An Appalling Example of California Justice . . .

[imagine2frolic]

what if it was your loved one?

That is a good question to Ex-Calif. Would that change your feelings about someone driving excessively fast in the dark of night? Your only real fault being becalmed? Would it matter then? Your child, wife, best friend, or your parent ......could you use the same statement then?????????????

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by imagine2frolic

what if it was your loved one?

That is a good question to Ex-Calif. Would that change your feelings about someone driving excessively fast in the dark of night? Your only real fault being becalmed? Would it matter then? Your child, wife, best friend, or your parent ......could you use the same statement then?????????????

I have been becalmed at night in one of the busiest shipping channels in the world. We have high speed ferries, ships, tugs, barges, pilot boats zipping back and forth. At night becalmed, I get all the flashlights out and make the boat as visible as possible. And contrary to some cavalier posts I have made in the past, we never boat drunk and it is very clear the entire crew of the sailboat was hammered - Could they have done more to avoid the accident by making themselves more visible - Of course they could.

I have had a loved one die in an accident. Not her fault. She was hit and run off the road. The other car was speeding hydroplaned and went out of control.

I certainly did not want the other driver to go to jail.

Life has consequence. Being in a crowded world with other people has inherent risk.

I may have a different perspective living in Asia, where the stereotype says, "Life is cheap."

I am somewhat of a distant observer on US happenings and it is amazing what things we pick up on to carry around as our cross. In this forum and others there is almost a cult like desire to see Perdock fried. Primarily because he is a powerboater and a law enforcement officer.

My only point is that Dinius should be freed and everyone should get on with their lives.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by mangomuffins

ex-cal,

"...but somewhere deep down inside, I really don't care that a young lady died and I really don't care if Perdock goes to jail and I really don't care if Dinius does or does not go to jail - Does that make me a bad person?"

maybe not bad just callous... what if it was your loved one?

or am I reading this statement wrong? If so...apologies. If not... sheesh, what a j*#%off.

mm

I'll let one of the other moderators decide whether calling me a jerk off violates any of our forum rules on language or personal attacks.

You seem to forget that it's OK to have differing opinions in this world.

However, calling me a jerk off is a really compelling argument for me changing my stance on this - you must have been first in debate camp.

[David M]

I side with Dan. It is a clear violation of the rules of the forum. I am not defending Dan because he is a moderator. I am defending Dan because he is a member, just like everyone else in here who deserves the same civilized respect that makes Cruisers Forum an enjoyable place to visit.


From the forum rules:
Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.

We take the "be nice" rule VERY seriously! We do not tolerate ANY rudeness.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/?page=rules

[imagine2frolic]

Well Dan you cetrtainly take a different view than most. That being typed I feel that if there is not punishment. Then the only thing an offender learns. Is that it is okay to go out, and do it all over. Punishment is in place so people can see there is a reaction to action. If there were no laws for society to follow. Things would run amuk.

I do not wish for the society I live in to reduce itself to tribal living such as the middle east. Here in America as in many places we have gangland killings. This is an example of tribal living, but it is a small population. I can't imagine 300 million people with that mindset. There needs to be laws, and there needs to be punishment....i2f

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by imagine2frolic

Then the only thing an offender learns. Is that it is okay to go out, and do it all over. Punishment is in place so people can see there is a reaction to action. If there were no laws for society to follow. Things would run amuk.

I'm not trying to be a troll or be ultra controversial here. You are right. There are significantly worse things going on in gangland than this example of one guy accidentally crashing his boat.

There are people murdered every hour in the United States. There are people robbed and raped and beaten every hour in the United States.

There are bigger fish to fry than this guy who made a mistake.

In a bigger world he could apologize pay restitution and go on with his life. But there is no way he can admit guilt apologize and try to make restitution. Our society won't allow that any longer.

I have a close friend who killed someone while he was drunk driving.

He is not in jail, he has not driven a car since and never will, he still provides for a family and he lives with his own pain and guilt every single day. He is borderline mental case because of it. Putting my friend in jail would not bring back the person he killed in the crosswalk, would not pull a "dangerous criminal" off the streets, would not teach him a lesson he doesn't already know and would destroy the family he provides for and cost me to keep him in jail.

What the hell use is that?

[sandy daugherty]

I am not anti-law enforcement. I carried a badge for twenty years. The discussion so far has dealt with minutiae, missing the substance of the issue. Someone died without reason, thru no heavenly intervention, mechanical catastrophe, or criminal intent. People made mistakes. The real question is who pulled the trigger? Who was at the controls of the murder weapon? who had the last chance to prevent this accident? Who's was the most stupid blunder?

