Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[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.....

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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

[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.

[ITD]

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

[Bear Islander]

What alcohol?

What accident?

What crime?

[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!

[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?

[rrr]

Originally Posted by Skip

The State is arguing that these tests, when revealed, will show the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision.

Skip-

If the defense were to prevail, could it be construed that this statement would taint the jury pool? Are we looking at a change of venue next?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by rrr

Skip-

If the defense were to prevail, could it be construed that this statement would taint the jury pool? Are we looking at a change of venue next?

No...this is standard legal wrangling.

While we readers and posters here are keenly aware of the situation, there are plently of folks within the jurisdiction of the Belknap Superior Court that have not followed nor shown any interest in this case.

However, the defendant's high profile coupled with the family's financial resources will most likely prolong this trial, as most defendants do not have the same type of legal resources as this one does.


Unfortunate as it is, in too many cases there truly are two types of justice. Justice for those with financial resources, and streamlined justice for those without. That is truly not the case in many instances, but begs that we all keep a close eye on this particular trial as it winds it way through the Halls of Justice.

As for another question posed, unless a negotiated plea is reached the trial will be posted and open to the public. I do not believe an actual trail date has been set yet, but I may have missed it. Either way I am sure the details of any upcoming trial will be in the media and posted here well before it takes place.

[pats fan]

Wow and Hole Cow, Nadia! I think on this one I have to agree with Tilton BB. When I first read your initial post I thought the same thing as BB. I thought it was certainly giving those people who do not know Erica some ammunition to say, "Well, there you go. Another barfly kills someone after a drunken night." I do not know if Erica has a tendency to drink too much but after reading your post I have to admit I immediately started thinking she must be a pretty big drinker. Most people do not spend 2 or 3 nights a week for hours at a time in a bar NOT drinking. I don't think he/she was trying to attack you. I think he/she was trying to point out to you that you were not helping Erica's reputation by your comments. As for working on making your posts not quite so long...good luck with that!

[Nadia]

I stated they frequented the lounge. Not the bar, or cocktail lounge. Nor did I say they drank any alcoholic drinks. Here are the definitions for you to see:

From www.thefreedictionary.com, the definition of lounge as opposed to the definition of bar.

lounge (lounj)
v. lounged, loung·ing, loung·es
v.intr.
1. To move or act in a lazy, relaxed way; loll: lounging on the sofa; lounged around in pajamas.
2. To pass time idly: lounged in Venice till June.
v.tr.
To pass (time) in a lazy, relaxed, or idle way: lounged the day away.
n.
1. A public waiting room, as in a hotel or an air terminal, often having smoking or lavatory facilities.
2. A cocktail lounge.
3.
a. A living room.
b. A lobby.
4. A long couch, especially one having no back and a headrest at one end.

bar 1 (bär)
n.
1. A relatively long, straight, rigid piece of solid material used as a fastener, support, barrier, or structural or mechanical member.
2.
a. A solid oblong block of a substance, such as soap or candy.
b. A rectangular block of a precious metal.
3. Sports
a. A horizontal bar
b. A horizontal rod that marks the height to be cleared in high jumping or pole vaulting.
4. A standard, expectation, or degree of requirement: a leader whose example set a high bar for others.
5. Something that impedes or prevents action or progress. See Synonyms at obstacle.
6. A ridge, as of sand or gravel, on a shore or streambed, that is formed by the action of tides or currents.
7. A narrow marking, as a stripe or band.
8.
a. A narrow metal or embroidered strip worn on a military uniform indicating rank or service.
b. Chiefly British A small insignia worn on a military decoration indicating that it has been awarded an additional time.
9. Heraldry A pair of horizontal parallel lines drawn across a shield.
10. Law
a. The nullification, defeat, or prevention of a claim or action.
b. The process by which nullification, defeat, or prevention is achieved.
11. The railing in a courtroom enclosing the part of the room where the judges and lawyers sit, witnesses are heard, and prisoners are tried.
12. A place of judgment; a tribunal.
13. Law
a. Attorneys considered as a group.
b. The profession of law.
14. Music
a. A vertical line drawn through a staff to mark off a measure.
b. A measure.
15. Variant of barre.
16.
a. A counter at which drinks, especially alcoholic drinks, and sometimes food, are served.
b. An establishment or room having such a counter.

However; since it seems to be a common misunderstanding so far, and to avoid further controversy I will be glad to edit my post so no one thinks I am implying they were doing things they were not. The Lobster Pound issue is old, boring and non-related. Much to your dismay I am no longer affiliated with the Weirs Beach Lobster Pound. I voluntarily left on May 15, 2009. My severance had nothing to do with this forum or any of it's contents or member comments. Stop whining, trolling, cross threading, beating dead horses, speculating and breathing while your at it. You are pushing your personal agenda because your mad at remarks made to you by several people in another thread, including myself. Now your running into your own neighbors on here who are deducting from the credibility of your posts and painting a true picture of your miserable, negative character off the forum. I have zero respect for anyone who condones and threatens cruelty and violence towards animals. Your own neighbors have verified you are an inconsiderate jerk. Get off my case, your not getting the rise out of me your looking for. In fact your going on ignore. There are medications and people who are qualified to help people as angry and hateful as you are.

