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 15th October 2016, 06:20 AM   #241
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...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.
Unfortunately you will not get an honest answer to this question.
__________________
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, 06:36 AM   #242
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...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.
The obvious answer, as stated multiple times, is "it would depend on what I'd done to cause my detention in the first place". Since for whatever reason you refuse to accept any such nuance or engage in any further discussion I see little point in discussing this further.
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, 07:00 AM   #243
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
The obvious answer, as stated multiple times, is "it would depend on what I'd done to cause my detention in the first place". Since for whatever reason you refuse to accept any such nuance or engage in any further discussion I see little point in discussing this further.
...so thats a "No."

The question wasn't an exercise in "nuance." It was an exercise in "bias." You claimed earlier in this thread that "you were not biased." Your refusal to answer this question: and your sarcastic jab in answer to the question about pizza, demonstrate just exactly how biased you actually are. So lets stop pretending.
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, 11:12 AM   #244
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,997
Originally Posted by Ben1985 View Post
it's pretty high up the list when you type in "gable tostee case + forum"
Thanks - that's what I wanted to know: what you were searching for.

You're deliberately seeking forums where Tostee is being discussed.

Any particular reason? Is it some kind of bodybuilder togetherness thing? Pretty 20th century of you to be actively looking for forums.
__________________
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, 07:29 PM   #245
gareththomasnz
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
I wonder what parallels could be formed with this case EG:

Had she been placed into a vehicle, found the keys & died in a crash

Been placed inside a pool enclosure & drowned

What if she had been escorted to the downstairs floor screaming & hollering hysterically, booted up the ass, kicked out and subsequently abducted and murderd by a third party offering to rescue her from Tostee

Would Tostee then be charged with accessory to murder or manslaughter? Of course not

Had Tostee lost his cool and struck her then his legal position would be severly weakened but a large percentage of men would have struck her under the circumstances.

An even larger percentage of women would have & this would probably have been a mutually violent altercation were two women involved.

The moral of the story could be simply dont drink alcohol, dont have sex with strangers, dont screw drunk women, dont drink if you have a balcony, dont assume all men are a violent sexist threat, dont assume drunk women are rational, dont date, dont have sex ETC ad infinatum.

What had they been on a fishing trip & the exact same thing happened, she jumped overboard & drowned. I'm sure thats happened before.

Surfers Paradise for a young woman from Auckland is very glamourous & exciting. Here she was on a hot date getting layed & drunk. She lost it, thought she was in a hollywood thriller in her drinken stupor. A couple more or a couple less drinks & it wouldnt have happened.

Alcohol was the cause of her death. That is sadly the point that has been lost.

Last edited by gareththomasnz; 15th October 2016 at 07:33 PM.
gareththomasnz 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, 07:37 PM   #246
gareththomasnz
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
LOL. Is Tostee Guilty of Murder or manslaughter? YES/NO

I take it YES is a vote for murder, and NO for manslaughter
yes is murder or manslaughter

no is neither
gareththomasnz 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, 07:41 PM   #247
gareththomasnz
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
The Atheist: Sigh - whatever

I have no judgement on Tostee, not somebody I would associate with, I dont even drink so much as a social beer

I am single & do shag a lot of women though - just not drunk ones

If people are joining to comment probably because of the clear bias against the accused. That is why I did. Also the only other forum I could find discussing the case was a fitness one and they were more pro innocent there.

Actually a forum or site to discuss cases is a bloody good idea I guess there are plenty already.

My motive - saw a bunch of negative posts, wanted my two cents

Anyway I dont want to flame you guys & am happy to sit this out now and wait for the verdict

Last edited by gareththomasnz; 15th October 2016 at 07:45 PM.
gareththomasnz 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, 08:00 PM   #248
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
I wonder what parallels could be formed with this case EG:

Had she been placed into a vehicle, found the keys & died in a crash

Been placed inside a pool enclosure & drowned

What if she had been escorted to the downstairs floor screaming & hollering hysterically, booted up the ass, kicked out and subsequently abducted and murderd by a third party offering to rescue her from Tostee

Would Tostee then be charged with accessory to murder or manslaughter? Of course not
...if she had been forced into the car, and given no option to leave, then yes, he probably would have been charged.

If she had been placed in a pool enclosure, and then given no option to leave, then yes, he probably would have been charged.