Since its human nature to avoid blame, we can understand but not excuse attempting to cover up, or at the very least minimize the credibility of contrary evidence. Consider the time that elapsed between the accident and the delivery of the blood sample, Two experienced professionals would understand the urgency of timely tests, and know that a clear test would exhonorate an innocent man, but it didn't happen. Were they overstressed beyond rational thinking? No. They deal with fatal accidents on a direct, personal, and frequent basis.
Was the boat iluminated? Yes. some lights were on. It was not an unlit obstruction. Were the right lights on? Unproven. Relevant only in minutiae.
Is a sailboat full of drunks a lethal weapon? Remotely possible. Is driving a boat at a speed in excess of the driver's ability to distinguish and avoid hazards possibly lethal? More than remotely possible. Was it reasonable to expect to encounter other boats on the water that night? Yes.

If you had removed Dinius from the vessel, would the accident have happened? Yes.
If you had removed Perdock from the vessel, the accident would not have happened.

These are my personal opinions, based on what I have read here, which is mostly opinions from other readers. I accept the fact that these are not factual and have no merit beyond the sake of discussion.

[imagine2frolic]

An accident would be if he had seen the sailboat. Had changed course accordingly, and then ran over something in the dark to sheer off his rudder sending him into the sailboat. That would be an accident.

Reckless is something completely different. With complete disregard to anyone's safety including his own passengers. He chose to drive unsafely in the dark of night. That's a tragedy waiting to happen, because someone is being reckless.

What the hell use is that?
__________________

I guess we should just let all the criminals loose from the prison system? I do truly think putting your friend in prison who was drunk, and killed some one is appropriate. Killing someone does make you a "dangerous criminal"! Where is the guarantee that your friend will not drink, and drive again. Maybe if he had gone to jail he could have gotten help? Learned to come to grips with his wrong doing? Supporting others while your mental health deterioates is not a good thing. This alone could make you dangerous once again.

Even a child learns from some sort of punishment. It doesn't need to be a beating. It can be a small spank, time-outs, or pleasures taken away for a period of time like tv, electronic games, sailing lessons, etc etc. Most people learn from being punished. If there is no punishment they only learn to continue on with bad behaviour for their immediate satisfaction.

I like Tao do not think you are heartless, and cruel. I think you expressed your feelings about the situation wrong. Myself like everyone in life. We open our mouths, or type something. Only to look back, and wish we could have worded it differently.

We all get through life differently. This is one of those situations. I truly do hope that deep down you wish your words would have been different, and it's not a case that you really don't care about the injustice being served in Lake County......i2f

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Putting my friend in jail would not bring back the person he killed in the crosswalk, would not pull a "dangerous criminal" off the streets, would not teach him a lesson he doesn't already know and would destroy the family he provides for and cost me to keep him in jail.

What the hell use is that?

One of the principal reasons for prosecution and punishment is deterence. Public punishment serves a very important purpose. If you look at countries that have much more serious punishments for drinking and driving you will find the that death and injury rate from drinking and driving is less, in many cases significantly less.

Having personally been almost killed by a drunk driver, I'm all in favor of following the lead of other countries, like certain provinces in Canada, where they have tremendously reduced their drinking and driving deaths. This laissez faire attitude that punishment serves no real purpose is just plain wrong in my opinion. Our much higher rates of injury and death from drinking and driving, in conjunction with our much more lenient punishments, pretty much proves how wrong it is.

If your friend knew that he would lose his license for five years and serve 90 days jail just for a first drinking offense, even if there was no accident, it is highly probable that he would have not to live with the grief and guilt that he deals with now, because he along with most everybody else would not take the risk of drinking and driving.

And I think we can say the same about Perdock. If he knew that he would serve time and lose his job for driving so recklessly (even if there was no accident), I'm pretty sure he is a smart enough guy to figure out that it wasn't worth the risk.

Unfortunately, our society doesn't put much value on public safety, so the deterence that is so desperately needed is not there. Instead, the attitude is that, hey, accidents happen and we can't do anything about it. Live and let live.

The problem with that argument, of course, is that it's demonstrably false given the experience of other countries that don't take that approach.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by sandy daugherty

I am not anti-law enforcement. I carried a badge for twenty years. The discussion so far has dealt with minutiae, missing the substance of the issue. Someone died without reason, thru no heavenly intervention, mechanical catastrophe, or criminal intent. People made mistakes. The real question is who pulled the trigger? Who was at the controls of the murder weapon? who had the last chance to prevent this accident? Who's was the most stupid blunder?

