• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gable Tostee

Shiner said:
I beg to differ.

Did this action constitute removing her from the property? Yes.

IOW. After the door was closed, she was deemed to have been removed from the property.
Click to expand...

Which releases Tostee from the obligation of being responsible for a death that occured on his property.

That's a stretch, I'll admit. But I won't be surprised if there is some basis for reconsideration there by the coroner.
 
cullennz said:
It is his kid.

I take it you have none
If you did you would know they are always your kid

But point taken.

Tbh I didn't actually use the term for some emotive affect

But see now it could be seen that way.

From now on I'll just call him prick pond spawn
Click to expand...

Just seven.

Another inaccurate comment. Perhaps one day we will see a correct, meaningful post.
 
lionking said:
Just seven.

Another inaccurate comment. Perhaps one day we will see a correct, meaningful post.
Click to expand...
Forgive me.

The only excuse I have is I'm an ignorant sympathiser.

I hope they are well and you don't turf them into the street when all crap hits the fan. Not really knowing what is going on but gibberish
 
Shiner said:
Which releases Tostee from the obligation of being responsible for a death that occured on his property.
Click to expand...

It's nothing to to with the location...it's whether he was entitled to attempt to remove her from his property - which he was - not whether he actually succeeded in moving her to a point that was technically not part of his property. I can see how you could read it either way (given we are only reading a snippet from a news report) - but I tend to defer to the judge knowing what he is talking about rather than not.
 
Hard Cheese said:
It's nothing to to with the location...it's whether he was entitled to attempt to remove her from his property - which he was - not whether he actually succeeded in moving her to a point that was technically not part of his property. I can see how you could read it either way (given we are only reading a snippet from a news report) - but I tend to defer to the judge knowing what he is talking about rather than not.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. Your hero will see justice one way or other.
 
lionking said:
Of course you do. Your hero will see justice one way or other.
Click to expand...
You continuing tendency to openly show your bias in this case does you no favours.

It is also making you sound a bit juvenile.

Like a kid demanding an ice cream
 
cullennz said:
Like a kid demanding an ice cream
Click to expand...

...says the guy who accused me of saying all sorts of different things that had no basis in reality, and then when called on it doubled down on the accusations.

Still waiting for that cite.
 
banquetbear said:
...says the guy who accused me of saying all sorts of different things that had no basis in reality, and then when called on it doubled down on the accusations.

Still waiting for that cite.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one claiming I know more than a jury
 
cullennz said:
I'm not the one claiming I know more than a jury
Click to expand...

...and you are still doing it. Still. Incredible. Amazing. Its like you are physically incapable of actually reading my posts.

I haven't claimed I know more than the jury either.

Who the **** are you actually talking about?
 
banquetbear said:
...and you are still doing it. Still. Incredible. Amazing. Its like you are physically incapable of actually reading my posts.

I haven't claimed I know more than the jury either.

Who the **** are you actually talking about?
Click to expand...
I was talking to the other poster. Then you rocked up.
 
Hard Cheese said:
It's nothing to to with the location...it's whether he was entitled to attempt to remove her from his property - which he was - not whether he actually succeeded in moving her to a point that was technically not part of his property. I can see how you could read it either way (given we are only reading a snippet from a news report) - but I tend to defer to the judge knowing what he is talking about rather than not.
Click to expand...

Ok. I can see your point now. I think if that were the case, and I'm not disputing it now, the jury question would have been more like ...

"Does the force used by Tostee to move Wright onto the balcony go under the allowance to use force to remove someone from your property."

I know we only have the media reports to go by, but I still see my interpretation as more likely. Based on reports.

In hindsight, after seeing what you mean, I think you're just as likely to have the correct interpretation.

We shall see, eh?
 
cullennz said:
I was talking to the other poster. Then you rocked up.
Click to expand...

...this is a messageboard. You quoted me. That meant you were speaking to me. If you weren't speaking about me: then be clearer. I still don't know if you were speaking about me or someone else. And if you were speaking about someone else: who were you speaking about?

"Rocking up" is what happens on messageboards. If you are whole unprepared for people to "rock up" and engage you in conversation then maybe an internet messageboard isn't the sort of safe space for you. Because "rocking up" happens all the time.

And still waiting for that cite.
 
Even in my little house in Wellington. Gazing at the city I would not find a reason to have a split internet persona.

It's just weird
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom