Travis In Austin
-
Posts
12540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Travis In Austin
-
-
really used to like this tune back in the day. Good editing and hard driving in this video, too:
\That was an incredible video to an incredible song!!!! I had forgotten how those crowds line up along those race routes, they are insane. Some of that footage was of her team-mate Walter Rohrl driving, but it shows what it takes to be competitive in that type of racing, street, dirt, snow, no safety barriers, no safer walls, sometimes sheer cliffs to the left and right with certain death if you go off, and they are flying.
What was amazing about that second video is the what happens if you go off the road to the right, and the fact that the sound of the car totally overpowers the sound of the helicopter.
Travis
-
One of Mouton's Youtube links showing just a taste of her driving ability:
Edit: Check out especially from 2:45 to 3:45
Travis
-
Another Michelle Mouton photo,
-
Hey , I did my part with the pics of Milka and Ashley
Michelle Mouton, a great driver.
-
I was referring to Military Commissions Act of 2006. Once the President declares you are an enemy combatant, your citizenship status is moot, because by definition you can be detained indefinitely or rendered or both. This was established under Mr. Bush, and has been essentially seconded by Mr. Obama with a little gingerbread detail changes of no significance. I hope I am wrong.
My understanding is that the MCA only applied to alliens and was was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS about the middle of last year. All hope is not lost yet.
Travis
-
Except for our policy of preventative detention, correct? You or I, or anyone else can be detained and held incommunicato, and with no habeas rights if the President says so - I think. You could even be sent abroad for torture and summary execution.
Are you referring to the President's speech last week? What he described was so general, but I doubt he would be able to get anything through that would allow for the detention of a citizen, like you or I. If so it would be instantly struck down. Not even the Patriot Act allowed for the detention of citizens. But it is scarey that this stuff was even considered, or is even being considered.
Travis
-
When are you planning the move? What is bringing you to CC?
-
Not sure what you mean by the "real thing" though?
Not to get inbetween you and Islanders discussion but since the topic is one that I am passionate about as well . F1 is the most technically advanced , prestigous and expensive auto racing in the world . That's not to say it is the best racing by any means . In F1 it is all about who has the right car at the right moment . Look at Jenson Button , who you ask ? He has won 5 out of the 6 races this year . Parity F1 is not .
I agree with you 100 percent on that. Did you see the interview with the president of F1 during the Monte Carlo GP? Said a bunch of changes are going to have to be made with the financial problems in auto industry. He said a number of changes are going to have to come, they are going to lose a couple of teams, but they are gaining a couple of new teams.
The thing about F1 is they also allow for major changes at certain points during the season,, which they are allowed to implement, called packages. The hope being that a constructor can't have such a huge advantage, but it really hasn't worked. Right now Ferrari is really hoping their new package is going to make enough improvement for them to start winning.
The Button story is incredible.
Travis
-
I am a resident of Iowa. There is a person here that was convicted of felony murder for speeding. The police officer clocking his speed from the air had a heart attack, and died (from either the heart attack or the subsequent plane crash). The law says the speeder was guilty of felony murder. As far as I know he will probably not get out of prison before he dies.
There is something missing from this example. The only way to have felony murder is for the defendant to be committing a felony when the death occurs. As far as I know, no state makes speeding a felony. So the speeder must have been doing something else. Stolen car? Felony drunk driving? Felony evading arrest? Simply speeding, a misdemeanor or infraction, and a death, regardless of how it is caused, will not get you to felony murder. Even if you have a passenger in your car who dies in an accident caused by speeding it is not felony murder. It might be vehicular manslaughter, etc, but no felony murder.
Travis
-
Why are you barred?
The principal reason is that it is the judge that instructs the jury on the law and the judge's directions are absolute. If a lawyer is present within a jury then it undermines and potentially clouds the ability of the judge to instruct the jury on the law. When the jury doors are closed what is said behind them is not open for investigation. Hence, a lawyer as juror could influence the jury into not following the judge's interpretation of the law.
Where do you practice?
Admitted to practice in Australia, UK, NZ, Ontario, South Africa and Hong Kong. Traditional common law jurisdictions.
In Texas, California and Nevada lawyers are selected all the time.
Certainly doesn't increase my confidence in a legal system when practising lawyers are permitted on the jury.
Why, do lawyers where you practice not take there oaths seriously? Jurrors are judges of the facts, not the law, which comes from the judge. Jurrors are told that. Every lawyer I know who has sat on a jury has told me that they were not the foreman, they refused the position even if asked, and that they refused to answer questions about things outside of the evidence or not containned inn the jury instructions.
A lawyer being on a jury can't change the testimony, the evidence. He or she can maybe argue better why facts fit a situation better, but if the State proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt do you think one person on a jury, whether they be a lawyer or a engineer or doctor can someone change the 11 others? I guess we are just more free thinking here, people are just not going to be influenced or pushed around simply because a one person on a jury says or thinks somehting, whether they are an attorney or not.
