Boating Accident

[jrc]

Now I've heard it all.

Be honest, your in Erica's shoes, you hire an attorney and he talks to the prosecutor and the judge about your "mercy of the court" plan. They come back with 3 years in jail (about half the max) plus all the community service baloney. Plus your insurance company says that they won't pay if you're guilty (see Littlefield) so you personally will be on the hook for a multimillion dollar wrongful death suit.

Then your lawyer says for $50k to $100K, he can get expert witnesses and you have a better than 50/50 chance of walking away with a not guilty verdict. Say you have or can get the money.

Now be honest, you would do that to your family?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by jrc

Now I've heard it all.

Be honest, your in Erica's shoes, you hire an attorney and he talks to the prosecutor and the judge about your "mercy of the court" plan. They come back with 3 years in jail (about half the max) plus all the community service baloney. Plus your insurance company says that they won't pay if you're guilty (see Littlefield) so you personally will be on the hook for a multimillion dollar wrongful death suit.

Then your lawyer says for $50k to $100K, he can get expert witnesses and you have a better than 50/50 chance of walking away with a not guilty verdict. Say you have or can get the money.

Now be honest, you would do that to your family?

jrc, couldn't have said it better myself.

With all due respect PIG, your morality sounds good in a hypothetical situation. But I think if it came down to it, the money would be flowing.

[Pine Island Guy]

Hey, I said I was thinking out loud... who knows what any of us would really do in that situation...

but I will say that everyone does not react the same as you would (or think you would)... "guilt" can manifest itself many ways in people... look at people that are so overcome with guilt that they commit suicide after committing a crime... others write a book about how clever they were in both committing the crime and getting away with it (OJ anyone?)... some people are lucky and can stay 'above' the law for a long time, others, not so much...

Again, my main point of the story is that if people didn't try to weasel out of taking responsibility when they do get caught... we'd be in a better place...

just my opinion, go ahead and crucify me -PIG

p.s.

Originally Posted by jrc

Now be honest, you would do that to your family?

It all depends, could I live with myself in the future? Look at outpouring of vitriol towards Erica since she took that stance with her lawyer... would I want to be that person and incur the hate of 90% of the people that have heard about this case? I think not...

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Pine Island Guy

Hey, I said I was thinking out loud... who knows what any of us would really do in that situation...

but I will say that everyone does not react the same as you would (or think you would)... "guilt" can manifest itself many ways in people... look at people that commit suicide after committing a crime... others write a book about how clever they were in both committing the crime and getting away with it (OJ anyone?)...

Again, my main point of the story is that if people didn't try to weasel out of taking responsibility when they do get caught... we'd be in a better place...

just my opinion, go ahead and crucify me -PIG

Not going to crucify you at all. And you're right, guilt can manifest itself in many ways. My point was and is, one hires the best defense one can with what is available to them. With that said, what if one is actually innocent and falsly accused of a crime. In CT. a few weeks ago, two men were released from prison after being falsly identified of committing murder. The person who identified these two men recanted her story after I think 27 years.

Now, if these two men had the means to hire the best lawyer money could buy at the time, it's possible they would not of had to spend 27 years in prison for a crime they did not committ.

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

With that said, what if one is actually innocent and falsly accused of a crime.

If I was falsely accused of a crime, I would absolutely pull out all the stops and do what ever necessary to get myself aquitted...

[jrc]

Sorry reading my post it does come off a little strong, not meant to crucify.

In a case like this, an unintended collision and death, I'm sure she feels falsely accused. She feels like she was sober enough and she feels she did her best to navigate safely. So living with the guilt might not really apply. Plus i'm sure here friends and family are not among the 90%.

[jeffk]

Well, the legal system has completed the criminal trial process. I think it would have been a travesty to have killed someone with significant responsibility for that death and received no jail time. I think she is fortunate and got off lightly, and yes, that probably had something to do with her being in the family she is in and their money. She got a strong defense and that's the way the system works. It's a waste of energy to moan about it. I, personally, would have been a bit harsher but probably not too much more. She probably got less time than Littlefield because it was her friend that she
killed, that she was injured so badly herself, and she didn't flee the scene. There already was punishment from the circumstances as others have pointed out. That's how justice is supposed to work. The trial decides guilt based on facts (hopefully), the sentencing can take into account the complete circumstances.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if she qualifies for electronic monitoring she could still go to work, correct? They just have to set the terms of the monitoring to be at home or at work and allow for travel between the two places?

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by jrc

Sorry reading my post it does come off a little strong, not meant to crucify.

In a case like this, an unintended collision and death, I'm sure she feels falsely accused. She feels like she was sober enough and she feels she did her best to navigate safely. So living with the guilt might not really apply. Plus i'm sure here friends and family are not among the 90%.

