Solved Gable Tostee - Tinder death

[The Coup]

It also proves she was alone on the balcony before she fell.

True, but the downstairs witness' statement of seeing her legs dangling and hearing the door slam prior probably support that situation anyway. Not to mention any physical evidence. Without the recording we'd have no idea he made death threats to her and kidnapped her, zero idea.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Kidnap is the wrong word. He didn't grab her and transport her somewhere against her will as such. There's some evidence that he told her to leave and she wouldn't on one occasion and some evidence that she wanted to leave and he wouldn't let her on another. It shows negligence in that he put a clearly intoxicated/drugged person who had threatened to jump off the balcony into a position where she had no other option but to leave via the balcony.

Unfortunately, none of these knowns tell us why this bizarre situation escalated as it did.

 

[The Coup]

Detain against her will is probably the more reasonable term.

Kidnap implies he transported her somewhere.

Refused to let her go doesn't sound adequate. It implies he had that authority.

 

[DrKrieger]

Detain against her will is probably the more reasonable term.

Kidnap implies he transported her somewhere.

Refused to let her go doesn't sound adequate. It implies he had that authority.

I can maybe see a case for if he thought she was a hazard to herself or others, so he thought it safer to keep her there until she sobered up, but:
a) I don't think that's what happened and b) the balcony would be a monumentally daft place for her if that was the case.

I don't disagree with you, but if I was him, I'd rather get convicted for "detain against will," which it could be argued he has done, instead of "murder by throwing off balcony" if that wasn't what happened at all.

 

[The Coup]

Yeah but its unlikely he'd have got done for it without the recording either imo.

I think the recording makes it look worse, because when you look at the events leading up to and causing her death, the whole "no you can't leave bad girl" followed by locking her on the balcony, after she threatened to jump OFF the balcony, and then following that up with a death threat?

That is going to lead to him being culpable for something imo. Obviously its guesswork, but on the surface it does not look good. If you were prosecuting this guy, you'd be happy to have the recording. They're going to (I imagine) argue that the detainment is the cause of the fall, and therefore the cause of her death.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

Yeah but its unlikely he'd have got done for it without the recording either imo.

I think the recording makes it look worse, because when you look at the events leading up to and causing her death, the whole "no you can't leave bad girl" followed by locking her on the balcony, after she threatened to jump OFF the balcony, and then following that up with a death threat?

That is going to lead to him being culpable for something imo. Obviously its guesswork, but on the surface it does not look good. If you were prosecuting this guy, you'd be happy to have the recording. They're going to (I imagine) argue that the detainment is the cause of the fall, and therefore the cause of her death.

There's a standard charge in griffith code jurisdictions, deprivation of liberty- this is a fairly classic example of that, but on its own it is a fairly minor charge- if he has no record it would be very unlikely he'll see jail out of it.

Any person who unlawfully confines or detains another in any place against the other person's will, or otherwise unlawfully deprives another of the other person's personal liberty, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

That's really all this is- there's is no way someone jumping off a high rise balcony could be a foreseeable consequence of locking them out there, and there's no suggestion he tried to kill her or anything.

Sad case, and a perfect illustration of what can go wrong when a dirt bag meets a crazy girl.

 

[The Coup]

There's a standard charge in griffith code jurisdictions, deprivation of liberty- this is a fairly classic example of that, but on its own it is a fairly minor charge- if he has no record it would be very unlikely he'll see jail out of it.

Any person who unlawfully confines or detains another in any place against the other person's will, or otherwise unlawfully deprives another of the other person's personal liberty, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

That's really all this is- there's is no way someone jumping off a high rise balcony could be a foreseeable consequence of locking them out there, and there's no suggestion he tried to kill her or anything.

Sad case, and a perfect illustration of what can go wrong when a dirt bag meets a crazy girl.

