|
Post by stagetec on Jul 12, 2003 0:34:23 GMT -5
Come on all truth and all you Luster supporters.The truth of the matter on this board is,Andrew (please mr bill don't stick your bannan their) luster is the low life criminal.86 counts ans 124 years,LOL all on vdideo tape.Is the dog facing time like that NO!!!!!!!!!. ;D
|
|
tator
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by tator on Jul 12, 2003 0:41:33 GMT -5
6000 illegal arrests sayhe gets one month for each. I'd say Yes.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 12, 2003 1:10:48 GMT -5
tator LMAO its luster that was taken down ,not the dog.Good old luster got 124 years in the big house,and the dog is a free man.But to tell you the TRUTH ,one year from now,Andrew(on no mr bill please don,t stick your bannan up their)Luster ,will be still in the big house,and the dog will still be a free man.
|
|
tator
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by tator on Jul 12, 2003 1:28:30 GMT -5
go to www.ehawaiigov.org/serv/hils type in his name and come back here and define down. Darwinism has came to the bonding industry. The weak are on their way out.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 12, 2003 1:32:35 GMT -5
tator so whats your point? A year form now the dog will be a free man ,and Mr luster will be serving 124 years in the big house.LMAO
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 12, 2003 1:41:43 GMT -5
It's obvious you don't even know the basics of the case. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE 86 COUNTS WERE Sh-t for Brains! Since when does a first offender get LIFE for non-violent "rape", even if it were non-consensual, which it wasn't? And I doubt very seriously your pathetic excuse for anything resembling a man is gonna be laughing much longer if he keeps making threats to people like he has, not to mention all the illegal activity he's engaged in the past month alone.
|
|
tator
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by tator on Jul 12, 2003 1:52:57 GMT -5
A year from now Dog could be serving time in Mexico. I stand my ground. I have never said Luster didn't need took down. Hiding behind his victims to try to make a buck that you are not intitled to in the first place that's Dogs style. Get real this idiot is no more than glory seeker. Notice on Hawaii's site revoked not suspended revoked he can not legally be a bounty hunter . In Colorado he can't even clean toilets in a bonding office.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 12, 2003 10:32:44 GMT -5
Truth rape non violent? come on he got less then a year and half for each count.BTW if the person is passed out how can it be consensual,their is no way a passed out person,can stop someone from having sex with them right?But if you would like ,ill drive down to the court ,and see if i can get a list of all 86 counts.This might take a few days,right now working 18 days in a row.
|
|
tator
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by tator on Jul 12, 2003 10:39:38 GMT -5
If you have a choice of being butt diddled or being murdered which are you going to take. Don't you understand both Luster and Chapman are Crap.
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 12, 2003 10:46:20 GMT -5
How can a person consent to anything when they're on the operating table or in the dentist chair? There was PRIOR consent. Unless the guy went beyond what was agreed while they were out, then there is no crime. The simple number of 86 means NOTHING when the star witess was proven to be lying on the stand regarding the very issue of consent. False in one=False in ALL! "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 12, 2003 10:57:53 GMT -5
lol lets take a look at the rape laws www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~gwick/laws.html .BTW what dose consent to on a operating tabel,or dentist chair have to do with the luster case? nothing and you are out of order,un less you were raped,by the doc or dentist right?
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 12, 2003 11:14:42 GMT -5
No, you're assuming facts not in evidence. Mr. Diamond proved there WAS consent but the judge wouldn't allow him to make the argument because of the wording the idiotic California consent law which takes away the woman's right to choose. People do a lot of strange things and whether you approve or not, most are legal. People consent and even enjoy being bound, gagged, and whipped. Drive through West Hollywood and you will see several fetish shops in a city block. Where are you from? Have you ever BEEN to a club in L.A. or S.B.? GHB was the rage at the time. It was taken consensually and recreationally as an aphrodisiac. Tonjia admitted to taking GHB with Drew at the house that night before the "rape". She also took it on her own throughout the five months she lived with him. I don't find it hard to believe that they consented to act in one of his amateur flicks or to allow him to have sex with them after they fell asleep. Carrie had sex with her friend David in the back seat of Drew's car on the way to the house that night. When they arrived, she took her clothes off and jumped off the pier. Carrie had sex with Drew twice before falling asleep and again when she awoke after supposedly being "raped". If I "felt I'd been raped", would I have sex with this guy again afterward? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 12, 2003 11:23:18 GMT -5
sherry im from calif,and how dose the calif law take a women right to choose?the law states that a when a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating oranesstehetic substance.
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 12, 2003 11:36:25 GMT -5
ST, recognize the difference in someone slipping something into your drink or taking advantage of someone who is just too drunk to know what the h-ll is going, and someone taking a known sex drug, fully aware of its' effects, what it was for, and WHY they were taking it. That's what happened HERE. Luster violated the LETTER of the law but not the SPIRIT of the law and the prosecutors knew they would never get a conviction from a jury. That's why they winked at the "victims" non-consent claims. It was illegal as hell to allow them to come in and say it was non-consensual and then forbid him from defending himself with the proof that it was. That's the technicality that allows them to call him a "rapist". If GHB is legal then I should be able to take it, have sex with my boyfriend, and allow him to continue after I fall asleep if I so CHOOSE. It's not the state's place to come into my bedroom and tell me I can't make that decision for myself.
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 12, 2003 11:39:18 GMT -5
I would appreciate it if you could post the part of the CA. code that addresses this. I will find the news article where the judge refuses to let him argue that it was consensual.
|
|