Bounty Hunter A-Go-Go
June 19, 2003 6:22 PM   Subscribe

“Six men can carry you or 12 men can judge you. You decide!” "...Fugitive cosmetics heir Andrew Luster returned to California from Mexico Thursday to begin serving a 124-year prison sentence for raping three women. His return came more than five months after he fled the United States during trial." His capture involved one of the United State's most respected bounty hunters, Duane "Dog" Chapman. This is his website, this is his story. This is also, unfortunately, his mullet.
posted by jdaura (43 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
Dog is a sexy, sexy man. And he's endorsed by Tony Robbins!
posted by padraigin at 6:24 PM on June 19, 2003


It's much more respectable without the soundtrack. Well, more respectable, anyway.
posted by mmcg at 6:35 PM on June 19, 2003


Jesus, please warn us before sending us to a site that will blast "Who Let the Dogs Out?" from our speakers! Ack!
posted by UKnowForKids at 6:58 PM on June 19, 2003


Yes, I know, I considered warning everyone, but then thought, "Why ruin what's obviously an effective marketing tactic and overall site enhancer" with warnings.

The embedded mpeg of ridiculously overplayed melodies is ON THE COMEBACK.

It won't be long until metafilter streams "Living-La-Vida-Loco.mp3" for your surfing enjoyment.

believe me now or believe me later.
posted by jdaura at 7:10 PM on June 19, 2003


I love Metafilter, and I also love Cruel Site of the Day. Can we preserve the difference?
posted by kozad at 7:14 PM on June 19, 2003


Bounty Hunters. Hm. Interesting career choice. Is a mullet required in order to gain acceptance into the profession?
posted by davidmsc at 7:51 PM on June 19, 2003


Only if you want to make it to the top.
posted by dg at 8:22 PM on June 19, 2003


Saw this on TV just about an hour ago. The one thing caught my attention was this: 120 years for rape.

Rape is bad. No argument there. For 120 years, though, you might as well kill the chick and bury her body in the woods. If I knew I would get 120 years for raping one woman, I would go rape 20 more just to be sure I was getting value for my time. And I would kill all of them.1

I am not a psychopath, and I would never rape anyone; but I'm borderline enough to know psychopaths think like that. What's really crazy is to encourage them.

Also... uh, wasn't Billy the Kid an outlaw? Shouldn't Dog be the modern day Wyatt Earp?
posted by son_of_minya at 9:08 PM on June 19, 2003


Thanks for that little dose of creepy, son. But he raped three women for that sentence, not one. Here you go.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 9:23 PM on June 19, 2003


It looks like the Dog is still in jail in Mexico and could face kidnapping charges. [see last paragraph]
posted by birdherder at 9:25 PM on June 19, 2003


Haven't you heard? The mullet is back in style. Of course for some of us it never went out of style, and probably never will.
posted by Eyegore at 10:40 PM on June 19, 2003


LittleMissCreepy:

That is kind of creepy. Possible serial rapist.

I still don't know about 120 years, though. Rape is not a crime that can be deterred that way. Somebody is always going to want to commit rape. I don't think it's smart to make it a matter of life or death whether the criminal gets caught or not. A lot of those guys are sick anyway -- they'd go buck loco if they knew what was coming for them -- assuming they don't secretly want to be caught.

Have got a feeling that legislators are only tough on rape because they're against premarital sex and abortion, anyway. You don't think they really care about women, do you? As sick as that may sound, I think it's true. In Texas, it used to be legal to rape your wife, but if somebody else raped her it was the death penalty!

Personally, I'd rather be killed (or kill) than spend any more than a few years in prison. (That's why I don't commit big crimes -- because I don't want to kill anyone who doesn't deserve it -- but a lot of people will not think twice about killing someone.) 18 years has gotta be enough for anything to not be worth it, and still leave hope that the criminal's life is not over yet.

Want to just repeat again that I'm not defending rapists. If anybody rapes a girl I know, they'd better flee to Mexico. I just don't think extremely long sentences are a smart policy decision.
posted by son_of_minya at 11:35 PM on June 19, 2003


Sorry, I meant Cranky. Complete accident, I swear.
posted by son_of_minya at 11:35 PM on June 19, 2003


The guy lives in Hawaii. He and his sweetheart (wife?) run a bail bond company down the street. I think I've even seen him... if I count the time I thought I saw Chuck Norris.