-
Our justice system is one of my big bugaboo's. Notice how ludicrous the trials mentioned here were? The defendants were guilty from the git-go but our justice system gave them their day in court. That is all nice except that their day in court costs us all a ton of money which is a wee bit short these days. They look to squeeze every penny possible out of healthcare but conduct these wasteful trials routinely. Though I appreciate the 'innocent until proven guilty' stuff I think it could use a rethink. I feel it should be 'considered honest until shown to be dishonest'. That would include these peoples own attorneys. I think they should all have to take the stand in their own defense. If they are innocent and honest then the truth should only serve to show that. But it seems that these days attorneys work to minimize penalties for the guilty or defend people that they know are guilty. If they tell their attorney they did it, then the case should be over. If they lie to their own attorney then they take they stand and sustain that lie on their own. If they are innocent then none of this should be any problem. My $0.02.
Wow, that is some really scarey thinking, so just so many levels. I respect your right to say it, and your right to think it, but it is just so fundamentatly un-American it really surprises me to hear someone say something like that. I don't think an explanation as to why we would even think about adopting either one of your ideas would be of any benefit, however, I think they are easily answered by googling
Tulia, Texas
Mike Nifong
Better yet, go to www.innocenceproject.org/know/browse-profiles.php,
Fortunately the right to a jury trial and the right to counsel is constitutional, so neither a large group of intellectuals or a even a council of dunces can do away with either.
Travis
-
Did you talk to the attorneys after the trial? Did that provide you with any insights?
Travis
The jury was excused before everyone else (for our safety, perhaps?) so I didn't bump into any of them. I do, however, plan on writing them a short letter indicating my willingness to answer any questions they may have. I hope they take me up on it as it would be interesting to hear their perspective on things as well.
I am sure both sides will take you up on your kind offer. You can gain a lot of perspective from such an exchange. I usually send a thank you note to each and every juror in my trials and at least one or two will give me a call. I have also received several notes from jurors over the years such as yours and I have always called them.
We all got to know the Court Clerk fairly well as she took us to lunch everyday and escorted us through the building to the jury breakroom, outside for smoke breaks, etc and I spoke with her a bit afterwards. I asked her if she agreed with our verdict and she did but I also wanted to know something about the law that didn't get answered in a question that I directed our foreman to ask the judge.
The defendant was charged with first degree murder and also felony murder. The statute essentially states that murder occurs in the course of a robbery. While all of us believed that he murdered the victim in order to take his cocaine and money, we also felt that the prosecution did not prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the statute also states that a larceny occurs when a person's personal property or money is removed from them permanently. In this case the defendant at least took the victim's coat from his body (with intent to destroy the evidence) and most likely his pants and wallet too. Therefore, the defendant's actions did qualify for this portion of the statute. We got hung up on the wording of the law as it appeared that, in order to be guilty of this statute, the defendant's motivation must have been robbery with murder occuring in the process. Since we knew that he did not murder him for the coat, we could not come to a guilty verdict on this count.
So I asked the judge whether or not a larceny occurring in the course of a murder falls under the same umbrella as a murder in the course of a larceny. I was arguing this point on behalf of three other jurors and wanted us to get it right. The judge came back with an answer that essentially instructed us to read the statute. We therefore convicted him not on felony murder, but the lesser charge of murder, second degree. I learned from the Court Clerk, an attorney herself, that murder in the course of a larceny and larceny in the course of a murder would result in the same charge. I was a bit disappointed that I didn't stick to my guns and force the judge to give us a better answer, but at that point he was going away for life anyway and considered it to be a bit more of a moot point.
Well I think you reached the right decision from legal point of view (I obviously don't know the facts of the case like you do), but let me point out a couple of things I think you are already aware based on your question, but might be worded a little differently. A person commits felony murder if a death occurs during the course of the defendant commiting a felony. So the question is not really whether a "murder occurs in the course of a larceny" etc. This distinction is important because felony murder is a way to have 1st degree murder without intent or premeditation. As you know, if you did not find that the defendant had premeditated the murder by going to get the hammer, it would have be something less then Murder 1. The State also charged felony murder because they wanted a backup plan in case you did not find premeditation. They also may have charged it becasue they did not know what the defendant's agrument was going to be. For example, "Some other dude did it" (SODDI) which was apparently the defense in your case based on the news account, verses, "yes I hit him, but it was in self defense", or that I hit him but I was still under the influence of sudden passion (2nd degree or manslaugher). If the State does not know where the defendant is going because he did not confess or give a statement, they would charge both to cover their bases, or as someone mentioned, they sometimes overcharge to try and force a plea.
The question for purposes of felony murder, using your example, is whether a death occurs in the course of a larceny as opposed to a larceny occurs in the course of a death. If a death occurs in the course of a larceny, it is felony murder, regardless of what your intent was or whether or not your acted with premeditation. If a larceny occurs in the course of a death (and I beleive the only way this can happen is in the situation you have, where something is taken off the dead body) it is simply larceny, no felony murder, because the felony occured after the death. It does not mean there is no criminal responsibility for the death, the death would just be charged without regard to whether a felony was being committed.
