February 3, 2014 Club Meeting

The following is a summary of the minutes from our February 3rd meeting.

Meeting Location:   The Hillsdale Mall, San Mateo, CA     6:00 p.m. – 7:15 p.m.

Attendees:

Present at the meeting were: Samya Boxberger-Oberoi, Suzanne Mulcahy, David Nazzaro, Sharon Pappos, Martin Quan, Ruth Wadsworth, Eric Yan, Trey Zhou.  There was one guest, Aditi.

 The meeting was held in Boudin Sourdough Bakery & Café in the shopping center.  After 13 years of meeting in the lower conference room, of the Hillsdale Mall, Chamber Speakers Circle Toastmaster Club is re-locating.

The president opened the meeting to ask for suggestions for possible new meeting locations.  Martin stepped forward and said that he would seek a location at City Hall.  Several members also mentioned other possibilities.     

Sharon was the Toastmaster; Trey was the General Evaluator; Suzanne was the Grammarian; Eric was the Ah Counter; and Samya was the Timer.

Speaker #1:  David:  “Malice” – Criminal Law

Advanced Manuel:   “Speaking to Inform”

David began his speech by stating that each state sets their own criminal laws as long as they are in compliance with federal law.  He gave his speech on California laws.

The principles of homicide have four elements.  (These are actually true in every state).

1.     Actus Rea – the act itself

2.    Mens Rea – “The guilty mind moves the guilty hand.”

3.    Causation – Act in concert with someone else. (Can be charged)

4.    Concurrence

These four elements have the absence of reasonable doubt, and the absence of justification (not insane).  Each element must be proved.

David then presented his information on “Malice”, CA law, (Mental States).

1.     Intent to kill.

2.    Intention to cause serious bodily harm.

3.    Depraved heart; wanton reckless disregard for life.

4.    Felony murder – murder in the first degree.

5.    Resisting known lawful arrest – murder in the second degree

Murder must have intent and malice to bring a murder charge otherwise it is manslaughter.

Group Evaluation:

David was well spoken and knew his material well.  His speech was well organized, and he brought it down to a level that we could easily understand.  His examples were very helpful and it was a wonderful speech.  The visuals were very good and they helped break the concepts down into meaningful parts.  David kept his topic relevant to all of us as he talked about California law. 

David made good eye contact and really captured the audience’s attention.  The only area of constructive criticism was that he might give a pause at some of the important parts of his speech.  David’s speech was very concise and articulate, and he definitely gave us very useful information.  He taught the basics of fairness and everyone appeared to love the topic.       

The theme of the meeting was: “championship”; The word of the day was: “champion”.  The table topics master was Ruth.  All of the members participated in table topics.    

Samya asked for the guests remarks and then closed the meeting. 

Meeting was adjourned at 7:15