But he's still being held in Mexico (bounty hunting is illegal in Mexico), and while he has a few fans in the "industry" (if you can call it that), some of his peers are piling on, saying he gives bounty hunters (um, I'm sorry, "bail enforcement agents") a bad name.
posted by pzarquon at 2:31 AM on June 20, 2003


holy cripes, he's got 12 kids?!?

it's Dog's Army, walkin the streets!
posted by badzen at 2:56 AM on June 20, 2003


It's not just one count of rape, but 86 counts. He disserved the long sentence.

"Luster, 39, was convicted in absentia of 86 counts, including multiple rape charges connected to assaults in 1996, 1997 and 2000.  Police say he videotaped sexual romps with unconscious women after drugging them with the date rape drug gamma hydroxybutyrate, or GHB."
posted by mkelley at 4:55 AM on June 20, 2003


mkelley: Don't want anyone to think I'm just arguing for the hell of it, but it's funny you bring that point up, because piling on counts is even worse than a long sentence for one count.

When I got drunk and called the cops pigs, was I charged with public intoxication? (Calling cops pigs is legal.) No, I was charged with public intoxication, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, assault of a police officer, etc., etc... They basically charged me under six different statutes for the one offense, and then piled on more charges that didn't even make sense. It's sad, but cops and prosecutors do that.

Most times, I think they're just trying to force people into a plea bargain, because they know they can't afford a trial for "one measly charge" of anything. It's prosecution by intimidation. Other times, they just do it because they want someone to spend a long time in jail, and the crime itself doesn't merit a long sentence; so they pull the pile-on routine.

Knowing there were 86 charges, I blame the guy even less for running. It's a miracle he didn't kill someone.
posted by son_of_minya at 6:45 AM on June 20, 2003


s_o_m:
"For 120 years, though, you might as well kill the chick and bury her body in the woods"

"Have got a feeling that legislators are only tough on rape because they're against premarital sex and abortion, anyway"

"Knowing there were 86 charges, I blame the guy even less for running. It's a miracle he didn't kill someone"

"I am not a psychopath, and I would never rape anyone; but I'm borderline enough to know psychopaths think like that. What's really crazy is to encourage them"


Taken as a whole I find your comments on this thread to be some of the most disturbing I've come across on MeFi.

You believe that punishing rape severely is a product of legislators reaction abortion and pre-marital sex... what the fuck is wrong with you? They have nothing to do with one another and any freshman who has taken Psych 1, watched Oprah, or has the sense of a gnat will gladly explain that rape is a crime of violence rather than a crime of sex.

Rape is punished severely because it is a life changing event that leaves a lifetime of scars.

Then you go on to express the conviction that there is so much rape because the sentences are so harsh that rapists running around weighing the potential sentences-- because, after all, in for one-- in for 86. Did the thought ever occur to you that if a rapist is locked away after one, he will not have the chance to commit another?

The next leap in an astoundingly nonsensical belief system seems to indicate that if the penalties were lessened, "What's really crazy is to encourage them," there would be less rape. Explain to me how reducing sentences for violent crime reduces the crime rate.

The fact that your as much an asshole when your out drinking as you are here is irrelevant, unless your comparing adolescent frat-boy behavior with serial rape. On the other hand, maybe if you had killed the cop instead of calling him a name there would only have been one charge.
If you have a problem with the police I'd advise not roaming around shit-faced calling them names.

"I am not a psychopath, and I would never rape anyone..."

You sure about this?
posted by cedar at 7:17 AM on June 20, 2003


Well, the guy videotaped himself doing it, so obviously he wasn't *TO* worried about getting caught.

Besides, if he *HAD* killed the girl she would have been reported missing, and they might have found out she had gone home with him, found the videotape of him raping her, and charged him with murder, for obvious reaons.

On the other hand, this girl might just wake up with a sore pussy the next day and not even worry about it.

