"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.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Does it matter at this point?

It was your example. If it doesn't matter to you, I'm good.

Your logic is flawed.

By yours, someone who gets busted at a road stop with a .08 BAC should be
charged with attempted murder. I don't have a problem with your logic, I
just think you're wrong.

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.

I prefer a legal system that differentiates between negligence and malice.
Sorry about your sadness.

"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Does it matter at this point?

It was your example. If it doesn't matter to you, I'm good.

Your logic is flawed.

By yours, someone who gets busted at a road stop with a .08 BAC should be
charged with attempted murder. I don't have a problem with your logic, I
just think you're wrong.

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.

I prefer a legal system that differentiates between negligence and malice.
Sorry about your sadness.


But, it's not negligence any more. 50 years ago, maybe that's how it was
defined. Not any more.

On Oct 30, 10:56?am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:47:41 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
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

The answer is yes. There are many lakes with local restrictions. Some
allow no power boats at all, and some limit horsepower, typically to
under 10 hp or some such.

While I generally agree that the public should be able to regulate the
use of publicly owned waterways (through their elected
representatives), I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership.

For example: Here in Seattle we have a long stretch of water with
speed restrictions- it starts at the entrance to the Shilshole entry
channel out in Puget Sound, continues through the locks, runs all the
way across the E-W axis of the city and doesn't end until the
shoreline of Lake Washington. There is a 7-kt speed limit, which makes
all the sense in the world considering that during much of the year
this area is very congested and the shorelines are packed solid with
parks, marinas, residences, businesses, and other developed areas that
would suffer from excessive wakes.

As far as I'm concerned, if a guy is going 7 knots it shouldn't matter
whether he has 5-HP or 3,000.

Some reasonable exceptions make sense- for instance when people are
boating on a lake that is used as a reservoir for drinking water it
can be prudent to minimize pollution by restricting or prohibiting IC
propulsion.

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:56?am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:47:41 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
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
The answer is yes. There are many lakes with local restrictions. Some
allow no power boats at all, and some limit horsepower, typically to
under 10 hp or some such.

While I generally agree that the public should be able to regulate the
use of publicly owned waterways (through their elected
representatives), I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership.

For example: Here in Seattle we have a long stretch of water with
speed restrictions- it starts at the entrance to the Shilshole entry
channel out in Puget Sound, continues through the locks, runs all the
way across the E-W axis of the city and doesn't end until the
shoreline of Lake Washington. There is a 7-kt speed limit, which makes
all the sense in the world considering that during much of the year
this area is very congested and the shorelines are packed solid with
parks, marinas, residences, businesses, and other developed areas that
would suffer from excessive wakes.

As far as I'm concerned, if a guy is going 7 knots it shouldn't matter
whether he has 5-HP or 3,000.

Some reasonable exceptions make sense- for instance when people are
boating on a lake that is used as a reservoir for drinking water it
can be prudent to minimize pollution by restricting or prohibiting IC
propulsion.



Admit it...you just like all the boats to go no faster than yours!

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"?

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"?