|
|
Post by Stupid on Jul 12, 2003 12:39:54 GMT -5
Tator, you mentioned earlier that all 6,000 captures where illegal? Do you know when his license was suppended? He must have been legal at some point or he wouldn't have been issued the license to start with. Didn't I see somewhere that CA or CO (don't rememger which) just recently changed their law to exclude convicted felons? What about HI?
|
|
tator
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by tator on Jul 12, 2003 13:15:38 GMT -5
He has been a felon a long time I would say that this can of worms is growing fast and big. I'm still working on info. Colorado was the recent change, read Saints last post.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 12, 2003 17:39:02 GMT -5
sherry Don't think anyone would care if you took GHB,and had sex with you boyfrind,i for one would not care.That is your right as far as i see it.Luster proplem is one of the victims went to the police ,and filed a complant.That is her right,and the tapes hurt Luster in a very bad way.If your going to do that ,take GHB and have sex with a person you hardley know,and tape it too,well you are going to have a problem,if someone files a complant.Did some one set Luster up?could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 12, 2003 17:46:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 12, 2003 23:27:29 GMT -5
Now we need to find the court ruling that allowed the judge to apply this law in THIS case. I understand it was fairly recent.
262. (a) Rape of a person who is the spouse of the perpetrator is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under any of the following circumstances: (1) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another. (2) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known, by the accused. (3) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, "unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions: (A) Was unconscious or asleep. (B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred. (C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact.
Snipped: Court: Rape Can Occur Even After ConsentMike McKee The Recorder 01-07-2003 When a woman says no to sex, even after intercourse has begun, a man had better pay attention. On Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that it's rape if a man continues to have sex with a woman who originally consented but then changed her mind. "We conclude," Justice Ming Chin wrote for the majority, "that the offense of forcible rape occurs when, during apparently consensual intercourse, the victim expresses an objection and attempts to stop the act and the defendant forcibly continues despite the objection." In what she called a "sordid, distressing, sad little case," Justice Janice Rogers Brown dissented, saying the majority provided no guidance about what constitutes withdrawal of consent and what amount of force turns consensual sex into rape. "The majority relies heavily on [the defendant's] failure to desist immediately," she wrote. "But it does not tell us how soon would have been soon enough. Ten seconds? Thirty? A minute? Is persistence the same thing as force? And even if we conclude persistence should be criminalized in this situation, should the penalty be the same as for forcible rape?" The case, out of El Dorado County, Calif., involved a March 2000 party at which 17-year-old Laura T. reluctantly engaged in sex with a minor identified only as John Z. The young woman claimed that John Z. had continued to have sex with her after she repeatedly asked him to stop. "Defendant continued the sex act for at least four or five minutes after Laura first told him she had to go home," Justice Chin wrote. "According to Laura, after the third time she asked to leave, defendant continued to insist that he needed more time and 'just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me' for about a 'minute, minute and half.'"
The high court's ruling upholds Sacramento's 3rd District Court of Appeal, and resolves a split in the law created by two competing appeals court rulings -- People v. Roundtree, 77 Cal.App.4th 846, and People v. Vela, 172 Cal.App.3d 237. Monday's opinion sides with Roundtree, a 2000 ruling by San Francisco's 1st District that said withdrawal of consent effectively nullifies any earlier consent, while disavowing Vela, a 1985 ruling by Fresno's 5th District that ruled the opposite.
In her dissent, Justice Brown accused the majority of ignoring "critical questions about the nature and sufficiency of proof in a post-penetration rape case" and argued that prosecutors should still have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a victim clearly communicated withdrawal of consent, and the perpetrator exercised some degree of force. She noted that the victim in John Z. had enjoyed the sex, had simply said she had to go and had never overtly told John Z. she didn't want to keep having sex.
"The majority finds Laura's 'actions and words' clearly communicated withdrawal of consent in a fashion 'no reasonable person in defendant's position' could have mistaken," Brown wrote. "But Laura's silent and ineffectual movements could easily be misinterpreted. And none of her statements are unequivocal." Sacramento, Calif., solo practitioner Carol Foster, who represented John Z., could not be reached for comment Monday. Neither could Douglas Beloof, who argued part of the state's case before the California Supreme Court on behalf of the National Crime Victim Law Institute, an amicus curiae based in Portland, Ore.
