Gable Tostee

[lionking]

...see? That wasn't so hard. Once again: the qualifier isn't required.

Now: did you mean yes or no to this question again? I thought you meant "yes": but you bristled when I said this, so did you mean no?

If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were being wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Unfortunately you will not get an honest answer to this question.

 

[Ben1985]

...see? That wasn't so hard. Once again: the qualifier isn't required.

Now: did you mean yes or no to this question again? I thought you meant "yes": but you bristled when I said this, so did you mean no?

If someone purposefully locked you on a balcony, and when you said to that person "Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home. Just let me go home" and that person refused to open the door and let you go home, would you consider you were being wrongfully detained? A yes or no answer will suffice.

The obvious answer, as stated multiple times, is "it would depend on what I'd done to cause my detention in the first place". Since for whatever reason you refuse to accept any such nuance or engage in any further discussion I see little point in discussing this further.

 

[banquetbear]

The obvious answer, as stated multiple times, is "it would depend on what I'd done to cause my detention in the first place". Since for whatever reason you refuse to accept any such nuance or engage in any further discussion I see little point in discussing this further.

...so thats a "No."

The question wasn't an exercise in "nuance." It was an exercise in "bias." You claimed earlier in this thread that "you were not biased." Your refusal to answer this question: and your sarcastic jab in answer to the question about pizza, demonstrate just exactly how biased you actually are. So lets stop pretending.

 

[The Atheist]

it's pretty high up the list when you type in "gable tostee case + forum"

Thanks - that's what I wanted to know: what you were searching for.

You're deliberately seeking forums where Tostee is being discussed.

Any particular reason? Is it some kind of bodybuilder togetherness thing? Pretty 20th century of you to be actively looking for forums.

 

[gareththomasnz]

I wonder what parallels could be formed with this case EG:

Had she been placed into a vehicle, found the keys & died in a crash

Been placed inside a pool enclosure & drowned

What if she had been escorted to the downstairs floor screaming & hollering hysterically, booted up the ass, kicked out and subsequently abducted and murderd by a third party offering to rescue her from Tostee

Would Tostee then be charged with accessory to murder or manslaughter? Of course not

Had Tostee lost his cool and struck her then his legal position would be severly weakened but a large percentage of men would have struck her under the circumstances.

An even larger percentage of women would have & this would probably have been a mutually violent altercation were two women involved.

The moral of the story could be simply dont drink alcohol, dont have sex with strangers, dont screw drunk women, dont drink if you have a balcony, dont assume all men are a violent sexist threat, dont assume drunk women are rational, dont date, dont have sex ETC ad infinatum.

What had they been on a fishing trip & the exact same thing happened, she jumped overboard & drowned. I'm sure thats happened before.

Surfers Paradise for a young woman from Auckland is very glamourous & exciting. Here she was on a hot date getting layed & drunk. She lost it, thought she was in a hollywood thriller in her drinken stupor. A couple more or a couple less drinks & it wouldnt have happened.

Alcohol was the cause of her death. That is sadly the point that has been lost.

 

[gareththomasnz]

LOL. Is Tostee Guilty of Murder or manslaughter? YES/NO

I take it YES is a vote for murder, and NO for manslaughter

yes is murder or manslaughter

no is neither

 

[gareththomasnz]

The Atheist: Sigh - whatever

I have no judgement on Tostee, not somebody I would associate with, I dont even drink so much as a social beer

I am single & do shag a lot of women though - just not drunk ones

If people are joining to comment probably because of the clear bias against the accused. That is why I did. Also the only other forum I could find discussing the case was a fitness one and they were more pro innocent there.

Actually a forum or site to discuss cases is a bloody good idea I guess there are plenty already.

My motive - saw a bunch of negative posts, wanted my two cents

Anyway I dont want to flame you guys & am happy to sit this out now and wait for the verdict

 

[banquetbear]

I wonder what parallels could be formed with this case EG:

Had she been placed into a vehicle, found the keys & died in a crash

Been placed inside a pool enclosure & drowned

What if she had been escorted to the downstairs floor screaming & hollering hysterically, booted up the ass, kicked out and subsequently abducted and murderd by a third party offering to rescue her from Tostee

Would Tostee then be charged with accessory to murder or manslaughter? Of course not

...if she had been forced into the car, and given no option to leave, then yes, he probably would have been charged.

If she had been placed in a pool enclosure, and then given no option to leave, then yes, he probably would have been charged.

If she had been subsequently abducted and murdered by a third party, then he probably would not have been charged.

The actions that have landed Tostee in court appear to have completely gone over your head.

Had Tostee lost his cool and struck her then his legal position would be severly weakened but a large percentage of men would have struck her under the circumstances.

You have provided no evidence that Tostee did not loose his cool and no evidence that he did not strike her. And even if he didn't: he still forcibly detained her, and then was completely indifferent to her death. So Tostee is not a "stellar example of the human race" simply because he allegedly "didn't raise his hand to her."

An even larger percentage of women would have & this would probably have been a mutually violent altercation were two women involved.

This is a skeptics forum. Simply making stuff up is not the way we do things here. Provide a cite for your claim or withdraw it.

The moral of the story could be simply dont drink alcohol, dont have sex with strangers, dont screw drunk women, dont drink if you have a balcony, dont assume all men are a violent sexist threat, dont assume drunk women are rational, dont date, dont have sex ETC ad infinatum.

If that is the "moral" you got out of this: then, please, by all means, follow these rules. The world will be a safer place.

