ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 16th October 2016, 01:45 AM   #281
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,664
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...

[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
gareththomasnz Could you kindly post a link to the audio of the full version?
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 16th October 2016, 02:01 AM   #282
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Let's review, shall we?
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.
Her drunken state would be a defence of necessity. I doubt he had drunk enough to claim intoxication, but I don't know. s 355 allows for justified actions to be considered not to be unlawful detention, I provided such a list of possible circumstances.

Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I think you should choose one and stick with it.
Why? He can defend himself on using any or all factors that might have applied to the situation. He could certainly claim he was under duress, she was throwing rocks at him and attacking him with a telescope clamp.

Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
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.
This is not a list of options that require a logical and. They are possible defences for a person facing a deprivation of liberty charge. "Possible defences include...but are not limited to:"

s 355 allows for him to defend his actions as reasonable. You seem to be implying that he has no defence whatsoever, nor is entitled to use any.
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, 02:03 AM   #283
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,664
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
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.
This business of stating locking someone on a balcony is unsafe I don't buy in any way shape or form.
I cited the case earlier of Mike Bastion, and those who knew the circumstances are quite clear, he was trying to evade Chinese individuals with whom he had done a deal to launder 300 million through financial markets. Unfortunately he lost the money. He was alone in the apartment when they knocked, and it appears he tried to climb down from the balcony to evade them, and fell to his death. The person telling the story of course embellished it by saying he threw them, but that is not born out by eyewitness testimony, people saw him try to climb down.
Of course in Hong Kong there was no investigation, but IMO that is far closer to a crime than this case. Even there, the defence would have a field day for the Chinese.
A balcony has railings deemed safe, no horizontal railings and so on. The singular feature of this case is that Tostee was clearly putting a firewall between himself and this woman, end of story. After reading today's news story I will inflame lionking and others by declaring him totally innocent.
However, so are many people who become victims of prosecutorial over reach and morons on the jury.
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 16th October 2016, 02:51 AM   #284
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This business of stating locking someone on a balcony is unsafe I don't buy in any way shape or form.
I cited the case earlier of Mike Bastion, and those who knew the circumstances are quite clear, he was trying to evade Chinese individuals with whom he had done a deal to launder 300 million through financial markets. Unfortunately he lost the money. He was alone in the apartment when they knocked, and it appears he tried to climb down from the balcony to evade them, and fell to his death. The person telling the story of course embellished it by saying he threw them, but that is not born out by eyewitness testimony, people saw him try to climb down.
Of course in Hong Kong there was no investigation, but IMO that is far closer to a crime than this case. Even there, the defence would have a field day for the Chinese.
A balcony has railings deemed safe, no horizontal railings and so on. The singular feature of this case is that Tostee was clearly putting a firewall between himself and this woman, end of story. After reading today's news story I will inflame lionking and others by declaring him totally innocent.
However, so are many people who become victims of prosecutorial over reach and morons on the jury.
It actually sounds very similar. Early in the thread, I linked a news article explaining that the crown were attempting to prove that Wright was in such fear for her life that she felt she needed to escape from her "confinement". (Some don't like the words "imprisoned" and "detained")

The charge relating to that is 'Causing Death by Threats' Criminal Code 1899 - SECT 295
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s295.html

As I corrected you earlier, locking her on the balcony turned out to be very unsafe. It really is disingenuous to argue that point now. It was unsafe.

The question is, is it reasomable to assume that Tostee would have reasonable foresight of this matter?
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, 02:55 AM   #285
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,664
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
It actually sounds very similar. Early in the thread, I linked a news article explaining that the crown were attempting to prove that Wright was in such fear for her life that she felt she needed to escape from her "confinement". (Some don't like the words "imprisoned" and "detained")

The charge relating to that is 'Causing Death by Threats' Criminal Code 1899 - SECT 295
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s295.html

As I corrected you earlier, locking her on the balcony turned out to be very unsafe. It really is disingenuous to argue that point now. It was unsafe.

