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, 03:18 AM   #81
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
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.
Are you sure you read the definition of murder, per QLD.

(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;

Death happened. There must be a cause. Who caused it, is up to the jury.

Note "an act likely to endanger human life" ......

There is no requirement for the accused to have intent to endanger life.

I think you're reading more than is there.

Last edited by Shiner; 11th October 2016 at 03:25 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, 03:20 AM   #82
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
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.
Yes, I made one of those posts, have a look at #22.

I know that those charges are not available in Queensland, that's why I used the past tense. His point was a general one about the broadness of the charge of murder.
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, 03:25 AM   #83
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Yes, I made one of those posts, have a look at #22.

I know that those charges are not available in Queensland, that's why I used the past tense. His point was a general one about the broadness of the charge of murder.
Okay
__________________
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, 03:35 AM   #84
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
Are you sure you read the definition of murder, per QLD.

(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;

Death happened. There must be a cause. Who caused it, is up to the jury.

Note "an act likely to endanger human life" ......

There is no requirement for the accused to have intent to endanger life.

I think you're reading more than is there.
The cause of her death was being locked on a balcony high enough that if she fell death was likely.
How does that sound? Stupid in my opinion, because balconies are designed so falling doesn't happen..
Of course it will be argued she perceived imminent danger and a hazardous descent seemed preferable to Tostee attacking her.

Last edited by Samson; 11th October 2016 at 03:38 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, 03:39 AM   #85
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
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.
I'm far from a criminal law expert, but I don't see the requirement in the written law for proving that her death was a reasonable outcome.

It's an act likely to endanger life. I do believe, when including section 3, that this removes requirements for the accused to be aware of that likelihood.

The death occured to the victim of an active crime.

I'm keen to see what bigger brains than mine make of it though.

Last edited by Shiner; 11th October 2016 at 03:41 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, 03:44 AM   #86
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The cause of her death was being locked on a balcony high enough that if she fell death was likely.
How does that sound? Stupid in my opinion, because balconies are designed so falling doesn't happen..
Of course it will be argued she perceived imminent danger and a hazardous descent seemed preferable to Tostee attacking her.
I agree. It sounds stupid. The cause of death was massive head injuries.

He imprisoned her and she died. No different to locking someone in the boot of your car and walking away.

Last edited by Shiner; 11th October 2016 at 03:46 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, 03:48 AM   #87
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I agree. It sounds stupid. The cause of death was massive head injuries.

He imprisoned her and she died. No different to locking someone in the boot of your car and walking away.
Agreed. Drunkenness is no excuse, nor is "didn't mean it?".
__________________
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, 03:54 AM   #88
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
1 (b) seems to cover the case here.
Hmmm, it may not.

You couldn't say he was in the act of kidnapping because kidnapping is defined in the Queensland criminal code as

Kidnapping (354)

(2) A person kidnaps another person if the person unlawfully and forcibly takes or detains the other person with intent to gain anything from any person or to procure anything to be done or omitted to be done by any person.

It's really deprivation of liberty, which is a misdemeanour and unlikely to cross the threshold for a criminal act under 302 (1)(b)

Deprivation of liberty (355)

Any person who unlawfully confines or detains another in any place against the other personís will, or otherwise unlawfully deprives another of the other personís personal liberty, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
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, 03:59 AM   #89
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Hmmm, it may not.

You couldn't say he was in the act of kidnapping because kidnapping is defined in the Queensland criminal code as

Kidnapping (354)

(2) A person kidnaps another person if the person unlawfully and forcibly takes or detains the other person with intent to gain anything from any person or to procure anything to be done or omitted to be done by any person.

It's really deprivation of liberty, which is a misdemeanour and unlikely to cross the threshold for a criminal act under 302 (1)(b)

Deprivation of liberty (355)

Any person who unlawfully confines or detains another in any place against the other personís will, or otherwise unlawfully deprives another of the other personís personal liberty, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
That looks more realistic.
The crown case looks doomed. Something to watch for a week.
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, 04:00 AM   #90
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Hard Cheese.

"Or omitted to be done" does it.

Do you, like Samson, think the Queensland prosecutors are stupid? Do you understand the consequences of frivilous prosecutions? There are very solid checks and balances in Australian law. This is a very solid case.
__________________
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, 04:02 AM   #91
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
That looks more realistic.
The crown case looks doomed. Something to watch for a week.
Rubbish. I've asked you before. Why do you defend violent, aggressive male criminals?
__________________
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, 04:09 AM   #92
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Rubbish. I've asked you before. Why do you defend violent, aggressive male criminals?
I don't. I see a wider problem, the families get branded wrongly if the state over eggs the misdeeds of one member. Is Tostee's old man to be considered when heaping murder one on his boy?
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, 04:11 AM   #93
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Hmmm, it may not.