What had they been on a fishing trip & the exact same thing happened, she jumped overboard & drowned. I'm sure thats happened before.

You are missing the elements that landed Tostee in court. There is no comparison.

Surfers Paradise for a young woman from Auckland is very glamourous & exciting. Here she was on a hot date getting layed & drunk. She lost it, thought she was in a hollywood thriller in her drinken stupor. A couple more or a couple less drinks & it wouldnt have happened.

Alcohol was the cause of her death. That is sadly the point that has been lost.

Tostee's decision to illegally detain Wright ultimately was the major contributing factor in Wrights death. But by all means, please, continue to blame the victim. It really paints a very definitive picture of exactly what sort of person does this sort of thing, and what sort of person to avoid.

 

[Noztradamus]

...that quote is so infamous, that googling it: brings up absolutely NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT AMANDA KNOX.

I mean, WTF? I added the term "Knox" to the google search and all I got were the "paranoid obsessive" internet forums where people have devoted their lives to this particular case appear to dwell, but that was it.

This quote isn't "infamous" at all. It didn't even give me more than 10 results on google. It is only "infamous" to people following the case. No one else on the planet has a clue as to what you are talking about. So why on earth do you think its relevant to this case?

.

I read about it in Rolling Stone

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627

Hint: What you should have done is added "foxy knoxy" to your search - Or better "Amanda Knox"=links galore.

 

[Noztradamus]

You will only accept a guilty verdict. How very skeptical of you......

I think you are confused over which one of you is lionking and which one is gareththomasnz.

 

[quadraginta]

In what way was that a "yes"?

Oh and for the record reasonableness does not go out the window because Tostee didn't call the police in the literal 20 seconds between when he locked the balcony door and Wright fell to her death.

You're right.

Reasonableness went out the door when he put her on the balcony and closed that door behind her.

 

[The Atheist]

My motive - saw a bunch of negative posts, wanted my two cents

Which is what I said - you were actively looking for discussions regarding Tostee.

Given that you're such a fighter for the innocent, I'm surprised we haven't seen you involved in the threads about Kiwis who have been wrongfully convicted.

Anyway I dont want to flame you guys...

Well, aren't we lucky!

...
& am happy to sit this out now and wait for the verdict

Good plan. It's always hard when trying to pre-empt a case still being decided. If he gets off, you can take a bow for being so perspicacious about a fellow pumper.

 

[Ben1985]

Thanks - that's what I wanted to know: what you were searching for.

You're deliberately seeking forums where Tostee is being discussed.

Any particular reason? Is it some kind of bodybuilder togetherness thing? Pretty 20th century of you to be actively looking for forums.

Well, I'm certainly not a body builder. I've just been following this case for a while now and wanted to find a place to talk about it.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Of choose it is relevant, just because the wrongfulness of detention is from the point of view of the detainee doesn't mean that the detainee's actions have no bearing on whether it is reasonable for them to be detained.

Correct. If I take the car keys from a person who is trying to drive away drunk from a party, aren't I detaining them against their will?

 

[lionking]

Correct. If I take the car keys from a person who is trying to drive away drunk from a party, aren't I detaining them against their will?

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the Tostee case. Where he locked her out on a high balcony, threatened to kill her and put her in fear of her life. After which he failed to call the police or an ambulance and went off to have a pizza.

Why are you ignoring these issues and talking about things which did not happen?

 

[Hard Cheese]

...for a person so concerned with "leaving parts out" you seemed to conveniently forget the part where after Wright fell: Tostee decided NOT TO CALL THE POLICE but instead WENT TO EAT PIZZA. That decision was not reasonable at all.

Hang on, I thought you said people don't always act rationally when they are in shock?

Or do they only act irrationally when it is convenient to your argument?

 

[quadraginta]

Correct. If I take the car keys from a person who is trying to drive away drunk from a party, aren't I detaining them against their will?

Nope.

They can still walk (or maybe stagger) away. They can still call a friend for a ride, or family, or a cab. As long as they can leave of their own volition they are not being detained.

These days, if you were the one who threw the party and supplied the booze, and then knowingly allowed them to drive away drunk then you'd better hope that they don't hurt anyone with their car on the way to wherever they go.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the Tostee case. Where he locked her out on a high balcony, threatened to kill her and put her in fear of her life. After which he failed to call the police or an ambulance and went off to have a pizza.

Why are you ignoring these issues and talking about things which did not happen?

Because without deprivation of liberty, there is no unlawful purpose under s302. Yes, she made it clear she wanted to go, but intoxication is a defence of deprivation of liberty - done for her own good. Unfortunately he picked a particularly stupid way to restrain her.

If you can't see how that relates to my example with the car keys, you're blind.

 

[Fixit]

Correct. If I take the car keys from a person who is trying to drive away drunk from a party, aren't I detaining them against their will?

No you are simply preventing them from endangering themselves or others by driving, you are not preventing them calling a cab or a friend etc.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Nope.

They can still walk (or maybe stagger) away. They can still call a friend for a ride, or family, or a cab. As long as they can leave of their own volition they are not being detained.

True - but she could have stayed out on the balcony to sober up, or called out to the person below for help, rather than trying to climb down. If I take your car keys, and you decide to stagger away along the side of the motorway, and get hit by a car, aren't the two events equally unforeseeable, equally dangerous, and aggravated by your self-induced state of intoxication? No one sober would consider climbing between apartments and walking along the side of motorways safe activities in any circumstances.