An Appalling Example of California Justice . . .

[Hiracer]

An unlit sailboat at night is a hazard, that's why the law requires it to be lit.

A board traveling 40-55 knts at night is a hazard. Any idiot (including a jury but apparently excluding a DA) can see that. That's why the law requires speeds reasonable for the conditions.

Question, who is creating the bigger hazard?

Now, throw in the fact that the operator of the motor boat admits to knowing that there typically are unlit boats on the lake at night. Can you say negligence? In a civil court, he is toast for negligence. He literally has no defense. No prudent man is going to operate a boat at night at that speed when they can reasonably expect unlit boats in the vicinity. Further, he can hardly argue that he was going slow, given his admission that he was going fast, and the total destruction wrought by the impact.

Toast. Totally.

And the DA is gonna look like an idiot at the end of the civil trial.

[Ex-Calif]

Hiracer - I agree with you about the civil result. But not for the same reason. The reason is that jurys believe that if someone dies than the insurance company should pay.

It's a ludicrous system we have.

I love the fact that "40-55kts" has been established as "fact"

Reread the whole thread. Only the reporter has ben throwing around speed numbers and they grow with every post. It's a hell of a speed boat that will go 55kts.

However, never fear. Establishing the relative speeds of the boat will be easy based on the damage. Simple physics.

However, it may not get that far if the powerboater's insurance company is smart. It will get settled because the powerboater will lose.

This is akin to a bicyclist and a motor car. The bicyclist is the victim even though he was drunk, riding on the freeway at night with no lights because the car was going 5 mph above the speed limit.

I hate to see this. A sailboat full of drunks with no lights and the powerboater loses. It's wrong.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

It's a hell of a speed boat that will go 55kts..

Check the horsepower on the boat.

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

This is akin to a bicyclist and a motor car. The bicyclist is the victim even though he was drunk, riding on the freeway at night with no lights because the car was going 5 mph above the speed limit...

You obviously are no cyclist or you woudn't say that. Cylists are routinely killed by negligent drivers with no charges filed. The usual defense is, "I didn't see him/her."

In Kentucky last year the Governer's wife rode over a German lady in broad daylight in a residential area near the wife's house where she admitted that she knew the area was littered with cylists. (Near a park.)

No charges were brought, and the police spokeswomen admitted in a press release before the police investigation had commenced that no charges would be brought. And the PR was correct. They decided the sun was in the wife's eyes.

This is the same case, but on water.

"Hiracer" is a type of recumbent bycicle.

The problem with your position is that even if the sailboat had a little light on at the top of the mast, the deputy would have still likely hit the boat. I've been on a boat that fast. At night, it's just plain criminally reckless, and the fact that the sailboater's were negligent is no defense. As I posted above, the speed boat here created the much, much greater hazard.

[Ex-Calif]

"The problem with your position is that even if the sailboat had a little light on at the top of the mast, the deputy would have still likely hit the boat."

We'll never know that because the sailboat was breaking the law by not displaying lights and by having everyone on board drunk especially the helmsman.

No one has posted anything about a speed limit and no one has established a speed for the powerboat.

There are lots of navigable waters with high speed ferries at night. The ferries display not only correct position lights but also flashing yellow lights as required by the regs.

What is flabbergasting about this topic is that there is no doubt or contention that the helmsman was drunk and the sailboat was in violaoitn of the boating regs but everyone wants to pin this on a power boat that we have not established broke any rules except by conjencture that he was traveling too fast for condiitons and didn't have a proper lookout.

That's the injustice of the American legal system in my mind.

[Steve Pope]

Hey Dan I know what relax is but what does "Lah" mean??

[EngNate]

Court is the place where they dispense with justice.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Steve Pope

Hey Dan I know what relax is but what does "Lah" mean??

The "lah" is a Singaporean inflection similar to the Canadian "eh" - Don't think it means anything.

Ok, lah.

Relax lah.

What to do lah?

Maybe I'm not making myself clear, eh? -

[Steve Pope]

Thanks for the explanation, I have come accross it a couple of times before and had wondered.
Steve.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

No one has posted anything about a speed limit and no one has established a speed for the powerboat.

