Posted on 09/20/2006 6:29:44 AM PDT by HOTTIEBOY
I think it is pretty rotten the way the situation was handled, especially since Andrew Luster was in Mexico at the time and was probably drugging and raping citizens there. I have never been one to believe conspiracies, but there has got to be more to this.
I think he should be commended instead of arrested. Leland said it best when he said something like, "We didn't take a Mexican citizen, we can and got an American rapists and brought him back to face justice."
Hush up and pay your taxes. :(
thats the American way......
Anything & everything can and does happen there.
The threat to your safety comes from everywhere and everyone inside these closed societies called prison.
I kinda laugh at his show, but I think the guy has real faith and tries to provide the best he can for his family.
What Chapman did was just plain ol' fashion stupid. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
I LMAO too. But once I got past the mullets, I realized that they were doing something that I wouldn't/couldn't do.
Especially unarmed.
In context this is an exception to the rule. Luster was wanted for 86 counts of rape. He fled to Mexico and was preying on girls there.
You damn right I support the people that brought him in, even if they did violate another countries laws.
You mean you would support someone that knowingly and willingly violates the law? Selective law enforcement isn't a good thing.
Hey, if Bin Laden had flown planes into the UN, there are probably a bunch of Freepers here (myself included) who would have thrown the guy a parade.
Me too. If the FBI couldn't get Luster and Dog could and did then I think he did the right thing. Luster was raping women in Mexico and had a payback list. Mexico should be glad Dog caught him . But I think Mexico is so corrupt that they didn't care what Luster did as long as he was paying off their government. Our government should tell Mexico no to extraditing the Dog, Leland and Tim. This is a bunch of BS. Let the Mexicans come get their illegals and extradite them.
In a word, yes. Suppose a citizen from Mexico committed numerous rapes and escaped from prison and fled to the United States. Once here, he began to prey on young girls. However, another citizen from Mexico wants this guy to face justice. To get to the suspect, he steals a car, and a gun, and, unlawfully and without a warrant, breaks into the residence where the suspect is staying and hands him over to authorities. He too is arrested, but while out on bond, he flees back to Mexico. I can confidently state that there would be something close to a violent revolution by the females in this nation if our Government tried to extradite the citizen who captured the rapist.
"What Chapman did was just plain ol' fashion stupid. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
Indeed. And the South was justified in imprisoning and jailing people who helped shelter and guide runaway slaves.
I understand the feelings of the posters here who want all laws to be upheld. But since Mexico openly and contemptuously flouts U.S. laws every day, I see no reason to respect theirs, especially such a weak and foolish law as this one (bounty-hunting). Mexico was harboring a convicted U.S. rapist who made no secret of his identity, and all Dog, Leland, and Tim did was go in and capture him. They were polite and respectful to Mexican citizens. No one, including the criminal, was hurt.
Another thing to be considered is the terrible conditions of Mexican prisons, and the very real possibility that Dog, Tim, and Leland could be murdered while incarcerated. Anyone involved in law enforcement is at high risk in prison, and there's no guarantee that they'd be protected from the general population of prisoners.
These are good, Christian men who performed a brave and badly needed act. They deserve our admiration and support.
According to news reports, the FBI was within a day of picking up Luster, who was hiding in Mexico under an assumed name.
The tip that Chapman got was also given to the FBI, but the FBI took a little longer to get there because they had to coordinate with the government.
The mexican government had no desire to hide Luster, and was cooperating.
When Luster was taken from Chapman, it only took a day to get him expelled to the United States (as a foreigner, it was a little easier -- if he had been a Mexican, we would have had to use extradition proceedings, such as those that will be applied now to Chapman).
Chapman's crime in Mexico wasn't a big deal -- Chapman's lawyer said it was a misdemeaner and should be resolved trivially. But after Chapman was released on bail and returned home, he blew off his criminal trial in Mexico, and now he is wanted as a fugitive as well as for the original crime.
