Firstly, Intent , not provocation, is the key factor here.
Secondly, if all women think men are lunatics, it gives a clue to your perspective and objectiveness.
Thirdly, if you understood anything about law, which you clearly do not, you would see he has a very good chance of walking. The offences you mention are unrelated, and thus not contingent or relevant to each other.
He's facing both (or three? murder, DUI, tuk tuk incident) - they'd be separate sessions, no?
B105 Brisbane @B105Brisbane 1m1 minute ago
Accused Gold Coast balcony killer Gable Tostee has had his case adjourned until March #newsfeed #live
Firstly, we already discussed his intent a few posts back, when I asked if anyone thought he intended to kill her before he met up with her? Everyone said no. Try reading the whole thread or at least part of the end before posting.
Secondly, yes, when you volunteer at a domestic violence shelter, which I do, your perspective changes about people. (Obviously not all women fear men or believe they are lunatics). I also hate pie, does that give you more clues?
Thirdly, thank you elisha. How about you offer your explanation on why he has a good chance of walking, instead of b!tching about mine?
Adjourned till Friday 13th March anyone superstitious?
Is there a fucking full moon?
Originally Posted by blighted star
Is that a taping device or his parents title deeds in his pocket.
I have read the whole thread, but your comment ' the legal term is provocation, which reduces murder to manslaughter.' is simply false, and does not need examination in the context of other conversations here. Provocation is irrelevant in proving murderous intent. Why? Because under law there is no defence for a person of sound mind committing murder .
If you work at a domestic shelter, it would be more closer to the truth to state that 'abused women at shelters perceive all men to be lunatics.'. rather than state 'women (generally) hate all men', which is a biased statement to say the least.
I am entitled to question your points of view on a forum, particularly when you make a statement like this
' does anyone honestly believe this guy will walk? With the 4 outstanding charges, including assaulting cops'
Your attention was drawn to the fact that the law views these things separately insofar as determining guilt goes. Your statement indicates that you don't understand that. I am making it clear for you.
I do not have an opinion either way, as the evidence I have seen has gaps in it that you could drive a truck through. The conversation here seems to about all these numerous gaps, and is largely speculative and at best is pure guesswork. He may be convicted of murder, or he may walk free, or something in between. That is all anyone could say with any certainty.
Okay just get to the part where you deny being/knowing anything about SuperiorIntelligence but conveniently sound exactly like that poster and joined only after he was banned so that his opinion on this could carry on.
If you ask me, it's total Sock Puppet Theater in here. I realize that IP addresses can be different, but I'm sure there's plenty of ways to mask them. If you can change your phone number to appear to be different, there's got to be the technology to do the same with your computer.
Your making something, that's for sure.
If I wanted a lesson on law, I'll go take a class taught by a professor, instead of dealing with a condescending fool on an internet forum.
After all that, you still haven't provided an explanation, saying you don't have an opinion. Then why bother making a post?
I'm kinda hoping he screws up his bail conditions. It must be boring for a man of such quality to be locked in his parents basement, with no balcony.
If I were him, I'd also try to copyright Balcony Brah. No, never mind, that's a bit too much.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)