The March 27 www.cmonitor.com has a report on the Route 93, speeding-texting incident too, along with a number of informed and intelligent reader email replies.;) But, nothing from the state's biggest circulation newspaper, the Union Leader?

Why is it that everyone is at fault except Erica Blizzard ? She is incapable of exercising good judgment - PERIOD.

I'll bite.
 

I'll bite at your question.....

I do not believe anyone is "defending" Erica and the accident in ony of the posts. Posters are only pointing out surrounding conditions and events based on experiences. This creates a rich thread of multiple perspectives by Winni Forum members. Their thoughts about speed traps, road conditions, or boating conditions are formed as the thread progresses and drifts from the origional post.

There is no "period" or forums would no longer exist.

I agree with Lawn Psycho, but not in defense of what Erica did, I simply felt the report form the cop involved was a bit too subjective and it seemed like he had an axe to grind. Also, I find it amazing that all it takes is a moving violation and suddenly people who gave a convicted killer the benefit of doubt are only now convinced she's bad news.

Sorry if I was too definitive but I couldn't help but feel that there were excuses again being made for Erica's behavior. I agree that police are not always the most accurate but even if the trooper was only partially correct she was totally out of line and again showed extremely bad judgement. We all know that many drivers on Interstates do some pretty dumb things but that is no excuse for everyone driving recklessly, especially Erica.

WMUR: Blizzard's Negligent Driving..."ALLEGED"...
 

She can beat this charge. :eek:

:confused: Mistake? :eek2:

Massachusetts "construction detail jobs" are mandated by Legislature. ("Overtime" rules for pensions need changing).

_____________________________________

"Don't blink"? :confused:

I think the LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) had adequate time for all of his observations—why?

Spend some time actually witnessing how LEOs do a "roadside stop". (Or try to launch from a trailer on route 109). :rolleye2:

1) Absolutely nobody launching at the Libby Museum ramp can avoid blocking northbound traffic; however, it's the southbound traffic that's the problem.

If I see a logging truck is barreling towards our creeping trailer, I step into the roadway—put up my hand—and slow the vehicle ahead of that truck. :cool:

2) Plus, an example from those of us charged with enforcement in automobile racing:

When an infraction of a "no-contact rule" occurs, oftentimes the entire race car field is "black-flagged" in.

(Black flags are displayed around the track to signal the entire field to abandon the event and to enter the pits single-file. This is done to separate the driver from any others involved, and to "chill" discussions of the incident with others). :eek:

Once again, an official will step into the stream of "black-flagged" cars—raise his hand—and slow the vehicle ahead of the offender. :cool:

Hopefully, I've explained the concept here adequately. :look:

Indeed, it is not:

1) LaPointe killed two after amassing 22 traffic convictions—in Massachusetts alone! (After how many tickets got "beaten"?)

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1222154134

(Boats assembled above, just an instant before the fatal crash).

2) While not fatal, the following was a close call. The boater who cut a kayak in half last season later proceeded to run over a pedestrian!!!

:rolleye1:

Lastly:

LEOs don't make the laws: LEOs are charged by State Legislature with enforcement.

It turns out that yesterday's Union Leader did run the Bea Lewis-Laconia Citizen report in their Saturday printed edition, front page with a somewhat negative title and a not-too-good photograph of Erica.

Apparently, the Union Leader added one paragraph to the end of Bea Lewis' article which quoted Attorney Moir as saying something like; "Why a moving violation has anything to do with this.....I simply do not understand?" ...in reference to why he and client Blizzard have a hearing to go to with with Judge McGuire and Prosecutor Carroll.

Maybe actor Tommy Lee Jones for Attorney James Moir?

Ol' Sparky
 

Look, let's just plug in the electric chair and get this over with. Then maybe everyone can move on! Man oh man.

When a person is being charged with something another incident has nothing to do with it-legally. It cannot be admitted in a court of law.

You are correct, but can it not be brought up in a sentencing hearing which seems to have more latitude and would be more relevant in this situation?

Judge urges skepticism on forensice evidence
 

Interesting story in today's Boston Globe.

I am not sure how long it will be there before being archived, but this would certainly put a damper on evidence that is presented by prosecutors being accepted as fact without question!