However, Sacramento-based Deputy Attorney General John McLean, who also argued before the court, called the decision "a common sense ruling" that did away with a "minority view opinion" from the mid-'80s. He also said that despite Brown's dissent he thought the ruling was "pretty clear." "There may be a need later on," he added, "for instructions to deal with specific situations." The case is In re John Z, 03 C.D.O.S. 129.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 12, 2003 23:32:07 GMT -5
truth will try to find the court ruling,and if time primets,ill see if i can get the list of the 87 counts.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 13, 2003 0:00:47 GMT -5
I think Luster WAS set up, not just by the "victims" though. I can't imagine a prosecutor believing their stories if the version we have is anything close to reality. They have a duty to ask questions and test the credibilty of a complainant. I think they played dumb because the jury wouldn't convict him on the letter of the law, and maybe it would've even have sorta put the "victims" in the role of accomplice, and they just wouldn't have had a case.
The prosecutor should never have been allowed to make an argument of non-consent and then gag the defense and not allow them to defend on the issue of consent. I don't know the legal term for it but I know that that kind of unfair advantage is illegal. He was denied the right to confront his accusers and I know that's one of the fundamental rights of the accused. I don't know if he pi-ssed somebody off in a real high place or what, but I just can't explain the overkill and demonization. I don't know why the media went along in it, if it was for ratings, or what.
Compare what happened here to what's going on in the Kobe Bryant case, not only with the D.A., but the media. He is being given the benefit of the doubt, and the prosecutor is investigating the victims' version thoroughly, giving Kobe the presumption of innocence until he thinks he can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or finds that there is not sufficient probable cause to believe a crime was committed. The media is cooperating and reporting both sides at least somewhat fairly.
Why was the standard of proof lowered so in the Luster case? Why the rush to judgement, and why after the victim was proven to have lied in court do they still not correct the record and continue to portray the man as a monster? They seem to want to utterly destroy the man for no apparent reason.
|
|
tator
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by tator on Jul 13, 2003 0:14:39 GMT -5
The only thing I don't get is 87 counts on three chicks somebody was coming back for more. I stated earlier I'm in the middle but 87 times Luster isn't that tough or Dog couldn't have caught him. What 's GHB anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 13, 2003 0:22:46 GMT -5
TRUTH LMAO do you like to hang your self??? here we go an old news artical news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3002402.stm let see you have listed the law,how about the stament on one of the tapes?  AH!!!! YES JUST WHAT I LIKE IN MY ROOM ,A PASSED OUT BEAUTTIFUL GIRL.LOL the last part of that stament is? and i can do anything i want too.... LMAO YOU WILL HANG YOURSELF EVERY TIME IN THE ANDREW (OH NO MR DILL DON'T STICK YOUR BANNAN THEIR) LUSTER CASE. Did poor andrew luster comite the crime of rape,sure he did. lmao |
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 13, 2003 0:24:50 GMT -5
LOL. Tater, I think he was chemically enhanced himself. 4 times in one night. ;D It's actually a naturally occurring substance in the body. It is used in different quanitities depending on the desired effect. In lower doses, it has an aphrodisiac effect. A higher dose induces a deep sleep. It's really popular in the clubs. I don't think it's been banned here yet. It's not just the "date rape" drug. A LOT of people take it like Viagra. It doesn't simply cause arousal, it enhances the sensations, etc. It's good stuff from what I'm told.  I have some links somewhere. I'll find them if I can. |
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 13, 2003 0:29:58 GMT -5
So, what does that mean That doesn't mean that she didn't take it knowingly while consenting to the sex. You need to look a little further. Tonya ADMITS to taking it that very night . She also took it throughout the 5 mos. she lived with him. Take the time to READ my post on the "victims" before you make an ass of yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Stupid on Jul 13, 2003 0:32:40 GMT -5
the argument you just used was that if she slept with him a lot, that rape can't occure. there's something wrong with that logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 13, 2003 0:36:38 GMT -5
TRUTH READ THE LAW AGAIN,YOU R POST ON THE LAW IS ALL WE NEED. Oh BTW calling me an ass ,proves my point ,you hung yourself. A PASSED OUT GIRL,AND I CAN DO ANYTING I WANT TO HER. DUDE ITS RAPE UNDER THE LAW ,AND ALL ON TAPE. LMAO
|
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 13, 2003 0:36:48 GMT -5
I'm saying if she took a sex drug which has no other purpose, it's reasonable to assume it was for sex. You can't feign that kind of ignorance after two weeks of this, Stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 13, 2003 0:42:36 GMT -5
Noone has ever denied he MAY HAVE violated the letter of the law, if you believe the law is to be construed to mean that a woman has no right to consent, or to ALLOW her partner to have sex with her while she is unconcious. I don't believe that any reasonable, intelligent, or honest person(which excludes yourself) or juror would interpret it that way and I think the prosecutor knew that, thus the need for the "victims" to say it wasn't, true or not. It would've ended in jury nullification had they been shown the tape of Tonjia consenting or been informed that she perjured herself on that very issue.
|
|
I have some links somewhere. I'll find them if I can.