If she had been subsequently abducted and murdered by a third party, then he probably would not have been charged.

The actions that have landed Tostee in court appear to have completely gone over your head.

Quote:
Had Tostee lost his cool and struck her then his legal position would be severly weakened but a large percentage of men would have struck her under the circumstances.
You have provided no evidence that Tostee did not loose his cool and no evidence that he did not strike her. And even if he didn't: he still forcibly detained her, and then was completely indifferent to her death. So Tostee is not a "stellar example of the human race" simply because he allegedly "didn't raise his hand to her."

Quote:
An even larger percentage of women would have & this would probably have been a mutually violent altercation were two women involved.
This is a skeptics forum. Simply making stuff up is not the way we do things here. Provide a cite for your claim or withdraw it.

Quote:
The moral of the story could be simply dont drink alcohol, dont have sex with strangers, dont screw drunk women, dont drink if you have a balcony, dont assume all men are a violent sexist threat, dont assume drunk women are rational, dont date, dont have sex ETC ad infinatum.
If that is the "moral" you got out of this: then, please, by all means, follow these rules. The world will be a safer place.

Quote:
What had they been on a fishing trip & the exact same thing happened, she jumped overboard & drowned. I'm sure thats happened before.
You are missing the elements that landed Tostee in court. There is no comparison.

Quote:
Surfers Paradise for a young woman from Auckland is very glamourous & exciting. Here she was on a hot date getting layed & drunk. She lost it, thought she was in a hollywood thriller in her drinken stupor. A couple more or a couple less drinks & it wouldnt have happened.

Alcohol was the cause of her death. That is sadly the point that has been lost.
Tostee's decision to illegally detain Wright ultimately was the major contributing factor in Wrights death. But by all means, please, continue to blame the victim. It really paints a very definitive picture of exactly what sort of person does this sort of thing, and what sort of person to avoid.
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, 08:01 PM   #249
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...that quote is so infamous, that googling it: brings up absolutely NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT AMANDA KNOX.

I mean, WTF? I added the term "Knox" to the google search and all I got were the "paranoid obsessive" internet forums where people have devoted their lives to this particular case appear to dwell, but that was it.

This quote isn't "infamous" at all. It didn't even give me more than 10 results on google. It is only "infamous" to people following the case. No one else on the planet has a clue as to what you are talking about. So why on earth do you think its relevant to this case?

.
I read about it in Rolling Stone

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...-knox-20110627

Hint: What you should have done is added "foxy knoxy" to your search - Or better "Amanda Knox"=links galore.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.

Last edited by Noztradamus; 15th October 2016 at 08:20 PM.
Noztradamus 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, 08:18 PM   #250
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
You will only accept a guilty verdict. How very skeptical of you......
I think you are confused over which one of you is lionking and which one is gareththomasnz.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus 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, 09:29 PM   #251
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
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.

You're right.

Reasonableness went out the door when he put her on the balcony and closed that door behind her.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta 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, 09:36 PM   #252
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,997
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
My motive - saw a bunch of negative posts, wanted my two cents
Which is what I said - you were actively looking for discussions regarding Tostee.

Given that you're such a fighter for the innocent, I'm surprised we haven't seen you involved in the threads about Kiwis who have been wrongfully convicted.

Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
Anyway I dont want to flame you guys...
Well, aren't we lucky!

Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
...
& am happy to sit this out now and wait for the verdict
Good plan. It's always hard when trying to pre-empt a case still being decided. If he gets off, you can take a bow for being so perspicacious about a fellow pumper.
__________________
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, 09:42 PM   #253
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Thanks - that's what I wanted to know: what you were searching for.

You're deliberately seeking forums where Tostee is being discussed.

Any particular reason? Is it some kind of bodybuilder togetherness thing? Pretty 20th century of you to be actively looking for forums.
Well, I'm certainly not a body builder. I've just been following this case for a while now and wanted to find a place to talk about it.
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, 10:38 PM   #254
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
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.
Correct. If I take the car keys from a person who is trying to drive away drunk from a party, aren't I detaining them against their will?
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 15th October 2016, 10:46 PM   #255
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Correct. If I take the car keys from a person who is trying to drive away drunk from a party, aren't I detaining them against their will?
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the Tostee case. Where he locked her out on a high balcony, threatened to kill her and put her in fear of her life. After which he failed to call the police or an ambulance and went off to have a pizza.

