An obvious case of injustice.
Wilbur Hubbard
http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp
Sailboat helmsman gets charged with manslaughter when sailboat is run over
by power boat operated by an off-duty cop. Angle of impact indicates
powerboat was overtaking but this is not even mentioned in article.
Wilbur Hubbard
Wilbur Hubbard
"Dave" <Da...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:r6n8a4l3u18q9o1vc...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:58:22 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
> <wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> said:
>
>>More police power abuse!
>>
>>http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp
>
> the
> case in court, and wants to try it in the press instead. Why am I not
> surprised?
>
What surprises me is how the police obviously are engaging in some sort of
cover-up with the shenanigans as to the officer's blood alcohol test as he
was seen operating in a reckless manner by witnesses on shore.
But the most damning evidence is the angle of impact. It's an overtaking
situation and the police officer is clearly at fault according to the
COLREGS. Witnesses ashore say the sailboat's running lights were on. Yet the
police are attempting to blame the helmsman of the sailboat. It would
laughable were it not for the fact that there was a fatality aboard the
sailboat and lots of serious injuries.
Any lawyer worth his weight in salt will turn this thing around. It's gonna
take an appeal out of the local jurisdiction to nullify the local bubba
system but the drunk police officer is going to get his despite the obvious
favoritism shown.
Wilbur Hubbard
Alan Gomes
closely and has written a fair amount on it. You might want to check
there for further info on it. It does indeed appear that a gross
injustice is taking place here.
--Alan Gomes
Wilbur Hubbard
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:43:05 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
> <wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> said:
>
>>> So the sail boat's insurance company doesn't like its chances of winning
>>> the
>>> case in court, and wants to try it in the press instead. Why am I not
>>> surprised?
>>>
>>
>>What surprises me is how the police obviously are engaging in some sort of
>>cover-up with the shenanigans as to the officer's blood alcohol test as he
>>was seen operating in a reckless manner by witnesses on shore.
>
> by the insurance company that's on the hook for any injuries caused by its
> insured's negligence. It was an advocacy piece, deliberately attempting to
> slant the facts one way. Notice how many instances of conflicting versions
> of the facts there are? Notice how the insurance company tries as hard as
> it
> can to have you resolve those conflicts in its favor? It's written like a
> trial brief, not like a news story.
I am basing my conclusion more on my knowledge of how corrupt most police
departments these days are. I've seen it time and time again. Right or
wrong, the police circle the wagons and protect their own unless there is
overwhelming evidence against them such as a video clearly showing them
beating the crap out of somebody for no good reason . . .
Long live Rodney King!
Wilbur Hubbard
Alan Gomes
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:23:14 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>> Latitude 38 magazine (www.latitude38.com) has been following this
>> closely and has written a fair amount on it. You might want to check
>> there for further info on it. It does indeed appear that a gross
>> injustice is taking place here.
>
> you've only read one side's brief. It's highly unlikely to be a matter of
> black and white.
Dave,
Take a look at the material that Latitude 38 has reported on this. Their
reporting strikes me as fair. Based on their reporting, it *appears* to
me that something is quite fishy about this.
I'm not the judge nor have I "decided" the case. I said it *appears* to
me, based on how it looks at this point, that a gross injustice is
taking place here. If there is evidence to the contrary then it may
appear different to me at that time. But as of now that's how it looks.
Deputy Pedrock was operating the vessel at recklessly high speed (by his
own admission) in limited visibility. It does not appear that there is
any doubt about that.
Again, you would do well to look at the Latitude 38 reporting on this,
which is both fair and balanced. They had no dog in this fight, and if
you know the publication generally you'll know that they do a good job
of striving to be objective.
Or at least that's how it appears to me....
Cheers,
Alan Gomes
Alan Gomes
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:33:04 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>> If there is evidence to the contrary then it may
>> appear different to me at that time.
>
> there's evidence to the contrary. In fact, the trier of fact found the
> insurance company's insured guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> But don't let a jury get in the way of your conclusions based on a story as
> told to some reporter by the insurance company's lawyer.
