Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakewinn1
''
Dave since you claim your not pre-judging what facts do you have that leads you to your opinion?
Why try her in the court of opinion when she will shortly be judged in a cout of law by her peers? We will have the verdict soon enough!
|
Lakewinni, Dave did not say she was or was not guilty, he said if she was impaired she should be punished for the effect of her impairment. If she were not impaired she should be held responsible for her negligence because it is very obvious that the operator of that boat was speeding or impaired. If she was neither she would not have driven into an island. The definition of speeding at that time (pre-speed limit) was something like this:
"Speeding is operating at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, taking into consideration weather and other operating conditions"
That is where part of the negligence comes in. By most accounts it was a foggy nights- she outran her visibility, and was going too fast
for the conditions.
And not to put any more words into Dave's mouth I will state what I think- I believe that we are all too willing to call something an accident that was not. An accident is when you are carrying a big pile of laundry downstairs and you knock a picture off the wall and break it. It is not an "accident" when you are texting and speeding and have a collision and someone dies. Sometimes you have to look at inside yourself and say "yeah I screwed up, it was my fault"