Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[Skip]

Originally Posted by jeffk

...Since it seems to me that a vigorous defense would probably challenge any prosecution evidence that it could, the prosecutor may just be trying to be thorough by preparing the second charge. It might also be leverage to force a plea...

Hi Jeff,

You are absolutely correct, and this is standard procedure especially in cases involving alcohol and/or drugs and homicides.... plus a list of other felony offenses.

As an example, the Littlefield case involved multiple indictments.

Its a common practice that has been utilized for decades across the Country.

[Airwaves]

There is one more count to the indictment handed down that I am not familiar with. This is taken from the NH law firm blog I linked to in my last post.

one count of aggravated driving

What does that mean?

[trfour]

Airwaves, i think it means a simple case of road rage...

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

There is one more count to the indictment handed down that I am not familiar with. This is taken from the NH law firm blog I linked to in my last post.

What does that mean?

Elements of both the Union Leader story and the blog you cite are in error. That is why the best and only reliable source is the Belknap County Attorney's Office.

She is charged with negligent homicide in a dual indictment, a common practice in cases like this.

The stronger indictment is the aggravated DWI accusation with death resulting. This is a Class A felony, with a possible penalty of imprisonment in excess of seven years.

A "fall back" indictment, in case the State cannot get a conviction on the impairment evidence they intend to introduce, will be negligent homicide based on some aspects of the operation of the vessel that night. Less the proof of alcohol or drug impairment, Negligent Homicide is a Class B felony with possible imprisonment not to exceed 7 years.

For those wishing to research the matter further, penalty definitions can be found under RSA 625:9 and Negligent Homicide information can be found by perusing RSA 630:3.

Hope this clears it up a little better....

[Airwaves]

So is the third indictment the one actually involving an "accident"?

From Skip:
A Class A felony penalty is IN EXCESS OF 7 YEARS if she is convicted of being above the legal BAC.

A Class B felony penaly is NOT TO EXCEDE 7 YEARS is if she is convicted of NOT being above the legal BAC.

So the Aggrivated driving charge is if she is convicted of being.... ????

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So is the third indictment the one actually involving an "accident"?



So the Aggrivated driving charge is if she is convicted of being.... ????

As I stated earlier, both the Union Leader & the blog you cite have erroneous information.

There is no "aggravated driving" charge as there is no such RSA. Possibly the blog meant to state "aggravated driving while intoxicated".

There are 2 indictments presenting 2 different theories. Both indictments are for negligent homicide. The leading indictment is the Class A felony charge of negligent homicide/aggravated BWI. The second indictment, a Class B felony, is for negligent homicide due to operation.

It appears to me that both articles were mangled by inappropriate editing. A fairly common occurence within the news media and also in blogs where more than one individual is responsible for content.

[Airwaves]

Or...you could answer the question if you are able without being insulting and snarky!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Or...you could answer the question if you are able without being insulting and snarky!

You're welcome.

Have a very Merry Christmas!

[Sunrise Point]

Skip,

Thank you for your latest posts. I did not find them snarky or insulting at all but very informative.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Or...you could answer the question if you are able without being insulting and snarky!

Snarky - sarcastically critical or mocking and malicious

Not hardly!

Skip, thanks for all the unbiased legal and general wisdom you bring to this forum.

R2B

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Sunrise Point

Skip,
Thank you for your latest posts. I did not find them snarky or insulting at all but very informative.

This thread needs a "Thank You" button so I could also agree with that thought.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Sunrise Point

"...I did not find them snarky or insulting at all but very informative..."

Legal views can be expressed as opinions; worse, they can be misleading instruments through omissions. However, only the last paragraph can be construed as an opinion:

"...It appears to me that both articles were mangled by inappropriate editing. A fairly common occurence within the news media and also in blogs where more than one individual is responsible for content..."

In clear agreement with that media-bashing sentiment, Canadian newspaper columnist—and New Hampshire resident—Mark Steyn wrote this past Friday:

"...I loved the American newsrooms you saw in movies like "The Front Page," full of hard-boiled, hard-livin' newspapermen. By the time I got there myself, there were no hard-boiled newspapermen, just bland, anemic newspaperpersons turning out politically correct snooze sheets of torpid portentousness..."

Airwaves (as a member of the media) would, of course, see some "snarkiness" in Skip's post.

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Or...you could answer the question if you are able without being insulting and snarky!

I've read and reread Skip's response and only see it as stating the facts and very explanatory!

Happy Christmas to all and to all a goodnight... PIG

[trfour]

Have a Very Merry Christmas Everyone!

Card; http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcar...ode=XE13117730

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by Pine Island Guy

I've read and reread Skip's response and only see it as stating the facts and very explanatory!

Happy Christmas to all and to all a goodnight... PIG

Agreed. Skip is a valuable asset and he is explains things well. I didn't find his post insulting to anyone. Keep up the good work Skip.

[Airwaves]

APS got the sentence that Skip wrote that I found insulting given that Skip knows what I do for a living.

It appears to me that both articles were mangled by inappropriate editing. A fairly common occurence within the news media

I certainly know criminal lawyers and others who don't hold the investigative powers of many police officers in high esteem but I haven't used those comments to insult Skip.

I was asking legit questions trying to get inside the head of the prosecutors in this case.

Of course it was Skip that posted the link to the Union Leader article for "further details regarding the recent indictment" that he later said was "mangled by inappropriate editing". Nice research.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I was asking legit questions trying to get inside the head of the prosecutors in this case.

Of course it was Skip that posted the link to the Union Leader article for "further details regarding the recent indictment" that he later said was "mangled by inappropriate editing". Nice research.

If it comes from the media then it must be correct?

The media do make frequent mistakes in reporting. They go with what they think they know even if it is incorrect. You kept trying to get the forum to answer questions based on incorrect information, even after it was pointed out that it was likely to be incorrect.

Skip initially pointed out a source of information. When he realized that that source was incorrect and causing confusion he pointed out that it was incorrect, explained what was going on, and referenced a more reliable source. This was both helpful and responsible.

Further, this is a discussion forum. No one here is obligated to provide "researched" answers. We share our knowledge freely and sometimes go beyond the call and dig up more info when we can. Newspapers and other media on the other hand DO have a public obligation to provide factual information and not just gossip.

There was no snarkiness involved unless you are carrying a big chip on your shoulder.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Skip

As I stated earlier, both the Union Leader & the blog you cite have erroneous information.

