IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


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.
Tags Gable Tostee , murder cases , New Zealand cases

Reply
Old 14th October 2016, 06:43 PM   #201
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
The law says that he needs to either have intended to kill her (which he clearly didn't), or in the commission of an unlawful act that is likely to endanger a human life.

Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to speculate on whether the action of locking her on the balcony amounted to wrongful detention. But regardless, I think it's extremely difficult to argue that the act of locking her on the balcony was an act of intimidation sufficient to "likely to endanger a human life". And I think a jury will likely think the same.
Juries are said to be hard to predict, but fortunately in this case there seem to be no disputed facts except the attempted strangling, which the jury will see straight through as prosecutorial over reach.
I predict 5 years out in 2.
I would give him home detention with drug monitoring and one strike he's out.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:42 PM   #202
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to speculate on whether the action of locking her on the balcony amounted to wrongful detention.
...since you aren't a lawyer, here is a simple non-legal question for you. If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were bring wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 09:42 PM   #203
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
I made an online poll so lets vote - Is he guilty of Murder or Manslaughter yes/no

goo.gl/9v4sOK results at goo.gl/uZ6GHS
LOL. Is Tostee Guilty of Murder or manslaughter? YES/NO

I take it YES is a vote for murder, and NO for manslaughter
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 10:03 PM   #204
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Just as a thought exercise...

Suppose he shoves her, drunk as she is, out the front door, and she tries to leave by the stairwell, falls down the stairs and dies?

Or maybe she makes it to the street, and walks out in front of a bus?

Is he responsible for her death in either of those scenarios under the relevant laws?
No - because neither would be reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions.

The same would be true if say, he put her out on the balcony and she slipped on an old banana peel left out there and went over the side.

You could also say the same thing about her attempt to climb down to the next floor...it's such a ridiculously dangerous feat that even a reasonable person might never consider anyone would try it - something so unlikely it might never enter their thought processes. It needs her to be fearful of her life, with escape the only option, to make it work.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 14th October 2016 at 10:04 PM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 10:10 PM   #205
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
. It needs her to be fearful of her life, with escape the only option, to make it work.
It's easy enough to imagine from listening to the tapes. She did sound fearful at the end. But whether it can be proven is anyones guess.

It also seems that she took no time to make her decision. I've been wondering if, in her fear (hysteria?), and with a blood alcohol of 0.15, she may have forgotten for a moment where she was in relation to the ground.
Shiner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 10:32 PM   #206
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
The law says that he needs to either have intended to kill her (which he clearly didn't), or that he engaged in the commission of an unlawful act that is likely to endanger a human life.

Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to speculate on whether the action of locking her on the balcony amounted to wrongful detention. But regardless, I think it's extremely difficult to argue that the act of locking her on the balcony was an act of intimidation "likely to endanger a human life". And I think a jury will likely think the same.
You will be wrong. Queensland juries. Hang em high.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 11:36 PM   #207
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
You will be wrong. Queensland juries. Hang em high.
Lion king that is scarcely your best work. I suspect that is commonly the case but this jury is essentially being asked if they can be sure no one they hold dear could have transgressed this way. Every one has witnessed chaotic events emanating from the trans
Tasman alcohol culture.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 12:21 AM   #208
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,996
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Two defenders of Tostee join in short order. Tell me, so I can properly understand your posts and motivations. Are you part of some sort of Tostee defence group?
I'm sure I haven't seen this addressed, but it's a very good point.

Two proponents of innocence, one from NZ, one from Oz, join the same obscure forum in a very short time frame with the sole objective of commenting on this thread.

The story is big news internationally, and I'd be surprised if ISF's thread on Tostee was in the top 500 Google responses, so the chances of two like-minded defenders of Gable Tostee arriving independently is extremely low.

Given Tostee's own propensity to talk on forums about how innocent he is, I have to say I'm extremely skeptical that a specific plan isn't being enacted here.

Is it simple coincidence that a gareththomasnz was a member of a NZ bodybuilding forum?

Hmmmm...
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 12:41 AM   #209
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm sure I haven't seen this addressed, but it's a very good point.

Two proponents of innocence, one from NZ, one from Oz, join the same obscure forum in a very short time frame with the sole objective of commenting on this thread.