Might want to actually read the Latitude 38 reporting before reaching
your conclusion about their source of information.
--AG
HardCourt
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:33:04 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>>If there is evidence to the contrary then it may
>>appear different to me at that time.
>
> that
> there's evidence to the contrary. In fact, the trier of fact found the
> insurance company's insured guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> But don't let a jury get in the way of your conclusions based on a story
> as
> told to some reporter by the insurance company's lawyer.
Yeah, and OJ is still looking for the "real" killers.
Wilbur Hubbard
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:07:40 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
> <wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> said:
>
>>I am basing my conclusion more on my knowledge of how corrupt most police
>>departments these days are.
>
> heard all of the witnesses and whose job it was to decide who was telling
> the truth found beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the insurance
> company's insured that was at fault. You got a jaywalking ticket once, and
> you're never gonna believe any cop again.
All I want from you is an admission that you were completely wrong with
respect to this case when it gets overturned upon appeal. It's VERY obvious
that it's an attempted railroad job by the local authorities looking after
one of their own. When it gets out of the local jurisdiction things will be
looked at objectively and justice will be done. The guy is clearly not to
blame sitting there at the helm of that sailboat going all of five miles an
hour being struck from behind by a speed boat driving recklessly and at way
too high a speed for the visibility. The cop broke any number of COLREG
rules. The ONLY rule the sailboat owner (note I said owner and not helmsman)
may have broken is not having his nav lights turned on but there were
witnesses ashore that said they WERE turned on. I even question the validity
of the breath test results for the helmsman as he didn't have enough to
drink to get those results. Could it be that they rigged the breath tester
and that's why they didn't want to use it on the cop? Very possible.
You tell me how a speed boat can strike a sailboat from behind in such a way
that it carried its
way forward and sheered the mast off can not be overtaking.
You tell me why the cop wasn't given a breath test on the spot like the
helmsman of the sailboat.
You tell me why the cop's blood test was totally mishandled with NO chain of
custody. It could be anybody's blood that got sent to the lab. Give me a
break. I wasn't born yesterday.
The whole thing is a farce. Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
will walk. Make book on it, dude! The insurance company is smart to take it
public. They are clearly getting screwed just because they have deep
pockets. Typical lawyer-approved/crooked local politics smarmy tricks.
Wilbur Hubbard
Wilbur Hubbard
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:43:47 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
> <wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> said:
>
>>I even question the validity
>>of the breath test results for the helmsman as he didn't have enough to
>>drink to get those results. Could it be that they rigged the breath tester
>>and that's why they didn't want to use it on the cop? Very possible.
>
> Much more likely the test was rigged.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
>>will walk. Make book on it, dude!
>
> a
> reasonable doubt.
Duh! Ever hear of the appeals process? The guy would be an idiot not to
appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS.
Wilbur Hubbard
Alan Gomes
going nowhere near 5 mph. It was in drifting conditions.
--AG
Alan Gomes
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:09:28 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>> Might want to actually read the Latitude 38 reporting before reaching
>> your conclusion about their source of information.
>
> enough to recognize a planted story when I see one.
>
> Some 40 years ago they were teaching us in law school that if you have a
> legally hopeless case the best move might be to get ahold of a reporter and
> feed him a story telling your client's sad tale of woe. The more things
> change....
You need not subscribe. It's available on line.
--AG
Jere Lull
<wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> said:
Though we often disagree, I agree in this case that the police are
clearly trying to protect "one of their own", though the officer was
clearly a boater, not a policeman, when the accident occurred.
Sailboat, overrun by a powerboat from the stern quarter. The conclusion
should be obvious to anyone with any nautical or common sense.
Still, lawyers can and will argue any legal position, depending on who
is paying them.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/
Wilbur Hubbard
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:01:52 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
> <wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> said:
>
>>>>Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
>>>>will walk. Make book on it, dude!
>>>
>>> Um...Neal, the trial is over. The jury has spoken. Your hero lost.
>>> Beyond
>>> a
>>> reasonable doubt.