There is no "aggravated driving" charge as there is no such RSA. Possibly the blog meant to state "aggravated driving while intoxicated".

There are 2 indictments presenting 2 different theories. Both indictments are for negligent homicide. The leading indictment is the Class A felony charge of negligent homicide/aggravated BWI. The second indictment, a Class B felony, is for negligent homicide due to operation.

It appears to me that both articles were mangled by inappropriate editing. A fairly common occurence within the news media and also in blogs where more than one individual is responsible for content.

Above is Skip's post. As everyone can see, there was no use at all of bold font in his post. However, some posters have replaced normal font with bold font when quoting Skip.

My opinion is when you quote someone, you should not 'bold-up' normal font to imbellish your position. That is clearly adding spin to enhance your point and really unfair.

I have no idea why some choose to jump all over a poster that has clearly gone out of his way to answer questions being asked by other posters, including themselves. I just do not get it.



R2B

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

My opinion is when you quote someone, you should not 'bold-up' normal font to imbellish your position. That is clearly adding spin to enhance your point and really unfair.


R2B

I don't think he was doing that to embellish his position, just to point out the "offending" comment. Had he NOT bolded it, I (and likely several others) might have never realized the offensive statement in question. Otherwise, I do agree with the sentiment of your post, but I don't think that was the case here.

The above being said, it does seem that "the media" often gets facts wrong, mangles things they don't understand and leaps to conclusions as if it's an Olympic event at times.

Skip always seems like a decent guy in his replies, I doubt he was trying to rankle anyone purposefully. If the linked-to article or comments contained errors, it's hardly his fault for pointing that out.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

I don't think he was doing that to embellish his position, just to point out the "offending" comment. Had he NOT bolded it, I (and likely several others) might have never realized the offensive statement in question. Otherwise, I do agree with the sentiment of your post, but I don't think that was the case here.

The above being said, it does seem that "the media" often gets facts wrong, mangles things they don't understand and leaps to conclusions as if it's an Olympic event at times.

Skip always seems like a decent guy in his replies, I doubt he was trying to rankle anyone purposefully. If the linked-to article or comments contained errors, it's hardly his fault for pointing that out.

I can see your point about highlighting.

My concern was, and still is, that some readers that did not read Skip's post would think Skip put some of the words in bold, which could be considered insulting to some readers. I saw no insult or ill intent in any of Skip's posts. That is my main point.

Merry Christmas and a Happy and Safe New Year to you and yours!

R2B

[Airwaves]

Here is how it works with media. The County Attorney releases the information to media usually via press release. Media looks at it and writes the story. If the reporter is good then he/she asks questions from the various sides of the story that were unanswered in the press release. Otherwise it's news via press release. (See Bush White House Press Corps)

Skip points to the Belknap County Attorney as the ultimate source of the indictment information and is correct on that point. However since the Belknap County Attorney does not post that particular public information on his website we (you and I ) can only see the information in the indictment from the press release (?) that he issued to NH media.

Jeffk wrote:

If it comes from the media then it must be correct?

Nope, just because it comes from media it is not automatically correct but there is a reasonable chance it is.

Since Skip quotes a NH media source...and the source I quoted was a NH law firm...

Skip quotes the Manchester Union Leader to provide us "further information" but later he trashes his own source and then blames my profession generally for routinely mangling information.

Didn't he read the Union Leader article first? If he did read it before linking us to it then he apparently was okay with it until I raised question about it.

Skip does not provide a link to the Belknap County Attorney, that he says is the ultimate source and, through his postings, leads one to believe that he has seen in order to provide us with the information he says his linked source (Union Leader) got wrong. He only states that media got it wrong again...hmmm No bashing there.

As a few of you got, I highlighted the offensive ignorant comment written by Skip.

Many of you take what Skip says as gospel. You should rethink that opinion.

I am evil, I am media, we question authority and then we tell YOU what we have learned. At least the good ones do.

[Lakepilot]

I have seen many times when the media is either incorrect or intentionally biased with one sided stories. I never assume the media is accurate.

Skip has clarified the issues for me relative to this tragedy much more then any of the media articles. His input is wanted an necessary.

He doesn't speak just to hear himself talk and he doesn't appear to have an ax to grind like others.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Lakepilot

I have seen many times when the media is either incorrect or intentionally biased with one sided stories. I never assume the media is accurate.

Skip has clarified the issues for me relative to this tragedy much more then any of the media articles. His input is wanted an necessary.

He doesn't speak just to hear himself talk and he doesn't appear to have an ax to grind like others.

I agree, thanks Skip for providing clear information.

[Phantom]

My Gawd Airwaves --- Give it a break!!

Until this bickering of yours ( a one sided view of a personal attack), this was an informative thread.

Happy Holidays .............. be thankful

[NoBozo]

I too am impressed with the knowledge that Skip lends to this Forum. There is no doubt Skip knows his Stuff. SO: Where does Skip get this knowledge? Just a concerned citizen? ......Just wondering. NoBozo

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Snip

I am evil, I am media, we question authority and then we tell YOU what we have learned. At least the good ones do.

Too few good ones, that's the problem. The media deserves it's reputation.




Check this so called journalist out:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...idency-success

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that --
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

Matthews wasn't done with his odd new job description . . . An incredulous Scarborough kept pressing, astonished at such a complete 180 from Matthews's repeated insistence during the Bush presidency that he had to hold the government accountable.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?
MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I too am impressed with the knowledge that Skip lends to this Forum. There is no doubt Skip knows his Stuff. SO: Where does Skip get this knowledge? Just a concerned citizen? ......Just wondering. NoBozo

I believe that Skip has mentioned in the past that he used to be in law enforcement.

[SIKSUKR]

Skip has proven himself countless times on his accuracy of the law.Nuff said.

[BroadHopper]

This post needs a thank you button.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Nope, just because it comes from media it is not automatically correct but there is a reasonable chance it is.

I disagree. Media tells stories, not necessarily the truth. Reporters talk to sources who may or may not provide accurate information. When it comes time to print the paper the story is written with what the reporter thinks that they know. Further, other people can edit the original story, sometimes skewing the original information. What we get is the best effort that can be produced in a limited time frame given the resources available.

In several instances where I have been in the know, I read the story in the paper and wondered where they got their incorrect information.

Further, in followup stories, as information evolves, the new information is often presented without comment that the original story was inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Skip points to the Belknap County Attorney as the ultimate source of the indictment information and is correct on that point. However since the Belknap County Attorney does not post that particular public information on his website we (you and I ) can only see the information in the indictment from the press release (?) that he issued to NH media.