He probably would never have been charged if it haddn't been for the fact that the tapes were discovered.

120 years does seem like a long sentace though.
posted by delmoi at 8:00 AM on June 20, 2003


If you don't want a long sentence, don't drug and rape people.

I'm also pretty sure that the sentence would have been lighter if he didn't jump bail and run off to Mexico.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:14 AM on June 20, 2003


On the other hand, this girl might just wake up with a sore pussy the next day and not even worry about it.

But of course. Waking up the next day in such a condition, with no memory of where we've been, or who we've been with, or what happened to us after our second drink at the bar the night before *never* worries us girls. All just part of the game, you know?
posted by jokeefe at 9:18 AM on June 20, 2003


Something else that should be considered: Why is it wrong to classify GHB as a date rape drug one minute, but completely okay the minute someone uses it as one? Of course, the guy did use it as a date rape drug, and that should be classified differently than ordinary date rape, or sexual assault, etc. The law used to prosecute the use of a date rape drug could easily be applied to just about any kid at a rave, though. So, there is injustice built into the system.

cedar:

You're misunderstanding my comments.

Then you go on to express the conviction that there is so much rape because the sentences are so harsh that rapists running around weighing the potential sentences

No. I'm just saying that logically, they should consider that. So should lawmakers.

Rape is punished severely because it is a life changing event that leaves a lifetime of scars.

And prison doesn't??? Or snarky-yet-absolutely-valid rebuttal #2: Yeah, and nobody ever gets raped in prison.

Not-so-snarky, but also a rebuttal, #3: You are mistaken if you actually believe Oprah's opinion on rape is the same as your white Christian male legislator's opinion. It is a matter of opinion, how you feel about an issue. To declare that an opinion is a fact is outright loony...which is one reason why Conservatives use the term "loony left." Just because you define rape in these terms does not in any way make it so.

What are some facts? Judges like women, for one. There is an inherent chivalry in the criminal justice system. This is why there are less women in prison -- and more black men. It's a biased system, and as a feminist myself, I would say that the white lawmakers and judges are interested mainly in protecting their property (women).

Here's something else to think about: in 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for rape was cruel and unusual punishment because the penalty was grossly disproportionate to the crime. Is 41 years proportionate with the crime?

if the penalties were lessened, "What's really crazy is to encourage them," there would be less rape.

No. I wrote that lawmakers should not encourage them to escape justice by any means necessary.

Ever seen the movie Heat? Think about the scene where after one guard is killed, they kill all the guards. They did that because it was already a capital offense, and therefore it would be smarter to kill all of them than to risk getting caught.

...is irrelevant, unless your comparing adolescent frat-boy behavior with serial rape.

No. Wrong again. It is completely relevant because I wasn't referring to serial rape. I was referring to the illegitimate practice of prosecutors stacking on multiple charges so the defendant has no choice but to plead guilty, and they do not only do that in cases of serial rape.

If you ask me, the real adolescent here is the person assuming someone was just out roaming the streets. Did it ever occur to you that I might have gotten drunk at a protest rally to fight for women's rights, or while voulanteering at a shelter for battered women? No, you didn't even think of that possibility, because you saw a few "offensive" words and just judged an entire person you've never met.

Besides, is it really a "serial" crime if it only happens three times?

"I am not a psychopath, and I would never rape anyone..."

You sure about this?


100% -- Are you a psycho?
posted by son_of_minya at 10:25 AM on June 20, 2003


On the other hand, this girl might just wake up with a sore pussy the next day and not even worry about it.

Thats the most offensive thing I've ever read on MeFi. Delmoi, I hope you realize how disturbing and repulsive that is. On every single level. You scare me.
posted by aacheson at 10:45 AM on June 20, 2003


Are you a psycho?

i'll tell you if you answer this: are you gay?
posted by quonsar at 10:52 AM on June 20, 2003


quonsar: That is an entirely inappropriate comment, you fucking jackass.
posted by son_of_minya at 11:02 AM on June 20, 2003


Why is it wrong to classify GHB as a date rape drug one minute, but completely okay the minute someone uses it as one? Of course, the guy did use it as a date rape drug, and that should be classified differently than ordinary date rape, or sexual assault, etc. The law used to prosecute the use of a date rape drug could easily be applied to just about any kid at a rave, though.