>>
>>
>>Duh! Ever hear of the appeals process? The guy would be an idiot not to
>>appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS
>
> jury is, don't you?
Duh! An appeals judge can (and should) nullify the result and send it back
down for re-trial. They jury obviously made a gross error in judgment. It
happens as juries are as stupid as a box of rocks these days.
Wilbur Hubbard
Capt. JG
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:28:38 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>>You need not subscribe. It's available on line.
>
I don't believe that's the case. This one is a good summary:
http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicLat/2007/0607/June13/June13.html
If you go to this one
you'll get a search result of 148 articles.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
Alan Gomes
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:28:38 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>> You need not subscribe. It's available on line.
>
Yes, right after I sent it it occurred to me that perhaps I should have
been more clear. The entire magazine is available by either subscription
or picking it up for free at marine stores, etc. However, the 'Lectronic
Latitude, with more selective content, is available for free on line and
they have had quite a few different articles dedicated to discussing this.
The search feature on the home page searches the 'Lectronic Latitude
pages as well, so you'll find them this way easily enough. (For example,
put in "Perdock" or "Dinius" as the search term and you'll get quite a
few hits.
Here's an interesting one with a very revealing picture:
http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2008-05-21&dayid=116
Regards,
Alan
Alan Gomes
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:58:04 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>> Here's an interesting one with a very revealing picture:
>> http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2008-05-21&dayid=116
>
> PR campaign, particularly given that the insured was 50% over the legal
> limit for alcohol.
It's pretty hard to see what difference the sobriety of the guy at the
helm would have made in the case of a drifting sailboat being rammed by
a powerboat at 40+ mph. Perhaps one could argue some small percentage of
the blame would go to the guy at the helm (as the Latitude 38 reports in
fact argue), but clearly the lion's share has to go to the powerboat
operator, who was obviously reckless in the operation of his vessel. I
think the photo is pretty strong evidence of that.
--AG
Alan Gomes
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:28:40 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>> It's pretty hard to see what difference the sobriety of the guy at the
>> helm would have made in the case of a drifting sailboat being rammed by
>> a powerboat at 40+ mph.
>
> had his navigation lights on.
There were witnesses at the scene who said they were, in fact, on. Even
if they weren't, it's clear that at least SOME of the blame (and I would
say nearly ALL in the case of a vessel going 40 mph at night) goes to
the powerboat, whether or not the sailboats lights were on.
--AG
Alan Gomes
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:51:12 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>>> I dunno. Maybe if he had been sober he would have realized he should have
>>> had his navigation lights on.
>> There were witnesses at the scene who said they were, in fact, on.
>
>
> Were you at the trial to see who looked like he was lying? I wasn't. That's
> why we have jurors. And why we shouldn't encourage lawyers to try their
> cases in the press.
And, as I said in the rest of what I wrote, it's hard to see how Perdock
should not receive at least *some* (I would say MOST) of the blame, even
if the guy had no running lights on at all and even if the helmsman was
completely passed out drunk. Driving a boat at 40+ mph at night with
limited visibility is ipso facto reckless. Minimally, there appears to
be blame to go around here, with (IMO) the lion's share of it going to
the recklessly speeding powerboat.
--AG
Alan Gomes
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:06:26 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>> And, as I said in the rest of what I wrote, it's hard to see how Perdock
>> should not receive at least *some* (I would say MOST) of the blame, even
>> if the guy had no running lights on at all and even if the helmsman was
>> completely passed out drunk.
>
> I'm not going to reach any conclusion based solely on a one-sided piece of
> advocacy flying in the face of what a court found.
Look at a picture of the wreckage. It gives clear testimony to the force
of the impact--which did not originate from the drifting sailboat--and
hence the speed that must have been involved.
~^ beancounter ~^
wasn't tased, shot, and/or beat up......
On Aug 14, 9:58 am, "Wilbur Hubbard" <wilburhubb...@thefarm.invalid>
wrote:
> More police power abuse!
>
> http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp
>
> Sailboat helmsman gets charged with manslaughter when sailboat is run over
> by power boat operated by an off-duty cop. Angle of impact indicates
> powerboat was overtaking but this is not even mentioned in article.
