|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
11th October 2016, 01:50 AM | #41 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
|
11th October 2016, 01:52 AM | #42 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
|
11th October 2016, 01:55 AM | #43 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
Not a hope in hell. One of the things you assume in the many threads where you defend violent men is that cops are stupid and/or corrupt. This displays gross ignorance. The justice system in Australia requires that only cases with a reasonable probability of prosecution go to trial. This is not decided by police, but by Directors of Public Prosecution (or equivalent). Murder or manslaughter convictions are therefore quite high in Australia. This guy will not walk.
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 02:02 AM | #44 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:06 AM | #45 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
We get few acquittals too, but with an easy threshold to prosecution and that's the problem. The public never believe the police would fabricate evidence, falsify note books and frame men against whom there is no evidence, but they did so in all the cases I listed.
The facts of this case look straightforward, so whatever the outcome it will depend on public mood rather than fabricating evidence. |
11th October 2016, 02:09 AM | #46 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...the section of the criminal code that is applicable has been cited in this thread.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s302.html "(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;" What exactly is the "prize cockup?" |
11th October 2016, 02:19 AM | #47 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
I have caught up with the thread now.
However, since we are all thinking critically in these parts, let's look at the language. How about "Kidnapping with death as an unintended consequence" Murder is just highly inaccurate given the flexibility language affords. ETA death was not caused by locking her out. Death was caused by her climbing over a railing. He was not in pursuit. |
11th October 2016, 02:25 AM | #48 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:28 AM | #49 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:30 AM | #50 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
The consideration that the judge will make will be (paraphrasing)
Was the death of Ms. Wright a real risk which an ordinary person in Tostee's position would have foreseen as a possible outcome when he locked the balcony door - or was it something which an ordinary person might think of as so remote a possibility that there was no need to take it into account or guard against its happening? I think if she was sober, you might make a case for the latter, that she would be unlikely to attempt a climb over the balcony to escape. Drunk, Tostee's act is one of rank stupidity. Someone under the influence of "home distilled white spirits" is not safe on a balcony. |
11th October 2016, 02:31 AM | #51 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...you weren't even clear on what legally constituted "murder" in Australia until a few minutes ago. We haven't heard a fraction of the evidence, and the evidence we have heard has been filtered through the news outlets.
Don't you think you are jumping the gun, just a tad? Its only Day Frigging One. |
11th October 2016, 02:32 AM | #52 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:37 AM | #53 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:37 AM | #54 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
I'm not so sure. There would be precedents aplenty if this was truly foreseeable. This was a fraught situation, Tostee's choice was binary, try to control her or let her loose to make wild accusations. His recent criminal troubles would have alarm bells ringing letting her loose, but that is not to say he didn't make a catastrophic choice. WITH HINDSIGHT.
Act in haste, repent at leisure comes to mind. |
11th October 2016, 02:38 AM | #55 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
Further, the context of the audio can't be ignored. Tostee was clearly threatening and intimidating. He was big and strong and could have easily put her out through the front door. He didn't. Murder it is.
I think the prosecution has more up it's sleeve. I wouldn't be at at all surprised if there is more intimidation by Tostee. He's done. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 02:39 AM | #56 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:39 AM | #57 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:41 AM | #58 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 02:42 AM | #59 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:42 AM | #60 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:43 AM | #61 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:45 AM | #62 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...so the facts that will be revealed in the next "six days" are immediate and available? Do you have a time machine? Can you tell us what they will talk about tomorrow?
Quote:
Why do you think he should not be convicted of murder, considering it seems to tick all the boxes for a murder conviction? |
11th October 2016, 02:46 AM | #63 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 02:47 AM | #64 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
I don't defend, I offer arguments in mitigation. There are uncountable one time offenders who are done for another person's death, spend 20 plus, and were in most respects regular citizens. Jeffery Archer's prison diary recounted a score of lifers who were "there but for the grace of god go I" types.
|
11th October 2016, 02:49 AM | #65 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 02:49 AM | #66 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
I agree, I don't know why the concept of constructive murder/felony murder was discarded and everything thrown in under the definition of murder - the serial killer lumped in with the moment of reckless endangerment. In one case is premeditated multiple homicide, the other a question of assessing foreseeable risk during a lesser crime (granted, a situation of his own making). Murder is not just Professor Plum in the ballroom with the lead piping.
|
11th October 2016, 02:51 AM | #67 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:52 AM | #68 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:54 AM | #69 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
Did you not see earlier posts where these charges are not available? Manslaughter or murder are the only options in cases like this. manslaughter is a "heat of the moment" crime. In this case Tostee made a calculated decision to push Wright out the door and put her in fear of her life.
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 02:54 AM | #70 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:56 AM | #71 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 02:58 AM | #72 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
|
11th October 2016, 02:58 AM | #73 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 02:59 AM | #74 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
11th October 2016, 03:01 AM | #75 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 03:05 AM | #76 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
He unlawfully imprisoned her in an unsafe environment, endangering her life, and failed to take other options (like calling the police or an ambulance) and this contributed greatly to her death. Manslaughter at best and felony murder in applicable jurisdictions. Quite possibly murder if a reasonable person could foresee her death was a likely result.
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
11th October 2016, 03:06 AM | #77 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
11th October 2016, 03:08 AM | #78 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 03:10 AM | #79 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th October 2016, 03:16 AM | #80 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
In my view it comes down to the question of was her death a reasonably foreseeable outcome of his actions, if so a verdict of guilty of murder is appropriate, otherwise manslaughter. This excludes felony murder and it's equivalents.
Based only on a superficial study of this case I'd vote to convict of murder as I believe his actions were unreasonable, not warranted by the circumstances, escalated the situation and has a foreseeable risk of causing death or serious injury. |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|