wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2008 13:10:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:04:03 -0400, 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.



?? He's only asking for $5. LOL


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

dougking...@ said:
Dave, do you really think the sailboat skipper had *ANY* culpability
in this accident?

Dave 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

On 19 Aug 2008 11:09:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT), 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?

On 19 Aug 2008 13:24:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:18:54 -0400, 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.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT), 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 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

On 19 Aug 2008 13:39:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:22:53 -0700 (PDT), 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.

wrote in message
...
On 19 Aug 2008 13:39:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:22:53 -0700 (PDT), 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.


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

On 19 Aug 2008 14:22:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:47:43 -0400, 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.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:47:43 -0400, 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?


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.

On 19 Aug 2008 13:39:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:22:53 -0700 (PDT), 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.