"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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:07:40 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

I am basing my conclusion more on my knowledge of how corrupt most police
departments these days are.

Guess you didn't notice that the jury (or the judge trying the case) who
heard all of the witnesses and whose job it was to decide who was telling
the truth found beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the insurance
company's insured that was at fault. You got a jaywalking ticket once, and
you're never gonna believe any cop again.

All I want from you is an admission that you were completely wrong with
respect to this case when it gets overturned upon appeal. It's VERY obvious
that it's an attempted railroad job by the local authorities looking after
one of their own. When it gets out of the local jurisdiction things will be
looked at objectively and justice will be done. The guy is clearly not to
blame sitting there at the helm of that sailboat going all of five miles an
hour being struck from behind by a speed boat driving recklessly and at way
too high a speed for the visibility. The cop broke any number of COLREG
rules. The ONLY rule the sailboat owner (note I said owner and not helmsman)
may have broken is not having his nav lights turned on but there were
witnesses ashore that said they WERE turned on. I even question the validity
of the breath test results for the helmsman as he didn't have enough to
drink to get those results. Could it be that they rigged the breath tester
and that's why they didn't want to use it on the cop? Very possible.

You tell me how a speed boat can strike a sailboat from behind in such a way
that it carried its
way forward and sheered the mast off can not be overtaking.

You tell me why the cop wasn't given a breath test on the spot like the
helmsman of the sailboat.

You tell me why the cop's blood test was totally mishandled with NO chain of
custody. It could be anybody's blood that got sent to the lab. Give me a
break. I wasn't born yesterday.

The whole thing is a farce. Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
will walk. Make book on it, dude! The insurance company is smart to take it
public. They are clearly getting screwed just because they have deep
pockets. Typical lawyer-approved/crooked local politics smarmy tricks.

Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:07:40 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

I am basing my conclusion more on my knowledge of how corrupt most police
departments these days are.
Guess you didn't notice that the jury (or the judge trying the case) who
heard all of the witnesses and whose job it was to decide who was telling
the truth found beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the insurance
company's insured that was at fault. You got a jaywalking ticket once, and
you're never gonna believe any cop again.

All I want from you is an admission that you were completely wrong with
respect to this case when it gets overturned upon appeal. It's VERY obvious
that it's an attempted railroad job by the local authorities looking after
one of their own. When it gets out of the local jurisdiction things will be
looked at objectively and justice will be done. The guy is clearly not to
blame sitting there at the helm of that sailboat going all of five miles an
hour being struck from behind by a speed boat driving recklessly and at way
too high a speed for the visibility. The cop broke any number of COLREG
rules. The ONLY rule the sailboat owner (note I said owner and not helmsman)
may have broken is not having his nav lights turned on but there were
witnesses ashore that said they WERE turned on. I even question the validity
of the breath test results for the helmsman as he didn't have enough to
drink to get those results. Could it be that they rigged the breath tester
and that's why they didn't want to use it on the cop? Very possible.

You tell me how a speed boat can strike a sailboat from behind in such a way
that it carried its
way forward and sheered the mast off can not be overtaking.

You tell me why the cop wasn't given a breath test on the spot like the
helmsman of the sailboat.

You tell me why the cop's blood test was totally mishandled with NO chain of
custody. It could be anybody's blood that got sent to the lab. Give me a
break. I wasn't born yesterday.

The whole thing is a farce. Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
will walk. Make book on it, dude! The insurance company is smart to take it
public. They are clearly getting screwed just because they have deep
pockets. Typical lawyer-approved/crooked local politics smarmy tricks.

Wilbur Hubbard



Actually, Wilbur, it's even worse than what you said. The sailboat was
going nowhere near 5 mph. It was in drifting conditions.


--AG

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:43:47 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

I even question the validity
of the breath test results for the helmsman as he didn't have enough to
drink to get those results. Could it be that they rigged the breath tester
and that's why they didn't want to use it on the cop? Very possible.

Could it be that he lied about how much he had to drink? Nah, couldn't be.
Much more likely the test was rigged.


[snip]


Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
will walk. Make book on it, dude!

Um...Neal, the trial is over. The jury has spoken. Your hero lost. Beyond
a
reasonable doubt.


Duh! Ever hear of the appeals process? The guy would be an idiot not to
appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:01:52 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Take it to any impartial jury and the helmsman
will walk. Make book on it, dude!

Um...Neal, the trial is over. The jury has spoken. Your hero lost.
Beyond
a
reasonable doubt.


Duh! Ever hear of the appeals process? The guy would be an idiot not to
appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS

Where in the court of appeals do I find the jury, Neal? You do know what a
jury is, don't you?


Duh! An appeals judge can (and should) nullify the result and send it back
down for re-trial. They jury obviously made a gross error in judgment. It
happens as juries are as stupid as a box of rocks these days.

Wilbur Hubbard