Well yeah, that's the way it works. For example, if you get caught with an unregistered handgun you are charged with illegal possesion of a firearm. If you use that gun to rob someone you are charged with illegal possesion of a firearm and armed robbery.

It's not a difficult concept. Kid at a rave gets caught with GBH, he is charged with drug possesion. Kid uses the GBH to incapacitate someone in order to rape them, he is charged with drug possession and rape.

The penalities are proportionate to the crime. What exactly do you see wrong with this?

"And prison doesn't??? Or snarky-yet-absolutely-valid rebuttal #2: Yeah, and nobody ever gets raped in prison."

I'm sure prison changes a convicted criminals life... that's kind of the point.

I imagine the big difference is the rape victim is a ... uh, victim and the convicted rapist is a violent criminal. Funny how I have more sympathy for one than the other.

"What are some facts? Judges like women, for one. There is an inherent chivalry in the criminal justice system. This is why there are less women in prison -- and more black men."
Silly me, all this time I thought it was because black men comitted more crimes deemed worthy of imprisonment than women. I won't be put in the position of defending a legal system that is biased against minorities, but to your comparing apples and oranges.

It's pretty damn rare for a woman to be convicted of rape and not at all unusual for a man (black or white) to be convicted of rape.

"You are mistaken if you actually believe Oprah's opinion on rape is the same as your white Christian male legislator's opinion."
I'd wager that there are more than a few non-white, non-Christian woman legislators who feel the same way. Or is it just the white male ruling elite who do advocate lengthy sentences for violent criminals?

"I wrote that lawmakers should not encourage them to escape justice by any means necessary."
Funny how violent felons have the habit of going to extreme lengths to avoid justice.

"Did it ever occur to you that I might have gotten drunk at a protest rally to fight for women's rights, or while voulanteering at a shelter for battered women?"
I see. So if your motives are altruistic, it excuses your actions.

You know, those battered woman might prefer to have a sober volunteer... considering that the man who battered them was in all likliehood drunk. Not to mention the little detail that men are not welcome to volunteer at womans shelters.

If you were at a rally how did a drunk guy calling the cops names go over with your feminist friends? But to answer your question, no it never occured to me.
posted by cedar at 11:16 AM on June 20, 2003


Wow, way cool to go get drunk at a female's rights rally, or even better, while volunteering at a battered women's shelter! I know that people who run shelters really want volunteers who get drunk on the job. Really classy. Vis a vis the "What's really crazy is to encourage them," concept, why not just have the first one free? Extremely sick individuals will always try to game the system, but I doubt it would work in the favor of normal persons to start changing the rules to not "encourage" people to rape and murder.

On preview: What cedar said, pretty much.
posted by Snyder at 11:36 AM on June 20, 2003


cedar:

On GHB, I think it's wrong because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place. It's a health supplement, naturally present in the body, which got a bad name because of a few date rape cases. The law should be simple -- drug a woman and rape her, you go to prison. There are plenty of legal drugs that could easily be used for date rape.

The GHB thing is not a big point of contention for me, anyway. It's just a little sub-topic that bothers me a little bit.

I imagine the big difference is the rape victim is a ... uh, victim and the convicted rapist is a violent criminal. Funny how I have more sympathy for one than the other.

My point is that under Constitutional law, the penalty should be proportionate to the crime. We are not the "mad mullahs" of Saudi Arabia here, fer cryin' out loud.

Silly me, all this time I thought it was because black men committed more crimes deemed worthy of imprisonment than women.

If I felt like it, I could accuse you of being a bigot right now. Your statement there is certainly no less offensive than mine was.

I'm not just making all this up, about the criminal justice system having an inherent chivalry, or lawmakers drafting law to protect the property rights of slave owners while pretending that they are protecting human rights. The first part is widely accepted in criminology. The second is practically Marxist, but you still don't have to just take my word for it.

I see. So if your motives are altruistic, it excuses your actions.

That just doesn't make sense. What actions should I be excused of, exactly? (That is a rhetorical question.) I thought it was a good example because I had done nothing wrong.

Without derailing the thread to a story about what happened the night I got arrested, how about just taking my word for it? It was just an example of cops and prosecutor stacking on charges either because they were angered by the character of the defendant or because the act itself was not worth the expense of a full trial. That is standard practice all across the U.S.

And, of course it would be traumatic for battered women to have a drunk guy present, yelling at the cops! It was just a snarky way of saying that you don't know what the situation was, and to imply that you should just let it go. From your last sentence, I think you have; but I hope you got the joke.

My whole point in starting this argument with you was real simple: There's nothing to argue about.

Snyder:

You, on the other hand, are definitely blind to sarcasm.

Extremely sick individuals will always try to game the system, but I doubt it would work in the favor of normal persons to start changing the rules to not "encourage" people to rape and murder.

My whole point is that it is to the benefit of normal people that we not encourage people to rape and murder. Even if there is no second chance (you can't vote, get a decent job, carry a weapon, leave the country, etc...as a convicted felon), it is extremely important that the criminal justice system give at least the illusion of retribution.

This is actually a liberal position here -- that prisons and courts need to be reformed. I'm not saying anything crazy at all. It just seems that way because women and feminism are involved.

Less than a week ago, I had sworn that I would never make comments about feminism or homosexuality again, because nobody ever takes those comments at face value. Maybe this will serve as another reminder. I 100% stand behind what I wrote, though.
posted by son_of_minya at 11:58 AM on June 20, 2003


This is actually a liberal position here -- that prisons and courts need to be reformed. I'm not saying anything crazy at all. It just seems that way because women and feminism are involved.

It seems crazy because women and feminism are involved? s_o_m, I'm a feminist, and if you're on my side, please get off.

Are you or are you not advocating lighter sentencing for rape because you think that a substantial sentence puts women in danger of being killed, or is more likely to prompt serial rape? Let's get it clear, one way or the other.

And not that you need to care one bit about my opinion, but I'm with the other posters who find your comments on this thread so far ill-thought-out and very disturbing. But hey, at least you seem serious about them; I can't say the same for delmoi, who's beneath insult.
posted by clever sheep at 12:14 PM on June 20, 2003


Also: it isn't clear to anyone that criminals actually weigh the pros and cons of sentencing structures (or even know them!) before committing crimes.

Which is, of course, why s_o_m was forced to use the completely absurd example of a Michael Mann movie to "illustrate" the argument he is making.
posted by Mid at 12:29 PM on June 20, 2003


Before we call out the feminism police on delmoi, I think s/he was paraphrasing what Luster might have been thinking - not delmoi's own opinion. I would imagine that was exactly what was going through Luster's mind. It did give me a startle when I read it, though.

son_of_minya - I think (hope) that somehow we're all misreading your comments here, because your tone and words make you sound very flippant and misinformed about rape and its effects. Which I'm hoping is not your intention.

Back on topic: Dog needs to update his website - the scrolling marquee still asks for tips to catch Luster. I wonder if Tony Robbins has given his permission for the endorsement?
posted by widdershins at 12:33 PM on June 20, 2003


clever sheep:

Are you or are you not advocating lighter sentencing for rape because you think that a substantial sentence puts women in danger of being killed, or is more likely to prompt serial rape? Let's get it clear, one way or the other.

Yes. Of course, in this case, putting him behind bars to be brutalized and turned into an animal over a period of 18 years wouldn't do much good either. Most likely, he would emerge with lately capability for going outdoors; but there is the possibility that he could emerge as a much more violent serial rapist.

A calm, reasoned approach is needed not only in sentencing, but throughout all levels of the system. It is needed in sentencing, though; and not only in rape cases. (I don't know about you, but I'd rather drug dealers not feel like they have to carry guns.)

Mid:

Not to illustrate the real day-to-day thought process of how criminals think, but to illustrate how they would think if they were rational. In reality, criminals are actually much, much more capable of indiscriminate murder. After spending most of his life in prison, and looking at life if he gets caught again, your typical thug will kill you for your shoes.