The law requires the boat to be piloted at a speed that is safe for conditions (viz., slower at night, especially if it is known that recreational boaters are out on the lake, which in this case the deputy has already admitted). The deputy obviously didn't do that or this accident would not have happened. It's hard to argue that you were traveling at a safe speed when you admit that you were going fast, admit that you knew other boaters were on the lake, admit that you didn't see the sailboat on account of your high rate of speed, and then hit the sailboat at a speed sufficient to total both boats and killing a person on the sailboat.

I suspose that you would still be arguing that the motorboater is not at fault if it was a capsized sunfish that was hit, or a father-son team in a canoe with the five-year old son having accidently dropped the flashlight into the water minutes before the collision. The sunfish should not have have capsized, that was wrong on their part, and the kid should not have dropped the flash light, and the motorboat is free to travel at speeds that completely ignores any possibility that some hazards might not be lit for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

we have not established broke any rules except by conjencture that he was traveling too fast for condiitons and didn't have a proper lookout.

By the time the case gets to civil court, the too-fast-for-conditions argument will be accepted by the jury and a proven fact. You might want to characterize it at this time as conjecture in keeping with whatever is your unstated agenda, but it's pretty obvious to the rest of us where this case is headed. Letting recreational boats operate at the kind of speed indicated by the damage is not something the courts are going to along with, as they will have on their mind the safety of their own family and friends--as opposed to the DA who was clearly aiming only to protect the deputy.
The abortion of justice in this case is not what the courts are about to do, but rather what the DA is attempting to do. By placing the protection of the deputy above that of protecting the public, the American justice system has been hijacked for base ends.

[salty_dog_68]

I know it is just a coincidence but it seems like a bad couple of years for sheriff deputies and their speed boats...


I know it is just a coincidence but to me it is another example of how the people we elect to write and enforce our laws don't always feel they need to abide by the laws they legislate and enforce.

BOAT CRASH LAWSUIT // The chaotic ride of Deputy Brock

"About a dozen people - a bartender, a nurse, a waitress and a model for the Home Shopping Network - drank beer and talked as they rode in a 28-foot boat from one bar to another off St. Pete Beach.
At the helm was Pinellas sheriff's Cpl. Paul Brock.
He told investigators he had six to 10 drinks during the day, including two bottles of Michelob Ultra at his last stop. Then, he steered north in the Intracoastal Waterway after midnight.
What happened next, he told investigators, was an unfortunate accident.
Brock said he was traveling 5 to 7 mph in his yellow Baja sport fisherman when he approached a curve in Boca Ciega Bay. Then, the weight of his 12 passengers shifted. The throttle suddenly moved forward and tilted the boat, causing him to fall down, Brock said.
The boat shot forward in the dark, speeding up to 25 mph. Before Brock could regain control, the boat slammed through five wooden docks in a violent collision that ripped off the center console and tossed two people overboard. The crash was so loud as many as 32 people called 911.
Brock, 42, pleaded no contest to boating under the influence in March."

"The passengers on board, at least 12, were not the most cooperative group.
Some tossed beer bottles into the water before officers arrived, according to witnesses. Others tried to leave the scene, causing investigators to call a local taxi company and request they not give anyone a ride."

"
More drinks, then everybody was ready to go home.
After midnight, Malogrides climbed into the boat. It was a 2003 model with twin outboard engines and a total of 400 horsepower. Malogrides stood on one side of Brock, her boyfriend on the other.
For the first few minutes, Brock looked over his shoulder at another boat following close behind, Malogrides said. The men in the boat had just left the same bar, she said.
She thought Brock was contemplating racing them. She glanced over at her boyfriend, who looked concerned. She heard him tell Brock: "Don't do it."
Brock said, "Hold on!" according to Malogrides. Then he floored it.
Malogrides wrapped her arms around a pole as the boat sped through the water. Suddenly, as Brock tried to round the curve from Boca Ciega Bay into Blind Pass, the boat veered toward a row of docks near the St. Pete Yacht and Tennis Condominiums, she said.
People in the boat began to scream as it slammed through one dock, then four more. Malogrides heard the sound of wood cracking. Ahead, she saw a boat parked on a lift at the sixth dock. She feared they would crash into it."

