|
Post by stagetec on Jul 29, 2003 0:41:13 GMT -5
truth now their you go again,what part of the law (RAPE OF AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON ) do you not understand? Luster took the right of the consent away when the person is unconscious.I sure the h-ll would not want a woman coming back on me saying i raped her,and then have the D.A. find the tapes.Luster made his own bed and now he's sleeping in it.That law has been on the books longer then you've been a live.
|
|
|
Post by FormerlyAnon on Jul 29, 2003 0:47:57 GMT -5
Stagetec,Y k: What TheTruth is simply trying to point out is that Luster did NOT receive a fair and impartial trial. Relevant evidence was inappropriately excluded. He should get a fair trial w/ ALL the evidence is included...
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 29, 2003 0:52:44 GMT -5
You are just a sad lonely person aren't you? You seem to have no purpose to anything you post. You've gone on with this same reel for the last month and a half. I thing Truth has addressed every point you pretend to be making at least a hundred times. Your repeating the same old news a 40th time doesn't somehow make it any more news or any more valid than it was the first time. The Dr. or dentist doesn't take away someone's consent when they are unconcious because he had prior consent. This law was never meant to be applied in this way-EVER. They all consented before hand. The fact that Tonjia consented for 5 months is public record. You never address any of the facts, though, you just continually post the same stale stuff. I'm a woman and it's my business what I choose to do with my body, not yours. You can't make that decision for me or any other woman and the law was never written to do that.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 29, 2003 1:02:11 GMT -5
sherry their you go again with that dr dentist bull panit again. what dose that have to do with rape laws???Im just telling you that with the luster case,you have a hard uphill battel.imho luster will never see the free light of day again,even if he dose get his appale rights back. what part of the law do you not understand???
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 29, 2003 1:15:02 GMT -5
anon what the judge did in the luster case ,is rule that a woman has the right to change her mind,in the middle or the sex act and say no.That is also the law,in this case you have unconscious women that can't say no stop i dont want you to do that.with luster having his way doing anything he wants.The truth to the matter is luster will go to his grave sitting in prison.And yes its a very sad story.
|
|
|
Post by FormerlyAnon on Jul 29, 2003 1:23:25 GMT -5
Oh come on, Stagetec. Changing her mind in the middle of a sexual act. YOU try it. Change you mind and see what, if anything, anatomically or physically happens. Down boy! Down!! I said NO!!! Well, we're waiting...
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 29, 2003 1:30:18 GMT -5
anon thats the law to,no means no.has been for a very long time.Get use to it luster will die in prison,that is the truth to the matter.P.S all you had to do is read the law,i posted it time and time again.
|
|
|
Post by FormerlyAnon on Jul 29, 2003 1:57:13 GMT -5
Stagetec, I did read the law. What the Judge did is merely interpret the law as he saw its intent. Other Judges will rule differently in terms of during the act. Did you try stopping it yet? Again, I'm not defending Luster's case, just his right to a fair trial where A L L the evidence is presented, even the "No" part & what lead up to it...
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 29, 2003 2:20:40 GMT -5
anon the intent of the law is to on the victims side,all you have to do is read it,and understand the law.even if luster gets his appale rights back,it will do him no good.If you play all the tapes fulley,it will do luster no good.Under the law sex with an unconscious person is rape ,that is the law.the perosn can not say no. What part of the law do you not understand?Its all on tape to,Luster will never see the free daylight,get use to it. JMHO.
|
|
|
Post by FormerlyAnon on Jul 29, 2003 2:50:46 GMT -5
Stagetec: You are like a stuck record on this issue, and so are others!!! Do you believe in a fair trial? Is every accused entitled to one?? Did Luster get one??? NO, he didnt get one!!! One Judge, who erred in other areas, ruled via his opinion of the law. That may or may not be overturned by other Judges. That's how the system works. Let it...
|
|
Yak
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by Yak on Jul 29, 2003 9:30:11 GMT -5
It looks like we're "losing" threads again in here. Thank you Tator for an honest answer. I see your point. By the way...I have gone to South Central and checked out the Los Angeles Drug Murder Scene, very similar to New York, Detroit,Chicago, etc....but more publicized. Has MS anon gone undercover?.Three different handle's in the last 10 hours and she still "{HAS'NT}" answered my question.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 29, 2003 11:55:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ----- on Jul 29, 2003 12:00:51 GMT -5
I hope he get's his appeal rights back too. EVERYONE should be entitled to a fair trial and you are entitled to face your accusers, at least it was that way the last time I checked.
|
|
|
Post by ----- on Jul 29, 2003 12:44:58 GMT -5
Tangled web....running waive the right?
Constitutionally, you have a right to face your accuser.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
6. Any grade-school child knows that when you have been accused of a crime, you have a right to confront your accusers. But with drugs it's different. Unlike most felonies that involve a criminal and a victim, drug sales involve two willing participants. So to find out about such transactions, the police rely on inside information, effectively deputizing a posse of faceless informants. Because many snitches are employed more than once, the Supreme Court eliminated the right to face your accuser in a notorious 1983 ruling, Illinois v. Gates, which sanctioned the use of anonymous informants. Moreover, any defendant choosing to go to trial risks infuriating the judge by clogging his schedule. Most suspects, innocent or not, plead guilty and then cop a lesser sentence by becoming snitches themselves. Faceless informants are often paid by the police, and many of them continue their drug habits, now subsidized by taxpayers. In effect, the drug war has reduced our justice system to a tournament of snitches and golddiggers.
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 29, 2003 13:23:03 GMT -5
It looks like we're "losing" threads again in here. Thank you Tator for an hocretin answer. I see your point. By the way...I have gone to South Central and checked out the Los Angeles Drug Murder Scene, very similar to New York, Detroit,Chicago, etc....but more publicized. Has MS anon gone undercover?.Three different handle's in the last 10 hours and she still "{HAS'NT}" answered my question. You're losing something allright, but I don't think it's threads. Ever hear of a profile? Ms. Anon is a 52 year old male and he deleted his other user name to overcome a software glitch that only allows him to type 4 lines. Unlike you two who repeatedly try to come in under different I.D.'s anytime you're getting your a-s kicked. You haven't asked a question worthy of a response since you came to this board, why should he waste his time? Nobody even remembers what your idiotic question was. What, would he allow his daughter to date Luster, again? You accuse me of not answering the same question and I have done so at least 3 times. I would date Drew MYSELF if all I wanted was a good time. I would have no problem at all with any member of my family being involved with him. It's not like he pretends to be Mr. Stable, 1 wife, 2 kids, and a dog, 9-5er. He is what he is and that happens to be a confirmed bachelor who enjoys the charms of a lot of women. That's not a crime.
|
|