The story is big news internationally, and I'd be surprised if ISF's thread on Tostee was in the top 500 Google responses, so the chances of two like-minded defenders of Gable Tostee arriving independently is extremely low.

Given Tostee's own propensity to talk on forums about how innocent he is, I have to say I'm extremely skeptical that a specific plan isn't being enacted here.

Is it simple coincidence that a gareththomasnz was a member of a NZ bodybuilding forum?

Hmmmm...
The problem with your theory is straightforward, gareth seems well versed in the case facts.
That is a good starting point.
Defenders' claims stand and fall on merit, not connection to the case.
I have none but agree with Gareth
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 01:37 AM   #210
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Lion king that is scarcely your best work. I suspect that is commonly the case but this jury is essentially being asked if they can be sure no one they hold dear could have transgressed this way. Every one has witnessed chaotic events emanating from the trans
Tasman alcohol culture.
This post demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea of jurisprudence. Seriously, is this how you think juries work? That they have to relate cases to their family circumstances?

Have you ever been empaneled? If you have been, is this what you were told? That you had to decide if a loved one could have offended in the way of the accused?

Out of curiosity, how old are you? Because this post looks like the work of a 16 year old.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 01:51 AM   #211
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
This post demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea of jurisprudence. Seriously, is this how you think juries work? That they have to relate cases to their family circumstances?

Have you ever been empaneled? If you have been, is this what you were told? That you had to decide if a loved one could have offended in the way of the accused?

Out of curiosity, how old are you? Because this post looks like the work of a 16 year old.
Of course Churchill figured that conundrum. If not a socialist at 18 you have no heart, but if not a capitalist at 32 you have no head.

This case is badly served by any dichotomy, murder manslaughter and so on.
If Tostee was only a pumped up stick man before this I don't see murder one, just an enduring tragedy.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 02:01 AM   #212
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Of course Churchill figured that conundrum. If not a socialist at 18 you have no heart, but if not a capitalist at 32 you have no head.

This case is badly served by any dichotomy, murder manslaughter and so on.
If Tostee was only a pumped up stick man before this I don't see murder one, just an enduring tragedy.
Cool. Do you mind actually responding to my post?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 02:22 AM   #213
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
The law says that he needs to either have intended to kill her (which he clearly didn't), or that he engaged in the commission of an unlawful act that is likely to endanger a human life.
Unlawful imprisonment.
__________________
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.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 02:26 AM   #214
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm sure I haven't seen this addressed, but it's a very good point.

Two proponents of innocence, one from NZ, one from Oz, join the same obscure forum in a very short time frame with the sole objective of commenting on this thread.

The story is big news internationally, and I'd be surprised if ISF's thread on Tostee was in the top 500 Google responses, so the chances of two like-minded defenders of Gable Tostee arriving independently is extremely low.

Given Tostee's own propensity to talk on forums about how innocent he is, I have to say I'm extremely skeptical that a specific plan isn't being enacted here.

Is it simple coincidence that a gareththomasnz was a member of a NZ bodybuilding forum?

Hmmmm...
Actually this thread is the 36th hit (for me) for the sequence Gable Tostee trial transcript.
__________________
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.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 02:26 AM   #215
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Unlawful imprisonment.
Correct.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 03:48 AM   #216
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...since you aren't a lawyer, here is a simple non-legal question for you. If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were bring wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.
It would probably depend on what case law says about situations where I'd been smashing his things and assaulting him first.

Last edited by Ben1985; 15th October 2016 at 03:49 AM.
Ben1985 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 03:56 AM   #217
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm sure I haven't seen this addressed, but it's a very good point.

Two proponents of innocence, one from NZ, one from Oz, join the same obscure forum in a very short time frame with the sole objective of commenting on this thread.

The story is big news internationally, and I'd be surprised if ISF's thread on Tostee was in the top 500 Google responses, so the chances of two like-minded defenders of Gable Tostee arriving independently is extremely low.

Given Tostee's own propensity to talk on forums about how innocent he is, I have to say I'm extremely skeptical that a specific plan isn't being enacted here.

Is it simple coincidence that a gareththomasnz was a member of a NZ bodybuilding forum?

