Well, yes, people who drink alcohol and people who have sex are all going to die.

He was being tried for murder and manslaughter. He did not push her either deliberately or accidentally, she fell when he presented no immediate threat being on the other side of a locked door. Her alcohol level would have had much to do with the irrational decision to climb over a balcony.

He cannot be found guilty of murder or manslaughter just because he is an unpleasant young man.

Asthenosphere articles I've read say he threatened to throw her off off the balcony, by the sounds on the tape he'd probably tried to throttle her, she was screaming "let me go" over and over. She was drunk. A reasonable person would think that putting her out on the balcony might be dangerous for her. He had other choices, ie putting her in the bedroom and not going in there with her, putting her outside, but he chose the balcony.

I think he was responsible.

He threatened to knock her out didn't he - I call that unpleasant!

I doubt it would be a great loss to humanity if they both had of gone over the railing.

Unpleasant doesn't necessarily mean murderer.

And she was throwing rocks at him, hitting him and she attacked him with a telescope. I said he was unpleasant, however he was not on trial for being unpleasant. He was on trial for murder and manslaughter and he did not do either of those things.

I think prisons would be very full if we were all sent there for shouting "I'm going to kill you" or the like whilst angry.

One assumes the members of the jury were reasonable people and, after hearing all of the evidence, they acquitted him. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but it won't change the outcome.

Did I mention the word 'murderer' in any of my posts?

I just hope other women in the Gold Coast area are aware of him now and swipe left when they get to his profile on tinder!

I'll open a small can of worms because I realise that the following argument has a few holes in it but...

If you define normality as that behaviour observed and followed by the majority of a species, then in this particular case, visiting a website that describes itself as a 'naughty dating site' and one that caters for niche behaviour will by definition be not normal.

When you have two individuals looking to behave abnormally then other social norms become of secondary importance and limitations on what might be considered acceptable behaviour do not exist.

Locking someone on a balcony high above ground level when they are drunk might seem reckless to any normal individual, but that's precisely the excitement and thrill seeking that visitors to a 'naughty dating site' might expect.

So, in answer to your statement, not all who engage in this behaviour are going to die, but like drug taking, some inevitably will.

Indeed no. It's the whole beyond reasonable doubt thing and the judges instructions.

Abnormally behaviour? What specifically do you consider abnormal?

A good question. I fear that, by the standard being applied, I have been an individual looking to behave abnormally. Indeed, I fear that I've been an individual looking forward eagerly to behaving abnormally. And I count myself Mr. Probity.

Hmm yes. Probing.
But I don't think using Tinder makes someone abnormal but does it have subsets for those seeking abnormal fun rather than some standard casual sex?

More likely it's a result of the evidence presented. There is a reason why the items that you referred to are not allowed to be presented at trial. The same reason why a complainant's sexual history is not presented in sexual assault cases.