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 11th October 2016, 01:50 AM   #41
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
1 (b) seems to cover the case here.
Spot on. The criminal acts covered by this type of endangerment (in Queensland anyway) include robbery and assault, so I can't imagine kidnapping would be an exclusion.
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 11th October 2016, 01:52 AM   #42
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
.

This guy Tostee is accused of murder which is absurd. It looks like a prize cockup to me. There must be a range of charges they could throw the book at him for, instead he has to walk.
I think 'absurd' is a bit poetic. Did you read the definition of murder from Queensland?
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 11th October 2016, 01:55 AM   #43
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This guy Tostee is accused of murder which is absurd. It looks like a prize cockup to me. There must be a range of charges they could throw the book at him for, instead he has to walk.
Not a hope in hell. One of the things you assume in the many threads where you defend violent men is that cops are stupid and/or corrupt. This displays gross ignorance. The justice system in Australia requires that only cases with a reasonable probability of prosecution go to trial. This is not decided by police, but by Directors of Public Prosecution (or equivalent). Murder or manslaughter convictions are therefore quite high in Australia. This guy will not walk.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 02:02 AM   #44
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I think 'absurd' is a bit poetic. Did you read the definition of murder from Queensland?
I have now, it might make some sense with the kidnapping, but I don't myself see her death as being a foreseeable consequence. People do not jump from balconies commonly.
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 11th October 2016, 02:06 AM   #45
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Not a hope in hell. One of the things you assume in the many threads where you defend violent men is that cops are stupid and/or corrupt. This displays gross ignorance. The justice system in Australia requires that only cases with a reasonable probability of prosecution go to trial. This is not decided by police, but by Directors of Public Prosecution (or equivalent). Murder or manslaughter convictions are therefore quite high in Australia. This guy will not walk.
We get few acquittals too, but with an easy threshold to prosecution and that's the problem. The public never believe the police would fabricate evidence, falsify note books and frame men against whom there is no evidence, but they did so in all the cases I listed.
The facts of this case look straightforward, so whatever the outcome it will depend on public mood rather than fabricating evidence.

Last edited by Samson; 11th October 2016 at 02:07 AM.
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 11th October 2016, 02:09 AM   #46
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This guy Tostee is accused of murder which is absurd. It looks like a prize cockup to me. There must be a range of charges they could throw the book at him for, instead he has to walk.
...the section of the criminal code that is applicable has been cited in this thread.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s302.html

"(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;"

What exactly is the "prize cockup?"
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 11th October 2016, 02:19 AM   #47
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...the section of the criminal code that is applicable has been cited in this thread.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s302.html

"(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;"

What exactly is the "prize cockup?"
I have caught up with the thread now.
However, since we are all thinking critically in these parts, let's look at the language.
How about "Kidnapping with death as an unintended consequence"
Murder is just highly inaccurate given the flexibility language affords.

ETA death was not caused by locking her out. Death was caused by her climbing over a railing. He was not in pursuit.

Last edited by Samson; 11th October 2016 at 02:25 AM.
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 11th October 2016, 02:25 AM   #48
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I have caught up with the thread now.
However, since we are all thinking critically in these parts, let's look at the language.
How about "Kidnapping with death as an unintended consequence"
Murder is just highly inaccurate given the flexibility language affords.
...talking about language: what on earth are you talking about?

The criminal code is clear.

It is obvious you are still confused.

That you are confused doesn't affect this case.
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 11th October 2016, 02:28 AM   #49
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...talking about language: what on earth are you talking about?

The criminal code is clear.

It is obvious you are still confused.

That you are confused doesn't affect this case.
I just added above.
Cause could be argued if he was pursuing but on the contrary he was receding when he locked her out. I don't see why there is not pause to reflect on the wild extension from locking outside, to murder.
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 11th October 2016, 02:30 AM   #50
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I have now, it might make some sense with the kidnapping, but I don't myself see her death as being a foreseeable consequence. People do not jump from balconies commonly.
The consideration that the judge will make will be (paraphrasing)

Was the death of Ms. Wright a real risk which an ordinary person in Tostee's position would have foreseen as a possible outcome when he locked the balcony door - or was it something which an ordinary person might think of as so remote a possibility that there was no need to take it into account or guard against its happening?

