|
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. |
15th October 2016, 06:20 AM | #241 |
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, 06:36 AM | #242 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
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.
|
15th October 2016, 07:00 AM | #243 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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. |
15th October 2016, 11:12 AM | #244 |
The Grammar Tyrant
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,997
|
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. |
|
15th October 2016, 07:29 PM | #245 |
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. |
15th October 2016, 07:37 PM | #246 |
Student
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
|
|
15th October 2016, 07:41 PM | #247 |
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 |
15th October 2016, 08:00 PM | #248 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
15th October 2016, 08:01 PM | #249 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
|
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. |
|
15th October 2016, 08:18 PM | #250 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
15th October 2016, 09:29 PM | #251 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
|
__________________
"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." |
|
15th October 2016, 09:36 PM | #252 |
The Grammar Tyrant
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,997
|
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. Well, aren't we lucky! 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. |
|
15th October 2016, 09:42 PM | #253 |
New Blood
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
|
|
15th October 2016, 10:38 PM | #254 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
|
15th October 2016, 10:46 PM | #255 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
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 |
|
15th October 2016, 11:02 PM | #256 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
|
15th October 2016, 11:12 PM | #257 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
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." |
|
15th October 2016, 11:14 PM | #258 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
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. |
15th October 2016, 11:22 PM | #259 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
|
15th October 2016, 11:26 PM | #260 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
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.
|
15th October 2016, 11:27 PM | #261 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
|
__________________
"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." |
|
15th October 2016, 11:30 PM | #262 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
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." |
|
15th October 2016, 11:33 PM | #263 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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. |
15th October 2016, 11:43 PM | #264 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
|
...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. |
15th October 2016, 11:58 PM | #265 |
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 |
|
16th October 2016, 12:04 AM | #266 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
|
16th October 2016, 12:11 AM | #267 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
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." |
|
16th October 2016, 12:33 AM | #268 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
I can't find any defences for the charge.
I found this interesting.
Quote:
|
16th October 2016, 12:36 AM | #269 |
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 |
16th October 2016, 12:43 AM | #270 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
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. |
16th October 2016, 12:48 AM | #271 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
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:
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:
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." |
|
16th October 2016, 12:52 AM | #272 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
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 |
16th October 2016, 12:56 AM | #273 |
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 |
|
16th October 2016, 12:58 AM | #274 |
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 |
|
16th October 2016, 01:16 AM | #275 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 255
|
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?
|
16th October 2016, 01:19 AM | #276 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
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.
|
16th October 2016, 01:24 AM | #277 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
Quote:
Let's review, shall we? In this post; 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; 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." |
|
16th October 2016, 01:30 AM | #278 |
Motor Mouth
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
|
|
16th October 2016, 01:31 AM | #279 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
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. |
16th October 2016, 01:45 AM | #280 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
|
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.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|