>
> Wilbur Hubbard
dougk...@yahoo.com
> So the sail boat's insurance company doesn't like its chances of winning the
> case in court, and wants to try it in the press instead. Why am I not
> surprised?
Dave, do you really think the sailboat skipper had *ANY* culpability
in this accident?
A becalmed sailboat being run over by a powerboat going 40+ knots is
really not a case of remotely "equal blame" much less 100% the
sailboat's fault. The fact that the powerboater was a sheriff's deputy
who was not given a breathalyzer or blood test; and evidence of
ColRegs deemed inadmissable, and evidence on the sailboat's lights
being rejected by the DA (who is a freind of the deputy)... the whole
situation reeks.
DSK
sa...@dog.com
>On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:06:26 -0700, Alan Gomes <x...@xxx.xxx> said:
>
>>And, as I said in the rest of what I wrote, it's hard to see how Perdock
>>should not receive at least *some* (I would say MOST) of the blame, even
>>if the guy had no running lights on at all and even if the helmsman was
>>completely passed out drunk.
>
>I might well reach the same conclusion if I heard and saw the witnesses. But
>I'm not going to reach any conclusion based solely on a one-sided piece of
>advocacy flying in the face of what a court found.
OJ is innocent. The jury said so! Juries NEVER get it wrong.
sa...@dog.com
>On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT), dougk...@yahoo.com said:
>
>>Dave, do you really think the sailboat skipper had *ANY* culpability
>>in this accident?
>
>I don't really know, and neither do you. What you've seen as extensive
>coverage flogging one side's own version of the evidence. I've on many
>occasions read one side's brief and decided it looks like a slam dunk in
>that side's favor, only to reach a different conclusion after reading the
>other side's. And I've done enough advocacy pieces myself to know that even
>the weakest case can be made to look good with a bit of creativity and
>effort.
I think any reasonable person has to think it sounds like it was taken
directly from the script of any random B movie centered around a
corrupt redneck sherriff's department.
Your professional background could easily lead you astray. I think it
has in this case. Surely with your resources, you can come up with the
transcript of the trial and prove us all wrong?
Wilbur Hubbard
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:ot1ja4h6cshjg2l9e...@4ax.com...
It is very clear that Dave sides with the authorities every time. He is a
paid lackey for the advocacy of increased government power at any cost, by
any method.
All it takes is one look at the photographic evidence for ANY unbiased
person to conclude that the sailboat got run over from behind by a
criminally careless operator of a high speed motor boat.
It doesn't matter who was at the helm of the sailboat, it doesn't matter
whether the helmsman was drunk or sober, black or white, male or female,
sighted or blind, paralyzed or able-bodied. None of that would have made one
iota of difference.
Any sane man or woman can easily conclude the cause of the death and injury
aboard the sailboat was the direct result of the actions of the helmsman of
the motorboat. Nothing Dave can say changes these facts. The jury returned
an incorrect decision based primarily upon law enforcement and the courts
denying true due process by eliminating or manipulating certain vital
evidence. This is all clear and one does not have to, like Dave, resort to
the old saw that the jury got to see the faces of those who testified. Faces
lie. The O.J. Simpson jury is a prime example of what happens when a jury is
pathetically ignorant and biased, when the prosecution is crooked as hell
and when the defense is clearly inept. This case is just more of the same
and a prime example of how corrupt lawyers and courts have become of late.
Wilbur Hubbard
sa...@dog.com
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:35:22 -0400, sa...@dog.com said:
>
>>Your professional background could easily lead you astray. I think it
>>has in this case. Surely with your resources, you can come up with the
>>transcript of the trial and prove us all wrong?
>
>It ain't worth the effort.
cop out.
Wilbur Hubbard
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:bb7ja4hq4i1g7upn8...@4ax.com...
He's clearly afraid to open his eyes and his mind as he just might decide he
should change it. . .
Wilbur Hubbard
sa...@dog.com
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:04:03 -0400, sa...@dog.com said:
>
>>>>Your professional background could easily lead you astray. I think it
>>>>has in this case. Surely with your resources, you can come up with the
>>>>transcript of the trial and prove us all wrong?
