Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second
Subtitled: "Letting a few FACTS get in the way".
1) Meaning, the law that was to have been amended to consider The Broads (where this crash took place) as a...um...an unlimited "free-zone"?
2) We haven't heard from the Defense's boat-crash reconstructionist.
|
I guess we have now. Personally, neither of these so-called accident recontructionists sound very believable. I'm not sure why you continue to do these selective, and extremely partial quotes APS. I haven't let any facts slip in this case that I know of, I've even read all of the innuendo and injected statements of agenda, from you. Roll your eyes all you want skippy, but the state has made their charges based on the laws in force at that time, and they are still very pertinent today. I'm quite sure you know that.
But just to make double sure, we can both examine and compare our own personal positions on this matter. I don't care if the boat was going 18 mph or 25 mph or 33 mph. If it was in that range, it was too fast. If the skipper was impaired, a double whammy should be levied. That's my position, and it's been a consistent one. I gave up hope that you'd ever grow up, but try to be at least a little less disingenuous.
Sorry in advance Don for the tone.
Time to wait out the outcome of this trial.