Since Skip quotes a NH media source...and the source I quoted was a NH law firm...

Skip quotes the Manchester Union Leader to provide us "further information" but later he trashes his own source and then blames my profession generally for routinely mangling information.

Since Belknap County is the agreed ultimate source, if there is confusion about the content of the indictment it would make sense to go to the original source rather than to keep quoting the media article or a blog.

I would suggest that Skip did not reference Belknap initially because he knew it was not accessible on line. When he realized there was confusion he added his knowledge of the law, and I assume, information from people he is acquainted with in the department.

The NH Law firm source that you quote in turn quotes the Laconia Daily Sun for it's information about the indictment, another media source that probably got it's information from the same press release that the Union Leader did. We're not chasing our tails here are we? Further, is there any reason to believe that this law firm has any special insight into this case?

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Didn't he read the Union Leader article first? If he did read it before linking us to it then he apparently was okay with it until I raised question about it.

Skip gave a pointer to a publicly accessible source of information. He did not state that the article was absolutely accurate and he is not responsible for it's content. As questions arose he provided more information in a responsible manner.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Many of you take what Skip says as gospel. You should rethink that opinion.

Skip has, time and time again, provided well reasoned responses to questions of law, usually providing detailed references (RSAs) for those wanting to follow up. When additional questions have come up he has calmly and respectfully provided more details, examples, and occasionally his opinion on the law. On the occasion that he has missed a nuance of the law he has graciously accepted correction or extension of his original premise.

I don't take anyone's information as gospel but when someone consistently provides rational and respectful commentary backed up with solid references I consider that person as a very good source.

It seems that you have your own problems with law enforcement people and that seems to bias your views.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Skip has, time and time again, provided well reasoned responses to questions of law, usually providing detailed references (RSAs) for those wanting to follow up. When additional questions have come up he has calmly and respectfully provided more details, examples, and occasionally his opinion on the law. On the occasion that he has missed a nuance of the law he has graciously accepted correction or extension of his original premise.

I agree with the above quote!

Merry Christmas!

[Skip]

Hadn't visited this thread in a bit so I just noticed the kind words thrown my way....and just wanted to give a belated thanks to all of you!

Geesh, some of you even made me blush!!!!

Anyway, Happy New Year to all of you and above all else , please be safe!

Skip

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...I am evil, I am media, we question authority and then we tell YOU what we have learned. At least the good ones do..."

I've personally made newsprint on two occasions as a teen:

News item 1)
I was struck and injured by an outboard while swimming in Lake Winnipesaukee.

I swam under a moored boat and surfaced under an outboard motor that was tilted up out of the water. (With a minor cut to my scalp, requiring a trip to the ER, where the tale got to the press).

News item 2)
I was a fatality in a car wreck.

I'd had a wreck the day before—with no injuries to either party—but fortunately I was present when my folks first encountered that morning's newsprint report and read that account aloud to me.

That said, when you read an account like "your fatal wreck", you look at safety altogether differently.

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

So, how is this 'accident' different from the fatal car driving accidents experienced by US Senators Ted Kennedy, or New Hampshire's Styles Bridges?

Well, for starters, this one was in a boat.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by M/V_Bear_II

Well, for starters, this one was in a boat.

And charges were filed. Looks like there will be a trial. Maybe that robed lady holding the balance beam will be served. What was the point again ?

[Jeti]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

From the LaDaSun, earlier this week, there's new info.

She waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty. The court says no boat driving, no contact with the deceaseds' family, and received a $75,000 bond. Her lawyer is Attorney Moir from Manchester. Trial is set to begin in May or June.

So, how is this 'accident' different from the fatal car driving accidents experienced by US Senators Ted Kennedy, or New Hampshire's Styles Bridges? Senator Bridges has a section of Route 93, as well as the NH governor's mansion named after him, and he supposedly was the driver of a black Packard that killed a young woman pedestrian in Bow in 1938.

In many countries, such as in Mexico, a similar boating accident would get settled out of court.

Kennedy's head is imploding for the unjust death he caused.. What goes around come around they say!! The rat crawled home and did not get bagged & tagged for being wasted!!

[Skip]

Defendant's attorney is attempting to have the results of her blood test excluded. Story from today's Citizen can be read HERE.

[jeffk]

Well, this is not really a surprise move as part of a vigorous defense. This is the essential evidence for the charge that includes BWI. If it is excluded that charge will be very difficult to prove.

It also shows a weakness of getting a blood sample from a third party (hospital) rather than the police drawing it themselves. It required a warrant that can be challenged.

We still don't know what the BAC was. We now know that Shinopolous said they had a couple of drinks earlier, didn't finish them, and didn't think that Blizzard was drunk. Her testimony doesn't sound very damning since the same could be said for a majority of people that go out for the evening but it does establish they were drinking.

Given the seriousness of the accident I would think that might justify the warrant but I'm not sure how much wiggle room there is in "probable cause". It is based on whether a "reasonable man" would conclude that a crime HAS been committed based on the facts available, in this case as presented in the warrant.

It seems to me the warrant was a little sloppy. Drinking is not a crime. Is 2 drinks excessive drinking (which is a crime when operating a vehicle) ? How long ago did they drink? How much was really consumed? Were the beer cans from an outing last week? If the warrant required convincing evidence of legal intoxication it seems lacking.

All that said, I will make a guess that the BAC was over the limit, why bother to exclude evidence that doesn't hurt you? The BAC may get tossed out but the reality will remain.

This remains a tragedy.

[secondcurve]

"All that said, I will make a guess that the BAC was over the limit, why bother to exclude evidence that doesn't hurt you? The BAC may get tossed out but the reality will remain."

The above sentence sums it up nicely. Why exclude the evidence if it doesn't implicate you?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

"...Why exclude the evidence if it doesn't implicate you...?"

Excluded BAC evidence won't be heard by the jury.

(Until after the trial, that is).

[HUH]

I can't understand rabid need to fully prosecute Ms Blizzard just because she was a speed limit opponent. It was an accident, yes alchohol may have been a contributing factor but nonetheless it was an accident. Does anyone realy think Ms Blizzard intentionaly meant to harm her friends?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by HUH

I can't understand rabid need to fully prosecute Ms Blizzard just because she was a speed limit opponent. It was an accident, yes alchohol may have been a contributing factor but nonetheless it was an accident. Does anyone realy think Ms Blizzard intentionaly meant to harm her friends?

