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 14:28:38 -0700, Alan Gomes said:

You need not subscribe. It's available on line.

Selected articles appear to be. I didn't see the one to which you refer.


I don't believe that's the case. This one is a good summary:

http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...13/June13.html

If you go to this one

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...latitude38.com

you'll get a search result of 148 articles.

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

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:28:38 -0700, Alan Gomes said:

You need not subscribe. It's available on line.

Selected articles appear to be. I didn't see the one to which you refer.
Dave,
Yes, right after I sent it it occurred to me that perhaps I should have
been more clear. The entire magazine is available by either subscription
or picking it up for free at marine stores, etc. However, the 'Lectronic
Latitude, with more selective content, is available for free on line and
they have had quite a few different articles dedicated to discussing this.

The search feature on the home page searches the 'Lectronic Latitude
pages as well, so you'll find them this way easily enough. (For example,
put in "Perdock" or "Dinius" as the search term and you'll get quite a
few hits.

Here's an interesting one with a very revealing pictu
http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/...5-21&dayid=116

Regards,
Alan

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:58:04 -0700, Alan Gomes said:

Here's an interesting one with a very revealing pictu
http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/...5-21&dayid=116

I'll certainly credit the insurance company's lawyers with a very effective
PR campaign, particularly given that the insured was 50% over the legal
limit for alcohol.
It's pretty hard to see what difference the sobriety of the guy at the
helm would have made in the case of a drifting sailboat being rammed by
a powerboat at 40+ mph. Perhaps one could argue some small percentage of
the blame would go to the guy at the helm (as the Latitude 38 reports in
fact argue), but clearly the lion's share has to go to the powerboat
operator, who was obviously reckless in the operation of his vessel. I
think the photo is pretty strong evidence of that.

--AG

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:28:40 -0700, Alan Gomes said:

It's pretty hard to see what difference the sobriety of the guy at the
helm would have made in the case of a drifting sailboat being rammed by
a powerboat at 40+ mph.

I dunno. Maybe if he had been sober he would have realized he should have
had his navigation lights on.
There were witnesses at the scene who said they were, in fact, on. Even
if they weren't, it's clear that at least SOME of the blame (and I would
say nearly ALL in the case of a vessel going 40 mph at night) goes to
the powerboat, whether or not the sailboats lights were on.

--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.