"
Fish and Wildlife Officer David Albonetti arrived around 2:15 a.m. He immediately recognized Brock, as the two men had known each other for about three years.
Brock's eyes were bloodshot, his feet unsteady. The investigator asked him to perform field sobriety tests. Brock refused.
From looking at the docks, Albonetti estimated that Brock was going about 45 mph through the minimum wake zone. He knew Brock was familiar with the area; he had seen Brock traveling there several times.
Albonetti felt certain that Brock caused the crash by speeding, driving recklessly and drinking. He placed Brock under arrest for boating under the influence.
He didn't have a portable breath alcohol analyzer, so he took Brock to the St. Pete Beach Police Department for a test. Brock declined and was issued a $500 fine. He was taken to the Pinellas County jail for booking.
There, his supervisors demanded he take a breath test. Under Sheriff's Office rules, officers under investigation for drug or alcohol use must submit to a test.
And so at 6:15 a.m., 5 1/2 hours after the crash, Brock blew a 0.076 two times. Authorities rounded it to .08, the level at which Florida presumes impairment."

[Knottygirlz]

Having just read this thread from top to bottom, I think there are alot of holes in the information that has been presented.

For example, did the accident happen close to shore with alot of background lights? Was the Baja maintaining a course or had they changed course right before the accident. What is the boating channel like in the lake? Is it open or narrow? How close was the sailboat to this channel (if there was one?) Certainly no one seems surprised that a person would decide to take their speedboat out for a run at 9 o'clock at night. That makes me wonder if powerboat traffic at night was/is common on that lake?? If so drifting without lights seems like an accident waiting to happen.

For me, though the bigest question is why didn't the people on the sailboat hear and check out the Baja. They are very loud. We live 2 kms off the river and can hear speedboats approaching or coming out of the dam. If we are on the move we can hear them approaching long before they overtake us and if sitting at anchor we can hear the speedboats long before we see them.

Regardless of what happens in the courts or how events play out, this tragic accident has already altered the lives of all parties involved.

Lori

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

You might want to characterize it at this time as conjecture in keeping with whatever is your unstated agenda, but it's pretty obvious to the rest of us where this case is headed.

I don't have an agenda. Just a different opinion.

I am a sailor. However I do not defend people who committed crimes just because they are in my club. That is integrity. Something this country seems to have placed aside.

Driving a sailboat drunk, at night, with no lights, is a crime.

[Hiracer]

Not much of one, compared to the way that deputy was criminally reckless in the operation of his motor boat.

As I said in the beginning, it's all comparative. Two criminal acts, each creating vastly different hazards.

I don't defend people just because they wear a badge.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

Not much of one, compared to the way that deputy was criminally reckless in the operation of his motor boat.

Seems like you are doing your best to be offensive towards me rather than having an intelligent dialog that includes an analysis of fact rather than emotion.

Not sure what I did to make you so vicious towards me other than my having a different opinion.

Criminally "negligent" may be the correct term that you are seeking.

Hoever the only facts we have are that the sailboat crew was drunk and operating a vessel at night with no lights.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Hoever the only facts we have are that the sailboat crew was drunk and operating a vessel at night with no lights.

That's not accurate. We also know that the motor vessel was traveling--at night--at a rate of speed sufficient to destroy two vessels and kill a person, and that the operator of the motor vessel knew that there were other recreational vessels on the lake.

You keep promoting your opinion based on incomplete facts. I keep pointing out facts inconsistent with your opinion. I realize that's terribly rude of me, but I can't help myself. It's a bad habit. Sorry.

Again, I can't help myself. Reckless was the correct word in my post above:

"Criminal law recognises recklessness as one of the mens rea elements to establish liability. It shows less culpability than intention, but more culpability than criminal negligence. . . . Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt."

Recklessness (criminal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia(Emphasis added.)