I don't think her involvement with the speed limit situation makes a bit of difference; she killed someone. If she was indeed drunk, she needs to be punished harshly. If she was sober, she still needs to be punished. She was obviously operating in an unsafe manner, even if she did not mean to be.

I oppose the speed limit.

[Lakewinn1]

Dave R...

Let's let the facts and evidence by presented & viewed by a jury of her peers before we pass judgement !

If she was impared and or guilty of a monor boat violation she should receive punishment but lets not pre-judge her on what we think we know.....

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by HUH

I can't understand rabid need to fully prosecute Ms Blizzard just because she was a speed limit opponent. It was an accident, yes alchohol may have been a contributing factor but nonetheless it was an accident. Does anyone realy think Ms Blizzard intentionaly meant to harm her friends?

If it hadn't been an accident she would be up on worse charges, like murder.

No, of course it was not her intent to kill her friend. However her intent and my sympathy have no bearing on anything. The law says, and rightly so, that you can not contribute to someone's death and just say "Oops, So sorry. My bad."

The operator of a vehicle is responsible for damages done by that vehicle.

I would think the only extenuating circumstance would be if something serious happened to the mechanicals of the boat like the throttle jammed or the steering failed. No one has suggested that is what happened.

If she is proven guilty she will pay the penalty, as any of us would in the same situation. This is justice.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Dave R...

Let's let the facts and evidence by presented & viewed by a jury of her peers before we pass judgement !

If she was impared and or guilty of a monor boat violation she should receive punishment but lets not pre-judge her on what we think we know.....

If the results of the blood alcohol test showed she wasn't impaired when she hit the island her attorney would allow them in as evidence because they would prove her innocence. The only reason to try and stop them from being admitted into evidence is because they show she was over the legal limit. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

[Turtle Boy]

Does anyone know what has happened to the NHRBA? I've noticed that their website has gone missing.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Does anyone know what has happened to the NHRBA? I've noticed that their website has gone missing.

Not sure that is relevant to this thread, other than as a mechanism to incite unrest.

[HUH]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I don't think her involvement with the speed limit situation makes a bit of difference; she killed someone. If she was indeed drunk, she needs to be punished harshly. If she was sober, she still needs to be punished. She was obviously operating in an unsafe manner, even if she did not mean to be.

"She needs to be punished if she was sober".. WOW

[NoBozo]

I guess maybe I'm being a little ...stupid.. .Maybe I'm thinking too much. There were three persons in the boat. It would seem they were not forced to climb aboard. They were all presumably having a good time ...prior to the accident.

If the NON drivers were NOT drunk..and they boarded the boat of their own free will....OR: If the NON drivers WERE drunk and boarded the boat of there own free will.....Do they not bear any responsibility for THEIR actions? SO: Is the driver MORE Guilty of Indiscretions than the passengers... in either case? Why single out the driver for prosecution? Seems to me they were all contributors to the final result. Just wondering.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I guess maybe I'm being a little ...stupid.. .Maybe I'm thinking too much. There were three persons in the boat. It would seem they were not forced to climb aboard. They were all presumably having a good time ...prior to the accident.

If the NON drivers were NOT drunk..and they boarded the boat of their own free will....OR: If the NON drivers WERE drunk and boarded the boat of there own free will.....Do they not bear any responsibility for THEIR actions? SO: Is the driver MORE Guilty of Indiscretions than the passengers... in either case? Why single out the driver for prosecution? Seems to me they were all contributors to the final result. Just wondering.

The answer is the responsibility rests solely with the operator. When an operator takes control of a vehicle/boat, it is incumbent upon he/she to handle the vehicle/boat in a manner that is consistent with applicable laws. Forcing passengers to make split second evaluations of operators is not practical and would place an unfair burden upon them. Imagine getting on a bus, a plane or in a taxi and being forced to evaluate the operator?

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by HUH

"She needs to be punished if she was sober".. WOW

I believe Dave's point is she could be responsible for reckless driving even if she were not impaired by alcohol.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Dave R...

Let's let the facts and evidence by presented & viewed by a jury of her peers before we pass judgement !

If she was impared and or guilty of a monor boat violation she should receive punishment but lets not pre-judge her on what we think we know.....

Not pre-judging, she did kill someone. It's not like the island crashed into the boat.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by jeffk

...I would think the only extenuating circumstance would be if something serious happened to the mechanicals of the boat like the throttle jammed or the steering failed. No one has suggested that is what happened...

Assuming the BAC is excluded and taken out of the equation, then she is charged with Negligent Homicide. There is a big gray area between broken mechnicals and negligence.

It's by no means a guarantee that a jury will find her guilty of negligence, it gets into a judgement call. Was she going too fast, did she have a proper lookout, was she distracted, it gets messy in a hurry. If you take booze out of the picture, this is a much different case.

An accident that causes a death is not automatically a homicide.

[SIKSUKR]

I'll address 2 questions here:

First,If Erica's BAC was just under .08 she would still be considered impaired so I could understand why it would want to be excluded.

Second,do you believe that any vehicle accident that does not involve alchohol should punish the operator for said accident?

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Second,do you believe that any vehicle accident that does not involve alchohol should punish the operator for said accident?

Of course not. What Dave R is saying is only if negligence is involved, i.e talking on a cell phone, speeding, running a red light, etc.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by jrc

Assuming the BAC is excluded and taken out of the equation, then she is charged with Negligent Homicide. There is a big gray area between broken mechnicals and negligence.

It's by no means a guarantee that a jury will find her guilty of negligence, it gets into a judgement call. Was she going too fast, did she have a proper lookout, was she distracted, it gets messy in a hurry. If you take booze out of the picture, this is a much different case.

An accident that causes a death is not automatically a homicide.

I believe there is a concept in maritime law that you must do all you can to avoid a collision. The simple fact that she had a collision means she failed in her responsibilities as an operator. You can quibble over the specifics of exactly how that happened. Unless she could prove that she took all reasonable actions and was somehow prevented (someone grabbed the wheel, mechanical failure) from maneuvering the boat out of harm's way I think she will be shown responsible for the accident.

I agree juries are funny creatures and can do just about anything these days.

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I'll address 2 questions here:

First,If Erica's BAC was just under .08 she would still be considered impaired so I could understand why it would want to be excluded.

Second,do you believe that any vehicle accident that does not involve alchohol should punish the operator for said accident?