Why are you ignoring these issues and talking about things which did not happen?
__________________
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, 11:02 PM   #256
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...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.
Hang on, I thought you said people don't always act rationally when they are in shock?

Or do they only act irrationally when it is convenient to your argument?
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 15th October 2016, 11:12 PM   #257
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Correct. If I take the car keys from a person who is trying to drive away drunk from a party, aren't I detaining them against their will?

Nope.

They can still walk (or maybe stagger) away. They can still call a friend for a ride, or family, or a cab. As long as they can leave of their own volition they are not being detained.

These days, if you were the one who threw the party and supplied the booze, and then knowingly allowed them to drive away drunk then you'd better hope that they don't hurt anyone with their car on the way to wherever they go.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta 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, 11:14 PM   #258
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the Tostee case. Where he locked her out on a high balcony, threatened to kill her and put her in fear of her life. After which he failed to call the police or an ambulance and went off to have a pizza.

Why are you ignoring these issues and talking about things which did not happen?
Because without deprivation of liberty, there is no unlawful purpose under s302. Yes, she made it clear she wanted to go, but intoxication is a defence of deprivation of liberty - done for her own good. Unfortunately he picked a particularly stupid way to restrain her.

If you can't see how that relates to my example with the car keys, you're blind.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 15th October 2016 at 11:28 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 15th October 2016, 11:22 PM   #259
Fixit
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Correct. If I take the car keys from a person who is trying to drive away drunk from a party, aren't I detaining them against their will?
No you are simply preventing them from endangering themselves or others by driving, you are not preventing them calling a cab or a friend etc.
Fixit 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, 11:26 PM   #260
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Nope.

They can still walk (or maybe stagger) away. They can still call a friend for a ride, or family, or a cab. As long as they can leave of their own volition they are not being detained.
True - but she could have stayed out on the balcony to sober up, or called out to the person below for help, rather than trying to climb down. If I take your car keys, and you decide to stagger away along the side of the motorway, and get hit by a car, aren't the two events equally unforeseeable, equally dangerous, and aggravated by your self-induced state of intoxication? No one sober would consider climbing between apartments and walking along the side of motorways safe activities in any circumstances.
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 15th October 2016, 11:27 PM   #261
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Because without deprivation of liberty, there is no unlawful purpose under s302. Yes, she made it clear she did not want to go, but intoxication is a defence of deprivation of liberty - done for her own good. Unfortunately he picked a particularly stupid way to restrain her.

<snip>

This would be an opportune moment for you to include little trivialities like citations in support of this claim.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta 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, 11:30 PM   #262
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
True - but she could have stayed out on the balcony to sober up, or called out to the person below for help, rather than trying to climb down. If I take your car keys, and you decide to stagger away along the side of the motorway, and get hit by a car, aren't the two events equally unforeseeable, equally dangerous, and aggravated by your self-induced state of intoxication? No one sober would consider climbing between apartments and walking along the side of motorways safe activities in any circumstances.
How can you support this claim? Many people see nothing exceptionally dangerous about walking beside the road when sober, and if someone felt more threatened by being held captive on the balcony than they did by trying to get off of it then yes, a sober person might well make the attempt.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta 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, 11:33 PM   #263
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
I read about it in Rolling Stone

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...-knox-20110627

Hint: What you should have done is added "foxy knoxy" to your search - Or better "Amanda Knox"=links galore.
...why the **** would I search for "foxy knoxy?" It was supposed to be an "infamous phrase." It isn't. "I'd kill for a pizza" doesn't appear in the rolling stone article you've cited. And thats because Samson got this "infamous phrase" wrong.

Your advice, if I cared, should have been to search for the phrase "I could kill for a pizza." That would have gotten me in the right ballpark. But in reality: I actually don't care. Because this thread is not about Knox.
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, 11:43 PM   #264
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Hang on, I thought you said people don't always act rationally when they are in shock?

Or do they only act irrationally when it is convenient to your argument?
...just in case anyone is wondering: Hard Cheese is bringing over arguments from another thread into this thread. Unfortunately no matter how many times several different posters tried to explain to Hard Cheese that he was getting things completely wrong: Hard Cheese failed to comprehend the point.