You couldn't say he was in the act of kidnapping because kidnapping is defined in the Queensland criminal code as

Kidnapping (354)

(2) A person kidnaps another person if the person unlawfully and forcibly takes or detains the other person with intent to gain anything from any person or to procure anything to be done or omitted to be done by any person.

It's really deprivation of liberty, which is a misdemeanour and unlikely to cross the threshold for a criminal act under 302 (1)(b)

Deprivation of liberty (355)

Any person who unlawfully confines or detains another in any place against the other personís will, or otherwise unlawfully deprives another of the other personís personal liberty, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
I don't understand why kidnapping keeps coming back into it. I'm not aware of a kidnapping charge. If the charge is murder, they need to prove that using the murder statutes.

The definition of murder allows for other crimes to be included without the necessity of adding or proving those charges. The audio tapes prove that he assaulted her (possibly in self defense), that he deprived her of her possessions, and that he imprisoned her on the balcony.

The police waited over a year before they laid the charges. I'm inclined to agree with LK that the police prosecution team probably knows what they are doing.
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, 04:14 AM   #94
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Hard Cheese.

"Or omitted to be done" does it.
Explain. What exactly is it that he wanted not to be done, and needed to hold her against her will to make sure that she did not do it?

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Do you, like Samson, think the Queensland prosecutors are stupid? Do you understand the consequences of frivilous prosecutions? There are very solid checks and balances in Australian law. This is a very solid case.
That may very well be so. That doesn't mean that they are conducting it on the basis of what is in section 302 (1) (b). They may be relying on his statement in the audio that he would throw her off the balcony, and therefore there is premeditated intent to murder.
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, 04:16 AM   #95
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I don't. I see a wider problem, the families get branded wrongly if the state over eggs the misdeeds of one member. Is Tostee's old man to be considered when heaping murder one on his boy?
You're very confusing. Why would his father be considered?

Considered for what, exactly? Should the court decide guilt or innocence based on Tostee's family's feelings?
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, 04:20 AM   #96
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
You're very confusing. Why would his father be considered?

Considered for what, exactly? Should the court decide guilt or innocence based on Tostee's families feelings?
Collateral damage occurs.
Murder is a wildly emotive rap for this guy. Unintentional homicide I wouldn't agree with but at least it is semantically defensible. This guy's family have to live in a community somewhere, they bred a murderer? I don't think so.
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, 04:23 AM   #97
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Collateral damage occurs.
Murder is a wildly emotive rap for this guy. Unintentional homicide I wouldn't agree with but at least it is semantically defensible. This guy's family have to live in a community somewhere, they bred a murderer? I don't think so.
Oh for goodness sake. How on earth can and should a murderer's family come into the equation?
__________________
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, 04:24 AM   #98
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I don't understand why kidnapping keeps coming back into it. I'm not aware of a kidnapping charge. If the charge is murder, they need to prove that using the murder statutes.
It came up because someone asked about the existence of felony murder in Australia, and it was suggested that the death occurred in the process of him committing the crime of kidnapping (keeping her in the apartment against her will, and locking her out on the balcony); in Queensland the concept of felony murder/constructive murder is wrapped up in a subsection section of the definition of murder. I doubt that you could classify what he did as kidnapping (according to the definition, anyway), but who knows. Not me.

Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
The police waited over a year before they laid the charges. I'm inclined to agree with LK that the police prosecution team probably knows what they are doing.
Oh, I'm sure. He has no hope, it will only be a question of how severe his sentence 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 11th October 2016, 04:24 AM   #99
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
That may very well be so. That doesn't mean that they are conducting it on the basis of what is in section 302 (1) (b). They may be relying on his statement in the audio that he would throw her off the balcony, and therefore there is premeditated intent to murder.
He doesn't actually threaten that though. He says "should", as opposed to "will", or "would". Some time later, he forced her out there. That she was in fear for her life is pretty easy to swallow.

I think 1 (b) is good. It seems the logical course.
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, 04:26 AM   #100
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
It came up because someone asked about the existence of felony murder in Australia, and it was suggested that the death occurred in the process of him committing the crime of kidnapping (keeping her in the apartment against her will, and locking her out on the balcony); in Queensland the concept of felony murder/constructive murder is wrapped up in a subsection section of the definition of murder. I doubt that you could classify what he did as kidnapping (according to the definition, anyway), but who knows. Not me.