I think if she was sober, you might make a case for the latter, that she would be unlikely to attempt a climb over the balcony to escape. Drunk, Tostee's act is one of rank stupidity. Someone under the influence of "home distilled white spirits" is not safe on a 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
Old 11th October 2016, 02:31 AM   #51
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I just added above.
Cause could be argued if he was pursuing but on the contrary he was receding when he locked her out. I don't see why there is not pause to reflect on the wild extension from locking outside, to murder.
...you weren't even clear on what legally constituted "murder" in Australia until a few minutes ago. We haven't heard a fraction of the evidence, and the evidence we have heard has been filtered through the news outlets.

Don't you think you are jumping the gun, just a tad? Its only Day Frigging One.
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 11th October 2016, 02:32 AM   #52
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...you weren't even clear on what legally constituted "murder" in Australia until a few minutes ago. We haven't heard a fraction of the evidence, and the evidence we have heard has been filtered through the news outlets.

Don't you think you are jumping the gun, just a tad? Its only Day Frigging One.
Except this is a 7 day trial, not a tortured 7 weeker like the Lundy frame up.
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 11th October 2016, 02:37 AM   #53
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Except this is a 7 day trial, not a tortured 7 weeker like the Lundy frame up.
...so is that a yes? Or a no?

Can you at least try and stick to this particular case?
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 11th October 2016, 02:37 AM   #54
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The consideration that the judge will make will be (paraphrasing)

Was the death of Ms. Wright a real risk which an ordinary person in Tostee's position would have foreseen as a possible outcome when he locked the balcony door - or was it something which an ordinary person might think of as so remote a possibility that there was no need to take it into account or guard against its happening?

I think if she was sober, you might make a case for the latter, that she would be unlikely to attempt a climb over the balcony to escape. Drunk, Tostee's act is one of rank stupidity. Someone under the influence of "home distilled white spirits" is not safe on a balcony.
I'm not so sure. There would be precedents aplenty if this was truly foreseeable. This was a fraught situation, Tostee's choice was binary, try to control her or let her loose to make wild accusations. His recent criminal troubles would have alarm bells ringing letting her loose, but that is not to say he didn't make a catastrophic choice. WITH HINDSIGHT.
Act in haste, repent at leisure comes to mind.
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 11th October 2016, 02:38 AM   #55
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The consideration that the judge will make will be (paraphrasing)

Was the death of Ms. Wright a real risk which an ordinary person in Tostee's position would have foreseen as a possible outcome when he locked the balcony door - or was it something which an ordinary person might think of as so remote a possibility that there was no need to take it into account or guard against its happening?

I think if she was sober, you might make a case for the latter, that she would be unlikely to attempt a climb over the balcony to escape. Drunk, Tostee's act is one of rank stupidity. Someone under the influence of "home distilled white spirits" is not safe on a balcony.
Further, the context of the audio can't be ignored. Tostee was clearly threatening and intimidating. He was big and strong and could have easily put her out through the front door. He didn't. Murder it is.

I think the prosecution has more up it's sleeve. I wouldn't be at at all surprised if there is more intimidation by Tostee. He's done.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 02:39 AM   #56
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I just added above.
Cause could be argued if he was pursuing but on the contrary he was receding when he locked her out. I don't see why there is not pause to reflect on the wild extension from locking outside, to murder.


(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.
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 11th October 2016, 02:39 AM   #57
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...so is that a yes? Or a no?

Can you at least try and stick to this particular case?
It's a no. The facts are immediate and available. Everyone here can figure whether he should go down for 25 already. I have and he shouldn't.
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 11th October 2016, 02:41 AM   #58
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I'm not so sure. There would be precedents aplenty if this was truly foreseeable. This was a fraught situation, Tostee's choice was binary, try to control her or let her loose to make wild accusations. His recent criminal troubles would have alarm bells ringing letting her loose, but that is not to say he didn't make a catastrophic choice. WITH HINDSIGHT.
Act in haste, repent at leisure comes to mind.
Crap. Throw her out the door. Ring the police if necessary. He had a heap of choices, like a number of the "heroes" you have defended. He chose the culpable one.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 02:42 AM   #59
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I just added above.
Cause could be argued if he was pursuing but on the contrary he was receding when he locked her out. I don't see why there is not pause to reflect on the wild extension from locking outside, to murder.
You say locking outside. The police may well say "held her prisoner".