1)You're probably right. Better to have nebulous information that she had "something to drink" than to to have factual information of alcohol use, even if it was under the limit.

2)I could postulate a scenario where a driver was going reasonably slow in winter conditions and hit glare ice and ended up killing someone. Do I think they should be "punished"? Probably not. The problem is that there is a major difference between operating a car and a boat. Operator responsibilities for cars are often very specific, you have lines on the road for Pete's sake. Operator responsibilities for a boat are much broader and easier to screw up. For example, what is a proper lookout? I think I could make a strong argument that hitting the island proves that the lookout was not "proper". I could also make the case that she hit the island because she was going too fast. Was there a GPS on the boat? Was she using it? There's no law that says you have to have a GPS or that you must use it but I could make the case that by not using available GPS, especially in fog, that she was not maintaining a proper lookout. The list is endless. Most of us make similar mistakes all the time but most of us don't end up running into an island. The collision changes everything.

I'm not trying to bash her. I'm very sympathetic to her. I just think once you have a boat collision of this magnitude it will be almost impossible to escape responsibility for it. And it you are responsible, legal consequences follow.

We'll see how it plays out.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Second,do you believe that any vehicle accident that does not involve alchohol should punish the operator for said accident?

Not any accident, but I would like to see people punished more often than they are. People get issued tickets for speeding all the time, based on the fact that they might be more likely to have an accident becuase they are exceeding a limit, yet when someone actually has an accident, there's ofen no ticket issued. Seems backwards to me.

[Lakewinn1]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Not pre-judging, she did kill someone. It's not like the island crashed into the boat.

''

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!

[VitaBene]

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"

[Bear Islander]

If the operator is impaired, it's not an accident.

It's a crime!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

''

Dave since you claim your not pre-judging what facts do you have that leads you to your opinion?

She crashed a boat into Diamond Island causing the death of a passenger onboard.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Dave R

She crashed a boat into Diamond Island causing the death of a passenger onboard.

Actually until the facts are out we don't know that she did that or something happened to cause the boat to crash into the island. We all can agree that a death did occur as a result of the boat crashing into the island, we just don't know what lead to the crash (yet) and if a crime occured or a horrible accident happened. We'll know soon.

[ITD]

Sorry people, but if she wasn't impaired by alcohol or another illegal substance, she should be let go and left alone.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I believe there is a concept in maritime law that you must do all you can to avoid a collision. The simple fact that she had a collision means she failed in her responsibilities as an operator...

She is not being charged under maritime law. I think you are equating civil responsibility with being guilty of a crime. The burden of proof is very different. She does not have to prove anything, the state has to prove she was negligent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remember, the jury will not include people that know Winnipesaukee at night or that know how hard it is to drive a boat at night. Or if her speed was unreasonable.

I'm not saying that she is innocent, just that without evidence of intoxication, this is far from a slam dunk. My guess is if the BAC evidence is excluded she walks with no jail time. Probably will be a plea bargain.

[Bear Islander]

What alcohol?

What accident?

What crime?

[jrc]

What's with all the semantic wrangling?

It's still an accident even if she was drop dead drunk and travelling 100 mph with her eyes closed. Just because it was an accident doesn't mean it wasn't a serious crime. No one believes she meant to hit the island and kill her friend, so it has to be an accident. It can still be a crime.

Same goes with impaired. She's charged with being intoxicated. She's suspected of drinking to much booze. Impaired can mean anything, tired, drowsy, upset, or sick with a cold.

You can't change the English language just because something makes you mad.

[Lakewinn1]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

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"

VitaBene please read post #442....... Dave R seems to come across as if he has facts not just his opinion 9this is where we do not agree). While I agree with most of your points .. my point is that we all have opinions but I think we should let her be judged by her peers......If she's found guilty I agree she should be punished If she's not well you get the idea....

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

VitaBene please read post #442....... Dave R seems to come across as if he has facts not just his opinion 9this is where we do not agree). While I agree with most of your points .. my point is that we all have opinions but I think we should let her be judged by her peers......If she's found guilty I agree she should be punished If she's not well you get the idea....

I stand by my statement that she crashed a boat into Diamond Island and that a person died because of it. Not sure how anyone could possibly disagree with that. Her lawyers are not going to argue that she did not hit the island or that no one really died. That's just silly. The best they can hope for is to shift blame to some mechanical failure or weather distraction, but regardless of the outcome of the trial, we, as boaters, all know who was ultimately responsible, the skipper.

[Lakewinn1]

Dave my point of focus is that she should be tried in a court of law not in the court of public opinion.

Clearly understand that she crashed into Diamond a Island resulting in tragic fatality. It's understandable we all have our opinions however we have laws that govern us as a society ... so lets let the court of law determine her fate.

[codeman671]

I have to agree with Dave on this. It was ultimately her responsibility. Even taking the alcohol out of the equation she failed to maintain a proper lookout which resulted in the death of a friend. The boat had plenty of electronics, the boat is equipped with safety features such as a "dead-man" (not trying to make a tasteless pun) to stop the engines during an emergency situation, and she knows the lake as good as anyone. The island hasn't moved...

Even if something mechanical failed such as BOTH throttles jammed, the steering failed, etc there was still key switches to kill engines, the deadman to pull to stop them, and heck even a stern to jump off if they saw it coming. If someone can prove that her electronics were all out, the mechanical systems all failed at once just prior to crash and that the weather conditions were too poor to see then maybe I'd buy into it but that is highly unlikely.

No, she did not intend to kill her friend but I could see a negligent homocide case being a ruling. Ultimately it was still her fault/responsibility in the end.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Dave my point of focus is that she should be tried in a court of law not in the court of public opinion.

Clearly understand that she crashed into Diamond a Island resulting in tragic fatality. It's understandable we all have our opinions however we have laws that govern us as a society ... so lets let the court of law determine her fate.

My goal here is to make people think about their actions in the future and prevent the next tragic accident. This accident has made me second guess some of my prior actions and will affect my future actions as well. The last thing I want to have happen here is for people to think "oh, it was just an accident that could not be avoided" and fail to make corrections in their own behavior while waiting for the jury to come back with a verdict. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, we can all learn from this accident.

[fpartri497]

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Dave my point of focus is that she should be tried in a court of law not in the court of public opinion.

Clearly understand that she crashed into Diamond a Island resulting in tragic fatality. It's understandable we all have our opinions however we have laws that govern us as a society ... so lets let the court of law determine her fate.