I don't think she was sober enough and certainly think she made very poor judgments about navigation considering the conditions. I fully accept that from a legal standpoint she has to maintain a strong posture of innocence.. That's understandable and a civil trial might still happen so she needs to be very careful about what she says publicly.

But from a personal standpoint if I was involved in an accident where my friend was killed and myself and another friend was severely injured I would be privately VERY aware of my responsibilities in the outcome. We will never know her inner thoughts but if she is thinking she was sober enough and didn't make any operating errors she is a very deluded woman and likely to repeat her mistakes. She screwed up badly. We all make mistakes but hopefully we recognize our responsibilities in the messes we make and make changes in our life to not allow a repeat of the problems we caused.

[Mee-n-Mac]

More than a few times I've heard mention of a (possible) civil suit. I may have detected some salivation as well. I ask, who is going to file such a suit ? Last I heard Ms Beaudoin's parents were opposed to jail time for Ms Blizzard. I find it hard to imagine they'll sue. I'm not 100% sure but I believe Ms Beaudoin wasn't married (hence she has been referred to as Ms Beaudoin) so I don't see a husband suing. She didn't have children so that's not a possibility either. I don't think the the staute applies to siblings so her brother and sisters can't sue. So I don't see a lawsuit forthcoming.

http://www.currentobituary.com/Memor..._ObitdID=51057

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I can tell you that from personal experience sitting on juries that many jurors don't trust the obvious high priced and outstanding attorneys. I am not convinced that hiring the best is all good and can be very off putting to some of us. I was impressed with the skill and enjoyed the manipulation attempts. Jury's are a cross section of folks who are not always easily manipulated one way or the other. A high priced attorney may reduce the risk of incompetence and lack of effort but it does not buy the jury by any means. Remember the jury is made up of passionate people like you find on this forum. They don't agree either.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

"...I can tell you that from personal experience sitting on juries that many jurors don't trust the obvious high priced and outstanding attorneys...A high priced attorney may reduce the risk of incompetence and lack of effort but it does not buy the jury by any means..."

There is a huge difference.

The State had just one expert witness on the boating crash: Lt. Dunleavey.

A high-priced defense attorney can bring in a dozen boat expert witnesses—then select the one who can present the best crash "story".

The defense can also "purchase" the silence of any other boat experts. (Keeping them "on retainer", and never calling them at all for any reason).

The jury and the media will never hear—or learn of—any of those "missing" expert witnesses.

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

"...Remember the jury is made up of passionate people like you find on this forum. They don't agree either..."

Impassionate people should recall that among the three parties to this crash, the average BAC was .13 . With shoreline or another boater, this was a fatality waiting for impact.

Passionate people will call this "an accident".

[LIforrelaxin]

People,

We need to let this rest. There was a time and place to banter about these arguments. The trial has come and gone. A verdict has been passed down and so has a sentence. The original facts have been place before we have debated them. There is no sense in re-debating them.

If there is an appeal, I will debate with anyone the grounds of the appeal, but for goodness sake lets let the original stuff go. It is over. decision final. We have a verdict. Buy a Jury, it can not be over turned, with out an appeal with legal standing. This is the American Legal system showing us how it works. And it is working.

The families and loved one deserve a break. Some of whom are members of this forum, and have spoken up form time to time. Some of you may not realize who I am refering to but I do.

Let this issue rest.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...More than a few times I've heard mention of a (possible) civil suit...I find it hard to imagine they'll sue..."

The June issue of Soundings magazine has a sidebar on boating safety that relates to "good seamanship skills"—that stretches across three pages—and quotes this Diamond Island crash case.

(Crash Highlights Perils of Night Boating
—Soundings).

Of all the accounts we've seen in the local press, none contains all that appears in this two-page article in Soundings.

These quotes (which appear critical to a civil suit, IMO) are accredited to Edgar Beaudoin:

"...'It was total negligence all the way', says Beaudoin..."

and...

"...'total negligence and a poor choice of judgement'..."

and...

"...'Find out how many feet of water [the boat] was in, drop the anchor, and ride it out till (sic) morning. It was 2-3 o'clock in the morning. There was a place for people to sleep'..."

Including never-before-seen quotes by NHMP's Lt. Dunleavey, this comprehensive article hasn't appeared on the Internet (as yet—or if ever), but Soundings' June issue would be available "at better newstands".

(Black's newstand, in Wolfeboro, comes to mind).

[fatlazyless]

....come on somebody here...I don't want to buy the whole magazine...I just want to read the one article.....could someone do me a favor and scan the article and post it here....thanks in advance...otherwise I'll have to wait for it to show up at the Water St 2nd-hand store, magazine rack for 10-cents...