In a vacuum maybe, but this incident didn't happen in a vacuum. There was prior mention/threat of a possibility she would throw herself off the balcony. So yeah its not normally forseeable, but if the victim mentioned it in the moments leading up to their death its definitely relevant

 

[checkraiseulite]

In a vacuum maybe, but this incident didn't happen in a vacuum

yes. the circumstances probably operate to give him a defence to that bullshit charge.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

In a vacuum maybe, but this incident didn't happen in a vacuum. There was prior mention/threat of a possibility she would throw herself off the balcony. So yeah its not normally forseeable, but if the victim mentioned it in the moments leading up to their death its definitely relevant

It's an interesting question but I don't think there is any way a person is going to be held criminally responsible for someone doing something completely irrational- the situation is no different than if earlier she had said she wanted to poison herself, and he had locked her in the bathroom and she'd drunk a bottle of bleach- it's an irrational, unpredictable act, and locking her on the balcony, whilst probably unlawful, can't be said to have 'caused' that.

In a moral sense, yes, he's a dog. If someone at your house is clearly drunk or otherwise out of their skull, it is fairly obvious the right thing to do is at least try to look after them until they are coherent and sober. He didn't try very hard to do that, but that's not criminal, it just makes him a selfish prick.

 

[The Coup]

Yeah it will be up to interpretation and there's a lot of other facts we don't have, I'm just basing it off the transcript.

 

[Chief]

He told her to leave, she attacked him. So, he locks her on the balcony and ignores her pleas to let her go.

Was this reasonable? If someone had tried to stab me, I'd probably do the same thing.

Would you be on the phone to the police right away?

 

[Chief]

locking her on the , whilst probably unlawful, can't be said to have 'caused' that.

In a moral sense, yes, he's a dog. If someone at your house is clearly drunk or otherwise out of their skull, it is fairly obvious the right thing to do is at least try to look after them until they are coherent and sober. He didn't try very hard to do that, but that's not criminal, it just makes him a selfish prick.

Based off only one Criminal Law subject, he still has responsibility if her actions in response to his were foreseeable.

He doesn't seem to have called the police at any point - is that an argument he didn't actually fear for his own life?

 

[The Coup]

I don't think there is an argument he was in fear of his own life at any stage

 

[Corrupt_]

I don't think there is an argument he was in fear of his own life at any stage

You conveniently missed the part where she was attacking him with a suspected knife so he locked her out on the balcony for his safety.

Every single post of yours in this thread is complete diatribe to fit in with your warped view of a certain demographic as well as your tinfoil conspiracies.

Its already been established that whenever he went to clubs or picked up women he would turn his voice recorder on. The balcony fiasco wasn't an isolated incidence. Sounds to me he knew how crazy some women are and smartly covered his ass. I cringe to think how ****ed he would be if he didn't have it recorded. But of course you argue how much a deprived creep it makes him.

He was autistic and obsessed with this sort of thing. He would make threads on bodybuilding.com about his dashcam footage of him aimlessly driving around for hours.

Also it's hilarious how you somehow construed he was on steroids, as if your hate for men who bodybuild and pick up innocent wimmenz who get 'oppressed' by big bad meanies wasn't apparent enough.

It's mindblowing people like you actually have jobs and drive cars.

 

[Corrupt_]

Also I'm dumbfounded at whoever suggested he raped her. What is kinky sex.

You could even argue the other way round, the transcript indicates she was getting too rough and beating him up, is that not assault?

I wonder if our buddy The Coup would ignore this if the roles were reversed and he was the one beating her up during sex.

 

[Damon_3388]

Ok, so I'd not heard about this story until now, but I've just read every post in the thread, and this is my perspective - I don't think either of them is a clinical "psychopath" or has any other diagnosed mental condition or disorder. By the sounds of it, they were both drunk, had some rough sex, one person took it farther than the other liked, they both did and said some stupid, irrational and insensitive things (happens all the time when idiots get drunk), and it unfortunately ended in tragedy. I think the guy recording audio is not really much more than "some people get off on different s**t". I mean, there was probably a strong likelyhood they were going to have sex, so he probably wanted to record the sound of that for his own enjoyment later. It's morally questionable, no doubt, but I don't think that makes him some sort of crazy person or a killer.

He couldn't have reasonably forseen that she'd fall off the balcony after he'd locked her out there, either. He probably just thought she'd sit down, cry it out, sober up a bit, and then he'd let her back in and she'd either go home or they'd spend the rest of the night together. Yes, he is ultimately responsible for that, but from the evidence presented, I don't think he intended to genuinely hurt or kill her.

I think some people in this thread are reading far too much into the details that have been presented, and are drawing a few long bows to paint a picture of those involved.

 

[Chief]

Intent to kill doesn't factor.

