|
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. |
14th October 2016, 06:43 PM | #201 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
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. |
14th October 2016, 08:42 PM | #202 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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.
|
14th October 2016, 09:42 PM | #203 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
|
14th October 2016, 10:03 PM | #204 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
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. |
14th October 2016, 10:10 PM | #205 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
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. |
14th October 2016, 10:32 PM | #206 |
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 |
|
14th October 2016, 11:36 PM | #207 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
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. |
15th October 2016, 12:21 AM | #208 |
The Grammar Tyrant
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,996
|
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. |
|
15th October 2016, 12:41 AM | #209 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
15th October 2016, 01:37 AM | #210 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
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 |
|
15th October 2016, 01:51 AM | #211 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
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. |
15th October 2016, 02:01 AM | #212 |
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 |
|
15th October 2016, 02:22 AM | #213 |
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. |
|
15th October 2016, 02:26 AM | #214 |
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. |
|
15th October 2016, 02:26 AM | #215 |
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 |
|
15th October 2016, 03:48 AM | #216 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
|
15th October 2016, 03:56 AM | #217 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
|
15th October 2016, 04:08 AM | #218 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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. |
15th October 2016, 04:43 AM | #219 |
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.
|
15th October 2016, 04:59 AM | #220 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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. |
15th October 2016, 05:03 AM | #221 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
|
15th October 2016, 05:12 AM | #222 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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. |
15th October 2016, 05:27 AM | #223 |
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. |
15th October 2016, 05:28 AM | #224 |
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 |
|
15th October 2016, 05:33 AM | #225 |
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 |
|
15th October 2016, 05:40 AM | #226 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
|
15th October 2016, 05:40 AM | #227 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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:
|
15th October 2016, 05:52 AM | #228 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
|
15th October 2016, 05:52 AM | #229 |
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 |
|
15th October 2016, 05:54 AM | #230 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
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. |
|
15th October 2016, 05:55 AM | #231 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
|
15th October 2016, 05:58 AM | #232 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
|
15th October 2016, 06:01 AM | #233 |
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 |
|
15th October 2016, 06:02 AM | #234 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
Oh so we're back to eating pizza as evidence of guilt again are we?
|
15th October 2016, 06:08 AM | #235 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
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 |
|
15th October 2016, 06:09 AM | #236 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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. |
15th October 2016, 06:10 AM | #237 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
|
15th October 2016, 06:12 AM | #238 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
|
15th October 2016, 06:17 AM | #239 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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. |
15th October 2016, 06:18 AM | #240 |
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|