So if you want to re-litigate what was said over in the other thread Hard Cheese, can I suggest that you start off with getting the basic premise of what my position was correct first in this thread before we go any further. Because from where I'm sitting: you've created a strawman and now you are arguing against it.
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, 11:58 PM   #265
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Because without deprivation of liberty, there is no unlawful purpose under s302. Yes, she made it clear she wanted to go, but intoxication is a defence of deprivation of liberty - done for her own good. Unfortunately he picked a particularly stupid way to restrain her.

If you can't see how that relates to my example with the car keys, you're blind.
Show me a cite for that under Australian law. You can't. You are making stuff up. How has Tostee become a hero of yours?
__________________
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 16th October 2016, 12:04 AM   #266
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
How can you support this claim? Many people see nothing exceptionally dangerous about walking beside the road when sober
Where did I say road? I said motorway. Walking along the side of a motorway sober is clearly not a risk-free activity, and downright dangerous if you are drunk
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 16th October 2016, 12:11 AM   #267
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Where did I say road? I said motorway. Walking along the side of a motorway sober is clearly not a risk-free activity, and downright dangerous if you are drunk

Where did I say "risk-free"?

Walking alongside any road can be dangerous when drunk. Even while on the sidewalk.

Many things can be dangerous when drunk.

And even when sober.

Life is not free of danger. But that isn't the topic.

Restraining someone against their will is the topic, and when you do that then the risk subsequently incurred is is your own responsibility, which was assumed as soon as you detained them.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

Last edited by quadraginta; 16th October 2016 at 12:15 AM.
quadraginta 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 16th October 2016, 12:33 AM   #268
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Show me a cite for that under Australian law. You can't. You are making stuff up. How has Tostee become a hero of yours?
I can't find any defences for the charge.

I found this interesting.

Quote:
Intent

It probably goes without saying that similar to other criminal offences, intent is a component of the offence. Therefore, the intention to deprive another person of their liberty will constitute an offence, even absent the intention to arouse fear or violence, or foresight of fear or violence which are elements generally not considered relevant to the offence (per Bray CJ in MacPherson v Brown (1975) 12 SASR 184 (FC)).
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5...fence-exp.aspx
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 16th October 2016, 12:36 AM   #269
gareththomasnz
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
He did not illegally detain her - he was defending himself & his property

Police officers detain people everyday and I have seen bouncers do far worse than what Tostee did and nobody questions it

Now I must withold my twitching finger untill the verdict...

[edit]

... Nope nope I cant: One theme I see recuring is that you folks are trying to project he should have, she should have as if these two were sober. She was borderline paralytic, he was well passed capable of lawfully driving a car for sure.

So there is no "should have".

What happened - has happened. Rather we can look at the motive and the underlying motive for both of them is inebriation. Would she have climbed off the balcony had she been sober - hell no.

A few years back a drunk guy jumped off a balcony in Auckland attempting to dive into the ocean. Unfortunately that ocean was 40 feet away from the balcony diagonally. At the party his drunk friends either looked on cheering, kind of ignored it or told him not to. Nobody grabbed him and slapped him about the ears. Nobody removed him from the balcony or the apartment.

That guy died just the same as Wareina did. Drunk and emotionally not responsible. Tostee was also inebriated and incapable of logical thinking so drop the he / she sould have, I would have etc. You wouldnt have - if you were there drunk who knows what you would have done.

From the time he stood up from restraining her to the time she fell how much time is there?

Less that a minute. No time to make any kind of thought full decision for a drunk in a skuffle. Neither of them would have behaved the same way sober.

Motive 1 established for both: "inebriation"

Secondary motive for Tostee: I think it was avoidance of conflict.

I dont care what he should have / could have done because 1 he didnt & 2 he was too drunk to

As for poor Wareina she could have / should have stopped drinking earlier, or told him please dont put me on the balcony when I am drunk, she could have actually been nice and not commited assault for an hour - what ever - she didnt, as she was drunk, as was he

So as there was no underlying causality apart from inebriation for either party - all this case can do is set a precidence

As for justice I dont see that it can be just to find him guilty, it may be that the precidence can result in justice in other cases or it may result in further unjust guilty verdicts

Perhaps we should be discussing the consequences of the verdict rather than the actual events that transpired which are not really open to interpretation if you have actually listened to the long version of the tape

Last edited by gareththomasnz; 16th October 2016 at 01:08 AM.
gareththomasnz 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 16th October 2016, 12:43 AM   #270
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
He did not illegally detain her - he was defending himself & his property

Police officers detain people everyday and I have seen bouncers do far worse than what Tostee did and nobody questions it

Now I must withold my twitching finger untill the verdict
There is no substance in what you've written there. As my quote clearly states, he did illegally detain her.