My now "defunct" restaurant actually was leased to TD Bank North after nearly 13 years of success for no other reason then they made me an offer I could not refuse. Now I see what your true issue with me is...
But I still think you should consider a highly qualified shrink...

My apologies for my response to TiltonBB's high-jack. It has no place here.

PatsFan, just because you summized something similar does not make what he said to me okay.

[pats fan]

Nadia,
My response and the response by TiltonBB were totally appropriate in accordance with your long rant and previous post. You have gone back and deleated your approx 100 line rant to TiltonBB and made changes to your post that I responded to. If you want to have an adult exchange keep things as they are originally posted, don't go back and make changes so future posts by others look incorrect. I told you that saying "Erica and Stephanie used to frequent your lounge 2-3 times per week for hours at a time" was not in Erica's best interst. You have now changed it to say in your restaurant. That is fine, as it may help her reputation, but it certainly makes others, such as me, look like I posted something incorrectly. I do not know if Erica drinks too much or even at all, I do not personally know her. I just felt bad for her because your original post made her sound like a barfly. Clearly you felt foolish about your 100 line babbling to BB, therefore removed it. That is good, since most of it made little to no sense, but be fair to other posters and keep things original so our responses are fitting.

Thank you for the definitions of lounge Vs. bar. I stand corrected. It was my error to think the young ladies were spending hours at a time, 2-3 nights per week having adult beverages in your lounge. Based on your definitions I now understand that they were simply relaxing on couches in their jammies in your waiting area. My mistake. Again, I feel terrible about Erica's and Stephanie's situation and am NOT saying anything bad about Erica. I was trying to help her by nicely telling you that you were not helping her image to say what you Originally said.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by 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.
...

I would hope that the State has a much better argument than that the evidence shows impairment. For this consideration it doesn't matter what the evidence SHOWS, it matters that it was obtained legally. Only if was obtained legally does it matter what the evidence is. Since the State didn't address the LEGALITY of obtaining the blood I would speculate they are in trouble on this issue.

I would also note the specific word used by the State, "impaired". This is a BAC of around .05 - .07 which most women hit after one or two drinks. Since the State didn't use the term intoxicated (or similar) I would speculate that the BAC was under .08 (legal intoxication). If this is the case I would think the more serious charge of negligence while being intoxicated will be very difficult to get a conviction on. This is all based on the State using precise language, which I would expect that they would.

I visited a website that stated that "impairment begins with the first drink" and this is obviously true. However, it is not a practical judgment to say that someone who has had one drink is under the influence. Possibly not even two drinks over a period of a couple of hours. With respect to BI and others I don't know many people who go out to dinner and don't have at least one drink, possibly two and I am NOT a party person nor are most people I know.

If the BAC gets thrown out completely it's going to weaken that aspect of the second negligence charge as well. As I have said before I think it almost impossible to evade a general conviction on boating negligence of some type but I am getting the feel that alcohol will not be a major legal factor in that negligence.

[secondcurve]

"The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication."

Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case?

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

"The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication."

Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case?

The problem is in who collects the blood and for what purpose.

If an officer at the scene or at the hospital ordered the blood be drawn no warrant would have been needed because a vehicle accident happened and someone was killed. I believe the law actually says blood for BAC should be collected from all people involved in the accident. This seems NOT to have happened.

Later, after enough time had passed that it would have been pointless to draw a BAC, the police went to the hospital to compel that blood drawn there (for medical purposes) be used to obtain a BAC. This DOES require a warrant and for the warrant to be granted probable cause needed to be shown that intoxication was likely. It seems that the warrant conveniently left out part of the passenger's testimony that they had not drank very much and that Erica did NOT seem impaired. Providing only damning testimony and leaving off exonerating testimony is not a good thing to do and jeopardizes the validity of the warrant and that is why it is being challenged.

I had written about this on this thread before about the differences between blood being drawn under the orders of an officer vs. blood drawn by a hospital and then compelled as evidence. The first is a much stronger, cleaner evidence and here we see example of this.

Of course it's up to the court to decide if the warrant was defective. My gut says it was. We'll see.

[Lakewinn1]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The problem is in who collects the blood and for what purpose.

If an officer at the scene or at the hospital ordered the blood be drawn no warrant would have been needed because a vehicle accident happened and someone was killed. I believe the law actually says blood for BAC should be collected from all people involved in the accident. This seems NOT to have happened.