Boating while stupid and driving as well
 

I haven't commented since the verdict so I might as well throw my 2 cents into the ante. I thought she would be convicted of negligence from the beginning. There is a HUGE responsibility on the operator of a boat to operate it flawlessly. Essentially, if there is a collision it is very difficult to avoid some type of responsibility for the collision. Since a death was involved this makes it even more of an issue. On a night that was described as extremely poor visibility it makes no sense to be traveling on plane. A prudent person would have been operating at headway speed. Further, I haven't seen why she wasn't using GPS? I know others have said theirs isn't always reliable but my experience has been very good with with mine. I might get a 10 ft error so I could hit a marker if I was cutting things too close, but an island? Sorry, not in my experience. When I am out at night I use GPS and sight to navigate. If either one fails I drop off plane to get my bearings. On the other hand if I have a clear GPS track and I can visually confirm it I am comfortable cruising at 45 MPH.

I am not against drinking but there is just no excuse for irresponsibility. Her BAC show she was legally drunk. My guess is the jury let her off on the alcohol conviction because they felt she was already paying a high price and would face jail time with the negligence conviction alone. It's not what the jury should have done but juries can make those kind of decisions. I think the challenges of night boating are significant. I drink very lightly on nights I am out, only one drink, possibly a second if I know I will be not leaving for a few hours. I don't need the extra disorientation at night. I think that's what a responsible boater should do. She was not acting responsibly.

I think she made a lot of stupid and even arrogant choices and her friend is dead because of it. She is going to pay a high price for her behavior. I'm not out for vengeance. I think it is a tragic situation for everyone involved but she has to accept the responsibility for her actions.

The driving incident underscores her mindset. 84 is pushing it pretty good. Using a cell phone in the manner described is foolish. She does what she wants and doesn't consider the cost. I guess after going through the accident I would have expected her to have become more circumspect. Sad. :(:(:(

1. It's excessive

2. If you are doing it while talking on cell phone, it's excessive, irresponsible and dangerous

3. If your are doing it while talking on a cell phone, changing lanes without signaling as you fly by a marked cruiser with a Trooper waving you down on a straight road, where if you were paying attention you should have spotted him a long time ago, on the day after you were released on personal recognizance by a jury of your peers, who found you guilty of a negligent homicide which resulted in the death of your friend and the maiming of yourself and another friend while you were the operator of a powerboat which struck an island in the dark, it is.............

Well, I have my own thoughts on what THAT is, lets see what the Judge says THAT is.

best run on sentence ever
 

I could not have said it better myself... Point #3 is the first and only example of an outstanding run-on sentence. Seriously Airedale, it was really well stated.

HCG

Judge Revokes Blizzard's Drivers License After Speeding Ticket
 

On WMUR.com


http://www.wmur.com/news/22998417/detail.html


Important statement:

The county attorney said that the negligent driving charge could impact Blizzard's sentencing in April. She faces 3 1/2 to seven years in prison for negligent homicide due to failure to keep a proper lookout.

Respectfully disagree
 

I won't state it as fact but I believe that while other actions and even convictions cannot be brought up during the trial I believe it IS legitimate for them to be considered during sentencing. The judge is often allowed quite a bit of latitude if he thinks the circumstances warrant it and he is allowed to consider her whole record in making his decision. If this wasn't true you couldn't have "3 strikes and you're out" laws. Her showing flagrant irresponsibility right after having been convicted would certainly make me wonder if she has really learned anything from the accident.

Stupid!
 

I just read the story about Ms Blizzard.

At the risk of being banned from this forum I have to say her actions and disregard for others defines the word stupid.

The day after her conviction she is speeding, negligent vehicle operation, almost hits a Trooper standing next to the road while fiddling with her cell phone instead of paying attention to the road.

That, to me, is a stupid, self centered, irresponsible attitude.

Union article
 

I think there might be a lot of people who agree with your statement, read the comments from the Union article.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-5f55f22b88f0

Drivers license was pulled this morning, pending sentencing on the boat charge.
Bail terms were revoked, she had to spend some time in jail while her family went to get the cash for the bail.

I hate to say it (because I was fully convinced she was guilty of negligent homicide prior to the trial) but she is only being charged with these offenses, she has not been convicted. There's no "smoking gun" evidence (like a smashed up boat and a dead passenger) of any of these offenses. This could be nothing more than a vindictive police officer exaggerating about a perceived speeding offense.

Well I agree with you Dave, it's going to be how the judge feels about what the LEO reported in his report that'll tell how much it will affect sentencing. I would think as a smart person someone would be more careful when your facing a sentencing date coming up. Just my opinion

comments
 

The comments posted under the article in the Union Leader are truly brutal...almost disturbing. Far worse than anything that has ever been posted on this forum, about any subject, at any time. And this coming from someone (me) who enjoys stiring the pot, and a good controversy. The worst ones are posted at the bottom...as they were the earliest.
Certainly not to be read by any members here, who might considered themselves thin skinned.
Some are just way way way over the line.