Besides, would you rather I use an example from some 1800s book that nobody else has ever read? It's pure elitism to discredit someone's argument because they used a movie as an example. Stick around long enough, and I'll reference an episode of Starsky and Hutch. We live in the modern world here, so let's use modern examples.

widdershins:

Before we call out the feminism police on delmoi, I think s/he was paraphrasing what Luster might have been thinking - not delmoi's own opinion. I would imagine that was exactly what was going through Luster's mind

That's exactly what I was doing in my initial comment. People who thought making that comment meant I am a psycho were only reinforcing the argument that psychopaths do think that way.

Do you think the feminism police have been called out against me? I do. Being a feminist, or a liberal, does not mean being on anyone's side -- being on other peoples' side doesn't mean you're a feminist, it just means you're a follower.

Rape is a horrible thing, but holding it up as some sacred or holy unnamable offense is not going to get anyone anywhere. We (as members of a freedom-loving Republic) have to lose all sentimentality when discussing the law. This is sometimes in direct conflict with the similar need to lose all viciousness when discussing the law.
posted by son_of_minya at 12:53 PM on June 20, 2003


s_o_m, earlier in this thread you write that 18 years should be enough of a sentence for any crime. And now you write that putting [Luster] behind bars to be brutalized and turned into an animal over a period of 18 years wouldn't do much good either. ....There is the possibility that he could emerge as a much more violent serial rapist.

For the sake of argument, what sentencing guidelines would you set for rape, single offense, and rape, serial offense? And what sentence do you think would be appropriate for Luster?

As an aside, I can't agree with you that the "feminism police" have been "called out against you." I'm in the auxiliary, after all, and I didn't even get out my shillelagh.
posted by clever sheep at 1:07 PM on June 20, 2003




On GHB, I think it's wrong because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place. It's a health supplement, naturally present in the body, which got a bad name because of a few date rape cases. The law should be simple -- drug a woman and rape her, you go to prison. There are plenty of legal drugs that could easily be used for date rape.

Have not taken GHB but these woman are near death, this drug affects your (forgot word) breathing system. When you OD on this crap by mixing it with alcohol your lungs are turning off, the brain says to the lungs I don't need you, vise versa. I've seen many go through this, it's a similar death to heroin, your lungs fill with vomit you drown.
It was sold years ago at GNC nutrition stores mostly body builders bought it, but then was abused. A similar experience a lot have had to this is becoming sleepy and taking a nap after eating a large steak. The large amount of protein/amino acid hitting your system causes this which GHB is too.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:36 PM on June 20, 2003


On GHB, I think it's wrong because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place. It's a health supplement, naturally present in the body, which got a bad name because of a few date rape cases. The law should be simple -- drug a woman and rape her, you go to prison. There are plenty of legal drugs that could easily be used for date rape.

Hahaha... The only thing medically GHB is used for is to treat alcoholism and sleeping disorders. But it has a much longer history of being used in pesticides, photochemical etching, car batteries, polyurethanes, metal coated plastics, PH testing strips, and a whole host of other nasty things.

GHB has effects similar to valium, xanax, and ketamine. It's orderless, tasteless, and looks like water. It dissolves in most liquids, including alcohol (which taken in combination with GHB can be deadly). The effects knock you on your ass, and side effects include loss of muscle function, loss of memory, loss of control in the bladder, and possible coma. If you're epileptic, it will probably kill you. Large doses cause "clonus" which is "a rapid, rhythmic contraction and relaxation of muscles which would be better described as muscle spasm or uncontrollable twitching than a seizure".

GHB is produced naturally, in very very small amounts in the body, but there are no medical or health reasons to take it. Your body produces more than enough GHB on it's own, which is why you get very tipsy when take GHB - your body has enough, already. Ask any doctor about this. It's pretty common knowledge that GHB has no genuine helpful effects as a supplement.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:58 PM on June 20, 2003


clever sheep:

If prison is a detterent, 18 years is plenty.

If prison is for rehabilitation, 18 years should be plenty. Unfortunately, prisons in this country are not for rehabilitation. They should be, but they aren't. Since you're asking me to flesh out a complete argument, one for the textbooks, I'm qualifying my previous statement by saying that prisons themselves need to be reformed in addition to sentencing.