( let the court determine her guilt or innocense )


Great Idea people, Let It go

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by fpartri497

( let the court determine her guilt or innocense )


Great Idea people, Let It go

OK, and I've seen many references here about letting the jury decide guilt or innocence, but it seems to me that this is a forum to discuss issues that may be inherently controversial....that's what a forum is all about (definition of forum: a public meeting or assembly for open discussion). No one expects to be judge or jury but it's not unreasonable to discuss facts and opinion here, otherwise we should all be moving to the weather forum. What seems unfortunate is when someone (for example who may be a friend of someone involved in the accident) wants to squelch reasonable and civil discussion of facts and opinion. It would be like saying that no one should be able to discuss the OJ trial before the verdict is in (and this case also drew national attention last June because of the inherent controversies involved).

[Lakewinn1]

I believe we are discussing and sharing our opinions as you suggest.

[KonaChick]

The court system will decide her fate however the hell that she lives everyday and will live for the rest of her life is her ultimate consequence. Jail time cannot even begin to compare to that....

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

The court system will decide her fate however the hell that she lives everyday and will live for the rest of her life is her ultimate consequence. Jail time cannot even begin to compare to that....

That is exactly the kind of reponse I was hoping for. I want people to think about this tragedy every time they are at the helm, especially those of us that know the lake well enough to cruise "with confidence" at night. It can happen to anyone.

[ITD]

Was that for me BI? Still stirring it up I see. I'd even give you the benefit of the doubt, if you were in her circumstance.

The law seems pretty specific here, 0.08 blood level is intoxicated, furthermore 0.03 along with other evidence can be used to determine you are intoxicated.

Innocent until proven guilty, one of the premier premises of our judicial system. Apparently some don't believe in that, or are willing to throw it aside to promote their agenda and justify their methods in their own head.

[Mink Islander]

Sorry ITD, it certainly is not a case of "Sorry people, but if she wasn't impaired by alcohol or another illegal substance, she should be let go and left alone". Alcohol or or drugs would only impact some of the charges she faces -- it's seems likely a crime was committed regardless (manslaughter chief among them).

You simply don't run into an island at relatively high speed at night, in the rain without violating some pretty fundamental boating laws. Can any experienced boater on the lake say with a straight face that this could happen to anyone?? C'mon. Only if you all drive like idiots. I have to travel around 4 miles to get from Sheps to my place on Mink -- often at night. Sometimes when there's no moon, or there's fog or heavy rain. And you know what, you adjust your speed based on the conditions, regardless of how familiar they are with the area. You MUST keep an even more careful watch when visibility is reduced because it's hard enough to see other boats at night in clear moonlit conditions, let alone judge distances well or see things in your path. She should have been going very slow given how bad the conditions were. I remember that night. The skipper has the obligation to maintain a safe watch and to maintain a safe speed for the conditions -- neither seems to have happened here. My bet is the skipper was flying on instruments, relying on a GPS to navigate while blindly going far too fast. Pretty foolish. Someone died as a result. Others were seriously injured (including the skipper herself).

Regardless of her other suffering, she still has to answer the criminal charges and if convicted, receive her just punishment. I'm have some confidence that the courts will take into account her personal suffering and remorse if/when she's convicted/sentenced. I feel sorry for her and all the families affected here -- I truly do. She has quite a burden to carry the rest of her life.

I just hope we all keep in mind how preventable this whole thing was.

[Lakewinn1]

Mink Islander .... I agree ... well said!

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by ITD

Sorry people, but if she wasn't impaired by alcohol or another illegal substance, she should be let go and left alone.

While, if I stretch a bit, I can see your point, I'm not sure I agree.
I'm guessing what you mean is that an accident is something anyone can have. Just a very unfortunate set of circumstances that come together at the same time, and result in tragedy. No evil, or ill will intented, it just happens. Why should someone go to jail?
But, wouldn't her speed, in the darkness of a overcast, rainy night be consider negligent? Very poor judgement at best. Her very poor judgement, then tuned into something much worse. The event occured because she acted in this way. I would think an island would be a pretty easy thing to avoid. Even at night, if operating in a reasonable manner, I would think it would be easy to see you are approaching an island.

I guess there probably are some situations where a terrible/fatal accident could take place, and an operator should not go to jail. But this is not one of them.
I came very close to having a pretty bad accident on the lake this past summer (I posted the story on his forum) in the middle of a bright, sunny, crystal clear afternoon. Although I was alone, I wonder what would have happened if I had a passenger(s), and had critically wounded them. Tough to think about. But my guess is that the captain is responsilbe for the safety of their passengers at all times. No questions.

[Skip]

Obviously there is still a lot of emotion on both sides of this issue.

That said, I think both Mink Islander and Jeff K. have been pretty spot on with their input.

But let me bring everyone back to square one.

Yes, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

And yes, the defendant has opened herself to additional scrutiny by willingly accepting the very public role of president of the apparently now defunct NHRBA.

That said to date we know the following:

The State believes that the crash and subsequent death were caused by drugs and or alcohol. They had enough probable cause to convince a judge of the same, hence the warrant and subsequent blood samples. They also convinced a grand jury to offer up a Class A felony indictment based on this.

The defendant's attorneys are uncomfortable with the results of those tests are and excercising all legal ability to have that evidence suppressed.

The State, if unable to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, then feels that the operation of the boat that night at least rose to the level of negligent homicide. Hence, they convinced a grand jury to issue a dual indictment, with the second being a Class B felony.

To those who think that a conviction and jail time are not possible if the blood tests are excluded, I only need to remind you of the outcome and jail time of convicted felon Dan Littlefield. I understand ITD's point of view, but I will remind him that there are a lot of folks that have been imprisoned for causing death where intoxication has not been able to be established as the primary cause.

Once again, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And an indictment is not a proof of guilt, as we are constantly reminded by the media.

But given that the defendant comes from a powerful family with extensive political connections, and has exposed herself to scrutiny by voluntarily assuming a high profile lobbying position, it is only human nature that people will take an extra interest in the case.

As others have said, collisions like this should simply not occur. A healthy and respectful discussion of the events surrounding this collision should be encouraged, if it simply prevents such an occurence from happening again, or educates folks by seeing exactly how our legal system operates.

Finally, nowhere in my above opinion do you see the word "accident" appear. I think the use of the word "accident" in tragedies like this is misleading. While I await the decision of a full and fair trial I have long ago established my personal opinion that this collision and subsequent injuries and death were not the result of an accident.