Hmmmm...
it's pretty high up the list when you type in "gable tostee case + forum"
Ben1985 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 04:08 AM   #218
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
It would probably depend on what case law says about situations where I'd been smashing his things and assaulting him first.
...case law isn't relevant to the question. You and I are not lawyers. I'm not asking you for the legal definition of "wrongfully detained." If I wanted that: I'll go ask a lawyer. Why don't you answer the question as stated?

If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were being wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 04:43 AM   #219
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
It's not an honest question though, because again you're leaving out the part where I was wildly drunk, damaging his property and assaulting him before he locked me outside. In a lot of circumstances, I wouldn't consider that to amount to wrongful detention.
Ben1985 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 04:59 AM   #220
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
It's not an honest question though, because again you're leaving out the part where I was wildly drunk, damaging his property and assaulting him before he locked me outside. In a lot of circumstances, I wouldn't consider that to amount to wrongful detention.
...of course its an "honest question." Please don't question my integrity. Those bits I'm leaving out (ignoring of course the possibility that Tostee was "making stuff up for the recording") are relevant to whether or not Tostee should have let Warriena stay in the apartment, but are not relevant to Tostee's decision to detain Warriena.

So my question again:

If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were being wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:03 AM   #221
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...of course its an "honest question." Please don't question my integrity. Those bits I'm leaving out (ignoring of course the possibility that Tostee was "making stuff up for the recording") are relevant to whether or not Tostee should have let Warriena stay in the apartment, but are not relevant to Tostee's decision to detain Warriena.

So my question again:

If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were being wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.
Umm if someone is destroying your property and attacking you, that is 100% relevant to any subsequent decision you make to detain them.
Ben1985 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:12 AM   #222
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
Umm if someone is destroying your property and attacking you, that is 100% relevant to any subsequent decision you make to detain them.
...no it isn't relevant. You just don't want to answer the question. And it was clear from the start you were never going to answer the question: because even though you claim "you are not biased" it is completely obvious that you are. If you could push past your biases then answering the question would not be a problem.

The question is not from the "point of view" of the "detainer." It is from the point of view of the "detainee." The question is not about a decision to "detain someone else." It is from the point of view of the "person who has been detained."

You can keep on dodging: but it won't work with me.

If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were being wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice. It isn't a hard question. It requires a simple yes or no.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:27 AM   #223
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Of choose it is relevant, just because the wrongfulness of detention is from the point of view of the detainee doesn't mean that the detainee's actions have no bearing on whether it is reasonable for them to be detained.

So for the last time, if I turned up to a stranger's house, got drunk, started smashing their property assaulted them and was subsequently locked up on a balcony, would I want to be let out? Yes. Would a sober, reasonably minded version of myself consider my detention to be wrongful? Not always.
Ben1985 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:28 AM   #224
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
It's not an honest question though, because again you're leaving out the part where I was wildly drunk, damaging his property and assaulting him before he locked me outside. In a lot of circumstances, I wouldn't consider that to amount to wrongful detention.
Christ. Why didn't he throw her out the front door and/or call the cops? This criminal act of him will see a conviction.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:33 AM   #225
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
Of choose it is relevant, just because the wrongfulness of detention is from the point of view of the detainee doesn't mean that the detainee's actions have no bearing on whether it is reasonable for them to be detained.

So for the last time, if I turned up to a stranger's house, got drunk, started smashing their property assaulted them and was subsequently locked up on a balcony, would I want to be let out? Yes. Would a sober, reasonably minded version of myself consider my detention to be wrongful? Not always.
She didn't turn up. She was invited up. She wasn't a stranger in the sense you are trying to convey.

Tostee had choices. He made the criminal one and will suffer the consequences.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:40 AM   #226
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
She didn't turn up. She was invited up. She wasn't a stranger in the sense you are trying to convey
Fair, I should've said invited to a stranger's house. Though it doesn't change my answer.
Ben1985 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:40 AM   #227
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
Of choose it is relevant, just because the wrongfulness of detention is from the point of view of the detainee doesn't mean that the detainee's actions have no bearing on whether it is reasonable for them to be detained.
...of course it isn't relevant. My question was extremely specific. It was from the POV of detainee, not the detainer. All "reasonableness" went out the window when Tostee detained Warriena and then did not immediately contact the police.