...say, ...... Heath's over in Centre Harbor might carry Soundings in their magazine rack and one could read the entire article while sipping a freebie cup of Vermont coffee...is Heath's a great super market or is Heath's a great super market!

...understand the Rt 93 negligent driving charge while texting has been pleaded 'not guilty, your Honor" and will be going to a trial.....wonder if that will be a jury of six, twelve, or just one judge or magistrate? (today's Laconia Daily Sun)

[OCDACTIVE]

Its finally over for good.. Report on WMUR that the state will not re-try the case.

I for one am very relieved that it is over and this tragedy can be put behind us and the families are able to go on without the media interferring with their lives.

[secondcurve]

Does this also mean that she isn't appealing her conviction on the lesser charges? Is she serving her time now?

[RI Swamp Yankee]

That was the agreement, no appeal, no retrial.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Is she serving her time now?

According to the press reports after her sentencing, she was supposed to begin serving her time on June 1 but I read in one of the newspaper articles regarding the decision not to retry that they might be asking for a delay for her to begin because of the possibility of more surgery.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

According to the press reports after her sentencing, she was supposed to begin serving her time on June 1 but I read in one of the newspaper articles regarding the decision not to retry that they might be asking for a delay for her to begin because of the possibility of more surgery.

Her Attorney did indeed ask for another delay, but it was opposed by the prosecutor and denied by the Judge.

Blizzard entered jail today.

Full story can be read at the Union Leader HERE.

[Skip]

Additional story with more details can be read on-line HERE at the Citizen site.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...It's finally over for good..."

The previous headlines can't be so easily dismissed...and we can't know what the future holds.

But as this case fades from the headlines, I recently stumbled upon a prophetic post from this forum.

Just three months after "Ice-Out, 2008", a problem boater brought this quote to reality:

"...Or one can captain one's boat in a sane manner, and pray that problem boaters with problem boats don't take that first drink of alcoholic beverage for the next two seasons..."

Edited to Add:

Newbies to this case can read about it here:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6190

[Skip]

More penalties levied, trial regarding reckless driving on the horizon.

Full story in today's Citizen can be read HERE....

[tis]

The thing that hits me in the face about that is they keep saying this is NOT A LICENSE. It is just a safety course.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by tis

The thing that hits me in the face about that is they keep saying this is NOT A LICENSE. It is just a safety course.

Good point tis.

We have had this discussion before with some posters adamant that the State cannot revoke the certificate once it is issued.

However, in the case of the State of New Hampshire the law clearly states that after the appropriate hearing held by the Department of Safety the State does indeed have the authority to revoke the certificate it has issued for cause.

The rub?

The individual can then obtain a certificate from another State and operate legally. Director Barrett has publicly admitted this flaw and is working with the Legislature to correct this flaw.

However, the Hearings Officer has attempted to nullify this loophole by not only revoking the certificate for the maximum of one year, but to further suspend Blizzard's right to operate a vessel for a total of three years.

This additional three year suspension is in murkier legal waters, and an appeal by Moir could set a precedent to it's legality or force the Legislature to address any shortfalls in present law.

Why is this important?

If you are one of the number of New Hampshire residents operating on a legally obtained Certificate issued by another State, or using an approved Coast Guard or Auxiliary issued certificate/license then the State does not have an ability to suspend or revoke that certificate. That leaves them with a second option of suspending your right to operate within the State. Moir is intending to appeal this process. If he is succesful then until the laws are changed or modified convicted offenders will be able to operate a vessel regardless of the severity of their crime or the perceived abilty the State has on their ability to safely operate a vessel.

I expect it will be addressed either way in the next legislative session.

[BroadHopper]

Why is it that the state can't get their laws right the first time? The legislature spends too much time trying to fix current laws that are not right and or have loopholes.

They should take a hint from the corporate world. When a corporation enact a new policy, it is scrutinized by their legal eagles, finance dept as well as the board of directors. Once the policy is OK by the depts, then it becomes legal.

Seems like politics takes the ready, shoot, then aim approach. Know wonder the state and nation is in such a mess.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

...

Seems like politics takes the ready, shoot, then aim approach. No under the state and nation is in such a mess.

OK technically not a state law, but have you read the new federal health care law? (just joking, no one has). But my point is that knee-jerk laws are pretty common in the political world.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by Skip

I expect it will be addressed either way in the next legislative session.

What strikes me as interesting about this issue and so many others like it is that the legislature will expend significant time and effort on this public safety matter, largely because someone, some group, or some event brought attention to the issue.

Beyond the details of the issue of concern, people will argue that if the law, rule, statue, saves even one life its worth it.

Well I cannot argue with any of that, but it all begs the question of what is the actual risk?