>>>
>>>It ain't worth the effort.
>>
>>cop out.
>
>Hey, you wanna pay my outrageous rates for getting the case number, locating
>a service company to go over to the court house, find the entire transcript
>(if there is one) and photocopy it, and then reviewing it, just let me know
>and I'll send you a retainer letter.
Sometimes people will spend a whole day that they could spend doing
something else, doing something for someone just to try and be
helpful. I guess you aren't one of those people.
Capt. JG
news:j5fja4d0b72lsu38t...@4ax.com...
?? He's only asking for $5. LOL
dougk...@yahoo.com
> >Dave, do you really think the sailboat skipper had *ANY* culpability
> >in this accident?
Dave <D...@nothere.com> wrote:
> I don't really know, and neither do you.
False.
The problem can be analysed fairly easily:
What action could a becalmed sailboat skipper have taken to avoid
being run down by a powerboat going 40+ knots?
What action could a powerboat skipper going 40+ knots take to avoid a
becalmed sailboat?
If the jury was not instructed to consider the case along these lines
(and they almost certainly weren't, since they didn't even bring
ColRegs into it), then the jury could not possibly arrive at a fair
conclusion. This is a more important issue than whther the sailboats
lights were on (and the exclusion of testimony that they were looks
kinda suspicious), who had been drinking (and the lack of any testing
of the powerboat driver again looks suspicious), etc etc.
Even if the reportage of the incident & trial are all highly biased,
as you claim, the basic facts lead one to believe that this was a case
of the grossest kind of injustice. As a lawyer & officer of the court,
you should be outraged, not smugly self-satisfied. Unless you've been
a deputy sheriff yourself, and once got away with drunken manslaughter
due to cronyism, I really don't quite understand your attitude.
> .... What you've seen as extensive
> coverage flogging one side's own version of the evidence. I've on many
> occasions read one side's brief and decided it looks like a slam dunk in
> that side's favor, only to reach a different conclusion after reading the
> other side's. And I've done enough advocacy pieces myself to know that even
> the weakest case can be made to look good with a bit of creativity and
> effort.
And excluding evidence, and instructing juries to ignore facts, etc
etc.
One of the problems we have in this country is that the courts are
getting further & further away from anybody's idea of 'fair.'
Regards- Doug King
sa...@dog.com
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT), dougk...@yahoo.com said:
>
>>The problem can be analysed fairly easily:
>>What action could a becalmed sailboat skipper have taken to avoid
>>being run down by a powerboat going 40+ knots?
>>What action could a powerboat skipper going 40+ knots take to avoid a
>>becalmed sailboat?
>
>Turn on his navigation lights? Assuming he's sober enough to see and hear
>the other vessel, shine a light on his sail to make sure he's seen?
>
>>Even if the reportage of the incident & trial are all highly biased,
>>as you claim, the basic facts lead one to believe that this was a case
>>of the grossest kind of injustice. As a lawyer & officer of the court,
>>you should be outraged, not smugly self-satisfied. Unless you've been
>>a deputy sheriff yourself, and once got away with drunken manslaughter
>>due to cronyism, I really don't quite understand your attitude.
>
>I'm not even particularly claiming that the reporting is biased, though I
>can't help suspect that when 12 people reached a different conclusion. If
>you had ever read a trial brief, you'd find my attitude easy to understand.
>It's very easy to reach the wrong conclusion when you have only half of a
>story.
Yes, and that was the jury's problem. The jury heard only what they
were allowed to hear. They may not have even been aware of how much of
the pertinent information was deliberately withheld from them. Then
again, who knows what went on during Jury selection. How many jurors
were in on the fix?
dougk...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT), dougking...@yahoo.com said:
>
> >The problem can be analysed fairly easily:
> >What action could a becalmed sailboat skipper have taken to avoid
> >being run down by a powerboat going 40+ knots?
> >What action could a powerboat skipper going 40+ knots take to avoid a
> >becalmed sailboat?
