Sign the petition to prosecute the Lake County Sheriff that killed the sailor

[shamrock]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Your point is that being wasted had nothing to do with anything. I say that being wasted is a) illegal and b) a factor that we cannot determine if it is either causative, or related to the ability of the sailboat crew to do their duty to keep a proper watch and avoid collisions if possible.

I think that looking at the pictures and the fact that the powerboat flew over the sailboat, leaving prop marks on the deck means we absolutely CAN determine that the sailboat crew being drunk had nothing to do with it. Remember, it was a near windless night and the helmsman had little or no steerage in those conditions. What could they have possibly done other than say, "that boat is going to hit us," which they did

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

If they were off one could argue that this was causative regardless of anyone's sobriety. Perdock should not have been expected to see the sailboat and while his speed may be viewed as excessive in hindsight, he wasn't breakinng any speed limits.

I completely disagree. If you can't see unlit objects, you are legally going to fast. He SHOULD have been expected to see the sailboat regardless of lights on or off. This is the same reason people drive into jetties, docks and moored boats at night.

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

I am not defending Purdock here. I am just illustrating how the argumments can go either way especially if "we" start trying to separate the sobriety factors out. Especially if we are only trying to extract the sailboat occupant's sobriety - One must argue the facts as known - everyone was legally drunk (and that is allowing Purdock was drunk regardless of how his test results were flawed)

My bottom line argumment is very simple - If you are the responsible skipper, and you are drunk, and something goes horribly wrong, I believe you should be held at least partially liable.

If the owner was charged with some boating while intoxicated, that might have been appropriate, but he holds no responsibility for the accident as far as I'm concerned.

[Southern Star]

While the intoxication of the operator/owner of the sailboat may not have contributed to the collision (alhtough who knows - slowed reactions and impaired vision may have made them incapable of avoiding contact through evasive maneuvers, or even the use of an air horn), nevertheless in most jurisdictions there are criminal offences for the impaired operation of, or impaired care and control of a vessel. As I said, there is no reason that both could not have been prosecuted and there is no need in a criminal court to apportion liability.

The issue here is whether the operator of a vessel which struck another, virtually stationary vessel while being operated at an extremely high rate of speed by a person who had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol should be prosecuted (and as I recall, even though the investigators conveniently screwed up his blood readings, there was ample viva voce evidence concerning both his speed and consumption of alcohol).

Brad

[SVNeko]

Can't believe this thread has gone on so long and that there are people who would actually try to defend the actions of Purdock and his buddies in the prosecutors office. This is a clear cut distortion of justice - something that happens far too often with law enforcement these days.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

Can't believe this thread has gone on so long and that there are people who would actually try to defend the actions of Purdock and his buddies in the prosecutors office. This is a clear cut distortion of justice - something that happens far too often with law enforcement these days.

I don't speak for anyone else but I am clearly not defending Purdock.

However, as Southern Star states any contributary negligence on the part of the helmsman or skipper cannot be assessed because they were drunk. I am arguing that there is contributory negligence because as Southern Star points out, there may be actions a sober an alert and experienceed helmsman could have done.

Those that blindly defend a drunk helmsman and a drunk owner skipper do our sport a disservice.

[SVNeko]

This is a criminal case. Contributory negligence has nothing to do with it. It is a civil law concept. Either the sheriff violated the law or he didnt. The victim's condition is irrelevant.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

This is a criminal case. Contributory negligence has nothing to do with it. It is a civil law concept. Either the sheriff violated the law or he didnt. The victim's condition is irrelevant.

Not only that, but California law doesn't even have a concept of contributory negligence -- was one of the first states to abandon it (had done so even back when I was in law school, back in the Dark Ages ).

I think most people find it a distraction to talk about whether the helmsman, and particularly, the owner, were drunk of not. It did not contribute to the accident (alert and active helming while drifting? come on . . .), and without condoning drunk boating, it's a trivial matter compared to running down and killing someone at 50 knots in pitch darkness.

[Ballenxj]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

This is a criminal case. Contributory negligence has nothing to do with it. It is a civil law concept. Either the sheriff violated the law or he didnt. The victim's condition is irrelevant.