Later, after enough time had passed that it would have been pointless to draw a BAC, the police went to the hospital to compel that blood drawn there (for medical purposes) be used to obtain a BAC. This DOES require a warrant and for the warrant to be granted probable cause needed to be shown that intoxication was likely. It seems that the warrant conveniently left out part of the passenger's testimony that they had not drank very much and that Erica did NOT seem impaired. Providing only damning testimony and leaving off exonerating testimony is not a good thing to do and jeopardizes the validity of the warrant and that is why it is being challenged.

I had written about this on this thread before about the differences between blood being drawn under the orders of an officer vs. blood drawn by a hospital and then compelled as evidence. The first is a much stronger, cleaner evidence and here we see example of this.

Of course it's up to the court to decide if the warrant was defective. My gut says it was. We'll see.

Thanks for the clarity.... Good information to think about!

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The problem is in who collects the blood and for what purpose.

If an officer at the scene or at the hospital ordered the blood be drawn no warrant would have been needed because a vehicle accident happened and someone was killed. I believe the law actually says blood for BAC should be collected from all people involved in the accident. This seems NOT to have happened.

Later, after enough time had passed that it would have been pointless to draw a BAC, the police went to the hospital to compel that blood drawn there (for medical purposes) be used to obtain a BAC. This DOES require a warrant and for the warrant to be granted probable cause needed to be shown that intoxication was likely. It seems that the warrant conveniently left out part of the passenger's testimony that they had not drank very much and that Erica did NOT seem impaired. Providing only damning testimony and leaving off exonerating testimony is not a good thing to do and jeopardizes the validity of the warrant and that is why it is being challenged.

I had written about this on this thread before about the differences between blood being drawn under the orders of an officer vs. blood drawn by a hospital and then compelled as evidence. The first is a much stronger, cleaner evidence and here we see example of this.

Of course it's up to the court to decide if the warrant was defective. My gut says it was. We'll see.

And that, folks, is why you get the best lawyer money can buy.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

"The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication."

Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case?

According to this FULL STORY now appearing on the Citizen, that is the exact same conclusion the Judge came to in determining probable cause existed to obtain the blood.

Also, in new details emerging, the blood seized late the next day was not the only sample obtained. At least six samples were seized including one just two hours after the collision while Blizzard was still at LRGH. Now, by having a string of samples taken at varying times after the accident the State can clearly use the sampling data to establish an extremely accurate BAC at the time of the collsion.

As this story reveals more and more of the night in question it appears to me that the State is building an extremely strong case.

Trial pre-hearings are scheduled to begin next Wednesday.

[jeffk]

This is why, despite all the speculation we do here, you need to wait for the trial for ALL the information to be brought forward.

[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!

[MeEscape]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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!

Absolute statements are always risky for a human being to declare.

Never a cup o’ joe for the ride? An over the counter cold tablet? Too much sun on a hot summer day? An unfinished agrument, say on speed limits? Aren’t we are always under the influence of something, substance, or emotion. Those influences are what cause accidents and why there are civil consequences, the question is, for courts of law, is it criminal in each specific instance.

If you can accurately speak with such certainty, you are a far better human being than I. Or maybe just years and years younger!!

[ironhorsetim]

Skip, say someone were facing a 7-15 year sentence if found guilty and they were to plead quilty before trail, what (in your opinion) would the sentence be? I know all cases are different but just an educated guess.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ironhorsetim

Skip, say someone were facing a 7-15 year sentence if found guilty and they were to plead quilty before trail, what (in your opinion) would the sentence be? I know all cases are different but just an educated guess.

Fair question but it would have to be on a case-by-case basis to even begin to speculate on an issue such as that.

As for the case before us, jury selection re: State v. Erica Blizzard is scheduled to begin in the Belknap Superior Court on May 26.

[ironhorsetim]

I understand,the reason I asked was a similar case I'm watching on a vehicle (little off topic) but thank you both

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Skip

Fair question but it would have to be on a case-by-case basis to even begin to speculate on an issue such as that.

As for the case before us, jury selection re: State v. Erica Blizzard is scheduled to begin in the Belknap Superior Court on May 26.

LACONIA, N.H. -- Jury selection for a Gilford, N.H., woman charged in the Lake Winnipesaukee boating death of her friend has been scheduled for May 26.

Erica Blizzard, 35, of Laconia, has been charged with negligent homicide and aggravated driving while intoxicated. Stephanie Beaudoin, 34, of Meredith, N.H., was killed in the crash last Father's Day. Blizzard and passenger Nicole Shinopolous, of Burlington, Mass., were injured.

The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication.

Moir said the affidavit fails to state how much the women drank and when, where some beer cans were found or how they relate to the crash or the driver.
http://www.wmur.com/news/19239882/detail.html

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by ironhorsetim

Skip, say someone were facing a 7-15 year sentence if found guilty and they were to plead quilty before trail, what (in your opinion) would the sentence be? I know all cases are different but just an educated guess.

I would also think that a guilty plea might have some unwanted consequences regarding the almost inevitable civil suits which will follow the criminal trial.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.