Since its human nature to avoid blame, we can understand but not excuse attempting to cover up, or at the very least minimize the credibility of contrary evidence. Consider the time that elapsed between the accident and the delivery of the blood sample, Two experienced professionals would understand the urgency of timely tests, and know that a clear test would exhonorate an innocent man, but it didn't happen. Were they overstressed beyond rational thinking? No. They deal with fatal accidents on a direct, personal, and frequent basis.
Was the boat iluminated? Yes. some lights were on. It was not an unlit obstruction. Were the right lights on? Unproven. Relevant only in minutiae.
Is a sailboat full of drunks a lethal weapon? Remotely possible. Is driving a boat at a speed in excess of the driver's ability to distinguish and avoid hazards possibly lethal? More than remotely possible. Was it reasonable to expect to encounter other boats on the water that night? Yes.

If you had removed Dinius from the vessel, would the accident have happened? Yes.
If you had removed Perdock from the vessel, the accident would not have happened.

These are my personal opinions, based on what I have read here, which is mostly opinions from other readers. I accept the fact that these are not factual and have no merit beyond the sake of discussion.

A good summary of how I see the case too.

I seriously doubt that Dinius would have been charged but for the fact that a County Deputy was driving the motor boat. Remove that fact from the event, and I strongly suspect that the conduct of the entire case would have been fundamentally different, human nature being what it is.

The biggest failure in the case, IMO, was when the D.A. decided to join in the coverup. That was inexcusable because I expect more from a D.A. Any and all DAs. It's their role to exercise discretion and make sure these kinds of coverups don't get to the courtroom.

Or, to put it the context of our recent discussion, Perdock may have been reckless, but the DA's participation in the coverup was intentional and, therefore, even less defensible. It was within the scope of his employment and an official act on behalf of the county. The DA failed to honor his duties and he breached the public trust. He should be fired ASAP. The county is definitely better without him.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

There are bigger fish to fry than this guy who made a mistake.

Some have been arguing that the way you prevent big fish crime is to smother the small stuff too.

'Many attribute New York's crime reduction to specific "get-tough" policies carried out by former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's administration. The most prominent of his policy changes was the aggressive policing of lower-level crimes, a policy which has been dubbed the "broken windows" approach to law enforcement. In this view, small disorders lead to larger ones and perhaps even to crime. As Mr. Guiliani told the press in 1998, "Obviously murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes. But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other."'
What Reduced Crime in New York City

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

I may have a different perspective living in Asia, where the stereotype says, "Life is cheap."

Never been "full time", but, yeah, that kinda creeps up on you (or comes out of the woodwork?).

[Large self edit.............]

[Ex-Calif]

As another stray electron / rambling thought.

Some in this thread are arguing furiously that Perdock has broken laws and illustrate by posting statutes. OK fair enough. We also have those arguing that society melts down when laws are not followed and that we should prosecute everyone who breaks laws.

Under California law Dinius was BUI. He should have known this statute existed and he should not have taken the tiller. He clearly broke the law. Also under California statute he exposed himself to a vehicular manslaughter rap by having a vehicular accident while boating drunk.

If you choose to apply the law you must apply it equally, and then your argument leads to both Perdock and Dinius being prosecuted for VM.

I, as is clear, disagree. So maybe I will agree to disagree with the majority.

The beauty of our very messy system is that it evolves over time to reflect the "will" of the people. Unfortunately, and I say this from an outside looking in perspective, the US has more people in jail than any other country so our laws just don't seem to be the deterrent that many claim it to be.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Also under California statute he exposed himself to a vehicular manslaughter rap by having a vehicular accident while boating drunk.

There will be no conviction, unless the state can show a causal nexus between Dinius' intoxicated state and the accident--that or bribe the judge and jury.

As a guest on the boat, Denius probably had no clue, sober or drunk, whether the boat's navigational lights were properly on, or even how to turn them on.

Further, Dinius had no oppoturnity to undertake any evasive action on account of Perdock's high rate of speed. Therefore, Dinius's drinking was not a contributory factor to the accident.

From the evidence, there was nothing Dinius could have done to avoid the accident, sober or drunk. This lack of evidence is precisely why Perdock abandoned his civil claim against Dinius and agreed to the distribution of the pooled insurance proceeds for the benefit of most everybody except Perdock.

You are not guilty of manslaughter unless you did something to cause the death. Being drunk, in itself is not enough.

Passive verbs are a little slippery: Dinius did not 'have' an accident. Perdock did.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

the US has more people in jail than any other country so our laws just don't seem to be the deterrent that many claim it to be.

And a good many of these jailed people are incarcerated for drug crimes.

Many other countries have chosen to use their criminal enforcement resources in a different fashion and, not surprisingly, have had different results in the deterence department.