quadraginta
Becoming Beth
This would be an opportune moment for you to include little trivialities like citations in support of this claim.
Gable Tostee
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
This would be an opportune moment for you to include little trivialities like citations in support of this claim.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
How can you support this claim? Many people see nothing exceptionally dangerous about walking beside the road when sober, and if someone felt more threatened by being held captive on the balcony than they did by trying to get off of it then yes, a sober person might well make the attempt.
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,765
...why the **** would I search for "foxy knoxy?" It was supposed to be an "infamous phrase." It isn't. "I'd kill for a pizza" doesn't appear in the rolling stone article you've cited. And thats because Samson got this "infamous phrase" wrong.
Your advice, if I cared, should have been to search for the phrase "I could kill for a pizza." That would have gotten me in the right ballpark. But in reality: I actually don't care. Because this thread is not about Knox.
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,765
...just in case anyone is wondering: Hard Cheese is bringing over arguments from another thread into this thread. Unfortunately no matter how many times several different posters tried to explain to Hard Cheese that he was getting things completely wrong: Hard Cheese failed to comprehend the point.
So if you want to re-litigate what was said over in the other thread Hard Cheese, can I suggest that you start off with getting the basic premise of what my position was correct first in this thread before we go any further. Because from where I'm sitting: you've created a strawman and now you are arguing against it.
Show me a cite for that under Australian law. You can't. You are making stuff up. How has Tostee become a hero of yours?
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
Where did I say road? I said motorway. Walking along the side of a motorway sober is clearly not a risk-free activity, and downright dangerous if you are drunk
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Where did I say "risk-free"?
Walking alongside any road can be dangerous when drunk. Even while on the sidewalk.
Many things can be dangerous when drunk.
And even when sober.
Life is not free of danger. But that isn't the topic.
Restraining someone against their will is the topic, and when you do that then the risk subsequently incurred is is your own responsibility, which was assumed as soon as you detained them.
Last edited:
I can't find any defences for the charge.
I found this interesting.
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5443/false-imprisonment-the-elements-of-the-offence-exp.aspx
gareththomasnz
Student
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2016
- Messages
- 29
He did not illegally detain her - he was defending himself & his property
Police officers detain people everyday and I have seen bouncers do far worse than what Tostee did and nobody questions it
Now I must withold my twitching finger untill the verdict...
[edit]
... Nope nope I cant: One theme I see recuring is that you folks are trying to project he should have, she should have as if these two were sober. She was borderline paralytic, he was well passed capable of lawfully driving a car for sure.
So there is no "should have".
What happened - has happened. Rather we can look at the motive and the underlying motive for both of them is inebriation. Would she have climbed off the balcony had she been sober - hell no.
A few years back a drunk guy jumped off a balcony in Auckland attempting to dive into the ocean. Unfortunately that ocean was 40 feet away from the balcony diagonally. At the party his drunk friends either looked on cheering, kind of ignored it or told him not to. Nobody grabbed him and slapped him about the ears. Nobody removed him from the balcony or the apartment.
That guy died just the same as Wareina did. Drunk and emotionally not responsible. Tostee was also inebriated and incapable of logical thinking so drop the he / she sould have, I would have etc. You wouldnt have - if you were there drunk who knows what you would have done.
From the time he stood up from restraining her to the time she fell how much time is there?
Less that a minute. No time to make any kind of thought full decision for a drunk in a skuffle. Neither of them would have behaved the same way sober.
Motive 1 established for both: "inebriation"
Secondary motive for Tostee: I think it was avoidance of conflict.
I dont care what he should have / could have done because 1 he didnt & 2 he was too drunk to
As for poor Wareina she could have / should have stopped drinking earlier, or told him please dont put me on the balcony when I am drunk, she could have actually been nice and not commited assault for an hour - what ever - she didnt, as she was drunk, as was he
So as there was no underlying causality apart from inebriation for either party - all this case can do is set a precidence
As for justice I dont see that it can be just to find him guilty, it may be that the precidence can result in justice in other cases or it may result in further unjust guilty verdicts
Perhaps we should be discussing the consequences of the verdict rather than the actual events that transpired which are not really open to interpretation if you have actually listened to the long version of the tape
Police officers detain people everyday and I have seen bouncers do far worse than what Tostee did and nobody questions it
Now I must withold my twitching finger untill the verdict...
[edit]
... Nope nope I cant: One theme I see recuring is that you folks are trying to project he should have, she should have as if these two were sober. She was borderline paralytic, he was well passed capable of lawfully driving a car for sure.
So there is no "should have".
What happened - has happened. Rather we can look at the motive and the underlying motive for both of them is inebriation. Would she have climbed off the balcony had she been sober - hell no.
A few years back a drunk guy jumped off a balcony in Auckland attempting to dive into the ocean. Unfortunately that ocean was 40 feet away from the balcony diagonally. At the party his drunk friends either looked on cheering, kind of ignored it or told him not to. Nobody grabbed him and slapped him about the ears. Nobody removed him from the balcony or the apartment.
That guy died just the same as Wareina did. Drunk and emotionally not responsible. Tostee was also inebriated and incapable of logical thinking so drop the he / she sould have, I would have etc. You wouldnt have - if you were there drunk who knows what you would have done.
From the time he stood up from restraining her to the time she fell how much time is there?
Less that a minute. No time to make any kind of thought full decision for a drunk in a skuffle. Neither of them would have behaved the same way sober.
Motive 1 established for both: "inebriation"
Secondary motive for Tostee: I think it was avoidance of conflict.
I dont care what he should have / could have done because 1 he didnt & 2 he was too drunk to
As for poor Wareina she could have / should have stopped drinking earlier, or told him please dont put me on the balcony when I am drunk, she could have actually been nice and not commited assault for an hour - what ever - she didnt, as she was drunk, as was he
So as there was no underlying causality apart from inebriation for either party - all this case can do is set a precidence
As for justice I dont see that it can be just to find him guilty, it may be that the precidence can result in justice in other cases or it may result in further unjust guilty verdicts
Perhaps we should be discussing the consequences of the verdict rather than the actual events that transpired which are not really open to interpretation if you have actually listened to the long version of the tape
Last edited:
There is no substance in what you've written there. As my quote clearly states, he did illegally detain her.
Police, and security officers (bouncers) have certain authorities to detain people. Legally.
Try sitting on your hands. If you do it long enough they'll go numb, and .... well ..... I'm sure you'll think of something.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
She was demanding to be allowed to leave. He refused to let her leave.
That is the quintessential definition of "detain" in this sense.
Putting her out the front door would have served the purpose of defending himself and his property better than leaving her anywhere in the apartment.
Is Tostee now a police officer? Because there are certain priveleges and obligations which they have that private citizens do not.
And among those obligations is a responsibility for the welfare of anyone detained.
I don't think a cop would have locked her out on the balcony. He'd understand the liability he would incur.
You've seen bouncers do worse (legally) than lock drunks out on 14th floor balconies?
Would you like to share some examples?
Last edited:
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
Deprivation of liberty s 355
The prosecution must prove that:
1. The defendant:
(1) confined or detained another in any place against the other person’s will; or
(2) otherwise deprived another of the other person’s personal liberty.
2. The defendant did so unlawfully. That is, not authorised, justified or excused by law.
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data...3/sd-bb-104a-deprivation-of-liberty-s-355.pdf
Deprivation Of Liberty
Sections 355 of the Criminal Code Queensland states:
...
Possible defences
Possible defences to this offence include but are not limited to
The accused
DuressNecessityInsanity
IntoxicationHonest and reasonable belief the person was consenting.
The complainant was free to leave
The complainant consented
http://www.pottslawyers.com.au/deprivation-of-liberty-qld-offence.html
Rubbish and you know it. He simply had to let her out the front door.
You really think this exonerates Tostee? *********** unbelievable.
Yes, certainly a defence. Not sure that the circumstances present what those drafting and enacting the Law meant. I guess you mean the duress was his, and he thought it was a necessity to close her out on the balcony and that it was for reason of her intoxication. Do you not think it would have been reasonable to have called police or emergency services for the same reasons he considered it was necessary to restrain her. I think the law is talking about emergency situations of necessity and danger, a reasonable person might consider that danger was increased by shutting her out to where her only method of escape (to her) could be to attempt to climb down. Obviously intoxication is not an excuse for his behaviour, but by your argument the reason he was, I suppose, saving her?
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
Even if you had *no* justification for detaining the person - they were not hitting you, they were not abusive, they were not wildly drunk, nothing - the injury that befalls the detainee needs to be one that a reasonable person, putting themselves in the detainer's position, would be able to foresee occurring as a result of their actions. If she had accidentally fallen, instead of attempting to climb, then I would accept that he could have foreseen it happening.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Let's review, shall we?
In this post;
you seem to be quite clear that you are saying his right to detain her, "for her own good", is based on her drunken state.
The statute you cite seems to be saying that it would be his drunken state which could be an ameliorating factor.
I think you should choose one and stick with it.
Also, it is telling that you chose not to highlight any of these three options;
Probably because the exact opposite of each of these was the reality of the situation in this case.
I think your legal research still needs a bit of polish.
I read that article earlier today. I left it where it was. To me, (not a lawyer) the article is written specifically for the case of a custodian detaining children.
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
It's the law. You asked for a cite and there it is.
There is clearly the possibility of mitigating circumstances here, and if the law permits such a defence he is entitled to use it. He might be an unsavoury character, but that doesn't mean he isn't entitled to defend himself.
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
Even if you ignore that article, the second part of the s 355 bench book allows extenuating circumstances. If his actions were deemed reasonable in restraining a violent, drunk person, then he can't be accused of deprivation of liberty. His problem is that instead of locking her somewhere safe (a bedroom or bathroom) he put her life at risk by sticking her out on the balcony.