The question is, is it reasomable to assume that Tostee would have reasonable foresight of this matter?
It is unsafe with hindsight only.
The great fallacy on this thread is people are arguing the general case from the particular case. I have personally been terrified by my wife, but far more so by great heights.
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 16th October 2016, 03:00 AM   #286
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,054
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This business of stating locking someone on a balcony is unsafe I don't buy in any way shape or form.
Who cares if you don't buy it? The law does. Have you been even following this thread?
__________________
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, 03:04 AM   #287
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,054
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is unsafe with hindsight only.
The great fallacy on this thread is people are arguing the general case from the particular case. I have personally been terrified by my wife, but far more so by great heights.
What a monumentally idiotic post with no relationship to this thread.
__________________
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, 03:05 AM   #288
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is unsafe with hindsight only.
The great fallacy on this thread is people are arguing the general case from the particular case. I have personally been terrified by my wife, but far more so by great heights.
Hindsight is what we are dealing with. You play the cards you're dealt.

Had you died during your wife's terrorizing of yourself, and provided anybody cared to pursue it, she could probably be tried with murder under Qld law.
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, 03:16 AM   #289
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,664
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
What a monumentally idiotic post with no relationship to this thread.
There was humorous intent.
Fear of heights is a powerful evolutionary force, survival, will to live. I might well be alone here, but I regard a high balcony with a high security railing as intrinsically safe under all circumstances that can be sensibly predicted. Indeed this is the heart of the matter, and with luck the jury will use common sense. But the system is systemically flawed. Just yesterday I spoke to a businessman called for jury service, and he is under resourced to take 10 days off, yet earlier was CEO for an engineering concern. He would be ideal.
Let's fuss also about jury caliber. I know what I think.
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 16th October 2016, 03:31 AM   #290
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
I think, even if the jury does decide that it wasn't a reasonable consideration that she might try to climb, there is still the matter of the deprivation of liberty being a crime.
Tthe resulting death during that crime makes it murder. Probably reduced to manslaughter. I assume the prosecution can have multiple angles, but ......
No idea how close I am with that. It looks tight to me, it's just the ANAL thing.
Am Not A Lawyer.
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, 03:38 AM   #291
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,664
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I think, even if the jury does decide that it wasn't a reasonable consideration that she might try to climb, there is still the matter of the deprivation of liberty being a crime.
Tthe resulting death during that crime makes it murder. Probably reduced to manslaughter. I assume the prosecution can have multiple angles, but ......
No idea how close I am with that. It looks tight to me, it's just the ANAL thing.
Am Not A Lawyer.
Lawyers are obliged professionally to leave common sense at the door. They are always acting for some one, prosecutors, defence attorneys, parties to a divorce. Even appeal court judges are acting for the status quo of the last decision.
You have a winning hand as ANAL, you can dine from the tin labelled common sense with no fear.
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 16th October 2016, 04:07 AM   #292
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,054
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Lawyers are obliged professionally to leave common sense at the door. They are always acting for some one, prosecutors, defence attorneys, parties to a divorce. Even appeal court judges are acting for the status quo of the last decision.
You have a winning hand as ANAL, you can dine from the tin labelled common sense with no fear.
This comment shows yet again that you have absolutely no idea of jurisprudence. Prove it or withdraw.
__________________
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, 04:20 AM   #293
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,664
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
This comment shows yet again that you have absolutely no idea of jurisprudence. Prove it or withdraw.
It is well known that the most infrequent judicial event is an appeal against a murder conviction succeeding. I won't catalogue the NZ cases here, but my favourite is the first Lundy appeal.

"To drive that distance in 75 minutes involves an average speed of about 120kpm. The jury were, in our view, entitled to conclude that this was by no means an impossibility"

If this was not possible, the jury had been instructed by the trial judge to acquit.
Scientifically, the correct answer turns out to be 90 kpm.
Common sense left at the door, the appeal court slavishly sanctifying a false belief.

Legally this has never been challenged and that man is still in jail because of that ruling.