Oh, I'm sure. He has no hope, it will only be a question of how severe his sentence is.
No. Not remotely.
__________________
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, 04:30 AM   #101
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Oh for goodness sake. How on earth can and should a murderer's family come into the equation?
Actually in the Tamihere case a fine documentary was made.
In his case he is factually innocent and on a fast track to proving it, but his brother John got hoodwinked. He is intent on proving his innocence partly because the branding is intergenerational. Better get it right surely.

Relative Guilt:

https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/relative-guilt-1999
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, 04:34 AM   #102
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Actually in the Tamihere case a fine documentary was made.
In his case he is factually innocent and on a fast track to proving it, but his brother John got hoodwinked. He is intent on proving his innocence partly because the branding is intergenerational. Better get it right surely.

Relative Guilt:

https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/relative-guilt-1999
Post on topic. I won't report this, but stop.
__________________
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, 04:52 AM   #103
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Just for reference if people are interested.

Deprivation of liberty
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s355.html

Qld Kidnapping law. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s354.html

Here's an interesting one. Causing Death By Threats
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s295.html

I'd say the first one applies here. And possibly the second and third?
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, 05:06 AM   #104
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
No. Not remotely.
Law Reform Commission of Western Australia – Review of the Law of Homicide: Final Report, p 56.

THE FELONY-MURDER RULE IN OTHER AUSTRALIAN JURISDICTIONS

A form of felony-murder exists in all Australian jurisdictions other than the Northern Territory,(53) the Australian Capital Territory (54) and the Commonwealth (55). In each jurisdiction where it exists the felony-murder rule is statutory.(56)


56. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18(1)(a); Criminal Code (Qld) s 302(1)(b)–(d); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 12A; Criminal Code (Tas)
s 157(1)(c); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 3A.

Queensland Criminal Code Act, 1899 (current as at 23/9/2016), p 182

302 Definition of murder
(1)
Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;
(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;



Back to Dolly for you.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 11th October 2016 at 05:11 AM.
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, 06:36 AM   #105
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,477
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
Just for reference if people are interested.

Deprivation of liberty
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s355.html

Qld Kidnapping law. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s354.html

Here's an interesting one. Causing Death By Threats
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s295.html

I'd say the first one applies here. And possibly the second and third?
First one. Definitely.
Second one? Maybe, maybe not, because of the wording of the first one (particular the wording 'misdemeanor')
Third one? Oh yes. He killed her.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl 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, 11:55 AM   #106
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,779
Jeez, this one's taken off like Amanda Knox.

The coverage is unbelievable over here. Two days running both major dailies have led their editions with the case, including photos and audio recordings on their websites.

Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I've followed the story since it happened, and really can't see murder being proven. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of intent.
I find it hard to see it sticking.

Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I won't be unhappy to be wrong though. He is a douche. As shown by his active social media prescence before, and after the death of Ms Wright.
No doubt about that part, but being a complete twat isn't evidence, unfortunately.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 12:28 PM   #107
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I don't. I see a wider problem, the families get branded wrongly if the state over eggs the misdeeds of one member. Is Tostee's old man to be considered when heaping murder one on his boy?

I'm intrigued. Why should he be?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2016, 12:38 PM   #108
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Collateral damage occurs.
Murder is a wildly emotive rap for this guy. Unintentional homicide I wouldn't agree with but at least it is semantically defensible. This guy's family have to live in a community somewhere, they bred a murderer? I don't think so.

I still don't get it. I'm not sure what you think should be done.

How universally should this ameliorating principle be applied?

What if the guy actually was unequivocally guilty of murder one? How do you think the effects on his family should be factored in then?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2016, 01:21 PM   #109
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Collateral damage occurs.
Murder is a wildly emotive rap for this guy. Unintentional homicide I wouldn't agree with but at least it is semantically defensible. This guy's family have to live in a community somewhere, they bred a murderer? I don't think so.
I'm curious about how you would apply this in relation to the victim and her family. Do they get consideration too?
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, 03:12 PM   #110
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I still don't get it. I'm not sure what you think should be done.

How universally should this ameliorating principle be applied?

What if the guy actually was unequivocally guilty of murder one? How do you think the effects on his family should be factored in then?
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I'm curious about how you would apply this in relation to the victim and her family. Do they get consideration too?
I posted a link above to an award winning documentary to illustrate the point, and since lionking threatened to report me for posting off topic I have to be careful.