Police, and security officers (bouncers) have certain authorities to detain people. Legally.

Try sitting on your hands. If you do it long enough they'll go numb, and .... well ..... I'm sure you'll think of something.
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 16th October 2016, 12:48 AM   #271
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
He did not illegally detain her - he was defending himself & his property

She was demanding to be allowed to leave. He refused to let her leave.

That is the quintessential definition of "detain" in this sense.

Putting her out the front door would have served the purpose of defending himself and his property better than leaving her anywhere in the apartment.

Quote:

Police officers detain people everyday

Is Tostee now a police officer? Because there are certain priveleges and obligations which they have that private citizens do not.

And among those obligations is a responsibility for the welfare of anyone detained.

I don't think a cop would have locked her out on the balcony. He'd understand the liability he would incur.

Quote:
and I have seen bouncers do far worse than what Tostee did and nobody questions it

<snip>

You've seen bouncers do worse (legally) than lock drunks out on 14th floor balconies?

Would you like to share some examples?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

Last edited by quadraginta; 16th October 2016 at 12:50 AM.
quadraginta 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 16th October 2016, 12:52 AM   #272
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
This would be an opportune moment for you to include little trivialities like citations in support of this claim.
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Show me a cite for that under Australian law. You can't. You are making stuff up. How has Tostee become a hero of yours?
Deprivation of liberty s 355

The prosecution must prove that:
1. The defendant:
(1) confined or detained another in any place against the other person’s will; or
(2) otherwise deprived another of the other person’s personal liberty.
2. The defendant did so unlawfully. That is, not authorised, justified or excused by law.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/...erty-s-355.pdf

Deprivation Of Liberty

Sections 355 of the Criminal Code Queensland states:
...

Possible defences

Possible defences to this offence include but are not limited to

The accused

Duress
Necessity
Insanity
Intoxication
Honest and reasonable belief the person was consenting.
The complainant was free to leave
The complainant consented

http://www.pottslawyers.com.au/depri...d-offence.html
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 16th October 2016, 12:56 AM   #273
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
He did not illegally detain her - he was defending himself & his property

Police officers detain people everyday and I have seen bouncers do far worse than what Tostee did and nobody questions it

Now I must withold my twitching finger untill the verdict
Rubbish and you know it. He simply had to let her out the front door.
__________________
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 16th October 2016, 12:58 AM   #274
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Deprivation of liberty s 355

The prosecution must prove that:
1. The defendant:
(1) confined or detained another in any place against the other person’s will; or
(2) otherwise deprived another of the other person’s personal liberty.
2. The defendant did so unlawfully. That is, not authorised, justified or excused by law.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/...erty-s-355.pdf

Deprivation Of Liberty

Sections 355 of the Criminal Code Queensland states:
...

Possible defences

Possible defences to this offence include but are not limited to

The accused

Duress
Necessity
Insanity
Intoxication
Honest and reasonable belief the person was consenting.
The complainant was free to leave
The complainant consented

http://www.pottslawyers.com.au/depri...d-offence.html
You really think this exonerates Tostee? *********** unbelievable.
__________________
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 16th October 2016, 01:16 AM   #275
Fixit
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Deprivation of liberty s 355

The prosecution must prove that:
1. The defendant:
(1) confined or detained another in any place against the other person’s will; or
(2) otherwise deprived another of the other person’s personal liberty.
2. The defendant did so unlawfully. That is, not authorised, justified or excused by law.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/...erty-s-355.pdf

Deprivation Of Liberty

Sections 355 of the Criminal Code Queensland states:
...