Now, this is off topic in a strict sense, so I must show relevance. If this jury convicts Tostee of manslaughter, no argument that balconies are safe because man fears heights will ever get him out. I predict the appeal will be denied, though if I were the defence I would be doing prodigious statistical work to show that this is a one in a million event.
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 16th October 2016, 11:26 AM   #294
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,780
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
Alcohol was the cause of her death. That is sadly the point that has been lost.
No. If she hadn't be involuntarily locked out on the balcony the alcohol wouldn't have killed her. It's quite simple.
__________________
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 online now   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, 11:29 AM   #295
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,780
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. The comparison is nonsense.

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?
Did you examine the conversation Tostee had with his father? Not exactly indicative of shock, rather the realisation that he was in trouble.
__________________
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 online now   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, 02:07 PM   #296
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Did you examine the conversation Tostee had with his father? Not exactly indicative of shock, rather the realisation that he was in trouble.
The phone call to his father was made 40 minutes after she fell. He didn't sound panicked in the call, but who knows what his state of mind was at the time - he had just seen/heard someone fall 14 floors to their death. As someone else said, he may be been completely on autopilot.
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, 02:10 PM   #297
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,054
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The phone call to his father was made 40 minutes after she fell. He didn't sound panicked in the call, but who knows what his state of mind was at the time - he had just seen/heard someone fall 14 floors to their death. As someone else said, he may be been completely on autopilot.
Excuses for the murderer, blame for the victim.
__________________
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, 02:43 PM   #298
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The phone call to his father was made 40 minutes after she fell. He didn't sound panicked in the call, but who knows what his state of mind was at the time - he had just seen/heard someone fall 14 floors to their death. As someone else said, he may be been completely on autopilot.
If we're going to speculate then ......

40 minutes after he'd seen Wright fall from his balcony, not "just".

During that 40 minutes, he tried to call his lawyer before he even left the apartment.

Then he took an elevator to the lobby, started to walk to the exit, and had a change of mind. Took the elevator down to the basement and exited the building in the dark.

Easy to imagine his thought process, I think. Don't be seen leaving the building. Police will be responding. Then he wanders around for almost 40 minutes before buying pizza and calling his father. Was he watching the responders?

As for his frame of mind when talking to his father ..... paraphrased.... "why does **** always happen to me?" .... was seemingly a priority in his thought process.
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, 06:50 PM   #299
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.
You can't read anything into that.

Quote:
The jury has heard evidence of the accused’s conduct after Wright fell - the way he called his dad, and his lawyers, not emergency services, then left the apartment via the basement. That is simply context, the judge has told the jury.

It would be wrong for them to use that “context” as advancing the prosecution case on murder or manslaughter: “You cannot, for example, reason that if the defendant did not behave in the reason you think he should have… [that you should conclude] he is guilty of murder or 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 16th October 2016, 07:07 PM   #300
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is unsafe with hindsight only.
Maybe the judge agrees with you

Quote:
Justice John Byrne is quoting old Hollywood filmmaker Billy Wilder, warning the jury: “Hindsight is always 20/20”
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, 07:19 PM   #301
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,054
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
You can't read anything into that.
I bloody can. I said earlier that we are not the jury and our opinions can't be directed by a judge.
__________________
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, 07:52 PM   #302
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Who cares if you don't buy it? The law does. Have you been even following this thread?
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
This comment shows yet again that you have absolutely no idea of jurisprudence. Prove it or withdraw.
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I bloody can. I said earlier that we are not the jury and our opinions can't be directed by a judge.
I thought this was supposed to be a skeptical forum, not "True Detective"? One minute you're quoting the law, the next minute you're ignoring it.
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, 08:20 PM   #303
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I thought this was supposed to be a skeptical forum.
Many people make that mistake.
__________________
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 16th October 2016, 09:02 PM   #304
Ben1985
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I think, even if the jury does decide that it wasn't a reasonable consideration that she might try to climb, there is still the matter of the deprivation of liberty being a crime.
Tthe resulting death during that crime makes it murder. Probably reduced to manslaughter. I assume the prosecution can have multiple angles, but ......
No idea how close I am with that. It looks tight to me, it's just the ANAL thing.
Am Not A Lawyer.
Only if death was a "likely" outcome of the criminal act.