There are two issues, one is exaggerating the offending and then there is actually prosecuting an innocent man, as in the link.
In this case I have made it clear, I believe the murder charge is an egregious wrong. His offending speaks for itself, a tinder date that went awol with liquor, and he behaved disgracefully, but the murder rap is one from a decision she made under the influence.
He is not a murderer, he is an arrogant man, a danger to society. There are plenty of those who grow up.
I believe the facts of the case should drive the charge, not the worst construction the state thinks it can shovel on him. The same for Pistorius of course.
In terms of the victim, her family also should consider the facts. Was she blameless? Maybe in the context of liquor she is, if he plied her excessively.
Also with a running pr deficit, I can't imagine why Tostee would continue on social media, but I don't know the details.

Last edited by Samson; 11th October 2016 at 03:16 PM.
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, 04:55 PM   #111
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I posted a link above to an award winning documentary to illustrate the point, and since lionking threatened to report me for posting off topic I have to be careful.

There are two issues, one is exaggerating the offending and then there is actually prosecuting an innocent man, as in the link.
In this case I have made it clear, I believe the murder charge is an egregious wrong. His offending speaks for itself, a tinder date that went awol with liquor, and he behaved disgracefully, but the murder rap is one from a decision she made under the influence.
He is not a murderer, he is an arrogant man, a danger to society. There are plenty of those who grow up.
I believe the facts of the case should drive the charge, not the worst construction the state thinks it can shovel on him. The same for Pistorius of course.
In terms of the victim, her family also should consider the facts. Was she blameless? Maybe in the context of liquor she is, if he plied her excessively.
Also with a running pr deficit, I can't imagine why Tostee would continue on social media, but I don't know the details.
I certainly won't take your word for this.

Do you think the DPP is corrupt in laying this charge? Why do you think he's been charged when DPPs have a history of not laying charges with poor chances of conviction?

No, your judgement of guilt and innocence is very poor indeed. This guy is 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, 06:47 PM   #112
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I certainly won't take your word for this.
Maybe you should take his word, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the definition of murder.

Anyway, technically at present he is no more a murderer than you or I.

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Why do you think he's been charged when DPPs have a history of not laying charges with poor chances of conviction?
True, but that is not to say such cases are a lay down misere either. The prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that him locking her out on the balcony in her state after such a confrontation was a life threatening act. The judge might well agree that it was, you would be taking your chances with a jury. Just look at the Lundy case - I wouldn't ever want my fate to be decided by 12 random people off the street.
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, 07:07 PM   #113
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
. The prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that him locking her out on the balcony in her state after such a confrontation was a life threatening act.
As it turns out, this was proven.

Jokes aside though. The bit I'm having trouble interpreting from the way the laws are written, is whether they need to show that Tostee had considered, or was aware of the risks associated with holding Wright captive.

Could it be applied as; Tostee having assaulted and detained Wright establishes that she died during the committing of a lesser crime by Tostee, and the law offers no defense for her death as a result.

I think that made sense?

Last edited by Shiner; 11th October 2016 at 07:08 PM.
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, 07:26 PM   #114
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
As it turns out, this was proven.

Jokes aside though. The bit I'm having trouble interpreting from the way the laws are written, is whether they need to show that Tostee had considered, or was aware of the risks associated with holding Wright captive.

Could it be applied as; Tostee having assaulted and detained Wright establishes that she died during the committing of a lesser crime by Tostee, and the law offers no defense for her death as a result.

I think that made sense?
Curiously, people dropping from balconies is usually reported from anywhere, showing it is incredibly rare. Consider how many such balconies exist around the world. Hindsight is a terrible tool to assist in this case, I bet parents have put kids on balconies in frustration. Fear of falling gets those toes really tingling, I feel it as I type.

ETA I provisionally withdraw after reading this link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...s-dangers.html

Paul Abrey, Consul in the Balearics, said: 'We've already seen some tragic cases this summer which have had devastating consequences for the individuals and families concerned.
'Some people have fallen whilst climbing to a friend's apartment, others have simply lost their footing after a few too many drinks and a few have deliberately jumped off aiming for the pool below.'
He added: 'It should go without saying these practices are extremely dangerous and can cost them their life or leave them permanently disabled.'

Last edited by Samson; 11th October 2016 at 07:30 PM.
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, 07:59 PM   #115
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Maybe you should take his word, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the definition of murder.
Did you actually read the law he is being tried under? Putting someone in fear of their life which results in death can indeed be murder. I think this is precisely the case here, and I'm sure that a jury will find it so.

I don't really care what your definition of murder is, by the way. I care what the law in question says.
__________________
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, 08:15 PM   #116
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Curiously, people dropping from balconies is usually reported from anywhere, showing it is incredibly rare. Consider how many such balconies exist around the world. Hindsight is a terrible tool to assist in this case, I bet parents have put kids on balconies in frustration. Fear of falling gets those toes really tingling, I feel it as I type.

ETA I provisionally withdraw after reading this link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...s-dangers.html

Paul Abrey, Consul in the Balearics, said: 'We've already seen some tragic cases this summer which have had devastating consequences for the individuals and families concerned.
'Some people have fallen whilst climbing to a friend's apartment, others have simply lost their footing after a few too many drinks and a few have deliberately jumped off aiming for the pool below.'
He added: 'It should go without saying these practices are extremely dangerous and can cost them their life or leave them permanently disabled.'
I have absolutely no idea why you quoted me to write that.

Was there a point in there?
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, 08:26 PM   #117
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I have absolutely no idea why you quoted me to write that.

Was there a point in there?
The subject is causation, a reasonable man would discount on a statistical basis that escape attempt, the dangers and the will to live are such strong forces to contemplate, that the notion Tostee could foresee it is absurd. That is the point I am making, a behavioural and statistical point.

While there's life there's hope.

This witch hunt predicating that a man should predict her behaviour is the real subject.
But I won't be surprised at a guilty verdict, there are so many people leading blameless lives there should be 12 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 11th October 2016, 08:30 PM   #118
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
As it turns out, this was proven.

Jokes aside though. The bit I'm having trouble interpreting from the way the laws are written, is whether they need to show that Tostee had considered, or was aware of the risks associated with holding Wright captive.
It's not relevant what Tostee thought, the criteria is whether a "reasonable man" put in his position could foresee that his actions could cause her death. i.e. if you lock a scared, drunk person out on a balcony, would you reasonably conclude that they might die from your doing that? Well, if you're drunk you might be wobbly on your feet and off balance, but balcony rails are designed to prevent accidental falls, so that shouldn't matter. Could you predict that the person might climb down and try to escape? I tend to think it would not be very likely given the risk of falling, even if one is drunk - although it's certainly not unheard of. BUT if you couple it with threats of extreme violence from a detainer who is much bigger and stronger than you are, the likelihood increases tremendously that the you might be driven to an extreme act to try to escape.
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, 09:33 PM   #119
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The subject is causation, a reasonable man would discount on a statistical basis that escape attempt, the dangers and the will to live are such strong forces to contemplate, that the notion Tostee could foresee it is absurd. That is the point I am making, a behavioural and statistical point.

While there's life there's hope.

This witch hunt predicating that a man should predict her behaviour is the real subject.
But I won't be surprised at a guilty verdict, there are so many people leading blameless lives there should be 12 on the jury.
OK. I'm still not seeing his innocence. I don't believe, going by the way the law is written, that the prosecution needs to prove that he had foresight of her impending death. I don't believe it even implies an awareness of endangerment.
It only requires that they prove he was committing a crime against her that led to her death.

She sounded scared to hell towards the end of the tape. Probably because she realised he was forcing her out onto the balcony and had earlier made suggestions about throwing her off there. I have no doubt that he was aware of her fear.

She died. It is his fault that she died. This is indisputable in my opinion.

Is it murder, even by the allowances in the QLD code? IDK. But I'm glad it's before a jury and not left for you to decide.

Last edited by Shiner; 11th October 2016 at 09:37 PM.
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, 09:46 PM   #120
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
OK. I'm still not seeing his innocence. I don't believe, going by the way the law is written, that the prosecution needs to prove that he had foresight of her impending death. I don't believe it even implies an awareness of endangerment.
It only requires that they prove he was committing a crime against her that led to her death.

She sounded scared to hell towards the end of the tape. Probably because she realised he was forcing her out onto the balcony and had earlier made suggestions about throwing her off there. I have no doubt that he was aware of her fear.

She died. It is his fault that she died. This is indisputable in my opinion.

Is it murder, even by the allowances in the QLD code? IDK. But I'm glad it's before a jury and not left for you to decide.
There is a valid point to reminding he had made the "should throw you off the balcony" comment.
In light of that I might review my position.
It could be argued
1. She didn't know him
2. He had the strength to do it, so
3. She wouldn't wait to give him the opportunity.
4. In a drunken state climbing to the next level looked doable.

hmmm
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
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 01:41 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.