Now, like all of us, I await to see if a jury comes to some of the same conclusions I have come to believe are true.

[ITD]

No need to be sorry MI, that's your opinion and a pretty good argument. Here's one of my problems with this, I haven't been following this too closely but I don't believe any forensics have been published on this accident. We get back to the argument of what high speed is. In the end she was certainly going too fast because someone died in an accident. However I am having a very hard time believing she was going much over 20 or 25 mph. If I am right, the question I have is would a reasonable person think 25 mph is too fast at night. I would have to argue no, a reasonable person would think 25 mph is a safe speed at night, because we now have a law that implies that is so. This was an accident. If she was impaired by alcohol, then she should have to deal with the consequences. If not, then I think this is a case of bad luck that could happen to any of us, even if there is negligence involved. This Sokolove mentality that any one who is negligent needs to pay is BS. Everyone is negligent at one point or another in there lives, some are lucky and no one is hurt, others are not so lucky. If the families involved bring civil action, that's another matter.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ITD

... I am having a very hard time believing she was going much over 20 or 25 mph. If I am right, the question I have is would a reasonable person think 25 mph is too fast at night. I would have to argue no, a reasonable person would think 25 mph is a safe speed at night, because we now have a law that implies that is so...

I don't want to get in a back & forth with you ITD, I have much respect for you and your opinion. But I do have to clarify your position on the new law.

The new law mandates that the maximum speed you can travel at night on Winnipesaukee is 25 MPH. You can only operate up to that speed if conditions allow you to do so safely. If the conditions warrant a lower speed, such as fog, rain, crowded conditions or mechanical issues then you can still be guilty of negfligent operation at a speed less than 25. Do not forget the caveat contained within the law.....reasonable and prudent.

Back to the thread at hand. I think that unless a gross mechanical or temporary physical impairment occurred just prior to the collison, a reasonable person is going to conclude that striking an island and causing serious injury and death infers that the craft was not being operated at a reasonable and prudent speed given the conditions present that evening.

Time will tell....

[jrc]

Skip, I'm not clear what issue you have with the word accident. It's a perfectly good word to describe an unintended collision. But I'm not going to beat that dead horse.

My point is that with clear evidence of intoxication this is a slam dunk gulity verdict. Without the booze it get to be more of a challenge to get a jury to find her guilty. Littlefield left the scene, and there was plenty of evidence pointing to his intoxication. This really doesn't sit well with a jury. Sure she was a visible anti-speed limit cursader and that will work against her. I still think it depends on the facts of the case.

The jury will not be boaters. If the evidence comes out that she was traveling 25 mph and the new speed limit is 25 mph that will sway the jury. Sure we all know from driver's ed that you can't do the posted limit in bad weather, but we also all know from our everyday lives that most speed limits are set too low. We also have heard conflicting evidence on how bad the visibilty was. Non-boaters have no idea how dangerous it is to drive a boat fast in those conditions. Now if the speed evidence points to a much faster speeds, then the scale tips the other way.

We will just have to watch and see. I'm not saying that she is innocent, just that a jury may not convict her.

[Bear Islander]

As usual, Skip is the voice of reason.

In the last 30 years I have been unlucky enough to know 3 people killed by operators under the influence in 3 separate incidents (not accidents). Two of them were my employees. I no longer have any compassion, understanding or forgiveness for people that drink and drive.

If reading a thread like this makes just one person think twice, then the thread has value.

[overlook]

I believe there is a boating law that if you are convicted for a violation and the state can prove that any amount of alcohol was involved,( judgment does not need to be impaired or over the limit). You can be in violation of consuming while operating. I recall you can consume alcohol (under the limit)while operating but you cannot be in any boating violation and consuming. What the violation is called I do not remember.

2cents

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by ITD

... If I am right, the question I have is would a reasonable person think 25 mph is too fast at night. I would have to argue no, a reasonable person would think 25 mph is a safe speed at night, ...

I would agree that 25 is safe if you have unimpaired visibility and know you are in a safe position to be going at that speed. I have several times at night
found myself uncertain of my position or with reduced visibility and I slowed to minimum speed or stopped. At that point 25 was not a safe speed. There is no absolute safe speed. It depends on the conditions and by descriptions that night it was foggy and visibility was limited. I have to believe she couldn't see the island because if she had she would have turned. A reasonable person would have stopped or slowed once visibility was limited.

I also think we are splitting semantic hairs over whether to call this an accident. One definition of an accident is "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance". This event seems to qualify. However there are plenty of legal definitions of responsibility for damage or death as a result of such an accident. The law simply assigns a different level of consequence compared to damages or death caused with intent. People are held responsible and punished for accidents all the time and what she is charged with is only one example of such a law.

Here's a less charged example. If you hired a person to clear trees on your property and he dropped one on your house thereby damaging it wouldn't you expect him to pay for fixing the damage. Surely it was an "accident" but you would be legally entitled to compensation.

I had previously given an example of sliding on glare ice. I had such an accident but was fortunate enough not to kill anyone. I did damage someone's property and guess what, I had to pay for it. I was going only about 15 MPH, had snow tires, have anti-lock brakes, and there was absolutely nothing I could do to control the car. I got no ticket but I was still responsible.

Obviously those were civil rather than criminal examples but it establishes the principal of responsibility for accidental damage. For some accidents, such as negligent homicide, a criminal penalty is attached as well.

There is nothing unfair about her prosecution. Any one of us would be and should be subject to the same treatment. She has a chance to defend herself in the court and we'll see what the result is.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

As usual, Skip is the voice of reason.

In the last 30 years I have been unlucky enough to know 3 people killed by operators under the influence in 3 separate incidents (not accidents). Two of them were my employees. I no longer have any compassion, understanding or forgiveness for people that drink and drive.

If reading a thread like this makes just one person think twice, then the thread has value.

BI,

Great post!

The only value that comes out of these incidents is awakening those that think it will only happen to someone else. We all need to be very careful out there, and respect all of the current laws.

R2B

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave R

That is exactly the kind of reponse I was hoping for. I want people to think about this tragedy every time they are at the helm, especially those of us that know the lake well enough to cruise "with confidence" at night. It can happen to anyone.

I understood what you meant Dave. I've had a couple of those "experiences" which my mind thought long and hard about later on. It changed my view of things. I'm still Free Spirit, but I'm also regarded as one of the more cautious pilots out on the water. At least I hope I am.