Possible defences

Possible defences to this offence include but are not limited to

The accused

Duress
Necessity
Insanity
Intoxication
Honest and reasonable belief the person was consenting.
The complainant was free to leave
The complainant consented

http://www.pottslawyers.com.au/depri...d-offence.html
Yes, certainly a defence. Not sure that the circumstances present what those drafting and enacting the Law meant. I guess you mean the duress was his, and he thought it was a necessity to close her out on the balcony and that it was for reason of her intoxication. Do you not think it would have been reasonable to have called police or emergency services for the same reasons he considered it was necessary to restrain her. I think the law is talking about emergency situations of necessity and danger, a reasonable person might consider that danger was increased by shutting her out to where her only method of escape (to her) could be to attempt to climb down. Obviously intoxication is not an excuse for his behaviour, but by your argument the reason he was, I suppose, saving her?
Fixit 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 16th October 2016, 01:19 AM   #276
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Restraining someone against their will is the topic, and when you do that then the risk subsequently incurred is is your own responsibility, which was assumed as soon as you detained them.
Even if you had *no* justification for detaining the person - they were not hitting you, they were not abusive, they were not wildly drunk, nothing - the injury that befalls the detainee needs to be one that a reasonable person, putting themselves in the detainer's position, would be able to foresee occurring as a result of their actions. If she had accidentally fallen, instead of attempting to climb, then I would accept that he could have foreseen it happening.
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 16th October 2016, 01:24 AM   #277
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Quote:
Deprivation of liberty s 355

The prosecution must prove that:
1. The defendant:
(1) confined or detained another in any place against the other person’s will; or
(2) otherwise deprived another of the other person’s personal liberty.
2. The defendant did so unlawfully. That is, not authorised, justified or excused by law.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/...erty-s-355.pdf

Deprivation Of Liberty

Sections 355 of the Criminal Code Queensland states:
...

Possible defences

Possible defences to this offence include but are not limited to

The accused

Duress
Necessity
Insanity
Intoxication
Honest and reasonable belief the person was consenting.
The complainant was free to leave
The complainant consented

Let's review, shall we?

In this post;
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Because without deprivation of liberty, there is no unlawful purpose under s302. Yes, she made it clear she wanted to go, but intoxication is a defence of deprivation of liberty - done for her own good. Unfortunately he picked a particularly stupid way to restrain her.

<snip>
you seem to be quite clear that you are saying his right to detain her, "for her own good", is based on her drunken state.

The statute you cite seems to be saying that it would be his drunken state which could be an ameliorating factor.

I think you should choose one and stick with it.

Also, it is telling that you chose not to highlight any of these three options;
Quote:
Honest and reasonable belief the person was consenting.
The complainant was free to leave
The complainant consented
Probably because the exact opposite of each of these was the reality of the situation in this case.

I think your legal research still needs a bit of polish.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta 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 16th October 2016, 01:30 AM   #278
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Deprivation of liberty s 355

The prosecution must prove that:
1. The defendant:
(1) confined or detained another in any place against the other person’s will; or
(2) otherwise deprived another of the other person’s personal liberty.
2. The defendant did so unlawfully. That is, not authorised, justified or excused by law.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/...erty-s-355.pdf

Deprivation Of Liberty

Sections 355 of the Criminal Code Queensland states:
...

Possible defences

Possible defences to this offence include but are not limited to

The accused

Duress
Necessity
Insanity
Intoxication
Honest and reasonable belief the person was consenting.
The complainant was free to leave
The complainant consented

http://www.pottslawyers.com.au/depri...d-offence.html
I read that article earlier today. I left it where it was. To me, (not a lawyer) the article is written specifically for the case of a custodian detaining children.
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 16th October 2016, 01:31 AM   #279
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
You really think this exonerates Tostee? *********** unbelievable.
It's the law. You asked for a cite and there it is.

There is clearly the possibility of mitigating circumstances here, and if the law permits such a defence he is entitled to use it. He might be an unsavoury character, but that doesn't mean he isn't entitled to defend himself.
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 16th October 2016, 01:45 AM   #280
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I read that article earlier today. I left it where it was. To me, (not a lawyer) the article is written specifically for the case of a custodian detaining children.
Even if you ignore that article, the second part of the s 355 bench book allows extenuating circumstances. If his actions were deemed reasonable in restraining a violent, drunk person, then he can't be accused of deprivation of liberty. His problem is that instead of locking her somewhere safe (a bedroom or bathroom) he put her life at risk by sticking her out on the balcony.
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
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 03:55 AM.
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.