^^ THIS is the way I see it too. ^^
-Bruce

[lateral]

If this is so obvious, why can't prosecuting Purdue get traction?
Because essentially it was an accident, the DA doesn't want to offend
the police, or revisit other cases, make waves; The encumbents want it to go away.

[SVNeko]

It is obvious and the sheriff isn't being prosecuted because of some home cooking going on up there. The rank unfairness of it is enough to piss off people all over the world. It gives the US and California a bad name.

[deckofficer]

Ask any real estate agent in the Clear Lake area. This place is so entrenched with retired LEO, the good 'ol boys network is alive and strong, not to mention politically connected.

If you ever wanted a lake front retirement home with dock in California for less than $100K, this is your place.

[shamrock]

I Think Purdock's ex wife has the story straight. She was married to him at the time and cliams his whole testomy of how he spent the entire day is a "Big fat lie." and they are charging the wrong man.

http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2009/0...-fat-liar.html

[lateral]

Lake county---no better than gangland.

[NorthPacific]

Originally Posted by shamrock

I Think Purdock's ex wife has the story straight. She was married to him at the time and cliams his whole testomy of how he spent the entire day is a "Big fat lie." and they are charging the wrong man.

http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2009/0... /> liar.html

People have been hung for less.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

This goes to the qualification of the helmsman.

I don't argue that neither a sober or experienced helm or a sober and experienced skipper at the helm could have avoided the collision. They were clearly struck from the rear at high speed.

The only two points I go back to are

1 - Is it acceptable to be responsible for the safety of the boat and be drunk? If not, who was responisble for the safety of the sailboat? The helm or the skipper? My argument is the person responsible for the safety of the sailboat is at least partly at fault only because they were drunk, not that there action was causative to the collision. The reason for this is because the responsible person was inexperienced and drunk (Dinius) or drunk (Skipper) - Further we can never determine the outcome (could the collision have been avoided by a sober crew) and that is why we don't let the responsible party be drunk while operating the vehicle.

2 - We will never determine the position of the nav light switch.

Your point is that being wasted had nothing to do with anything. I say that being wasted is a) illegal and b) a factor that we cannot determine if it is either causative, or related to the ability of the sailboat crew to do their duty to keep a proper watch and avoid collisions if possible.

Again - Purdock is +95% responsible. I believe someone on the sailboat is also responsible and I fully believe it is the skipper. He was awake (it wasn't an "off watch" situation), he left the helm with an inexperienced person (to get more booze), he was drunk, it was night, he may not have had the lights on and he didn't exercise every caution available, probably because he was impaired.

One final point on the Nav lighhts. If they were off, one would argue the high speed of the powerboat was still reckless. If they were on one could argue they were lost in the background light clutter.

If they were off one could argue that this was causative regardless of anyone's sobriety. Perdock should not have been expected to see the sailboat and while his speed may be viewed as excessive in hindsight, he wasn't breakinng any speed limits. If the lights were on and Perdock was sober, one could argue the background clutter made the sailboat impossible to see and therefore this is just a tragic accident.

I am not defending Purdock here. I am just illustrating how the argumments can go either way especially if "we" start trying to separate the sobriety factors out. Especially if we are only trying to extract the sailboat occupant's sobriety - One must argue the facts as known - everyone was legally drunk (and that is allowing Purdock was drunk regardless of how his test results were flawed)

My bottom line argumment is very simple - If you are the responsible skipper, and you are drunk, and something goes horribly wrong, I believe you should be held at least partially liable.

I think all your points are valid. I actually signed the e-petition before it went so sideways. Which happened later on in the thread mostly from the extreme view of the OP from one view and an ex-LEO from the other side. This has sort of turned into a gun/anchor/Dems vs. Rep thread. There seems to be an effort to win a conversation where there should never be a winner. I see drunks all the time when I'm sailing. To me, it's an unfortunate fact of being on the water.

[deckofficer]

I wasn't aware I took an extreme view. As to drunks, in my youth I was a bartender, so have a low tolerance to drunks.