Dave <D...@nothere.com> wrote:
> Turn on his navigation lights?
There were plenty of witnesses, including the forensics examiner, who
said the sailboat's lights were on. They were excluded from giving
evidence by the police & by the prosecutor.
> .... Assuming he's sober enough to see and hear
> the other vessel
Now there's a clearly unbiased statement.
>, shine a light on his sail to make sure he's seen?
>
A good idea, but a bit time-dependent. When you're on a small lake and
a powerboat is aimed right for you at 40+ knots, there's not a lot of
time to rummage around for a flashlight.
Here's a funny thought.... your saying that the sailboat should have
made himself visible to the powerboat is a tacit admission that the
collision was the powerboats fault. In other words, the sailboat needs
to rely on the powerboater's situational awareness & following ColRegs
(and common sense).
> It's very easy to reach the wrong conclusion when you have only half of a
> story.
Agreed.
Kind of like when you exclude all exidence that the sailboat's running
lights *were* on ;)
I have to say, I am not particularly unbiased in this situation. A
close friend of mine was killed years ago by being run over by a
powerboat while he was sailing. And no, he had not been drinking and
it wasn't at night. The powerboat driver was 16 years old.
DSK
sa...@dog.com
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:18:54 -0400, sa...@dog.com said:
>
>>Yes, and that was the jury's problem. The jury heard only what they
>>were allowed to hear.
>
>Again, you're basing that on only one party's version of the story.
So far, the one party that's talking has indicated that the other
party is perpetrating a fraud, and has indicated why they suspect
that.
You must have taken the whole bottle of Viagra to become this rigid.
sa...@dog.com
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:22:53 -0700 (PDT), dougk...@yahoo.com said:
>
>>> Turn on his navigation lights?
>>
>>There were plenty of witnesses, including the forensics examiner, who
>>said the sailboat's lights were on. They were excluded from giving
>>evidence by the police & by the prosecutor.
>
>Yes, according to the article. The article also admits that some witnesses
>said they were off. I'm not resolving the issue. Just pointing out that it's
>not an open and shut question
>
>>> .... Assuming he's sober enough to see and hear
>>> the other vessel
>>
>>Now there's a clearly unbiased statement.
>
>Hey, there was no dispute but that his blood alcohol was 50% over the CA
>limit.
>
>>>, shine a light on his sail to make sure he's seen?
>>>
>>
>>A good idea, but a bit time-dependent. When you're on a small lake and
>>a powerboat is aimed right for you at 40+ knots, there's not a lot of
>>time to rummage around for a flashlight.
>
>Especially if you've been hitting the bottle.
>
>>Here's a funny thought.... your saying that the sailboat should have
>>made himself visible to the powerboat is a tacit admission that the
>>collision was the powerboats fault. In other words, the sailboat needs
>>to rely on the powerboater's situational awareness & following ColRegs
>>(and common sense).
>
>Nope. It's a suggestion that it's not a clear case of just one party's being
>at fault. Have you ever been on the bridge of a large vessel at night and
>been surprised to see a sail boat suddenly show up in close? I've seen it
>happen even with two full-time lookouts on the bridge. It sure helps if the
>sail boat operator uses a bit of common sense.
Try to imagine, difficult as that might be for you, that the sailboat
was drifting unmanned and unlighted, except for two children under the
age of 7. Their father is below decks, incapacitated, becasue he is
dead from a heart attack. If a powerboat struck it at an estimated 40
mph, don't you think that possibly the powerboat would be at least
partially to blame for the collision? I think there is an excellent
chance that they would be found to be more to blame than the unmanned
sailboat.
sa...@dog.com
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:22:53 -0700 (PDT), dougk...@yahoo.com said:
>
>>> Turn on his navigation lights?
>>
>>There were plenty of witnesses, including the forensics examiner, who
>>said the sailboat's lights were on. They were excluded from giving
>>evidence by the police & by the prosecutor.
