An Appalling Example of California Justice . . .

[Kai Nui]

(post 238) Bad Hiracer. No cookie for you
One thought is to the application of law in this case. If I recall, California Vehicle code states that if Federal law contradicts state law, the more stringent will apply. This may be why California law is being enforced over Maritime law in this case, to determine criminal negligence. That said, it makes sense to me that Dinius is being charged under Ca. Statute, but in determining negligence, won't federal statutes be a consideration?
So far, we have identified several points.
1) Dinius was in control of the sail boat.
2) Dinius was legally intoxicated.
3) The sail boat may not have had navigation lights.
On the other side:
1) Perdock was traveling at an unsafe speed.
2) Perdock violated the right of way.

We have no other evidence, only speculation.
Considerations:
1) Was Perdock intoxicated?
2) Did Perdock take evasive action?
3) Was Perdock maintaining a safe lookout?

1) Was Dinius impaired?
2) Could Dinius have taken any evasive maneuver? Did he?
3) Can anyone confirm if the nav lights were on?
4) Did Dinius take any action that contributed to the accident?

I am sure the trial will address these questions, and once answered, we can scrutinize the outcome, but until we know unequivocally the answers to these questions, we can not rule out any negligence on Dinuis' part.

[Hiracer]

And to repeat myself yet again, there is no definition of "operating" in the manslaugher statute. It appears that a vessel can have more than one operator at a time, which, of course, is not an atypical situation on a sailboat.

Thus, the DA was/is pretty much free to charge others on the sailboat also, but has elected not to do so for reasons that have not been explained.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Kai Nui

I am sure the trial will address these questions, and once answered, we can scrutinize the outcome, but until we know unequivocally the answers to these questions, we can not rule out any negligence on Dinuis' part.

There is lots that we don't know, and as I said above I agree that Dinius may have committed manslaughter depending on the light situation.

But the one thing I do know is that the DA has ruled out any culpability on the part of Perdock. Further, as best as I can tell that decision is completely wrong and utterly indefensible. I can divine no reason to not charge Perdock with manslaughter also. Nor do I think there are unreleased facts that might justify the failure to charge Perdock. I for one am not holding my breath for that.

Cover up. That is the explanation for the failure to charge Perdock. This case has progressed for months, and every piece of information we get thus far points to the same conclusion. Cover up. I only wish I could say it to the DA's face.

OK. I'm done.

For now.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Kai Nui

(post 238) Bad Hiracer. No cookie for you.

Yes, I know. I'm supposed to be working and so I go too fast and pretend I'll get to work in just a bit, which is my meager excuse. I'll be here late tonight because of this darn thread.

This stuff eats at me. I'm like a little boy who wants the world to be right, and this case just ain't right.

[Kai Nui]

I am also working, and posting while I wait on my slow ass computer to open new screens, so I understand. I also agree that this case stinks. Having experienced legal corruption first hand when I was young and dumb, and did't understand that I could do anything about it, this eats at me too. Still, we have to maintain our objectivity on the issues that are still pending. I am certain that after Dinius's trial, and some sort of comp neg can be supported by the outcome, a civil action will be filed on Perdock. I can only guess that this is being held off until the evidence on Dinuis is concluded in his criminal trial.

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by Kai Nui

<snip> Still, we have to maintain our objectivity on the issues that are still pending. I am certain that after Dinius's trial, and some sort of comp neg can be supported by the outcome, a civil action will be filed on Perdock. I can only guess that this is being held off until the evidence on Dinuis is concluded in his criminal trial.

Actually, it isn't necessary to wait, Kai Nui, and the civil actions have already been filed. Incredibly, Perdock has even filed suit against Dinius, claiming emotional and physical distress.

TaoJones

[exfishnz]

This stuff eats at me. I'm like a little boy who wants the world to be right, and this case just ain't right.

There's no justice in this world, never has & never will be.

Having said that, I do pity the sailboat skipper, as I was taught in nautical school that a vessel should always be able to stop in half the distance of its visibility.

Originally Posted by Kai Nui

Having experienced legal corruption first hand when I was young and dumb, and did't understand that I could do anything about it, this eats at me too.

I assume you were in law enforcement? Let me ask you a question, if you could pay to make a matter go away - would you?

Originally Posted by TaoJones

civil actions have already been filed. Incredibly, Perdock has even filed suit against Dinius, claiming emotional and physical distress.

He who has the money, wins 99% of the time. These civil suits are just tactic's to wind down the other side & force them to spend up their legal fee's.

[Kai Nui]

We still have to wait for a judgement. Even though actions have been filed, the evidence will not likely be made public until a verdict is reached and even then, if civil suit is pending, it is unlikely that all of the facts will be public record.
As for Perdock's civil case (just shaking my head)...
OTOH, maybe if Perdock loses, we can assemble a class action in the boating community against Perdock for the mental aguish he has caused all of us by not accepting responsibility for his actions. I feel truely injured by this. I think I should be compensated. (Tongue firmly in cheek)

[Kai Nui]

exfishnz, If I could pay to make something go away, I would likely not, if I was wrong. I have a conscience. That rather limited my future in certain occupations.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Kai Nui

We still have to wait for a judgement. Even though actions have been filed, the evidence will not likely be made public until a verdict is reached and even then, if civil suit is pending, it is unlikely that all of the facts will be public record.

Generally speaking, a civil case file is a public document from day one, the day the complaint is filed. It takes a court order to keep the file from the public.

Further, assuming adequate seating, one can go and view the trial as it proceeds and report about it here. It's a public event, usually.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Kai Nui

exfishnz, If I could pay to make something go away, I would likely not, if I was wrong. I have a conscience. That rather limited my future in certain occupations.

I walked away unemployed from the highest paid job I ever had, because of ethical issues. And I remained unemployed for over a year.




exfishnz,

You are wrong. There is justice is this world. There just is not enough of it.

[Kai Nui]

The civil case is, but only the complaint, as far as I know. As for the criminal complaint, the evidence is what needs to be considered, and that is not public record, and I am not sure that transcripts would be public record after the verdict until any right to appeal are exhausted. As I said before, I am not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me on this if you can provide information on how to obtain this information. Regardless, a substantial part of this case will likely be based on testimony, and that can not exist until the trial is complete.

[exfishnz]

Originally Posted by Kai Nui

exfishnz, If I could pay to make something go away, I would likely not, if I was wrong. I have a conscience.

So just to clarify, if you unintentionally but through negligence did something legally wrong, then you'd rather go to prison?

Originally Posted by Kai Nui

That rather limited my future in certain occupations.

I assume you mean that if you did pay then it would limited your career options? If so, then what would your career options be if you didn't pay & went to prison?

I'm not stating that paying to make things go away is right or wrong (that's up to the individual), but I think that unless people are placed into certain life situations, then they really don't know if they can abide by their moral's or not.

[Kai Nui]

I think we may have a failure to communicate. If the question is pay the fine or go to jail, you bet. I will pay the fine, but if you mean bribe the judge, or stand trial, I will stand trial all day.
As for limiting my opportunities, there are those, in positions of authority, that feel conscience gets in the way of doing business. I was never able to get past letting my own ethics dictate my actions. That limited my opportunities, but I do not feel it cost me anything. At least not in contrast to the cost of giving up my principals.

[exfishnz]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

exfishnz,

You are wrong. There is justice is this world. There just is not enough of it.

I honestly wish I could agree with you, but the pragmatist in me says I can't.