I wonder how many people here have posted there, a lot of common themes. One name look very familiar but he has denied being the same person before.

It's amazing how crazy people get when they think they are anonymous.

Amazed
 

_____________________________________
Said to myself I would not get into this thread at all...ever...but...here I am. I have to agree with sa meredith. I have been reading the articles and comments in the Monitor and the Union Leader as this has gone on. I am amazed that a couple of them in this latest article...and you can easily tell which...have not been taken off. Highly inappropriate, and only a few "voices in the wilderness" seeming to point that out. A bad situation made worse.

Nice
 

Nice...I guess there may be some justice in NH after all...albeit a modicum of justice but justice none the less.

No, that's definately not me posting as F.L.Less in the Union Leader. I have no idea who it might be? Every once in a blue moon, I'll post in the Union Leader and always use my real first name.

The six o'clock WMUR tv news tonight had about a 60-second video report on this morning's Belknap Superior Court hearing which included footage inside the court room and showed most all involved; defendant, prosecutor, defense, judge, and state trooper as he testified. Could be it will be replayed at 11-pm?

Commentary
 

I can tell you one thing: ...I have been Biting My Lip BIG Time.. watching this thread progress. :( I wonder how many others feel the same....?? NB

Let's forget about any percieved bias or editorializing by the officer.

Fact 1: She was driving significantly over the speed limit. She doesn't seem to be disputing this and it appears there are enough witnesses if needed.

Fact 2: While speeding, she was using her phone. A fact I'm sure can be verified through phone records, and one validated by her comments after being pulled over (unless you want to accuse the officer of outright fabrication)

Given the circumstances of the day before and her situation, even after you discount any believed bias or inappropriate reporting by the officer, her actions are one thing... STUPID!

The officer wouldn't have had a report to write if she didn't give him the opportunity.

I was under the impression she was charged with going 19 MPH over the speed limit. I think that's considered a moving violation. I've been given friendly verbal warnings for worse speed violations. IMO, it's not a big deal; the state does not seem to think so either, as far as I know, they only require the payment of a fine, no court appearance. It's basicaly a radar tax.

I was also under the impression that using a mobile phone while driving was not illegal in NH. Might be dumb, but it's probably not illegal.

If the officer wished to charge her with "distracted driving" (assuming that's a crime in NH), I'd think he'd have good reason to paint her in the worst possible light in his report.

I agree that if she did indeed do the things the police officer reported, she was acting very stupidly, especially considering she was out on bail.

IMHO, a definate lack of good judgement. We'll only have to wait and see the legal fallout as a result.

I don't think it shows very good judgement for a LEO to jump out into the road with traffic passing by at 70 mph.That's why they have blue lights.After what she's been through....sure ,she might have been distracted.Who hasn't.
I think that the trooper saw who it was and knew he'd get some face time with the media.Seems a little unusual to call the county attorney right after a traffic stop.

already discussed ad nauseam
 

Originally Posted by lawn psycho
OK, I have to open my mouth based on some of the comments. As someone who used to be a long distance commuter on both I-93, 101, I-95, I-89, there is no question she is not some aberration of what's on the road.

First, if I was out on bail you can bet I would be walking a straight line.

However in NH, you have to be doing over 30 MPH for the speed to be more than a simple speeding fine without some truly agregious action. I don't know what the speed limit is where she was stopped.

If a cop is on the side of I-93 waving his arms and then gets miffed at someone speeding by I have to call him an idiot. And you will find that 99.9%of the time I will support the police on their duties. Cars are whizzing by. If someone needs to be stopped, use the car that taxpayers provide you with blue lights on top to pull them over and issue the ticket. Playing frogger on I-93 is his stupidity.
Negligent driving? And how many tickets are written everyday for 80-84 MPH where the driver pulls away with a nice fine to go to the State coffers? Failure to use a signal? Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. I'll bet that officer doesn't use his own signal dozens of time per day.

I say he wanted to be a headline. This smells of overzealous IMO.

First of all, Stationary radar assignment is the safest and preferred method of speed/traffic enforcement. When you "use the car taxpayers provide you" you then have TWO people speeding and driving like idiots. How fast do you think a trooper needs to drive to catch up to a vehicle traveling 84 mph from a standing start? Easily around 100 mph, yeah thats way smarter than standing in the breakdown lane with a Neon green traffic vest that says "State Police" which, mind you, most drivers that are paying attention will easily see and slow down for. This is evidenced by the fact that, as we all know, there is a mini traffic jam every time rubberneckers see blue lights.

Second, there is a big push nation wide and certaininly state wide (with the new driving and texting law) to enforce distracted driving. The unsafe lane change needed to be noted and cited to prove the texting was a distraction.

Third, when a police officer has an interaction with someone that is either on probation or parole red flags pop up in the computer and very often dictate special considerations ie, calling of a probation officer, checking on pre and post trial release conditions, bail conditions etc...

Respectfully,
HCG

After her conviction for the boat accident, I felt a sense of mercy for her, she just made a very bad decision. I try to give people in situations like that the benefit of the doubt. However, since she went out and did another really stupid thing with a motor vehicle, I don't feel like she should be spared now. She wasn't watching the road when using the cell phone, she was doing 80+ MPH in a 65 MPH zone, and used no signal when changing lanes. Then she almost hits the cop. So, I don't think she should be allowed to ever drive any motor-driven vehicle again, and I now feel she deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. She's used up her chances.

There is no law against using a cell phone to make phone calls in NH. Texting is however illegal.
There is a distracted driving law on the books as well.

But, one thing that I believe is being missed (or at least not mentioned) about the LEO stepping into the road is that this is 93 in New Hampton, on a weekday. How much traffic is on the highway at this time, in this location, not much. We are not talking playing frogger in Manchester, north of 101 split on a Friday or any day for that matter.

They do this on 89 north of exit 5 regularly, usually exit 7 southbound, but with multiple LEO's and they are all stationed together, one hits with the radar and the officer next to him walks out and points (both in a crossover), you then pull over to the waiting officer that walks up to your car on the shoulder. Happens very regularly in that location, believe it is completly luck of the draw, because I have been spared when a vehicle in front or behind me got pointed to and they were traveling the same speed.

I have not seen it done when traffic is heavier, not that we ever really see heavy traffic up this way on 89, but you get the idea.

Not calling you out Samiam, just your post spoke to my thought.

Samiam, you are probably close to right on about your second statement, or possibly felt that the punishment was not enough, complete speculation on my part, take it as that.

speeding
 

************************************************** ***
Having the opportunity of being stopped by NH state police in February I was doing 71 mph in a 35 mph zone.:eek: The officer dropped it to 60 otherwise she would have to arrest me for Negligent driving. So its not just speeding. I was wrong, I was passing someone and realized the passing lane was ending faster then I thought so I stepped on the gas. Oh yeah, the officer was in the car directly behind me.

$75,000 bail for speeding...19 mph over the posted limit.

I have stayed out of the trooper jumping in front of oncoming traffic debate but as everyone who has driven on the highways has experienced they do walk out onto the roadway putting themselves in harms way.

$75,000 bail for speeding....nope, no witch hunt here!

Just reading the Concord Monitor story on this...
So I am getting from this that his cruiser was parked in the median when he spotted Blizzard passing a car then falling back into the travel lane behind 2 other cars....so he stepped out into the high speed lane...then walked across the highway into the travel lane? The guy walked across both lanes of an interstate in front of on coming traffic????

Let the two cars in front of her go by then motioned for Blizzard to pull over...telling the court he didn't know who she was? Then called the proscutors office?

Nope, nothing fishy going on here! Move along folks...

Heaven help someone in court, who unavoidably hits one of these guys walking in the middle of an Interstate, protected by his neon colored jacket, knowing there are speeding cars approaching.

So, is it worse to run into an island or have an island run into you? Forget I asked that!!! :laugh: :laugh:

WMUR...again
 

Regarding this traffic stop:

:look: I checked Google for every possible news source referencing "steer".

WMUR is the only source to use that word. :confused: :rolleye2: :emb:

In forums where "inappropriate" remarks appear, it could be due to neighbors, friends, or relatives who have been victims of DUI drivers.

I look forward to a transcript of this trial: until then, I put the blame for those negative remarks on one or more members of the jury. They were high on empathy and sympathy—and inadequate in Logic and Reason.

They do it almost every Sunday morning on rt 3 north just passed exit 2 as you come around the bend and up the hill. Normally two LEOs one with the gun the other out pointing to pull over. I have seen only one doing it on a M/C and what a business they do ( mostly MA plates though how weird)