>
>Yes, according to the article. The article also admits that some witnesses
>said they were off. I'm not resolving the issue. Just pointing out that it's
>not an open and shut question
>
>>> .... Assuming he's sober enough to see and hear
>>> the other vessel
>>
>>Now there's a clearly unbiased statement.
>
>Hey, there was no dispute but that his blood alcohol was 50% over the CA
>limit.
>
>>>, shine a light on his sail to make sure he's seen?
>>>
>>
>>A good idea, but a bit time-dependent. When you're on a small lake and
>>a powerboat is aimed right for you at 40+ knots, there's not a lot of
>>time to rummage around for a flashlight.
>
>Especially if you've been hitting the bottle.
>
>>Here's a funny thought.... your saying that the sailboat should have
>>made himself visible to the powerboat is a tacit admission that the
>>collision was the powerboats fault. In other words, the sailboat needs
>>to rely on the powerboater's situational awareness & following ColRegs
>>(and common sense).
>
Wilbur Hubbard
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:805ma4pacori227vn...@4ax.com...
It's better to stick to actuals instead of hypotheticals. The actuality is
the helmsman, whether drunk or sober could not have avoided getting run down
from behind by a boat going 45-55mph. The lights were on according to a
lighting expert. The blame for the collision rests squarely on the shoulders
of the power boat helmsman.
The system is corrupt and protects is own. Anybody who denies that fact is
just another smarmy lawyer like Dave. Totally lack of ethics.
Wilbur Hubbard
sa...@dog.com
Dave was having such a hard time with the actuals, I thought a
hypothetical might stir something within him that is currently dormant
and atrophied.
sa...@dog.com
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:47:43 -0400, sa...@dog.com said:
>
>>Try to imagine, difficult as that might be for you, that the sailboat
>>was drifting unmanned and unlighted, except for two children under the
>>age of 7. Their father is below decks, incapacitated, becasue he is
>>dead from a heart attack. If a powerboat struck it at an estimated 40
>>mph, don't you think that possibly the powerboat would be at least
>>partially to blame for the collision? I think there is an excellent
>>chance that they would be found to be more to blame than the unmanned
>>sailboat.
>
>I'm finding it hard to follow your argument here, Not at All. Are you
>suggesting that the sailboat operator is absolved of all responsibility
>because he was dead drunk?
I'm saying you are absolved of having to try and understand what's
wrong with the original picture, Not Here. I'm afraid it's too much
for you.
Wilbur Hubbard
"Dave" <Da...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:k27ma4p54bh13baki...@4ax.com...
>>was drifting unmanned and unlighted, except for two children under the
>>age of 7. Their father is below decks, incapacitated, becasue he is
>>dead from a heart attack. If a powerboat struck it at an estimated 40
>>mph, don't you think that possibly the powerboat would be at least
>>partially to blame for the collision? I think there is an excellent
>>chance that they would be found to be more to blame than the unmanned
>>sailboat.
>
> suggesting that the sailboat operator is absolved of all responsibility
> because he was dead drunk?
You are stupid beyond belief. Ignorant, stubborn and opinionated, too.
The operator of the power boat was drunk too. But, in his case, the
authorities didn't even test him (because he was a fellow crony and a cop)
with the breathalyzer because they knew he would read drunk. Then a couple
hours later they gave him a blood test which test they then completely
blotched the transport. Whose blood was it they finally tested?
Then they squelched any and all evidence that should have been presented in
court in order to clear the off-duty cop who ran his boat into the sailboat
from behind at a high rate of speed. Your thinking is warped and typical of
a suck-ass, police state lover and advocate.
The state of sobriety of the sailboat helmsman was not the problem. The
reckless, high speed operation in limited visibility of the powerboat was.
The facts are what matter. These are the facts. The very most the sailboat
helmsman should have been convicted of was operating under the influence.
The crime of manslaughter is the sole responsibility of the careless
motorboat operator.
And, you're such a hypocrite. I bet if your wife got run over by some idiot
going 70 mph down a 20mph residential street and she happened to be slightly
inebriated you would be singing a different tune. Oh yes you would. It would
be all the motorists fault and you know it.
You disgust me. Get lost.
Wilbur Hubbard.