Quote:
So for the last time, if I turned up to a stranger's house, got drunk, started smashing their property assaulted them and was subsequently locked up on a balcony, would I want to be let out? Yes. Would a sober, reasonably minded version of myself consider my detention to be wrongful? Not always.
I'll take that as a "YES." The rest of the qualifiers you have added are unnecessary: it was after all a yes or no question.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:52 AM   #228
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
of course it isn't relevant. My question was extremely specific.

I'll take that as a "YES." The rest of the qualifiers you have added are unnecessary: it was after all a yes or no question.
In what way was that a "yes"?

Oh and for the record reasonableness does not go out the window because Tostee didn't call the police in the literal 20 seconds between when he locked the balcony door and Wright fell to her death.

Last edited by Ben1985; 15th October 2016 at 05:55 AM.
Ben1985 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:52 AM   #229
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
Fair, I should've said invited to a stranger's house. Though it doesn't change my answer.
It doesn't make your answer less wrong.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:54 AM   #230
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
It's not an honest question though, because again you're leaving out the part where I was wildly drunk, damaging his property and assaulting him before he locked me outside. In a lot of circumstances, I wouldn't consider that to amount to wrongful detention.
Then he should have called the police. Which he didn't remember? Until after the girl was dead, the police notified by others and he'd called his lawyer and father.

If you;re suggesting that Tostee was performing some variant of 'citizens arrest' then there's an obligation to summon the police there too.
__________________
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.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:55 AM   #231
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
In what way was that a "yes"?
...so it was a "NO?"

Okay then.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 05:58 AM   #232
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
Oh and for the record reasonableness does not go out the window because Tostee didn't call the police in the literal 20 seconds between when he locked the balcony door and Wright fell to her death.
...for a person so concerned with "leaving parts out" you seemed to conveniently forget the part where after Wright fell: Tostee decided NOT TO CALL THE POLICE but instead WENT TO EAT PIZZA. That decision was not reasonable at all.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:01 AM   #233
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
In what way was that a "yes"?

Oh and for the record reasonableness does not go out the window because Tostee didn't call the police in the literal 20 seconds between when he locked the balcony door and Wright fell to her death.
Tostee's culpability started with his decision to lock Wright out and put her in fear of her life. That's enough for a conviction.

Mind you, I think he will probably get a lenient sentence of less than 10 years.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:02 AM   #234
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Oh so we're back to eating pizza as evidence of guilt again are we?
Ben1985 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:08 AM   #235
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
Oh so we're back to eating pizza as evidence of guilt again are we?
Evidence of cold bloodedness perhaps.

Evidence of stupid, thoughtless behaviour when he didn't even know if Wright was dead or not.

Evidence that he is a narcissistic dick.

Not evidence of murder. His earlier action of locking her on the balcony, threatening her and putting her in fear of her life is enough.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:09 AM   #236
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
Oh so we're back to eating pizza as evidence of guilt again are we?
...strawman. That was not what I said.

What we are back to though was "did you mean yes or no?" in answer to my very simple question.

But since we are back to the topic of Pizza: according to you 20 seconds after Tostee closed the door to the balcony Wright fell to her death. Was the decision to go get pizza a reasonable one, considering the circumstances? Yes or no.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:10 AM   #237
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by lionking View Post

Not evidence of murder. His earlier action of locking her on the balcony, threatening her and putting her in fear of her life is enough.
Well, I guess we'll see next week.
Ben1985 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:12 AM   #238
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...strawman. That was not what I said.

What we are back to though was "did you mean yes or no?" in answer to my very simple question.

But since we are back to the topic of Pizza: according to you 20 seconds after Tostee closed the door to the balcony Wright fell to her death. Was the decision to go get pizza a reasonable one, considering the circumstances? Yes or no.
No. He should definitely be held liable for wrongfully eating pizza
Ben1985 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:17 AM   #239
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
No.
...see? That wasn't so hard. Once again: the qualifier isn't required.

Now: did you mean yes or no to this question again? I thought you meant "yes": but you bristled when I said this, so did you mean no?

If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were being wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:18 AM   #240
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
Well, I guess we'll see next week.
And no doubt we will also see the last of you on this forum.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by lionking; 15th October 2016 at 06:19 AM.
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.