Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has Tony Stewart just committed murder on a race track?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Marlin View Post
    My friend and neighbor for many years owned and ran Australia's biggest Sprintcar team and is still heavily involved. I had a long conversation with him, and he is of the opinion the TS has nothing to answer for. He said others within the sport felt the same way.
    The actions on the throttle were those of a driver attempting to steer his car clear of the silly bugger approaching him. Sadly for silly bugger, he got clipped by the wing and dragged under the tyre.
    Yep, even the handful of speedway guys I've spoken to, reckon the same thing.

    There's only so much you can do in a split second.
    Originally posted by brewdles
    In short, some cunt at test and tune had a 250cc honda turning to 11ty and it sounded porn. Do that.

    Comment


      Yeah your mates who drove a speedway car are definitely privy to all possible evidence and analysis.

      Comment


        Well, if you know how stuff works you're at least in a more educated position to form an opinion.

        Comment


          Originally posted by bigmuz View Post
          Well the DA has determined that there is enough evidence that it should go to a grand jury..
          No, If the DA had determined there was enough evidence, he would have charged him.
          Grand Juries are used to investigate whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
          Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[14] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all.
          Jurors who are not screened for bias.
          Defense lawyers are not allowed to be present in the grand jury room and cannot present evidence
          It's a kangaroo court with a fancy name, and is only used to investigate the matter and decide if they will lay charges. The DA has determined nothing.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Marlin View Post
            Well, if you know how stuff works you're at least in a more educated position to form an opinion.
            Exactly.
            Originally posted by brewdles
            In short, some cunt at test and tune had a 250cc honda turning to 11ty and it sounded porn. Do that.

            Comment


              I don't have a problem with the discussion of this by anybody who can firm a coherent argument.

              Comment


                Originally posted by hrd View Post
                No, If the DA had determined there was enough evidence, he would have charged him.


                It's a kangaroo court with a fancy name, and is only used to investigate the matter and decide if they will lay charges. The DA has determined nothing.
                Dunno about the 'kangaroo court' tag, the US Grand Jury is the equivalent of a Committal Hearing here. Both have their pro's and cons. Someone has to present evidence to the Grand Jury, who does that is irrelevant in my book as is the question of charges. It would be a tough one for non technical people in a jury to decide on so I'd suspect that it's likely that the average person would think that running over someone requires a trial to sort out liability..
                Richard's DatsunZ lappin LakesidZ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47OSh...&feature=g-upl

                “Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.”
                ― Jim C. Hines

                “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
                ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

                “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets..”
                ― Napoleon Bonaparte

                Comment


                  Originally posted by bigmuz View Post
                  I don't have a problem with the discussion of this by anybody who can firm a coherent argument.
                  hmm...

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by 260DET View Post
                    Dunno about the 'kangaroo court' tag, the US Grand Jury is the equivalent of a Committal Hearing here. Both have their pro's and cons. Someone has to present evidence to the Grand Jury, who does that is irrelevant in my book as is the question of charges. It would be a tough one for non technical people in a jury to decide on so I'd suspect that it's likely that the average person would think that running over someone requires a trial to sort out liability..
                    "a kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice"

                    Grand Jury hearings:
                    a) deny the right to natural justice
                    b) deny people their 1st and 5th amendment rights at threat of imprisonment
                    c) Does not screen for juror bias
                    d) Operates in total secrecy, with zero transparency, and does not even have to inform the defendant/suspect of proceedings
                    e) It is run by the prosecution and with no other input other than what the prosecution wants to present to the jury.

                    It is the very textbook definition of a Kangaroo court.

                    Our Commital Hearings are conducted by a Magistrate. They are not carried out in secrecy. The defendant and defence lawyers may not only be present, they can cross examine any witnesses. The defendant is granted an opportunity to present their side if they so choose. The process is diametrically opposed to the Grand Jury process and respects all the normally afforded rights of the defendant and witnesses.

                    Comment


                      Well I don't see how what is basically a pre trial can be as big a deal as you say- it's only to determine whether to indict someone right? So they still get a fair trial afterwards?

                      http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal...jury-work.html

                      Comment


                        Harry cheated, he looked it up on the intrawebs :D
                        Richard's DatsunZ lappin LakesidZ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47OSh...&feature=g-upl

                        “Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.”
                        ― Jim C. Hines

                        “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
                        ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

                        “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets..”
                        ― Napoleon Bonaparte

                        Comment


                          yeah, what's the big deal? It's only used to decide if there's enough evidence, based on how the prosecutor explains the law to them... So why do they do this (from your link):
                          "Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like."

                          Your article goes on to say: "Without a grand jury indictment, the prosecutor has to demonstrate to the trial judge that she has enough evidence to continue with the case." I imagine you'd have to meet those pesky normal rules of evidence in front of a trial judge...

                          But that's OK, you still get your 'fair trial' later. Of course that jury goes into it knowing that a "Grand" jury has already found that there's enough evidence.

                          Yeah, sounds good to me. I wonder why no other country in the world does it this way?

                          Comment


                            So what is the goal of the prosecutor in doing this? Just washing his hands of the possibility of the judge not indicting? Won't he then look like a retard at trial when he loses easily?

                            Comment


                              prosecutor still has discretion to indict or not regardles of the grand jury outcome!

                              like you say I think the DA wants to wash their hands of the decision either way - it's just as likely there isn't enough evidence and letting the Grand Jury say that is the better political move for him for some reason? I don't know.

                              Comment


                                It's pretty obvious that it's a tough one as far as liability goes for anyone involved. It makes sense to me to have a Grand Jury involved, after all it's just a procedure that has no ultimate effect but may help clarify the situation. With a Committal Hearing if it's found that there is sufficient evidence to proceed that constitutes a finding which does have an ultimate effect. As I said, there are pros and cons for both, ours is a more formal and certain procedure to trial, with the US system there is more flexibility with less certainty. With both systems there are decisions to be made before any formal proceedings can commence at all so that is common to both.
                                Richard's DatsunZ lappin LakesidZ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47OSh...&feature=g-upl

                                “Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.”
                                ― Jim C. Hines

                                “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
                                ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

                                “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets..”
                                ― Napoleon Bonaparte

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X