On Oct 30, 2:13?pm, HK wrote:
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!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I truly enjoy my regular opportunities to get out on boats that run
15, 20, 25, or 30 knots. Heck, even 10 knots is faster than I normally
travel. When I write up descriptions of the boats I have been on and
note that most of these boats burn 4-8 times as muh fuel per mile as I
do, I remember why I'm very happy to go a bit slower.

My opinion is that you should be able to run as fast as you like, as
long as you aren't endangering other people. The place for 30 or 40
knot operation is in wide open water with great visibility, not a
congested canal, after dark, or in a bank of fog.

"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.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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.



Joe,
From what I can tell by your post, the guy never actually went to
trial, that was a little bit of grandstanding on your part. From what I
can tell from your post, they DA was using the Murder charge (most
likely 2nd degree murder) as his leverage in a plea bargain.

There have been cases where people have been found guilty of 2nd degree
murder, but that charge is not dependent upon intent, it is based upon
dangerous conduct with complete disregard for human life. That is
completely different than the first degree murder (with premeditated
malice intent), that you were stating in your orginal post.

I can agree with 2nd degree murder, but your first degree murder case
would never fly.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership

How? Thorazine? Valium? Cocaine?

You can't regulate behavior.

~~ sheesh ~~

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership

How? Thorazine? Valium? Cocaine?

You can't regulate behavior.

~~ sheesh ~~

No, but you can slap their wrist or take their heads off.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:45:39 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership

How? Thorazine? Valium? Cocaine?

You can't regulate behavior.

~~ sheesh ~

Thank goodness Ivan Pavlov did not share your opinion. ;-)

That's patterning behavior.

Regulating behavior isn't the same thing.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote
You can't regulate behavior.

Don't be silly. All laws are designed to regulate behavior.

With the exception of the one about better enforcement of existing laws, the
proposed new regulations that the OP says were prompted by this incident
don't really address the behaviors that led to it, which is a great recipe
for unintended consequences. The guy was well above the proposed minimum
operating age so that's a total red herring. I can't imagine how the results
would have been substantially different if the boat had been powered with
twin 250s instead of twin 435s. According to another report, the cigarette
boat was doing 45mph at the time, which says to me that he probably wasn't
using all 870 horses anyway. The age and horsepower limits strike me as very
poorly conceived remedies. Most of us here recognize reckless when we see
it, and it's already illegal.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:25:09 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:33 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership

How? Thorazine? Valium? Cocaine?

You can't regulate behavior.

~~ sheesh ~~

I think you're confusing regulate with control. Speed limits are a
'regulation' of behavior. I don't think the horsepower limitation of 500hp
would do ****. Maybe a 35hp limit would be suitable. Whether a hp limit or
a speed limit, the attempt is to regulate behavior.

Another joke gone wrong.

I need a vacation. :)

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"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.

There have been a couple of fatal DUI's tried as murder in this state. But
all the cases were people with previous DUI's. The rampant disregard of the
law is the difference over someone who is a first time DUI. And the BAC was
always 2-3x legal limit.

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 Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:37:59 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:45:39 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership

How? Thorazine? Valium? Cocaine?

You can't regulate behavior.

~~ sheesh ~

Thank goodness Ivan Pavlov did not share your opinion. ;-)

That's patterning behavior.

Regulating behavior isn't the same thing.

On second thought, I take that back.

My bad.