So in your case, if there was no theft of drugs motive (robbery) or theft after the fact motive (larceny) the case would simply be charged as murder 1 and then you would have also been instructed if you did not find premeditation, or that the defendant was acting under passion, you could find a lesser included offense such as murder 2 or manlaughter.
I think you really thought it out well on the felony murder issue, if there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a robbery and a death occured as a result, you could not find felony murder because a theft occured afterwards. Felony murder does not work in both directions, despite what the clerk says, a death has to occur in the course of a felony.
The purpose of the rule is to make a person criminaly responsible for the death of someone else if they are engaged in felony conduct. So if you have two people who plan to rob a bank and during the course of that robbery one shoots and kills a teller, both are guilty of felony murder. If one robber accidently shoots the other robber, the other is guilty of felony murder, if the police shoot at a robber, miss and kill a teller, both are guilty of felony murder, and in most jurisdictions, if the police kill one of the two, the remaining is guilty of felony murder.
The State does not have to prove intent, they don't have to prove premeditation. The defendant is liable for the conduct of his partner in crime, regardless of whether or not he even has a gun. Where this comes into play the most is the "getaway driver." If someone gets killed in the bank, house, diamond store, 7-11, etc., the driver is guilty of felony murder.
-
Michael Schumacher reportedly earned 80 million a year from Ferrari
Schumacher's salary from Ferrari his last year there was 36 million , the other 44 came from endorsements . Still , can anyone here fathom getting paid 36 million a year to drive the absolute best piece of machinary to come out of the Ferrari factory ?
Anyone ?
Here is this year's current salaries, this is the base figure they make and does NOT include bonus, incentivies or endorsements.
1: Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, US$51 million
2: Ralf Schumacher, Toyota, US$25 million.
3: Fernando Alonso, McLaren, US$22 million.
4: Jenson Button, Honda, US$18 million.
5: Rubens Barrichello, Honda, US$12 million.
6: Jarno Trulli, Toyota, US$10 million.
7: Felipe Massa, Ferrari, US$8 million.
8: Giancarlo Fisichella, Renault, US$7 million.
9: Mark Webber, Red Bull, US$5 million.
10. Takuma Sato, Super Aguri, US$4.5 million.Travis
-
NASCAR drivers earn their money in marketing and sponsorship dollars, .She would be taking a pay cut if she went to NASCAR. Her salary is 2 million more then Jr's.
Oh, I thought you were talking salary. I don't know what her endorsements are worth. If a driver is going for bucks they wouldn't go for NASCAR, they would go for F1, the salary alone is 3x what a NASCAR driver makes in total.
I think she garnishes attention because she is the first female that is competitive in Indy Car and really has a legitimate shot at winning any given race.
I wish this lady had tired to race at Indy, she was an incredible driver, I think she is still the best female driver to date. The only woman to win a World Rally Car race, and she almost won the championship in 1982.
Travis
-
She's a whiney and talentless driver who is trying to break into NASCAR for its popularity and money...
She would be taking a pay cut if she went to NASCAR. Her salary is 2 million more then Jr's.
Green/MA are not going to hire anyone, or keep them around, based on looks,. Janet broke the barrier, Sarah has been able to stick around, but neither of them were competitive. While I don't think she has the ability of Helio or Dario, she is seriously competitive and a top 5 driver.
As far as being whiney, I don't think she is anymore whiney than the other drivers, they all seem to whine when things don't go there way, Marco sure was pouting today. She cried after her first win, but today I think Helio cried at twice as much as she did.
Travis
-
OK then, I assume 4th street (?) is still open for bizness. I used the military rec center camping area by Willie's house a few times across from Hippy Hollow. I rode out one hurricane in the late 80's in Corpus, don't remember her name.P.S. You can come stay with us when the Huricanes come rolling in
6th Street is very much alive and thriving.
Travis
-
Why are you barred? I have never heard of that. Where do you practice? In Texas, California and Nevada lawyers are selected all the time. Now it is true they often get struck by one side or the other, and it is pretty easy to get excused if you want to, some jurisidictions even provide for an automatic exemption, but I never heard of a lawyer being barred from serving on a jury. I guess that could come about if attorneys in the jurisdiction really wanted to get out of having to serve and got some sort of legislation passed.
Travis
-
I didn't know you could do that, that would be interesting
After the judge release you at the end of the trial you can talk to anyone you want, about anything you want, or not.
Travis
-
P.S. You can come stay with us when the Huricanes come rolling in [
] -
I don't know of anyone in CC, you have folks in Austin, San Antonio, Houston, so not too, too far.
Travis
-
Did you talk to the attorneys after the trial? Did that provide you with any insights?
Travis
-
Great Job,
Next to military service, jury duty is the highest service you can perform as a citizen.
Travis
-
Rockin and rolling is right, what an understatement. I was under the deck, also walking down to our seats between 1st and 3rd (A's fan here), with a jumbo sized Bud in each hand.
Whoooo we.
Will never forget that one.
-
Thanks for your military service.
As JB wold say,
That's Tob Notch[Y]
And thank you from me as well,
Travis
]
Jury duty over the past 2+ weeks
in General Klipsch Info
Posted