I tend to think that this whole case is going to turn on whether or not the jury agrees with the prosecution's contention that Wright was strangled before being locked on the balcony. If so, I think it's reasonable for Tostee to have assumed that she would be in fear for her life and that she would likely try and escape (and hence almost certainly fall to her death). If not, then I don't think there's enough there for the jury to agree that Wright trying to climb down the balcony was foreseeable.
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 16th October 2016, 09:05 PM   #305
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
You can't read anything into that.
...of course I can! We are having a discussion on a messageboard. I'm not subject to a judges directions.

Quote:
I thought this was supposed to be a skeptical forum, not "True Detective"? One minute you're quoting the law, the next minute you're ignoring it.
The law as written, and the directions given by a judge to a jury prior to deliberation, are two different things. Do you need someone to explain the difference to you, or do you think you can figure the two things out on your own?
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 16th October 2016, 11:52 PM   #306
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
Tostee decided NOT TO CALL THE POLICE but instead WENT TO EAT PIZZA. That decision was not reasonable at all.
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...of course I can! We are having a discussion on a messageboard. I'm not subject to a judges directions.
So your position wrt to the first statement would be different if you were on a jury rather than being on a message board?

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 16th October 2016 at 11:54 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 17th October 2016, 12:06 AM   #307
gareththomasnz
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 29
Sorry I did have a good hunt around for about an hour - dont recall the link

I'm just awaiting the verdict now.

Quote:
Justice Byrne addressed the six men and six women of the jury on a range of issues, including whether or not Tostee intended to cause Ms Wright grievous bodily harm, which caused her to undertake the act that led to he death.

“The burden rests with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused,” he said.

“If you are left with a reasonable doubt, your duty is to acquit.”

He also reminded jurors their task was an intellectual one, not an emotional one.

“You should dismiss all sympathy and prejudice, no such emotion has any place in your position,” he said.

“You must approach dispassionately.”
Just remember folks NZ has a high rate of male suicide - wonder why?

Last edited by gareththomasnz; 17th October 2016 at 12:08 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 17th October 2016, 12:19 AM   #308
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
Sorry I did have a good hunt around for about an hour - dont recall the link

I'm just awaiting the verdict now.



Just remember folks NZ has a high rate of male suicide - wonder why?
Interesting part you chose to share. Here's the link.


http://www.news.com.au/national/quee...5eb2475c5b238c

What verdict are you awaiting just now?

Quote:
Most tellingly, however, the jury also sought clarification as to whether Ms Wright’s state of mind at the time she fell was important, and if her intoxication was something they had to consider as to whether her decision to climb over the balcony balustrade was unreasonable and irrational.
Their final question was to seek clarification of the terms “causation”, “unlawfulness” and “intent”.
Counsel for the prosecution and defence will reconvene at 10am tomorrow, in order to answer the questions.
The jury has been excused from their deliberations until then.
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 17th October 2016, 12:42 AM   #309
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,664
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Maybe the judge agrees with you
Hard Cheese, I am at heart a statistician.

All the cases that don't stack up begin with ordinary men and women.
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 17th October 2016, 12:52 AM   #310
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,605
Huh, just a plain old misogynist.

Originally Posted by gareththomasnz View Post
Just remember folks NZ has a high rate of male suicide - wonder why?
Now, where else have I seen that quote, or something very similar.

