Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
Spot on. The criminal acts covered by this type of endangerment (in Queensland anyway) include robbery and assault, so I can't imagine kidnapping would be an exclusion.
Gable Tostee
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Spot on. The criminal acts covered by this type of endangerment (in Queensland anyway) include robbery and assault, so I can't imagine kidnapping would be an exclusion.
I think 'absurd' is a bit poetic. Did you read the definition of murder from Queensland?
Not a hope in hell. One of the things you assume in the many threads where you defend violent men is that cops are stupid and/or corrupt. This displays gross ignorance. The justice system in Australia requires that only cases with a reasonable probability of prosecution go to trial. This is not decided by police, but by Directors of Public Prosecution (or equivalent). Murder or manslaughter convictions are therefore quite high in Australia. This guy will not walk.
I have now, it might make some sense with the kidnapping, but I don't myself see her death as being a foreseeable consequence. People do not jump from balconies commonly.
We get few acquittals too, but with an easy threshold to prosecution and that's the problem. The public never believe the police would fabricate evidence, falsify note books and frame men against whom there is no evidence, but they did so in all the cases I listed.
The facts of this case look straightforward, so whatever the outcome it will depend on public mood rather than fabricating evidence.
Last edited:
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,765
...the section of the criminal code that is applicable has been cited in this thread.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s302.html
"(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;"
What exactly is the "prize cockup?"
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.
ETA death was not caused by locking her out. Death was caused by her climbing over a railing. He was not in pursuit.
Last edited:
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,765
...talking about language: what on earth are you talking about?
The criminal code is clear.
It is obvious you are still confused.
That you are confused doesn't affect this case.
I just added above.
Cause could be argued if he was pursuing but on the contrary he was receding when he locked her out. I don't see why there is not pause to reflect on the wild extension from locking outside, to murder.
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
The consideration that the judge will make will be (paraphrasing)
Was the death of Ms. Wright a real risk which an ordinary person in Tostee's position would have foreseen as a possible outcome when he locked the balcony door - or was it something which an ordinary person might think of as so remote a possibility that there was no need to take it into account or guard against its happening?
I think if she was sober, you might make a case for the latter, that she would be unlikely to attempt a climb over the balcony to escape. Drunk, Tostee's act is one of rank stupidity. Someone under the influence of "home distilled white spirits" is not safe on a balcony.
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,765
...you weren't even clear on what legally constituted "murder" in Australia until a few minutes ago. We haven't heard a fraction of the evidence, and the evidence we have heard has been filtered through the news outlets.
Don't you think you are jumping the gun, just a tad? Its only Day Frigging One.
Except this is a 7 day trial, not a tortured 7 weeker like the Lundy frame up.
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,765
I'm not so sure. There would be precedents aplenty if this was truly foreseeable. This was a fraught situation, Tostee's choice was binary, try to control her or let her loose to make wild accusations. His recent criminal troubles would have alarm bells ringing letting her loose, but that is not to say he didn't make a catastrophic choice. WITH HINDSIGHT.
Act in haste, repent at leisure comes to mind.
Further, the context of the audio can't be ignored. Tostee was clearly threatening and intimidating. He was big and strong and could have easily put her out through the front door. He didn't. Murder it is.
I think the prosecution has more up it's sleeve. I wouldn't be at at all surprised if there is more intimidation by Tostee. He's done.
(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.
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.
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.
You say locking outside. The police may well say "held her prisoner".
He was most definitely committing a crime when she fell. It's fairly obvious he committed a string of crimes against Ms Wright in the lead up to the fall.
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.