Gable Tostee

[Samson]

I think he's from Palmy, hotbed of intelligence that it is.

He sure is. The gallery of rogues in Jimmy Ellingham's article is frightening
Mike Cummings: Chief collaborator with the police to get Lundy, and when told the fraud around deleted autopsy photographs and non existent police notebooks would say
"I gotta sell newspapers"
Ben Van der Kolk: Twice liar and fraudster prosecuting Lundy
Grantham: Twice liar and fraudster prosecuting Lundy
Saul Holt:
and so on

Jimmy knows all the facts. Come on Jimmy, grow up and face the music. Saul Holt belongs in your hall of eternal shame, not as a faux hero in the manner of all breathtakingly safety conscious aviators who end up dead in their wreckage..

 

[cullennz]

Yup. His instructions to the jury seemed to me to be almost leading them by the hand which way to decide....I reckon he was probably frustrated at the idiotic questions they were asking and how long it was taking them.

This.

It was mind boggling some of the stupidity of questions

 

[Shiner]

This.

It was mind boggling some of the stupidity of questions

I think the judges answers were mind boggling, myself. Jurors are just regular people. They aren't experts at interpreting the law. They are instructed by the judge. I can see why they needed the clarifications they sought.

I can't see how the judge can over rule basic logic and common sense though.

The balcony being excluded from the property, I can concede for the time being, but the ruling that language isn't a use of force, is ridiculous.

It is standard training in law enforcement. It is the most commonly used method of force by all LEO's. It is step one in any confrontation.
"Stop" "Put your hands up", "Step out of the vehicle" "I would, but you've been a bad girl", etcetera.

 

[Samson]

I think the judges answers were mind boggling, myself. Jurors are just regular people. They aren't experts at interpreting the law. They are instructed by the judge. I can see why they needed the clarifications they sought.

I can't see how the judge can over rule basic logic and common sense though.

The balcony being excluded from the property, I can concede for the time being, but the ruling that language isn't a use of force, is ridiculous.

It is standard training in law enforcement. It is the most commonly used method of force by all LEO's. It is step one in any confrontation.
"Stop" "Put your hands up", "Step out of the vehicle" "I would, but you've been a bad girl", etcetera.

Law enforcement is a legal construct, managing a domestic situation is not.
It is interesting to read his offending history. It seems he creeped out girls at night clubs and was banned. One date he picked up and moved to a balcony and she fled. But his actual crimes as opposed to anti social but legal behaviour, were fraud, forgiven by the admiring magistrate, and fleeing police.
He is a spoiled brat of the worst order, but a conviction would achieve nothing to help society. He will no doubt grow up the way most spoiled brats do and contribute. After all, it must be presumed he worked hard at carpet laying.

 

[Shiner]

Law enforcement is a legal construct, managing a domestic situation is not.
.

I didn't mean to conflate the LEO with the domestic situation. I could have worde it better. I'm on a heavy painkiller right now. Struggling for thought.

It is the same concept. If I want you to leave my house, and I want to be as civil as possible, I'm going to ask you to leave. If refused, or argued with, I will put more force into my voice, before I consider any physical confrontation.

If a child is ignoring their parent,teacher, coach .... the parent,,, will often repeat themselves using more force in their voice. It's simplicity.

 

[Hard Cheese]

It is the same concept. If I want you to leave my house, and I want to be as civil as possible, I'm going to ask you to leave. If refused, or argued with, I will put more force into my voice, before I consider any physical confrontation.

Force is described within the definition of assault

245 Definition of assault
(1) A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person's consent
...
(2) In this section—
applies force includes the case of applying heat, light, electrical force, gas, odour, or any other substance or thing whatever if applied in such a degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort.

If force is defined anywhere, I imagine it would be similar to this, and does not specifically include language. I'm not altogether convinced by my own explanation though

The problem with including language as a force is that its effectiveness is out of the control of the person applying it. An intruder can simply ignore it, whereas physical force they cannot.

 

[Shiner]

Force is described within the definition of assault

If force is defined anywhere, I imagine it would be similar to this, and does not specifically include language. I'm not altogether convinced by my own explanation though

The problem with including language as a force is that its effectiveness is out of the control of the person applying it. An intruder can simply ignore it, whereas physical force they cannot.

I don't see what you mean there. Put it another way. I'm a pretty big guy. If I want a petite female to stay, go, stop attacking me ....... some strong language is very effective in enforcing my wishes.

In LEO, and I can't find a link that properly explains it, they use a construct known as the escalation of force. Voice commands being step 1. I use the LEO example only for reference to the concept. Not to imply powers, or assault, or anything else.

 

[kali1137]

Even though he was found not guilty, I believe it is a miscarriage of justice that he not be punished in any way. Perhaps he will learn from this, most likely not. Hopefully women will remember who he is and not make a similar mistake. I would put money on the chance that he will be in court again.

 

[Shiner]

Another angle. Section 295: Causing death by threats.

I think the existence of that offense, and the way it is worded, proves beyond doubt that language (words. Specifically threats) is a use of force. How can it not be if it results in the death of another?

 

[The Atheist]

Heck, call me irrational, but when coincidences pile up like they are, I begin to get very, very suspicious.

Writing on body building forum bodyspace.com as "GT", a man who reportedly was Tostee wrote:

Forum... GT... gareththomas... Eric Thomas...

 

[Samson]

Even though he was found not guilty, I believe it is a miscarriage of justice that he not be punished in any way. Perhaps he will learn from this, most likely not. Hopefully women will remember who he is and not make a similar mistake. I would put money on the chance that he will be in court again.

Don't forget they wanted to kill Casey Anthony.
That also ended in acquittal. Prosecutors are brainless and vindictive, and people react in horror at their obvious over reach.

 

[kali1137]

Don't forget they wanted to kill Casey Anthony.
That also ended in acquittal. Prosecutors are brainless and vindictive, and people react in horror at their obvious over reach.

I agree that in both cases they went far beyond what should have been attempted for charges. And I have no doubt both Casey and Tostee will be in the news again someday.

P.S. You are fantastically good at bringing other cases into every conversation. I am yet to see any topic you have posted on where you don't bring up Lundy.

 

[Samson]

I agree that in both cases they went far beyond what should have been attempted for charges. And I have no doubt both Casey and Tostee will be in the news again someday.

P.S. You are fantastically good at bringing other cases into every conversation. I am yet to see any topic you have posted on where you don't bring up Lundy.

True, it is the worst miscarriage of justice in New Zealand history. So many people have been involved, that Tostee's defence attorney Saul Holt is just one of a parade of despicable creeps who perpetrated the hoax including judges who would later be knighted and appointed to the supreme court. Small talent pool down under obviously.

 

[cullennz]

True, it is the worst miscarriage of justice in New Zealand history. So many people have been involved, that Tostee's defence attorney Saul Holt is just one of a parade of despicable creeps who perpetrated the hoax including judges who would later be knighted and appointed to the supreme court. Small talent pool down under obviously.

Comparing this case to Lundy?

WTF?

Dude is a prick.

Chick was a nutter

 

[Hard Cheese]

I don't see what you mean there. Put it another way. I'm a pretty big guy. If I want a petite female to stay, go, stop attacking me ....... some strong language is very effective in enforcing my wishes.

It *might* be. But the petite female you are yelling at can completely ignore you, whereas if you pick her up and put her outside, then she cannot.

In LEO, and I can't find a link that properly explains it, they use a construct known as the escalation of force. Voice commands being step 1. I use the LEO example only for reference to the concept. Not to imply powers, or assault, or anything else.

That's using force in the context of a police/citizen altercation - a police officer issuing commands is different than a private citizen issuing commands, because you are required by law to follow the directions of a police officer. If I start yelling at you to do something, you're free to ignore me.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Don't forget they wanted to kill Casey Anthony.
That also ended in acquittal. Prosecutors are brainless and vindictive, and people react in horror at their obvious over reach.

Yep, in the end you have to say that the prosecution got it horribly wrong if they couldn't even get manslaughter to stick. In glorious retrospect they probably should have gone for something less ambitious, like reckless conduct endangering life, and he might have got a few years in the clink.

 

[Shiner]

It *might* be. But the petite female you are yelling at can completely ignore you, whereas if you pick her up and put her outside, then she cannot.

That's using force in the context of a police/citizen altercation - a police officer issuing commands is different than a private citizen issuing commands, because you are required by law to follow the directions of a police officer. If I start yelling at you to do something, you're free to ignore me.

That just sidesteps my point. Yes, you're/they're free to ignore. Just as you are to a police officer. It probably won't end well though.
That doesn't change the fact that it is the first step in the escalation of force scale. This applies equally to citizens when they face assault charges. If I don't ask you to leave, and instead, just punch you in the face, I've escalated without reason. My first use of force is my voice.

You keep discounting it simply because I use a law enforcement construct to demonstrate, I think you're trying too hard to miss the point.

 

[Samson]

Comparing this case to Lundy?

WTF?

Dude is a prick.

Chick was a nutter

I wasn't comparing the case. I was pointing out the defence attorney was a sucker for the New Zealand police in the Lundy trial. He has jumped the fence and come to understand how the police operate to paint it black.

 

[cullennz]

Yep, in the end you have to say that the prosecution got it horribly wrong if they couldn't even get manslaughter to stick. In glorious retrospect they probably should have gone for something less ambitious, like reckless conduct endangering life, and he might have got a few years in the clink.

I still don't see anything that warranted even manslughter.

If there was a charge of death by being a roided up, egomaniac, insecure body building prick he would be guilty as.

I think any lesser charge would also have been a bit of a diservice to her death

 

[Hard Cheese]

I still don't see anything that warranted even manslughter.

His crime was being a prize idiot endangering her on the balcony. Murder and manslaughter were just too big a stretch

I think any lesser charge would also have been a bit of a diservice to her death

Absolutely. But laying charges has to be more than salving the grief of the victim's family.