If you jump out menacingly at someone for a joke, but they get scared and run off onto the street and are killed, pretty sure that was a foreseeable result. You are liable.

 

[The Coup]

You'd think on the face of it that will be the prosecutions argument.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Intent to kill doesn't factor.

If you jump out menacingly at someone for a joke, but they get scared and run off onto the street and are killed, pretty sure that was a foreseeable result. You are liable.

How far does foreseeable behavior stretch? What if you jump out and scare someone and they run non stop for 5 km's then out onto a road and get hit. Is that a predictable reaction?

For mine trying to climb down a 14 story balcony is not foreseeable as it is so ludicrously stupid, drunk or not.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

By the sounds of it, they were both drunk, had some rough sex, one person took it farther than the other liked, they both did and said some stupid, irrational and insensitive things (happens all the time when idiots get drunk), and it unfortunately ended in tragedy.

Thus my speculation earlier. Consensual sex but aspects of non-consent during the act ... would fit in with the random outburst of anger. We don't know that of course, but it's a theory and no jury is reading BF for ideas on what might have happened.

 

[The Coup]

How far does foreseeable behavior stretch? What if you jump out and scare someone and they run non stop for 5 km's then out onto a road and get hit. Is that a predictable reaction?

For mine trying to climb down a 14 story balcony is not foreseeable as it is so ludicrously stupid, drunk or not.

The actions have to follow a logical conclusion I think i.e. reasonable person test.

 

[Chief]

How far does foreseeable behavior stretch? What if you jump out and scare someone and they run non stop for 5 km's then out onto a road and get hit. Is that a predictable reaction?

For mine trying to climb down a 14 story balcony is not foreseeable as it is so ludicrously stupid, drunk or not.

A reasonable man would foresee a person would try to escape.

A reasonable man would foresee a person who has just expressed a desire to die might jump from a balcony.

The reasonable man is not drunk, mentally ill etc.

But for locking the girl on the balcony, the girl would not have fallen from the balcony.

Causation.

(Remembering it is a couple of years since I studied this)

 

[Damon_3388]

A reasonable man would foresee a person would try to escape.

A reasonable man would foresee a person who has just expressed a desire to die might jump from a balcony.

The reasonable man is not drunk, mentally ill etc.

But for locking the girl on the balcony, the girl would not have fallen from the balcony.

Causation.

(Remembering it is a couple of years since I studied this)

As I said earlier, I'd think a more reasonable expectation would be that she'd probably sit down, cry it out, sober up a bit, and then he'd let her back in and she'd either go home or they'd spend the rest of the night together. I don't think in the circumstances it's really reasonable for him to expect her to attempt to jump off the balcony, nor would he have likely taken it into consideration with his own state of mind at the time. See that as irresponsible, sure, but in the heat of the moment, people aren't always considering every angle and possibility and hypothetical eventuality, and sometimes just make wrong or dumb or inconsiderate choices.

I'm no legal expert, but with what has been presented, "involuntary manslaughter"/"culpable homicide" sounds about right to me.

 

[Chief]

As I said earlier, I'd think a more reasonable expectation would be that she'd probably sit down, cry it out, sober up a bit, and then he'd let her back in and she'd either go home or they'd spend the rest of the night together. I don't think in the circumstances it's really reasonable for him to expect her to attempt to jump off the balcony, nor would he have likely taken it into consideration with his own state of mind at the time. See that as irresponsible, sure, but in the heat of the moment, people aren't always considering every angle and possibility and hypothetical eventuality, and sometimes just make wrong or dumb or inconsiderate choices.

I'm no legal expert, but with what has been presented, "involuntary manslaughter"/"culpable homicide" sounds about right to me.

If your wrong or dumb or inconsiderate choice caused the death, you killed the person.

The specific level of the killing is then the issue. Seems like he didn't mean for her to die, but a reasonable person would have see it as a distinct possibility.

So yes some sort of manslaughter I reckon. Different states have different laws.

 

[The Coup]

And its reasonable based on the situation right i.e. it doesn't matter if Gabe is dumb (as he appears to be) or upset or whatever, if a reasonable person would have thought someone who threatened to jump off the balcony, might actually do it when threatened with death and detained against her will ON that balcony.

Would the average person foresee that in the circumstances?