(That is not a change of position for me. I'm just providing additional information because I thought it was asked for.)

For a single offense: I think six years is plenty. Of course, it depends on the details of the case, and the judge/jury should have discretion. Actually, 2nd and 3rd degree rape statutes are a good idea.

In the case of serial rapists, I think that's more a medical decision than a legal one. Is it a compulsion, or did they just think they wouldn't get caught? Are they going to do it, no matter what? Obviously, you wouldn't let someone out of your sight if he was going to go rape someone ASAP.

thomcatspike:

I completely agree with you. I just don't think the drug itself is to blame. You could poison somebody with Excedrin and they would die a horrible, painful death; but Excedrin is completely legal.

GHB is a very small part of my "outrage" over this news story. It's not worth it, for me, to argue over it.
posted by son_of_minya at 2:32 PM on June 20, 2003


s_o_m, I have to exit (stage left, naturally) but the most immediate response I had to your post was to wonder what makes six years "plenty" when it comes to rape? Why is five not enough and seven too much?
posted by clever sheep at 2:57 PM on June 20, 2003


I just don't think the drug itself is to blame.

I made a comment in the meta thread about my thought of it being a date rape drug. In Dallas that is how the news & police refer to it. But more die than are rapped in the area from it(reported).

Anyone see cbs's news piece the other night with the creep's interviews defending himself(prior to trial). Speaking of creepy; rich & a weirdo and in line to cosmetic fortunes, why?
PS, in the videos and pictures with his ex-girlfriends, he looked well fit, his face showed a strong jaw line, but his mugshots look like a long time GHB user, bloated in the face.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:01 PM on June 20, 2003


clever sheep: Six years with good behavior is plenty. You're 18-years old, you'll graduate from college at 21 if you work hard -- do you want to get out of prison at 24 with no future?

You don't, do you? So, naturally, you wouldn't want to rape your date at the Senior Dinner Dance.

I came about six years because it's the typical sentence for rape. You ask some street kid, he'll say, "Six years." If memory serves me correctly, that's what Mike Tyson was sentenced to, and I think that was fair.

For rational people, six years is plenty. With intensive treatment, it should also plenty for an irrational person.

thomcatspike:

In Dallas that is how the news & police refer to it. But more die than are rapped in the area from it(reported).

I feel bad enough by appearing to defend rapists, but that's for an important cause. Defending GHB is just a sub-topic.

That said, most overdose deaths are declared as overdoses simply because the drug is present in the corpse. As I said the first time I mentioned GHB, it is always present in the body.

Respitory depression is definitely dangerous, and ill-advised, but I don't think that makes GHB a "deadly" drug.
posted by son_of_minya at 3:08 PM on June 20, 2003


son_of_minya I came back to add, my comment going on about GHB was not meant to argue with you, just what I notice out of the whole deal with this creep. But I've seen the ODs personally a lot of them. The irony is the friend's of these people had no idea what was going on and just left them their to sleep off. So the GHB info I add is from my own experience seeing it.

Again this was just part of the story. As I feel this guy would have raped with or w/o this drug. In the interviews he claimed the woman wanted him to have sex during their unconsciousness, it was planned. In California you can not have sex with an unconscious person, even if they give you consent.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:26 PM on June 20, 2003


thomcatspike: We are in complete agreement, then. That's cool.
posted by son_of_minya at 3:28 PM on June 20, 2003


Due to the Metatalk fallout with the thread, I sincerely apologize to all involved who seemed to get a little dose of the "mad dog" inside of them.

Perhaps together, we will all be able to heal from the the mexican bounty hunter's ultimate prey, www.metafilter.com.

I think the dog himself Duane "Dog" Chapman spoke unto the people thusly, "Six men can carry you or 12 men can judge you".

A life lesson and universal truth for all of us, every single one.

God bless, may this thread and the clowns involved rest in peace.
posted by jdaura at 1:28 AM on June 22, 2003


« Older Bush Lied, People Died   |   Making Fiends Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments