More police power abuse!

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp

Sailboat helmsman gets charged with manslaughter when sailboat is run over
by power boat operated by an off-duty cop. Angle of impact indicates
powerboat was overtaking but this is not even mentioned in article.

Wilbur Hubbard

On 2008-08-14 11:58:22 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

More police power abuse!

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp

Sailboat helmsman gets charged with manslaughter when sailboat is run over
by power boat operated by an off-duty cop. Angle of impact indicates
powerboat was overtaking but this is not even mentioned in article.

Though we often disagree, I agree in this case that the police are
clearly trying to protect "one of their own", though the officer was
clearly a boater, not a policeman, when the accident occurred.

Sailboat, overrun by a powerboat from the stern quarter. The conclusion
should be obvious to anyone with any nautical or common sense.

Still, lawyers can and will argue any legal position, depending on who
is paying them.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

pigs protecting pigs...hardly news anymore...at least the skipper
wasn't tased, shot, and/or beat up......






On Aug 14, 9:58*am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
More police power abuse!

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp

Sailboat helmsman gets charged with manslaughter when sailboat is run over
by power boat operated by an off-duty cop. Angle of impact indicates
powerboat was overtaking but this is not even mentioned in article.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:58:22 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

More police power abuse!

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp

So the sail boat's insurance company doesn't like its chances of winning
the
case in court, and wants to try it in the press instead. Why am I not
surprised?


What surprises me is how the police obviously are engaging in some sort of
cover-up with the shenanigans as to the officer's blood alcohol test as he
was seen operating in a reckless manner by witnesses on shore.

But the most damning evidence is the angle of impact. It's an overtaking
situation and the police officer is clearly at fault according to the
COLREGS. Witnesses ashore say the sailboat's running lights were on. Yet the
police are attempting to blame the helmsman of the sailboat. It would
laughable were it not for the fact that there was a fatality aboard the
sailboat and lots of serious injuries.

Any lawyer worth his weight in salt will turn this thing around. It's gonna
take an appeal out of the local jurisdiction to nullify the local bubba
system but the drunk police officer is going to get his despite the obvious
favoritism shown.


Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:58:22 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

More police power abuse!

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp
So the sail boat's insurance company doesn't like its chances of winning
the
case in court, and wants to try it in the press instead. Why am I not
surprised?


What surprises me is how the police obviously are engaging in some sort of
cover-up with the shenanigans as to the officer's blood alcohol test as he
was seen operating in a reckless manner by witnesses on shore.

But the most damning evidence is the angle of impact. It's an overtaking
situation and the police officer is clearly at fault according to the
COLREGS. Witnesses ashore say the sailboat's running lights were on. Yet the
police are attempting to blame the helmsman of the sailboat. It would
laughable were it not for the fact that there was a fatality aboard the
sailboat and lots of serious injuries.

Any lawyer worth his weight in salt will turn this thing around. It's gonna
take an appeal out of the local jurisdiction to nullify the local bubba
system but the drunk police officer is going to get his despite the obvious
favoritism shown.


Wilbur Hubbard


Latitude 38 magazine (www.latitude38.com) has been following this
closely and has written a fair amount on it. You might want to check
there for further info on it. It does indeed appear that a gross
injustice is taking place here.

--Alan Gomes

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:23:14 -0700, Alan Gomes said:

Latitude 38 magazine (www.latitude38.com) has been following this
closely and has written a fair amount on it. You might want to check
there for further info on it. It does indeed appear that a gross
injustice is taking place here.

Alan, if you're a judge it's a great mistake to try to decide a case after
you've only read one side's brief. It's highly unlikely to be a matter of
black and white.
Dave,

Take a look at the material that Latitude 38 has reported on this. Their
reporting strikes me as fair. Based on their reporting, it *appears* to
me that something is quite fishy about this.

I'm not the judge nor have I "decided" the case. I said it *appears* to
me, based on how it looks at this point, that a gross injustice is
taking place here. If there is evidence to the contrary then it may
appear different to me at that time. But as of now that's how it looks.
Deputy Pedrock was operating the vessel at recklessly high speed (by his
own admission) in limited visibility. It does not appear that there is
any doubt about that.

Again, you would do well to look at the Latitude 38 reporting on this,
which is both fair and balanced. They had no dog in this fight, and if
you know the publication generally you'll know that they do a good job
of striving to be objective.

Or at least that's how it appears to me....

Cheers,
Alan Gomes

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:33:04 -0700, Alan Gomes said:

If there is evidence to the contrary then it may
appear different to me at that time.

Even a cursory reading of the BoatUS advocacy piece should demonstrate that
there's evidence to the contrary. In fact, the trier of fact found the
insurance company's insured guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But don't let a jury get in the way of your conclusions based on a story as
told to some reporter by the insurance company's lawyer.
Might want to actually read the Latitude 38 reporting before reaching
your conclusion about their source of information.

--AG

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:09:28 -0700, Alan Gomes said:

Might want to actually read the Latitude 38 reporting before reaching
your conclusion about their source of information.

Not likely, since I don't subscribe. But I've been around this business long
enough to recognize a planted story when I see one.

Some 40 years ago they were teaching us in law school that if you have a
legally hopeless case the best move might be to get ahold of a reporter and
feed him a story telling your client's sad tale of woe. The more things
change....
You need not subscribe. It's available on line.
--AG

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:33:04 -0700, Alan Gomes said:

If there is evidence to the contrary then it may
appear different to me at that time.

Even a cursory reading of the BoatUS advocacy piece should demonstrate
that
there's evidence to the contrary. In fact, the trier of fact found the
insurance company's insured guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But don't let a jury get in the way of your conclusions based on a story
as
told to some reporter by the insurance company's lawyer.

Yeah, and OJ is still looking for the "real" killers.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:43:05 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

So the sail boat's insurance company doesn't like its chances of winning
the
case in court, and wants to try it in the press instead. Why am I not
surprised?


What surprises me is how the police obviously are engaging in some sort of
cover-up with the shenanigans as to the officer's blood alcohol test as he
was seen operating in a reckless manner by witnesses on shore.

You need to learn a bit more skepticism. Remember, the article was written
by the insurance company that's on the hook for any injuries caused by its
insured's negligence. It was an advocacy piece, deliberately attempting to
slant the facts one way. Notice how many instances of conflicting versions
of the facts there are? Notice how the insurance company tries as hard as
it
can to have you resolve those conflicts in its favor? It's written like a
trial brief, not like a news story.

I am basing my conclusion more on my knowledge of how corrupt most police
departments these days are. I've seen it time and time again. Right or
wrong, the police circle the wagons and protect their own unless there is
overwhelming evidence against them such as a video clearly showing them
beating the crap out of somebody for no good reason . . .

Long live Rodney King!

Wilbur Hubbard