If you have been following the Luyster trial I wonder if you are as appalled as I am.
Known white supremacist Brent Luyster was initially found guilty of six charges in total following the verdict Nov. 17. Those include three for first-degree aggravated murder, one for attempted murder and two firearms-related charges. He was charged with the deaths of Joseph LaMar, Janell Renee Knight, and Zachary David Thompson, as well as the attempted murder of Breanne Leigh, who was left for dead at a Woodland residence July 15, 2016.
The convicted triple-murderer who received a guilty verdict last month wasn’t sentenced Dec. 4 because Luyster’s defense asked for a retrial on the day of his scheduled sentencing.
The request for a retrial was due to what the defense believed might have been bias.
Luyster had shaved his head after the jury had gone into deliberation, showing off the lighting bolt SS tattoo that had been concealed prior. Since the jury had a chance to see Luyster with his head shaved while the deliberations were ongoing, the defense attorney claimed that the tattoo might have led to a bias verdict by the jury.
I am all for a fair trial — innocent until proven guilty — but this is beyond “protecting the innocent.” It doesn’t matter what tattoos Luyster has the man killed three people, left another for dead and was found guilty. Why should we even consider spending additional money and time in the court system to defend this murderer? I was relieved to hear he was sentenced on Dec. 15.
Stealing and shoplifting is a crime — it always has been and it should always be.
I remember riding in the police car with my dad when I was in high school. He was dispatched to Nordstroms at Clackamas Town Center where a woman was caught shoplifting. She was taking expensive items and putting them into the bottom of her stroller as her one year old slept. Security watched and confronted her as she tried to leave the store. As she ran, she slipped, split her lip open, and messed up her knees.
My Dad arrested her, placed her in the back of the police car with the stroller and I held the sleeping baby. The woman cried as we drove to the police station. She was embarrassed of what she had done. Worried about her child and who would care for him as police took her to jail.
Things were much different back then. I babysat the little boy until a relative of the shoplifter could come and pick him up. His Mom was processed and placed in jail and no one was sued because she got hurt.
Recently I was talking to the manager of a large store and I couldn’t believe the stories he told me. I had no idea that store management has to decide if the shoplifter is worth pursuing because of the possible outcomes. He gave me an example of chasing a shoplifter. If the individual slips and falls as they try to flee, the store could get sued. Something happens to the shoplifter and they require medical treatment, the store is liable.
We’ve come a long way in protecting individuals rights, bringing attention to excessive force through cell phone videos and monitoring cameras, but when did it become okay to let the criminal profit from their crime?
Why are we allowing the criminal to become the victim and the victim the criminal?
