• 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

lionking said:
Oh for goodness sake. How on earth can and should a murderer's family come into the equation?
Click to expand...
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 said:
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
Click to expand...

Post on topic. I won't report this, but stop.
 
lionking said:
No. Not remotely.
Click to expand...

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:
Shiner said:
Just for reference if people are interested.

Deprivation of liberty
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s355.html

Qld Kidnapping law. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s354.html

Here's an interesting one. Causing Death By Threats
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s295.html

I'd say the first one applies here. And possibly the second and third?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

Shiner said:
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.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to see it sticking.

Shiner said:
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.
Click to expand...

No doubt about that part, but being a complete twat isn't evidence, unfortunately.
 
Samson said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Samson said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about how you would apply this in relation to the victim and her family. Do they get consideration too?
 
quadraginta said:
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?
Click to expand...

Shiner said:
I'm curious about how you would apply this in relation to the victim and her family. Do they get consideration too?
Click to expand...
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:
Samson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lionking said:
I certainly won't take your word for this.
Click to expand...

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.

lionking said:
Why do you think he's been charged when DPPs have a history of not laying charges with poor chances of conviction?
Click to expand...

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 said:
. 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.
Click to expand...

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:
Shiner said:
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?
Click to expand...
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/a...aunched-warn-young-holidaymakers-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:
Hard Cheese said:
Maybe you should take his word, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the definition of murder.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Samson said:
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/a...aunched-warn-young-holidaymakers-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.'
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea why you quoted me to write that.

Was there a point in there?
 
Shiner said:
I have absolutely no idea why you quoted me to write that.

Was there a point in there?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Shiner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Samson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Shiner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom