"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ps.com...
Interesting response to this tragedy.....

At least the proposed horsepower restriction isn't entirely draconian-
500-HP is enough for most applications.

Question would be; does the local government really have the right to
dictate who can run a boat and how that boat can be rigged on a public
waterway- or should the government's role be limited to ensuring that
whatever boat is operated by whomever- it is operated safely?. Can
Joe Doaks rig his boat with 3000 HP, as long as he obeys the 10-knot
speed limit?


Huh?

Governments determine how cars can or cannot be equipped. For instance, you
can't run certain types of slicks on your car, at least not on public roads
in NY. However, the problem is not how that boat was equipped. The problem
is the DUI laws. Drunks who kill should face a different law - they should
be tried for murder, not manslaughter, and judges' hands should be tied with
rules for draconian mandatory sentences. Drinking and driving/boating is a
conscious choice you make. Once you start the engine, there is intent to
kill.

Very simple.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drinking and driving/boating is a conscious choice you make. Once you
start the engine, there is intent to kill.

I see belong to both the temperance league and the drama club...

"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drinking and driving/boating is a conscious choice you make. Once you
start the engine, there is intent to kill.

I see belong to both the temperance league and the drama club...



Temperance? You never saw me say people should not drink at all.

Drama? In a county south of here, the district attorney tried a drunk driver
for murder rather than manslaughter. The jury almost went for it, too.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?

Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.

"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?

Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.


The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only plea
bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years. Without the
option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a bit
less.

The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way. You
might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Without the option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for
quite a bit less.
The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way.

You sure you've got this story straight? Was it a plea bargain or a jury
trial? How'd he put her away if the jury "almost" went for it?

"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Without the option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for
quite a bit less.
The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way.

You sure you've got this story straight? Was it a plea bargain or a jury
trial? How'd he put her away if the jury "almost" went for it?


Does it matter at this point? Your logic is flawed. Considering the level of
public awareness about DWI, there is only one way you could not know that
drinking a certain amount and then driving makes you dangerous: You're
retarded, in which case you probably won't have a license to begin with.

If you're aware of the danger and you go ahead anyway, you have intent. It's
crystal clear. It saddens me that you can't see it.

You know it's dangerous to leave a baby in the bath tub unattended. If you
do it anyway and the baby drowns, there was intent.

On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message

et...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?

Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.

The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only plea
bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years. Without the
option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a bit
less.

The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way. You
might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial.

The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting
caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost"
went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately
loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody?

Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time
offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should
do some
serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on
the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved
the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one
of specific intent.

Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter
would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves
specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too
drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form
"intent"?

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message

et...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?

Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old
Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the
prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.

The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only
plea
bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years. Without
the
option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a bit
less.

The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way. You
might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial.

The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting
caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost"
went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately
loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody?

Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time
offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should
do some
serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on
the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved
the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one
of specific intent.

Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter
would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves
specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too
drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form
"intent"?



All these terms of yours suggest the word "accidental", which does not
apply. Sorry, Chuck.

When a drunk murders a friend of yours, you will think like me, and nothing
will sway you.

On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message

et...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?

Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.

The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only plea
bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years. Without the
option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a bit
less.

The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way. You
might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial.

The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting
caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost"
went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately
loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody?

Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time
offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should
do some
serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on
the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved
the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one
of specific intent.

Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter
would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves
specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too
drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form
"intent"?