That's right, Twitter, tweeted by a gareththomasnz, bodybuilder:

Quote:
NZ also has a high rate of male suicide - The vast majority of suicides are male. Kiwi bitches boy - they'll kill ya
Well, you've got one less to worry about now, eh?
__________________
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 17th October 2016, 12:56 AM   #311
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,605
A couple more tweets that may shed some light on the posting in this thread:

Quote:
Tostee must be aquited surely, plenty of abusive females & males in this country. Females tend 2 get away with abusing their children/spouse
Quote:
Frankly if this guy is charged with murder then he may has well have raped & beaten the **** out of her - he is innocent
Nothing to see here.
__________________
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 17th October 2016, 01:01 AM   #312
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
So your position wrt to the first statement would be different if you were on a jury rather than being on a message board?
...with all due respect: and I mean this in the nicest of possible of ways, but this well may be the dumbest question I've been asked in a while. Yes: if I was on a jury, I would deliberate as per the judges directions. I may or may not still hold the same opinion: but I feel I would be able to put my gut feelings aside and to deliberate as directed.

Now: if you were less inclined to constantly take pot-shots at me for some sort of "perceived slight" I'd be happy to discuss what the judges directions might mean for the trial. But you seem intent in trying to "catch me out." I have no idea why.
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 17th October 2016, 01:36 AM   #313
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...with all due respect: and I mean this in the nicest of possible of ways, but this well may be the dumbest question I've been asked in a while. Yes: if I was on a jury, I would deliberate as per the judges directions. I may or may not still hold the same opinion: but I feel I would be able to put my gut feelings aside and to deliberate as directed.

Now: if you were less inclined to constantly take pot-shots at me for some sort of "perceived slight" I'd be happy to discuss what the judges directions might mean for the trial. But you seem intent in trying to "catch me out." I have no idea why.
I'm simply trying to work out why you think his not calling the police and going for pizza should have any bearing on his guilt or innocence, if that's what you meant by your response in caps. If it's just a "gut feeling" that forms an opinion, that's fine.
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 17th October 2016, 01:44 AM   #314
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I'm simply trying to work out why you think his not calling the police and going for pizza should have any bearing on his guilt or innocence, if that's what you meant by your response in caps. If it's just a "gut feeling" that forms an opinion, that's fine.
...well thats simply because I made no claim that "his not calling the police and going for pizza should have any bearing on his guilt or innocence." I said "Tostee decided NOT TO CALL THE POLICE but instead WENT TO EAT PIZZA. That decision was not reasonable at all." Where did I talk about "guilt or innocence?"

If you are having trouble understanding what I'm saying, why don't you start by reading the words that I have written?
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 17th October 2016, 02:04 AM   #315
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...well thats simply because I made no claim that "his not calling the police and going for pizza should have any bearing on his guilt or innocence." I said "Tostee decided NOT TO CALL THE POLICE but instead WENT TO EAT PIZZA. That decision was not reasonable at all." Where did I talk about "guilt or innocence?"
So it's just what you think he should have done in the circumstances. That's fine, no need to get snarky.
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 17th October 2016, 02:26 AM   #316
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,054
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
So it's just what you think he should have done in the circumstances. That's fine, no need to get snarky.
Rule of So. Automatically loses.

Tostee acted like an utterly callous jerk. Does't go to his guilt, but to his character and arguably motivation. It's the context the jury will use to help decide his guilt.
__________________
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 17th October 2016, 02:45 AM   #317
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Rule of So. Automatically loses.

Tostee acted like an utterly callous jerk. Does't go to his guilt, but to his character and arguably motivation. It's the context the jury will use to help decide his guilt.
I hope not, because the judge told them specifically not to use them (his actions after her fall, that is)
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 17th October 2016, 03:08 AM   #318
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,054
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I hope not, because the judge told them specifically not to use them (his actions after her fall, that is)
You hope not? Why are you so invested in this obnoxious jerk's innocence?
__________________
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 17th October 2016, 03:17 AM   #319
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
You hope not? Why are you so invested in this obnoxious jerk's innocence?
The judge gave the jury a specific directive, I hope they heed it, because, obnoxious as I also find him, he deserves a fair trial like anyone else.
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 17th October 2016, 03:43 AM   #320
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,054
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The judge gave the jury a specific directive, I hope they heed it, because, obnoxious as I also find him, he deserves a fair trial like anyone else.
Why do you hope they heed it? I repeat, why are you so invested in this idiot's innocence?
__________________
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

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 01:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.