Talk:Andrew Luster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accuracy[edit]

I don't know enough about this to fix the factual accuracy, but from my limited knowledge "liquid ecstasy" is a street name for GHB. This article states he gave the girls both "liquid ecstasy" and GHB. Is there not also dispute over whether or not GHB is actually a date rape drug? Sorry I can't fix it, I just don't know enought to attempt. sinblox (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a nursing student (RN). GHB is most certainly a date rape drug. Woman have died due to small doses of this drug. To give this drug, or use for recreational purposes, is a huge gamble. GHB is used in the OR. It is extremely potent and dangerous if administered by an untrained or under-trained person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.122.221 (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'Arrest and Conviction' it says, "In 1996, 1997 and 2000, Luster was accused of giving three women GHB..." and in the box under his photo it says, convicted " January 22, 1996 (in absentia.)" Is it possible to rape someone in 1997 and 2000 and be convicted in absentia 1996? Mylittlezach (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dog[edit]

I took out the "then-unknown" part referring to "Dog." If he was an "unknown" then why did he have a TV crew? Also, that statement is unencyclopaedic. -- THEBlunderbuss 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Chapman[edit]

Dwayne and Beth Chapman told their Andrew Luster story to the Professional Bail Agents United States (PBUS) association. I was there and have it on video. Chapman stated he hired a Mexican Police Lieutenant to make the arrest with his Mexican police officers as backup. This is legal in Mexico. Chapman wanted to be videoed confronting Andrew Luster. The Mexican police arrested Chapman over the payment arrangements, according to Dwayne Chapman. Chapman explained more including the real reason they hunted Andrew Luster. Should I add to this article, all the statements that Dwayne and Beth Chapman told the PBUS audience? --Sponsion (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86 out of 87 accounts[edit]

Luster was found guilty of 86 out of 87 accounts of rape, while in the article it is stated that he drugged three women. If anyone knows the truth, can someone change it? --Soetermans 11:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you disagreeing with? He was found guilty of 86 counts, right? These guilty verdicts came about because of his role in drugging three women before raping them. I'm not sure what you're asking for. --LeyteWolfer 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what was meant was what were the 87 counts charged. He raped 3 women, how does that correlate into 87 counts? Could a link be added to the charge?

The 87 counts were not all of rape, and nor was he found guilty of 86 rapes. The wording is now clarified, differentiating "counts" from "rape counts". --75.85.5.120 09:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia articles in other languages, tapes were found showing him having sex with 13 unconscious women, with whom he had multiple interactions. The prosecution decided to charge him with 87 offenses comitted in 1996, 1997 and 200 against three of these women. He was convicted of 86 of these counts. --93.133.164.234 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntarily absented?[edit]

I know that's the accepted 'politically correct' term, but it just sounds silly. He 'voluntarily absented' himself? There's *got* to be a more accessible way to say that. Not to mention that the article sounds like a lawyer's report at some potins.... 207.81.138.180 04:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer[edit]

Is the disclaimer really necessary, it makes the page look as if it were copied from another website (which in all fairness it probably is). if someone knows if this is really relevant or not could either put a post here or else delete the disclaimer.

Please read the article more carefully before you complain. They stated that Andrew Luster's mother included that disclaimer on the web site she registered for him. That does not say that the disclaimer is for Wikipedia. That woman registered that web site and then claimed that it was concerned citizens, and not the family; she should be held liable for a blatant lie. That family disgusts me. They have video evidence of him having sex with UNCONSCIOUS women. That is RAPE. He is not privy to special treatment as far as I'm concerned. For his family to attack those women, even though they presented video tapes of it, is just horrendous. GHB is a very potent and dangerous drug. I'm a student RN nurse. That's first semester clinical information there. Woman have died due to small doses of that drug, thanks to cowardly men like Andrew Luster. His punishment wasn't nearly severe enough as far as I'm concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.122.221 (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory figures[edit]

In the section Prison sentence and civil suits, two contradictory figures are given regarding Mr. Luster's sentencing.

In the first paragraph, it says; (Luster)...'was required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence...Had his original sentence stood, Luster would not have even been considered for release until he served 105 years—effectively a life sentence...'

However,just two paragraphs below - same section (and still talking about the same sentencing issue), it says; '..since his crimes harmed other persons, Luster must serve 50 percent of his sentence before being eligible for release..'

I do not know California penal law, so, I can't fairly say which of these two - rther diverse - sentencing rules is the correct one: 50% or 85%.

Big difference.

Contradictory figures[edit]

In the section Prison sentence and civil suits, two contradictory figures are given regarding Mr. Luster's sentencing.

In the first paragraph, it says; (Luster)...'was required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence...Had his original sentence stood, Luster would not have even been considered for release until he served 105 years—effectively a life sentence...'

However,just two paragraphs below - same section (and still talking about the same sentencing issue), it says; '..since his crimes harmed other persons, Luster must serve 50 percent of his sentence before being eligible for release..'

I do not know California penal law, so, I can't fairly say which of these two - rther diverse - sentencing rules is the correct one: 50% or 85%.

Big difference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UNOwenNYC (talk • contribs) 13:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent plagiarism[edit]

Some of the material in this article appeared to be plagiarized from this site, so I have removed it. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andrew Luster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Luster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Luster&oldid=1194830926"