figured that lying about being in the room wasn’t worth it, because if the jury doesn’t BUY that story, they WILL place him at the scene of the crime—-and if he LIES about not being there, it must be because he’s guilty of rape.

So Lloyd bypasses that gamble by admitting to being in the room, thereby avoiding being painted as a liar off the bat. But the problem is, his reason for being there must be the same as everyone else’s: to have sex with her. To deny THAT, while admitting to being in the room, would have been implausible. So enter the limp dick defense.

Now this defense might be shot down if BOTH Gatlin AND the girl testify that Lloyd did have sex with her. But ONLY the girl testified that Lloyd did. So my guess is that Gatlin, trying to be a “loyal friend”, said that he didn’t see Lloyd having sex with her, but only that he saw him in the room. And he (Gatlin) admitted to having sex with her, expecting Lloyd to do the same, on the less sophisticated gambit that if EVERYONE ADMITTED to having sex with her, it would look good for the defense’s case.

Lloyd’s limp dick defense can now work. Since Gatlin says he didn’t see Lloyd having sex, Lloyd runs with this testimony and explains WHY Gatlin didn’t see him doing so.

Since the jury had no physical evidence indicating who did specifically what to the girl, testimony was key. Lloyd surely realized that if the jury thought rape or “crimes against nature” was what in fact happened, they would find anyone admitting to sexual contact would be guilty by default.

So Lloyd’s limp-dick defense would work almost automatically, provided that no one besides the girl testified to seeing him have sex with her. Her testimony alone couldn’t work against anybody in particular unless they admitted to sexual contact. Since the doctor testified that there was evidence of sexual contact beyond what a single person would do, then multiple people clearly DID.

Gatlin, like his convicted buddies, figured they couldn’t escape this fact, and were better off admitting to it while painting a consensual picture. But Lloyd capitalized on this move in a way Gatlin never thought possible.

That’s my best guess as to what happened in the courtroom. At the very least, something very similar to it. Indisputably, Lloyd played the jury AND Gatlin, by playing a move that ONLY one person could play. Two limp-dick defenses wouldn’t have worked, nor would have two denials on ANY basis have worked. Classic prisoner’s dilemma gambit turning out well for the evil guy.

What’s really insidious about Lloyd’s limp noodle defense is that he imagines its effectiveness in the way that sociopaths/psychopaths do.

He clearly IMAGINES that, in the court of public opinion, his story about erection failure will be taken as evidence that, deep down, he had a problem with what was going on.

Now some people might think that since Irvin plainly testified that he *wanted* to have sex with her, he can’t possibly think his limp-noodle defense will have “deep down good guy” implications.

But this is just the way robotic sickos like Lloyd operate. They use language to confuse people, to have their cake and eat it too.

Since he testified that he “tried” to have sex with her, he creates the illusion that he didn’t think anything was morally wrong with the circumstances.

But since he *couldn’t* have sex with her, he can’t be guilty of rape by definition, since no contact was made.

But the *reason* he couldn’t get it up is supposed to mean that he DID have a problem with the situation.

So Lloyd is and isn’t guilty, does AND doesn’t take responsibility, did AND didn’t have a problem with what was going on, all at the same time. Which component he emphasizes will depend on who’s asking the questions and the context of the conversation.

You can bet your ass that throughout the entire affair, from preliminary questioning to conversations with friends and all the way up to the moment of testifying, Lloyd emphasized whichever aspect was convenient to the questioning.

Some people I think have in mind that it was possible that Lloyd really did have erectile dysfunction.

It’s possible in the trivial sense. What really happened is that he did rape her, along with Gatling. The girl testified that Gatling held her head and had oral sex, while Lloyd raped her.

If she weren’t sure of this, she wouldn’t have testified to it. The people she wasn’t sure about, she couldn’t and didn’t implicate with certainty. She testified that Lloyd DID rape her because it was something she remembered with certainty.

Between 7 and 10 men participated in the rape.

8 were arrested, including Irvin.

5 at least were found guilty (see below); charges against 1 dropped; Lloyd was acquitted.

Michael P. Thompson and Charles H. Smith Jr. were found guilty of rape and sodomy.

Terrence C. Gatling was found guilty of sodomy.

Derrick C. Evans was found guilty of attempted rape.

John H. Scales III - Pleaded guilty to rape.

Robert Ford —- charges were dropped after the victim said she couldn’t positively identify him.

Garret E. Miles— couldn’t find info on what happened in his trial, which was scheduled for June 2nd 1992.

Lloyd Irvin—acquitted.

Still mma.tv user WoodenPupa,

“Utilitarian arguments usually entail exotic thought experiments, which is why I don’t weigh them too much.

For example, you could say, “Which future world do you want, a world in which ONE woman is harmed, but THOUSANDS are helped and empowered; OR, a world in which ONE woman is unharmed, but THOUSANDS of others unhelped and unempowered? DECIDE!!”

In this simple calculus, the events are treated as causally finished. So sure, in SUCH a world, I would take the numerically greater good over the bad. But the problem is, THIS world is not such a world. The far-reaching consequences are incalculable; basically, we live in a world of butterfly effects and we cannot know the global consequences of batting an eyelash much less helping or harming a single person.

It seems better to me to live by moral principles that address what we can calculate within reasonable horizons. And backward glances cannot count as part of the calculus of utilitarian estimations, because the reasoning is post-hoc and essentially derived from running a convenient thought experiment in which ALL the consequences are calculated.”

So as this is all coming out, Lloyd Irvin REGISTERS THE DOMAIN lloydirvinrape.com (which has since been replaced with a generic start page). See http://i.imgur.com/fBg5h.png

This skeezy worthless motherfucker is trying to capitalize on people searching his name + rape. SEO mastery right there, but human decency? Still a big nope.

Another article on the issue: http://articles.dailypress.com/1990-04-20/news/9004200218_1_irvin-gang-rape-case-two-men

Some sections, if paywalled:

“At one point, one of the men talked about how easy it would be to toss the slightly built, 5-foot-2-inch woman over the balcony. She said she was watching television when one of the men asked her to step into the bedroom so he could talk to her.

The woman said that man and a friend began pulling her clothes off and forcing her onto the bed. She said one man had oral sex with her while the other had sexual intercourse with her.

“I couldn’t breathe and I couldn’t understand why they were doing this to me,” she said.

Other men came in and raped her repeatedly, she said. After the group left, Gatling and Irvin came in and closed the door behind them, she said.

“I was lying on the bed crying,” the woman testified, maintaining her composure. “I was trying to figure out what I was going to do.”

At that point, she said, Irvin began having sexual intercourse with her while Gatling held her down and forced her to have oral sex with him. The girl said she did not cry out for help because she was afraid one of the men might follow through with the threat to throw her off the balcony.”

From here on, I’m quoting mixedmartialarts.com user “WoodenPupa”

“A third defendant, 23-year-old Robert A. Ford, was scheduled to be tried this morning in Circuit Court for rape, but Kerns said prosecutors decided to drop the charge after talking with the victim’s father last week by telephone from Ohio.

Kerns said he was told the woman had said in a family meeting July 30 that she remembered Ford being in the room while she was being attacked, but she could not say positively whether he participated.”

http://articles.dailypress.com/1990-08-08/news/9008080198_1_woman-claims-hampton-university-ford

So that’s 1 of the other 5. It’s really unfortunate this all happened before DNA testing became prevalent and reliable, which I think was the mid 90’s.
———-
“
“The woman - who weighed 98 pounds at the time of the attack - said she drank a small amount of Southern Comfort liquor at the apartment.

After a while, she said, Thompson invited her into Gatling’s bedroom. She said Smith was already in there, sitting on the floor.

Within minutes, she said, both men sexually attacked her. Soon, she said, others poured into the room and began raping and sodomizing her. One man slapped her when she bit him; another punched her after she wriggled free enough to push him away.

The woman said she fell asleep after the attack ended in the early morning. She said Gatling drove her back to campus, and she contacted police that evening after getting in touch with her mother and a friend on campus.

In April 1990, Gatling was convicted of sodomy and sentenced to seven years in prison. In the same trial, Lloyd E. Irvin Jr. was acquitted.

In March of this year, Derrick C. Evans, another Bowie State student, was convicted of attempted rape. He was later sentenced to five years in prison.”

http://articles.dailypress.com/1991-06-25/news/9106250068_1_raped-dorm-room-trials

So that’s another one.”
————
“And what looks like the last 2, although it doesn’t add up to 7:

“Michael P. Thompson and Charles H. Smith Jr., both of whom were 18-year-old freshmen at Bowie State University in Maryland at the time of the October 1989 attack, were identified by the victim in court Monday as the initiators of a night of violence and repeated sexual assaults.

Following two days of testimony, a Circuit Court jury of 10 women and two men deliberated an hour and a half before finding Smith and Thompson guilty of all charges. Jurors recommended a sentence of five years in prison on each conviction.”

http://articles.dailypress.com/1991-06-26/news/9106260101_1_sentence-bowie-state-university-jury-s-recommendation

So Lloyd is the only guy who slipped out of this. Amazing. Was it here he realized his potential for slick salesmanship?”
————
“He would “best resolve it” by realizing the foulness of his actions in his heart, and communicating that in a public confession, perhaps offering communication to the victim. But the *results* of this are not up to him. That is decided by the public and the victims, with the victim’s thoughts taking priority.

What CAN’T be allowed is a guilty party dictating the terms of an apology, and expecting results in white-collar politician con-game “mistakes were made” style.”
————
“So, what I’m saying is, in cases of forgiveness—-and there are cases of MONUMENTAL violence being forgiven in the annals of history, for example in the recent Sandy Hook shooting:

http://conservativebyte.com/2012/12/father-of-a-sandy-hook-victim-offers-forgiveness-to-the-troubled-shooter/

—-it usually starts with a confession (though in the Sandy Hook case, as we know, the forgiveness process could not have happened this way, since the perp is dead). The problem as I see it with your “How would he best resolve it, if not in what he has actually done by helping people?” is that his actions were not anyone’s demand, not the result of public justice. It becomes in reality another slick-willy argument.

I understand the rationale of the argument though: “the total amount of good he’s done outweighs the bad.”

But the victim has first priority, and I think the public should take its cue from what the victim has to say. And she would be very unlikely to forgive him, given that he confessed to nothing when it counted. But IF it helped her move on, say, then why not support her.

Understand I’m not starting a “forgive Lloyd” movement. For now, fuck him. But if you’re asking what would *I* want, personally, as justice? The mere outing of this information should take care of matters on its own: his business should dwindle, probably to unrecoverable levels.

My point in all this is that forgiveness is an important part of the human horizon, and it’s worth talking about. But Lloyd can’t just point to the past and say “time served.” Because nobody will buy it. Will you say a confession at this convenient time will entail crocodile tears? I would agree. But such tears are hard to fake forever. Somebody usually outs the fake confessor. “

The following are posts from mixedmartialarts.com user, 2JupitersTooMany, a source of constant logic amidst defensive vitriol and irrelevant attempts to muddle issues by slut-shaming.

“Lloyd Irvin the MMA trainer’s full name is Lloyd Emory Irvin, Jr. He was born May 17, 1969 which would have made him 20-years-old at the time of the incident and he did, in fact, attend Bowie State University. He has trained such notable UFC stars such as Brandon Vera, Mike Easton, Phil Davis and bantamweight champion Dominick Cruz.”

“I have no idea what the man said at trial, but we know that he testified and we know the result. He was present at a rape, and the only reason he got off was because he could not function when it was his turn. For that not to be true, the news agency covering the trial had to make all that shit up, but when people idolize a man none of that matters. There is always room for doubt.”

“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.”

“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?”