By that I mean likely hood of this potential event to happen, and I would expect hard numbers of actual events, not near misses, not polls showing numbers of people who have great concern for the matter or who have a paralyzing fear it could happen to them or strong preference for the law, rule statue. Show me the hard numbers of actual events!

Once you have that irrefutable data in hand, then you really have to ask the cold and hard question, how does this rank alongside all the other matters that the same legislative body should, could, might focus on.

Is some cases, we agree that the likelihood is very low, but the potential impact is worth focusing on this issue before other more likely situations.

So we pass laws to keep dynamite out of hardware stores before we deal with road safety matters because of the tremendous dangers associated with explosives.

And most are in agreement with such prioritization, but when you start talking about boating safety in the northeast where we get 2 – 3 good months for boating, and that the issues of concern use up extended periods of the legislatures time to address, then I ask you to consider what you are accomplishing.

Are there really so many accidents and fatalities on NH waters that these issues truly warrant putting them ahead of the many other issues that they could be focusing on?

As I am not a resident I cannot say specifically what other matters might come before boating safety, but I suspect there are plenty.

And for those who will ridicule this perspective, please just show me the real numbers because the ones I have seen don’t seem to make me fear for my safety on NH waters, just the opposite in fact, and unfortunately there is only so much time and money in the Government pool, and the legislature will have to pass up something else to deal with your boating safety issues.

As NH residents its your choice, but you might take a moment and step back and take a holistic view of Government and public resources and make sure you have really considered where you want to expend those finite resources. I for one would have a very long list of concerns that comes ahead of boating certificate regulations and boating speed limits and some of these other issues that just dont seem to have hard public safety numbers to support the concern being expressed by some here.

Eeek that’s was a long post,,, Better take a breath,,,

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Skip

....Full story in today's Citizen can be read HERE....

The story refers to RSA 270 E: 10 -

Marine Patrol also filed a request to suspended Blizzard's boating registration under RSA 270 E: 10 that gives the Commissioner of the Department of Safety the authority to rule that a boat owner is "physically or mentally an improper or incompetent person to operate a vessel" or "is operating improperly or so as to endanger the public." DuClos said Attorney Seymour issued the ruling, not Commissioner John Barthelmes.

but that RSA doesn't match the story (quoted above)

270-E:10 Notice of Transfer; Destruction or Abandonment. – The owner shall furnish the department written notice of the transfer of all or any part of his or her interest, other than the creation of a security interest, in a vessel registered in this state pursuant to this chapter or the destruction or abandonment of such vessel within 15 days of its transfer, destruction, or abandonment. ........

Did MP or The Citizen get it wrong

[Skip]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

The story refers to RSA 270 E: 10 -

Marine Patrol also filed a request to suspended Blizzard's boating registration under RSA 270 E: 10 that gives the Commissioner of the Department of Safety the authority to rule that a boat owner is "physically or mentally an improper or incompetent person to operate a vessel" or "is operating improperly or so as to endanger the public." DuClos said Attorney Seymour issued the ruling, not Commissioner John Barthelmes.

but that RSA doesn't match the story (quoted above)

270-E:10 Notice of Transfer; Destruction or Abandonment. – The owner shall furnish the department written notice of the transfer of all or any part of his or her interest, other than the creation of a security interest, in a vessel registered in this state pursuant to this chapter or the destruction or abandonment of such vessel within 15 days of its transfer, destruction, or abandonment. ........

Did MP or The Citizen get it wrong

Good catch!

Probably a typo as the correct RSA is 270-E:17


... 270-E:17 Revocation of Registration. – In addition to any other authority provided by law, the commissioner is hereby authorized to revoke or suspend any registration issued pursuant to this chapter or any privilege to operate a boat, or both, upon a showing that:
I. The owner has violated any provision of this chapter, RSA 270, RSA 270-A, RSA 270-B, or any rules adopted under these chapters, or has allowed another person to violate any of these laws or rules.
II. The owner has failed to pay the boat fee required by RSA 72-A:2.
III. The owner is physically or mentally an improper or incompetent person to operate a vessel or is operating improperly or so as to endanger the public.
IV. The owner has defaulted on a court summons arising from a violation of boating laws or rules.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...come on somebody here...I don't want to buy the whole magazine...I just want to read the one article.....could someone do me a favor and scan the article and post it here...thanks in advance...otherwise I'll have to wait for it to show up at the Water St 2nd-hand store, magazine rack for 10-cents..."

A few details are incorrect, but a long summary of "the incident" can be read here:

http://www.soundingsonline.com/featu...-night-boating

[VtSteve]

That sure was worth waiting for Kidding, a nice wrap up, except Moir's statement about coming off plane, which if not completed, directly contradict testimony by his client.

Nothing earth-shattering or new, but a good summary. They even have the lake's fatalities correct.