Chapman is trying to use Luster's notoriety to defend himself, but in fact he broke the law in mexico to launch his TV career and in an attempt to get $350,000 in bounty by capturing Luster.
Turns out he couldn't collect on that, because he was not hired by the bail bondsman, and had no authority to act as a retriever in the case. A judge in the United States denied him any money for his "capture" of Luster.
But it DID launch his A&E career, so it turned out very well for him.
Except for the part of having broken the law in Mexico, and being a bail-jumper.
I bet every criminal HE picks up for bail-jumping says that he is being unjustly accused of a crime, and fears for his life in prison.
THere is NO evidence Luster was commiting ANY crimes in mexico, much less "raping women". He was hiding in mexico using an assumed name and fake ID papers, not running around on a crime spree.
Chapman didn't harm Luster either. He picked him up with a small scuffle, but no mistreatment.
Because of the scuffle, mexican police were called, and they capture Chapman and his crew a few blocks away. They took Luster into custody, along with Chapman and company.
The next day they turned Luster over to the FBI, who was already enroute to Mexico to apprehend Luster, having received the same tip as Chapman and having gone through approriate channels.
Shortly after Chapman and company were released on bail, under misdemeanor charges his own lawyer said were no big deal.
Chapman later skipped showing up for his trial in Mexico, and now he is under a lawful extradition order submitted through official channels based on a signed treaty between Mexico and the United States, a treaty which also allowed us to get Luster, along with thousands of other criminals, back from Mexico.
Anybody want to argue about the treaty, that's fine. Lets discuss that, at least it's a rational discussion. I say it's worth it to get all our criminals back from Mexico, to have to also send THEIR criminals back to them. The alternative is to scrap the treaty. Then we don't have to send our citizens to mexico, but they won't send theirs to us.
In which case, any american can slip into mexico, commit crimes, and if they get back here are scot free. Like Chapman.
But it also means that the 11 million illegal immigrants can commit crimes here, and then if they slip back to mexico, we can't get them back to prosecute.
If you DON'T want to scrap the treaty, then we have to follow the treaty with Chapman. We can't make selective enforcement based on OUR interpretation of mexican laws. As soon as we do, they will do the same thing.
Last year, some mexican authorities decided to do that with the treaty, refusing to send back people who faced life in prison. The mexican supreme court ruled that they can't do that under the treaty terms.
We can't govern our foreign policy on an individual basis simply because of what we think about the specific case.
Chapman will have his day in extradition court to argue that he faces persecution if he is sent to Mexico. A judge will rule on that motion, not his devoted TV audience.
If he is sent back to Mexico, he will be a highly visible case, and it is unlikely he will get anything other than superb treatment. I rather think he'll settle this thing, send them some money, and be on probation.
Oh really? Well perhaps I am wrong although on the show I watched last night it said he had date rape drugs and video tapes, in Mexico. And he had a notebook filled with names that he wanted to payback. Do you think he would't continue to engage in his diviant past behavior? Sorry I don't have any use for rapists, you want to stick up for Luster do so but don't comment back to me. I find it odd someone would stick up for a rapist who runs away and doesn't stick around for his trial unless he is guilty. You said to me the following:
He was hiding in mexico using an assumed name and fake ID papers, not running around on a crime spree.
Do you call that being law abiding? Therefore in Mexico he was already breaking the law. So that in itself is CRIME!!!
My point is that Chapman is saying he was committing crimes in mexico, but no charges were ever filed against Chapman in mexico, and no mexicans ever came forward to claim they were raped by him in mexico.
He was a wanted fugitive from justice in the United States, and I'm glad we have an extradition treaty with Mexico that allowed us to get him back and put him in jail.
I don't know why the pro-chapman people can't get off labelling the pro-law people as being "pro-luster". I haven't seen a SINGLE post on this subject anywhere on FR where someone said Luster was not guilty, or should be freed, or he wasn't worth capturing, or ANYTHING to defend Luster for the crimes he committed and was sentenced for.
I was just pointing out that I don't get my facts from bail-jumpers on cable entertainment shows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.