Gable Tostee

[Shiner]

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.

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

 

[banquetbear]

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?

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?

 

[lionking]

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

 

[lionking]

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......

 

[Hard Cheese]

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.

 

[banquetbear]

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

 

[lionking]

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

 

[lionking]

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.

 

[Shiner]

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.

 

[lionking]

Thanks Hard Cheese.

Christ, constructive murder is not available. Catch up. Look at the law in Queensland now, not something you imagine.

 

[Samson]

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?

 

[lionking]

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.

 

[catsmate]

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.

 

[catsmate]

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.

 

[lionking]

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.

 

[lionking]

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.

 

[catsmate]

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.