He was most definitely committing a crime when she fell. It's fairly obvious he committed a string of crimes against Ms Wright in the lead up to the fall.
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 11th October 2016, 02:42 AM   #60
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.
Yes but the main section is clear. If death is caused. It was not.
If the wording was "if death occurs" then that would work.
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 11th October 2016, 02:43 AM   #61
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Crap. Throw her out the door. Ring the police if necessary. He had a heap of choices, like a number of the "heroes" you have defended. He chose the culpable one.
Exactly.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Yes but the main section is clear. If death is caused. It was not.
If the wording was "if death occurs" then that would work.
What?

Death occured. Therefore it was caused

Last edited by Shiner; 11th October 2016 at 02:45 AM.
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 11th October 2016, 02:45 AM   #62
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It's a no. The facts are immediate and available.
...so the facts that will be revealed in the next "six days" are immediate and available? Do you have a time machine? Can you tell us what they will talk about tomorrow?

Quote:
Everyone here can figure whether he should go down for 25 already. I have and he shouldn't.
"(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;"

Why do you think he should not be convicted of murder, considering it seems to tick all the boxes for a murder conviction?
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 11th October 2016, 02:46 AM   #63
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It's a no. The facts are immediate and available. Everyone here can figure whether he should go down for 25 already. I have and he shouldn't.
I'm really curious why you continue to defend violent men. Your incredulity means nothing at all. Look at the evidence and the laws that apply. Listen to the audio.

This is a slam dunk conviction. Your defence of guys like Tostee is beyond strange.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 02:47 AM   #64
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Crap. Throw her out the door. Ring the police if necessary. He had a heap of choices, like a number of the "heroes" you have defended. He chose the culpable one.
I don't defend, I offer arguments in mitigation. There are uncountable one time offenders who are done for another person's death, spend 20 plus, and were in most respects regular citizens. Jeffery Archer's prison diary recounted a score of lifers who were "there but for the grace of god go I" types.
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 11th October 2016, 02:49 AM   #65
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I don't defend, I offer arguments in mitigation. There are uncountable one time offenders who are done for another person's death, spend 20 plus, and were in most respects regular citizens. Jeffery Archer's prison diary recounted a score of lifers who were "there but for the grace of god go I" types.
Do you realise that citing Archer does your argument no credit at all? (Godwin coming) Hitler liked dogs......
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 02:49 AM   #66
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I have caught up with the thread now.
However, since we are all thinking critically in these parts, let's look at the language.
How about "Kidnapping with death as an unintended consequence"
Murder is just highly inaccurate given the flexibility language affords.
I agree, I don't know why the concept of constructive murder/felony murder was discarded and everything thrown in under the definition of murder - the serial killer lumped in with the moment of reckless endangerment. In one case is premeditated multiple homicide, the other a question of assessing foreseeable risk during a lesser crime (granted, a situation of his own making). Murder is not just Professor Plum in the ballroom with the lead piping.
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 11th October 2016, 02:51 AM   #67
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,447
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I don't defend, I offer arguments in mitigation. There are uncountable one time offenders who are done for another person's death, spend 20 plus, and were in most respects regular citizens. Jeffery Archer's prison diary recounted a score of lifers who were "there but for the grace of god go I" types.
...what happens to others is irrelevant: especially second hand-anecdotes. Only the facts of this particular case actually matter.
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 11th October 2016, 02:52 AM   #68
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
Exactly.



What?