Sometimes it takes a close call, or just a modest shake-up to get people to realize what's going on. I'm certainly not anal about safety and wearing swim caps in the water to fend off boats. But I take my responsibility as skipper very seriously. This year, I'm actually briefing newbies that come aboard.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I have several times at night
found myself uncertain of my position or with reduced visibility and I slowed to minimum speed or stopped. At that point 25 was not a safe speed. There is no absolute safe speed. It depends on the conditions and by descriptions that night it was foggy and visibility was limited. I have to believe she couldn't see the island because if she had she would have turned. A reasonable person would have stopped or slowed once visibility was limited.

Deja Vu Jeff. I once found myself heading towards a land mass and questioning myself as to why I didn't think it was the right way. I made a flimsy excuse to my passengers about a bug in my eye, then slowed to a stop.


I go too slow when it's less than perfect out at night, even in the daytime. But sometimes it's inevitable that you make mistakes. Some mistakes hurt worse than others. When others are in my boat, I'm pretty anal about it.

[Seadoo]

Originally Posted by Dave R

My goal here is to make people think about their actions in the future and prevent the next tragic accident. This accident has made me second guess some of my prior actions and will affect my future actions as well.

so dave if you are second guessing some of your prior actions you are admitting that you too make mistakes, we all do. Lets let the professionals choose her fate, give it a rest.

[VitaBene]

You are the the one who could have let this thread fall down on the forum, instead of posting a comment like that.

We have all made mistakes in our life, but few if any of us have driven a boat into an island resulting in a fatality. It is true that her fate will be decided in a court of law and she will be judged by a jury of her peers, however, this is a forum and people are entitled and encouraged to post their thoughts. Our esteemed webmaster is the arbitrar of what can be posted here.

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What alcohol?

What accident?

What crime?

You're already the prosecutor, jury and judge by posting this DUMB post? Tell me honestly, that YOU or one in your FAMILY has NEVER opperated a motor vehicle (i.e automobile, boat, motorcycle, etc. etc.) under the influence of ANY substance where they MAY HAVE jeopordized others? You are a DOPE!

[Winnipesaukee]

Originally Posted by Tank151

You're already the prosecutor, jury and judge by posting this DUMB post? Tell me honestly, that YOU or one in your FAMILY has NEVER opperated a motor vehicle (i.e automobile, boat, motorcycle, etc. etc.) under the influence of ANY substance where they MAY HAVE jeopordized others? You are a DOPE!

Are you kidding? The vast, vast, majority of this society have not.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Tank151

You're already the prosecutor, jury and judge by posting this DUMB post? Tell me honestly, that YOU or one in your FAMILY has NEVER opperated a motor vehicle (i.e automobile, boat, motorcycle, etc. etc.) under the influence of ANY substance where they MAY HAVE jeopordized others? You are a DOPE!

Tank,

Please see post #485 in this thread.

Some people have lost friends and family to people trying to operate while under the influence. Those that have lost loved ones feel the hurt for the rest of their lives.

Others believe that operating under is OK as long as they do not get caught.

Operating under is very wrong. It is also wrong to believe it is OK to do this. This is completely unacceptable in my mind.

Regarding the incident that is the subject of this thread, please let the legal process work. Let the evidence, the judge and the jury do their jobs.

R2B

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Tank,

Please see post #485 in this thread.

Some people have lost friends and family to people trying to operate while under the influence. Those that have lost loved ones feel the hurt for the rest of their lives.

Others believe that operating under is OK as long as they do not get caught.

Operating under is very wrong. It is also wrong to believe it is OK to do this. This is completely unacceptable in my mind.

Regarding the incident that is the subject of this thread, please let the legal process work. Let the evidence, the judge and the jury do their jobs.

R2B

Resident2B
I'm not condoning driving while under the influence! I too have had friends injured and or killed by OUI operators. BUT, many folks here on this forum have already convicting this young woman before the trial and EVIDENCE has even been presented to convict her? The Blizzard family also ha sto endure this tradegy!!! Yes, I agree let the judge and jury do their jobs! But please don't portray that I condone operating under the influence!

[VtSteve]

A very long time ago, I tried to make a point about agendas and facts with another poster. He said, and I quote,

2BD
"It was cloudy, but the visibility after midnight was fine for me. It was dark, but like it's always dark after midnight. Laconia Airport had three miles of visibility. The moon was full (Gibbous moon), and was overhead at 2AM. Posters at the BoaterEd.com forum are being very critical of operating this boat in fog. Those who witnessed conditions at the time know better.
"

Those who are seasoned, responsible boaters, will mostly agree that the two safest ways to handle poor visibility due to rain and/or fog are to a) don't go out on the water if possible, and b) slow down and keep a very vigilant lookout.

That was back in the bad old days of the SL debates. Many of us that didn't support the new law were swift to point out the conditions and other possible problems leading up to a horrific tragedy on the water. Many that did support the law did likewise. A small and quite vocal minority that only had a pro SL agenda, saw their agenda becoming meaningless. If pro SL folks were shown to be experienced boaters that cared about safety, and aware and respectful of conditions, and the perils of boating under the influence, they felt their agenda would be diminished.

Regardless of all the BS, we move on. As DaveR stated eloquently, if tragedies like this stick in our minds, and make us even more diligent in our own experiences, the discussions were all worth it. I know I think about things like this whenever I'm out on the water, and I know I'm not immune from either conditions or just flat out mistakes. There's been some great wisdom shared on these boards, and I think I'm not alone in thanking Don for handling it all in a respectful and mature manner.

And with that, I wish everyone out there a happy and safe boating season.

[Skip]

Channel 9 (WMUR-TV) is reporting this morning that Blizzard's defense team continue to argue to have the results of the blood sampling suppressed. The State is arguing that these tests, when revealed, will show the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision.

Most likely there will be some type of on-line report to be referenced later this morning.

[Lakewinn1]

Does anyone know the specific court date & location? Will the public be able to view the proceedings?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Tank151

You're already the prosecutor, jury and judge by posting this DUMB post? Tell me honestly, that YOU or one in your FAMILY has NEVER opperated a motor vehicle (i.e automobile, boat, motorcycle, etc. etc.) under the influence of ANY substance where they MAY HAVE jeopordized others? You are a DOPE!

Yes, I can tell you honestly that neither I nor any member of my family has ever operated a vehicle under the influence of any substance. In our family it simply is not done. PERIOD!

I guess, from you comment, operating under the influence is not uncommon with you. That makes you the dope. Or on dope!