Yak
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by Yak on Jul 28, 2003 10:35:41 GMT -5
Tator....Who said i support murder?? I certainly did'nt. As for asking ME the question i have asked the Luster supporters "{which has only been answered by Sherry}" and was {female members}......"HANDS DOWN" , it would be Duane. Thirty years is a long time ago......or maybe i'm more familiar with the "only in L. A. drug-rape" scene. I hope this is'nt pointless to you.
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 28, 2003 10:53:34 GMT -5
Dude, you are THICK. Any law that tells me as a woman I can't do what I want with my husband or partner asleep or not is unconstitutional. If I go to the Dr. or Dentist and sign a consent form for him to render me unconcious and do whatever is agreed to, I'm not going to wake up and say he didn't have consent because I had a change of heart in my sleep. You just post the same thing over and over and over. Are you TRYING to look like an idiot? It's established that he had consent, especially in the Tonjia the perjurer case. The state has no right to step in and say a woman can't give consent to sex while unconcious. Not one consent law on the books in this country was meant to be applied in such a case. No jury would ever convict the accused knowing the woman wanted it or simply didn't care. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't have had to parade the 3 liars before the jury. They could've brought the case anyway even if the three "victims" had testified FOR Luster, and technically he could've been convicted anyway because he clearly violated the letter of the law. That would never happen in the real world because the jury would've nullified. Do you know what that means? You're so big on researching all these laws-get a legal dictionary and look up JURY NULLIFICATION. That's the reason the prosecution suborned perjury and the judge forbade him to make the defense it consensual. It's a lot easier to win the fight when you tie the guys hands behind his back and gag him, right Maeve? If you want to get technical the women broke the law in allowing him to do it.
|
|
Yak
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by Yak on Jul 28, 2003 11:09:23 GMT -5
Stagetec {dude}....you are thick..lol......and please tell Sherry not to move to the south-east U.S....because... she might find out "constitutional" and "laws" DO vary among the states. Be careful in bed babe. And please stop with the FACTS....."thats not fair".
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 28, 2003 13:05:11 GMT -5
Senseless!
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 28, 2003 13:22:20 GMT -5
sherry think what we have in the luster case,is the sex was not concent, as luster said a passed out women and i can do anything i want.After all they were unconscious,and physically unabel to communicate unwillingness to any act luster was doing.Even truth said luster violate the letter of the law.
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 28, 2003 13:43:56 GMT -5
Duuhhhh.....He violated the letter of the law? You don't saaayyy! He did not violate the spirit of the law. The evidence overwhelmingly supports his contention that they were acting or fully consenting. Regardless of what he said for the camera while having sex, he had prior consent. Unless they had awoke to find themselves mutilated or their eyebrows shaved off, they don't have a claim. Prove he did ANYTHING while they were in that state they he didn't have prior consent to do. So he said, "passed out and I can do anything I want", does that mean she didn't tell him beforehand when they were both gulping the GHB that that was okay? Doesn't the fact that she took the GHB knowing what it was and what it was, for pretty much imply consent? Tonjia was proven to have consented to the taping, the GHB, and the sex. Not just the one night, but for 5 months. Some women like the sensation of taking GHB and being pleasured in the blissfully drowsy state it creates. That is exactly what happened here and it's none of the state's business.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 28, 2003 14:05:31 GMT -5
lets put in luster words?Sure they were in a extreme state of inebriation and a vid [sic]. But this as any actively sexual preson [player] knows is not outside the grounds of ethical play. Sherry the state would never have goten in to this if someone did'nt file a complante.Then have luster on a tape telephone call saying he gave her GHB.with all of that ,the cops are going to show up with warrent in hand,and what did they find all the tapes.
|
|
|
Post by RELENTLESSONE on Jul 28, 2003 14:45:22 GMT -5
Hey, Yuk: Yes 30 yrs. is a long time, but during that time Duane never learned how to obey the laws of this country that protect your SoEast Redneck Rump. This is still old stuff that you still have NOT caught youself up on by doing your research/homework. Read, study, learn. He is still a CONVICT and will never change...
|
|
Yak
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by Yak on Jul 28, 2003 15:32:30 GMT -5
MS anon,......please STOP with your "hissy fits" and answer my question. Which female in "YOUR" family would you allow to go out " clubbing " with Luster?? And remember...."Some women like the sensation of taking GHB and being pleasured in the blissfully drowsy state it creates". Ask Sherry.......she seems to know. Oh.. by the way......"just partying".......with "no COMMITMENT" expected. P S .....and if you can PROVE to me that Duane "was" the sole murderer.....i guess i'll have to give him my "foote" in the ass. Waiting for your reply......
|
|
|
Post by RELENTLESSONE on Jul 28, 2003 16:16:49 GMT -5
Hey, Yuk (or is it Yak?) my apology if I erred!!! The exchange that you and I are having has nothing to do w/ Luster, just a CONVICT, so your ? is irrelevant. Now, have you ever heard of accessory? By Duane's own admission he was there and responsible and even tried to run. Jump to today and he is still breaking the law-no changes-still illegal...
|
|
tator
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by tator on Jul 28, 2003 22:57:38 GMT -5
Yak, I will use your theory Luster didn't make the GHB he may not have administered the GHB someone else may have. Do you want to let him off for the rest of his life to do as he pleases in say 18 months ? Maybe while you pretend to know Lower Alabama drug rape scene you should go to South Central and check out the Los Angeles Drug Murder Scene. I can answer my question to you, I don't want either of these pieces of crap around my family male or female. 30 years is long time unless you are Dead. 30 yearsis only a small fraction of eternity.
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 28, 2003 23:47:40 GMT -5
Pardon me, but just what the he-ll does partying without a commitment or women liking to be pleasured have to do with a life sentence for three rapes he didn't commit? Do you think everybody that likes sex is a criminal? I really don't see your point. You seem to lump everyone in the category of a sex maniac from a punk kid looking at Playboy to Jeffery Dahmer. Are you m/f? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that. Luster was a young single male who enjoyed sex. You might call him a cad, or a womanizer or say he thought with the wrong head or not want your daughter to date such a horn dog, and you might not approve, but none of the above is a criminal offense punishable by LIFE in maximum security. You just seem to have a problem with sex itself. I would suggest therapy. The condition you suffer from is no healthier than the sex addiction you seem to believe Luster was afflicted with.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 29, 2003 0:05:21 GMT -5
truth lol three rapes he did'nt commitment.The truth of the matter is the tapes were very graphic,and the jury found luster guilty on 86 counts. Even you said he luster violated the letter of the law.P.S jeffery Dahmer? ?
|
|
tator
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by tator on Jul 29, 2003 0:17:54 GMT -5
Dahmer that adds a new meaning to Eat Me.
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 29, 2003 0:19:07 GMT -5
"The tapes are pretty graphic", Uhhh....yeaahh... Tapes of people having sex usually are. You have a real knack for the obvious, don't you? You just post the same inane thing over and over and over. When legitimate logic or argument fails you just resort to same trite things as if by changing the subject you somehow accomplish something. He MAY have violated the letter of the law, I'm not sure he did when you consider that the law was written to protect the truly non-consenting, the point is the verdict was reached by prosecutorial and judicial misconduct and jury who didn't have a clue due to the lies of the prosecution and their suborned perjury.
|
|