Death occured. Therefore it was caused
No no no, that is why the charge won't stick. The defence will spend hours on this point. Cause involves a sufficient condition.
Was it sufficient to kill her that he locked her out? There was an additional act, and that was in fact all her choice.
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 11th October 2016, 02:54 AM   #69
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I agree, I don't know why the concept of constructive murder/felony murder was discarded and everything thrown in under the definition of murder - the serial killer lumped in with the moment of reckless endangerment. In one case is premeditated multiple homicide, the other a question of assessing foreseeable risk during a lesser crime (granted, a situation of his own making). Murder is not just Professor Plum in the ballroom with the lead piping.
Did you not see earlier posts where these charges are not available? Manslaughter or murder are the only options in cases like this. manslaughter is a "heat of the moment" crime. In this case Tostee made a calculated decision to push Wright out the door and put her in fear of her life.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 02:54 AM   #70
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I agree, I don't know why the concept of constructive murder/felony murder was discarded and everything thrown in under the definition of murder - the serial killer lumped in with the moment of reckless endangerment. In one case is premeditated multiple homicide, the other a question of assessing foreseeable risk during a lesser crime (granted, a situation of his own making). Murder is not just Professor Plum in the ballroom with the lead piping.
Thanks Hard Cheese.
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 11th October 2016, 02:56 AM   #71
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
No no no, that is why the charge won't stick. The defence will spend hours on this point. Cause involves a sufficient condition.
Was it sufficient to kill her that he locked her out? There was an additional act, and that was in fact all her choice.
Look at the law. Listen to the audio. Consider the context and the alternatives that Tostee had. He's done.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 02:58 AM   #72
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
No no no, that is why the charge won't stick. The defence will spend hours on this point. Cause involves a sufficient condition.
Was it sufficient to kill her that he locked her out? There was an additional act, and that was in fact all her choice.
Uh huh. Which is why I simply said "death was caused". I'm not psychic, nor privy to any confession by Tostee.

I'm happy for the jury to decide, if that's ok with you.
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 11th October 2016, 02:58 AM   #73
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Thanks Hard Cheese.
Christ, constructive murder is not available. Catch up. Look at the law in Queensland now, not something you imagine.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 02:59 AM   #74
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Look at the law. Listen to the audio. Consider the context and the alternatives that Tostee had. He's done.
What's the minimum tarrif do you know?
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 11th October 2016, 03:01 AM   #75
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
What's the minimum tarrif do you know?
Murder? Life.

It's defined differently by jurisdictions and judges. This will not be a "term of natural life" conviction. My guess, 15 years, with 12 for good behaviour.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 03:05 AM   #76
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,694
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
What would you decide on the available evidence?
He unlawfully imprisoned her in an unsafe environment, endangering her life, and failed to take other options (like calling the police or an ambulance) and this contributed greatly to her death. Manslaughter at best and felony murder in applicable jurisdictions. Quite possibly murder if a reasonable person could foresee her death was a likely result.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2016, 03:06 AM   #77
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,694
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Clearly, with drunk and violent people of either gender a chaotic outcome is likely. For men, the challenge is to be sure they would not lock a woman outside to sober up as an option before leaping to conclusions. This woman was violent and drunk remember, and falling or leaping from balconies is an incredibly rare event. It is meant to be difficult.
He could have called police or emergency medical services but did not.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2016, 03:08 AM   #78
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
He unlawfully imprisoned her in an unsafe environment, endangering her life, and failed to take other options (like calling the police or an ambulance) and this contributed greatly to her death. Manslaughter at best and felony murder in applicable jurisdictions. Quite possibly murder if a reasonable person could foresee her death was a likely result.
Yes. Although I think murder is the right conviction, manslaughter is a possibility. I can't see the "heat of the moment" defence though. Far more calculated in my opinion.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 03:10 AM   #79
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,606
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
He could have called police or emergency medical services but did not.
That's right. He was a violent, impulsive idiot. Twice her size, by the way.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 03:16 AM   #80
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,694
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Yes. Although I think murder is the right conviction, manslaughter is a possibility. I can't see the "heat of the moment" defence though. Far more calculated in my opinion.
In my view it comes down to the question of was her death a reasonably foreseeable outcome of his actions, if so a verdict of guilty of murder is appropriate, otherwise manslaughter. This excludes felony murder and it's equivalents.

Based only on a superficial study of this case I'd vote to convict of murder as I believe his actions were unreasonable, not warranted by the circumstances, escalated the situation and has a foreseeable risk of causing death or serious injury.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 12:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.